Eye To Eye

I've just been to a talk on vision, so since I plan a future post on the evolution of colour vision, I thought I would post this video. It shows how eyes could evolve in small stages- as opposed to creationist propaganda that claims that evolutionists believe it all just happened to fall together. My future post will deal with just one of these small steps; the generation of a new photoreceptor.

To continue the ridiculing ridiculous claims, here is a genuine creationist argument for a laugh.

In case any creationists are reading, commercial bananas are the result of selective breeding - oh and they have different numbers of ridges, you have to climb trees to get them and they grow in malaria infested areas. Just don't mention coconuts!

Why do creationists not wax lyrical about other so called creations - like liver flukes, Ebola and the Black Death? Oh yeah, that's right, they kind of make the claim that their their pestilential god is somehow loving look rather stupid.

Creationists And Missing Chromosomes

I have little respect for creationism as an intellectual pursuit (although I do know some creationists that have my utmost respect as people). Often though, we see a particularly nasty kind who are homophobic and boast of their ignorance, so I thought I would mix some science with taking the piss out of creationists here.

Our DNA is neatly packaged into structures called chromosomes. These are basically protein cores around which the DNA is wound. A DNA molecule can be seen here winding around proteins to form beads (nucleosomes) which are then further coiled into higher order structures. The video ends showing a cell dividing. Other proteins can then bind to these structures. The protein components of the chromosome helps regulate gene activity (expression), DNA replication and makes sure daughter cells get the correct number of chromosomes when a cell divides; or helps halve the number of chromosomes when we make eggs or sperm. Sperm cells have the smallest nucleus of all human cells and are therefore particularly good packagers of DNA.

The basic anatomy of a chromosome is rather simple. It consists of a centromere and telomeres at either end (Figure 1). The centromere is crucial in organising cell division and the telomeres stabilise the ends of the chromosome. Telomeres are made of short (usually 6) nucleotide repeats. In humans, the sequence is TTAGGG. This can be repeated over 50 times at each end of the chromosome. Interestingly, some internal chromosome structures can also be seen by staining them. Each chromosome also has its own specific pattern of bands (Figure 2).

Figure 1: chromosome structure.

Figure 2: banding in human chromosomes (arranged in pairs)

So, now to the point. Chimps have 24 pairs of chromosomes and we only have 23 pairs. This provides a potential challenge to evolution. At this point if you are a fundie, you will probably shout “Hallelujah”, dance about naked with a communion chalice on your head and claim the magic sky daddy did it. Genesis don’t talk about no evilution, so it is the work of the Devil and that's all you need to know. You then head off to your KKK meeting and claim that black men were created different for a reason before being put in jail for tax evasion – still, you can always buy some drugs off Ted Haggard – who is completely heterosexual – allegedly (wouldn’t mind so much if he kept his vitriol to himself).

If however, you wish to look beneath the surface, we can actually test evolution. Two main possibilities occur to a non creotard. The first is that a chromosome from a common ancestor with chimps split in two, this is unlikely as all chimp chromosomes have a telomere. We shall see more evidence against this hypothesis soon.
The second possibility is that two ancestral chromosomes fused after we diverged from our common ancestor with chimps. There are several predictions that can be made and tested – any one could potentially prove evolution false.

1. We should be able to align chromosome banding patterns between two chimp chromosomes and a human one if fusion has occurred. This is the case. It is Human chromosome two that lines up with two chimp chromosomes that are now called chimp 2a and 2b (Figure 3).

Figure 3: alingnment of human and chimp banding patterns

2. We should find telomere sequences inside the chromosome if a fusion has occurred. This is also what we find (figure 1). In fact, they start to reverse suggesting the ancestral chromosomes fused head to head or tail to tail. We can even tell where the fusion took place to with in 15 nucleotides. It occurred between nucleotides 114 455 823 and114 455 838.

3. Genes should appear in the same order above and below the fusion. I took a gene at random from above the fusion (RasGRP2) and one below the fusion (HOXD8). Lets see how the gene order compares:

Human chromosome 2: CARD12, TTC27, LTB1, RasGRP3, CRIM1

Chimp chromosome 2a: CARD12, TTC27, LTB1, RasGRP3, CRIM1

Human chromosome 2: PDK1, CCA7, CHN1, HOXD8, HOXD4

Chimp chromosome 2b: PDK1, CCA7, CHN1, HOXD8, HOXD4

Looks like they are in the same order to me – what do you say Mr fundie? What’s that? God did it that way to look like evolution to test our faith? My, you must feel special that god does not ask you to think.

4. We should see evidence of two centromeres. Guess what, that’s right, we do. The functional one lines up with one of the chimp ones, and the other one is still identifiable but non functioning. It also is in the same corresponding position as the other chimp one.

That's mankind's missing chromosome sorted. Now we just need to find out what happend to the ones that creotards are lacking.

Transitional Fossils - The "Frogamander"

Transitional fossils are great. Darwin recognised their value when he lamented their scarcity:


“But as for this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” (Origin of species 1859).

Not surprisingly, creationists intentionally misuse this quote to claim such fossils do not exist and use Darwin as an argument from authority. Of course, only 4 years earlier, perhaps the most famous transitional fossil of all; Archaeopteryx lithographica was discovered, and the second specimen, now called the “London specimen” was discovered 3 years after the “Origin” was published. Their importance was not realised until later though, but every time a new transition is found, this prediction of Darwin’s is further confirmed. It also means creationists have to spend more and more time with their heads in the sand in denial, or spread lies about the nature of the fossil. Every now and then they concede that the fossil does display the characteristics of two related groups, but childishly claim that there are now two gaps that need to be filled – one before the transitional form and one after it. This truly is the stuff of desperation, and often these gaps are filled. Even worse for creationists though is the fact that we can predict where and in what age of rocks we will find transitional fossils of a particular lineage in – it’s called geographic distribution of lineages fundies!

Since Darwin commented on the rarity of transitional forms (150 years ago – take note fundies) hordes of transitional forms have been discovered. A small fraction of which are noted here. With every new transitional fossil, a further nail goes into the creationist coffin. Recently, a new one has been described that sorts out the evolution of frogs and salamanders. It had been suggested that frogs and salamanders evolved from a tetrapod group called the Temnospondyli. These are an ancient group that are found in early Permian rocks. This new specimen called Gerobatrachus hottoni has been dubbed a “frogamander” (pictured above) as it displays characteristics of frogs, salamanders and other Temnospondyls. Thanks to this fossil, we can also propose that frogs and salamanders diverged from each other some 240 and 275 million years ago.

More information can be found here.

Pale Blue Dot

This is always Humbling. Our galaxy alone contains an estimated 200 - 400 billion stars.

Thanks to Steven for reminding me about this.

Evolution Of Antibody Recombination

As this is my first molecular evolution post, I would appreciate any feedback on clarity. No question is too trival either.

Vertebrates have an amazing capacity to produce proteins called antibodies. These form an important part of our immune system. It has been estimated that humans can produce up to 10 billion different antibodies. In our life time, we will produce antibodies that neutralise toxins (eg tetanus toxin) and recognise components of bacteria, viruses and parasites. If we are unlucky, we can produce antibodies to our own molecules (eg systemic lupus erythyamatosis and some forms of arthritis). We may also produce antibodies to food substances or pollen and develop allergies. We can even produce antibodies to chemicals that do not occur in nature. This is even more amazing when we consider that antibodies are proteins, and proteins are encoded by genes. Why is this amazing? Well, estimates suggest that humans may contain as few as 25 000 genes. How this large antibody repertoire is possible will be explained shortly. But I better introduce these molecules first.

Antibody structure

Antibodies are generally made up of 4 protein chains that are stuck together to form a Y shaped molecule. Each antibody consists of two identical heavy and two identical light chains. This molecule shown in Figure 1 is called an immunoglobulin and has two binding sites for recognising other molecules (called antigens). It is differences these sites (also called the variable regions) that determine what molecules an antibody can bind to. Some types of immunoglobulin (called Ig for short) can also consist of 2 (Ig A) or 5 (IgM) copies of these Y shaped immunoglobulins stuck together. This can increase their ability to keep antigens bound.


Figure 1

Generation of Antibody Diversity
As mentioned above, it is the chemistry of the variable regions that determines which antigens a particular antibody can bind. Both the heavy and light chains contribute to antigen binding, so, juggling different heavy and light chain combinations is one way of increasing the number of possible different antibodies an organism can produce. This however is not the main mechanism employed.

Antibodies are the products of different gene segments that are stuck together in different combinations at random. These segments fall into three different classes called Variable (V) Diversity (D) and Junctional/Joining (J) genes. The human heavy chain variable region has 50 functional V segments, 30 D segments, and six J segments to choose from. These segments all occur on the same chromosome. Also on the same chromosome, are the constant region genes of the heavy chain (basically the non variant part of the heavy chain). The light chains also have a constant region. They however do not use D segments. Their V and J segments also occur on the same chromosomes as their constant regions. The light gene situation however is slightly more complicated. There are two types of constant chain, termed the kappa and lambda chains - each antibody contains only one or the other. The Kappa chain can choose from 40 V and 5 J genes and the lambda chain can choose from 30 V and 4 J genes.
So, to summarise, and antibody is made up from a light chain that is stuck together from either a kappa or a lambda gene stuck to a randomly chosen J gene, which is then stuck to a randomly chosen V gene. The protein chain that this codes for is then stuck to a heavy chain that is coded for by a constant region gene (one of either a,b,g,d or e) fused to a randomly chosen V,D and J gene segment. These joining events can also be imprecise, further increasing the antibody repertoire. This can be increased yet further by an enzyme called Terminal Deoxynucleotidyl Transferase, which can incorporate up to 15 new nucleotides in to the heavy chain V and J gene segments. The cell then turns these chains into a Y shaped immunoglobulin molecule. Once the genes have been rearranged, further mutations can occur. This can help select for B cells producing higher affinity antibodies by a natural selection like process.
The intervening DNA that is not used is cut out and discarded (figure 2)


Figure 2


Michael Behe uses the above process as an example as an irreducibly complex system that he claims could not arise by natural means and must require a “designer” (euphemism for the Christian god). At the Dover county intelligent design trial, he boasted in his ignorance that “the scientific literature has no detailed testable answers on how the immune system could have arisen by natural selection and random mutation”. A problem with claims made from the argument from incredulity (I prefer the term personal ignorance) is that it is easily dismissed in an instant – not to mention that it shows a distinct lack of imagination and intellectual laziness. Behe was presented with a tiny fraction of the scientific literature that he claimed did not exist. This included a pile of peer reviewed research papers and text books on the subject.

Behe claims that to generate antibodies, you need the gene segments, recombination signals and the Recombination Activating Genes (called RAG1 and RAG2) all present at once, or the system cannot work. This also displays a lack of understanding about how evolution works – it tinkers and refines what is already there. Behe’s claim displays as big a misunderstanding of evolution as the creationists who claim the eye evolved in one step.
After the long introduction, it is the RAG1 protein that I wish to concentrate on.


Mechanism of RAG action

As mentioned previously, when antibody gene segments are chosen at random, the intervening DNA is cut out. This is achieved by the RAG proteins, and animals with function destroying mutations in these genes are severely immuno-deficient. Figure 3 shows the mechanism of action. The enzyme recognizes the Recombination Signal Sequences (yellow or orange triangles) that are located before or after the gene segments to be spliced together. Any combination of segments can occur and the process is random. The RAG proteins then cut out the intervening stretch of DNA and other DNA repair enzymes stick the two ends of the gene segments together (in this case V49 to D28).


Figure 3


Evolution of recombination

So, what would we need to evolve such a system? Firstly, an antibody like molecule. Interestingly, antibodies belong to an ancient family of proteins called the immunoglobulin superfamily. The family is defined on the basis of of a common structural feature called the immunoglobulin domain. Furthermore, this class of protein is found throughout the animal kingdom from sponges up, where their function is molecular recognition. So, we have a starting material to evolve an antibody gene. Michael Behe has claimed that since the chance that an antibody of a single specificity would be unlikely to recognise anything of importance, it would be of little advantage and could not evolve (Darwin’s black box pp. 130-131) . This is where the ignorance and intellectual laziness of the creationist is exposed. The immune system is packed with single specificity proteins, such as the Toll like receptors that recognise repeating molecular patterns. Secondly, If the ancestral antibodies recognised a more restricted set of molecules like a particular carbohydrate structure that is only found in pathogens (and there are plenty), it would be of significant advantage. Many invertebrates use a group of carbohydrate recognising proteins called lectins to recognise infectious agents.

The next thing a primitive recombination system would need would be the RAG genes. It has been hypothesised for about 25 years that the RAG genes may have evolved from pieces of selfish (or if you wish, parasitic) DNA called transposons. There are two interesting features of transposons; they insert into genomes and often encode genes that allow them to cut themselves out and paste themselves elsewhere in the genome. They often contain structures at either end called Terminal Inverted Repeats, which are essential for function. These are structurally very similar to Recombination Signal Sequences. Many transposons also make copies of themselves and these become incorporated throughout the genome – this is also a possible source of V,D and J gene segments.
To test this hypothesis, we would predict that RAG like sequences exist in transposons elsewhere and that they pre-date the evolution of jawed vertebrates. Both these predictions have recently been realised. A family of transposons (called Transib) that contain structural similarities to RAG1 and Recombination Signal like Sequences has been described from the sea slug Aplysia californica. These Transib family members have now been shown to be present in insects, nematodes, fungus and hydra, so they clearly are of ancient origin.

One further line of evidence confirms the link between RAG and transposons: RAGs have recently been shown to be able to act as transposons.

Interestingly, if RAG genes and antibody gene fragments are put into an organism that does not rearrange antibody genes – like yeast, they are perfectly able to. This points out that the rest of the machinery needed to stick the broken ends of gene segments together was already present – that’s what evolution does, it uses material already there and builds upon it.

Finally, it would appear that the ancestral RAG gene was originally of viral origin.

This illustrates the weakness of the argument of personal ignorance. Behe could not conceive how antibody rearrangement could evolve – shame he did not look at the available evidence.

More Thoughts On Perfection

Jonathan made a good point on the perfection thread and has sent me on a philosophical ramble. He pointed out that “creation” was not perfect. It made me realise (the blindingly obvious) that anything that does not conform to the qualities of god cannot be considered perfect. Genesis tells us that man did not originally know right from wrong or live forever (two qualities that god supposedly possesses). Man was therefore not created perfect! It makes the biblical narrative all the more bizarre when we consider that god created man in an imperfect state then punishes all mankind for the consequences of this. Is this fair?

This is a bit of a loaded question, if you say yes, then you are basing that solely on faith that god knows better than you – not a rational position. If you say no, you are subscribing to the view that there is some sort of standard by which to judge actions by.

However does this mean that there is an absolute moral standard that we are using here? Well, of course it doesn’t, it just means that there is a standard –and obviously one not accepted by everyone. If it is absolute, we have no means of knowing it is. A more serious problem for the theist however is that if an absolute does exist, then it must be something that is defined in a manner not dependant on god. This is because to be perfect you cannot deviate and act in an imperfect manner – something is restraining you.

Can God himself define the nature of perfection? Only if he limits his ability to act in certain ways. This would then define choice as something that is not a requirement of perfection. As any fundie will tell you, man’s original sin was a question of free will – a choice (although how you can be accountable for doing what you don’t know is wrong escapes me). If God then created man with free will, he has then given him yet another quality of “imperfection”. The free will argument then becomes internally inconsistent with the idea that choice corrupted mankind. The ability to choose would have meant that mankind was already less than perfect.
As an aside, if you have free will thrust on you, is it really free will? You can’t choose free will either, because that means that you have to have it already to make a choice. Can free will then logically exist? Does it exist at all or do other factors influence our choices?

A god who restricts his power would also not be omnipotent (presumably another feature lacking in perfection). The idea that god cannot be omnipotent is not new though. For example, can god make a weight too heavy for him to lift? If yes, then he lacks the ability to lift it, if no, then he lacks the ability to create such a weigh. I also doubt that he would be able to make square circles or make 2+2=27 while keeping the values the same.

I hate and love philosophy in equal measures. You can use it to justify or deny any concept. Personally I think it is more of a problem for the religious, as they are the ones who have the burden of proof.

The Problem Of Perfection

Christians often get upset when they are told that aspects of their faith are unreasonable. One such example is the idea that their god is perfect. Often god is defined as perfection, but a definition does not impart either existence or consequent defining qualities on a concept.
The entire foundations of Christianity is based on the idea that mankind is definitely not perfect. How then can a non perfect being speak rationally about perfection? He has no concept of it! It has to be taken on faith that god is indeed perfect. The bible even tells the believer that he can not understand god:

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts " (Isaiah 55:8-9)

Concepts of perfection are subjective. I’m pretty sure that if we all defined our ideas of our perfect partner, there would be considerable disagreement. So it is with god – some Christians think that punishing sinners and an intolerance of sin is a requirement for perfection, others that forgiveness is a requirement of perfection. Yet others that love is a sign of perfection – or justice – or beauty. This subjectivity concerning perfection is also a problem for Anselm’s ontological argument where existence is supposedly derived from ideas of perfection. Apart from the unsound logic of this circular argument, everyone by using their own ideas of perfection , is essentially “providing evidence” for a myriad of different entities. To someone suffering, perfection may entail relieving suffering, to Bart Simpson, perfection may require being a robot with laser eyes. Surely, god would be an absolute, so, is anyone actually deriving this perfect being at all?
The trouble is that these are human ideas of perfection, and if you allow your thinking to be restricted by Isaiah 55:8-9, you are just in no position to comment on perfection; it is purely a matter of faith. This leads to the problem that what ever argument someone uses can be countered by substituting “imperfect” for “perfect”. It is like the idea that god is good. If you can’t understand or clearly define good, then the idea of an evil god, that works to the greater bad in ways that you can not understand can be just as valid. There is no way to choose between these options – let alone define the options.

Finally, if a being is perfect, then what does the act of creation do for that being? It can add nothing to its perfection. If that creation is imperfect, it can only lessen that being's perfection. If for example, that being happens to create an evil (imperfect) being, surely that act is imperfect. If a perfect being can only act in a perfect way, then that also means that being is restrained by something outwith itself, and is therefore not perfect.

Naturally, perfection is not defined but assumed for the sake of the above argument.

Any comments?

Orange Sun Oozing

This is a cool video of some sun spots. You can also see the solar convection cells. It is the work of Bruno Sánchez-Andrade Nuño. I came across it on the Astronomy Picture Of The Day site.

Is God a Bastard?

I though I would start off with something not too controversial as I write some posts on molecular evolution. It’s actually a modified post first published on richarddawkins.net in response to claims we get our moral values from god. Any Christian reading this will, I hope concentrate on the content and not the sarcastic tone – which I hope will raise a wry smile with my other readers.
I introduce it as a primer to some biblical difficulties that I hope to respond to in a more balanced manner in later posts. In the mean time, I hope you enjoy the rant.

Richard Dawkins describes God thus "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." This contrasts somewhat with the cuddly Christian God; one who supposedly cares intimately about us and wants the best for us. He cares when we are hurt, ill, hungry or lonely. All he wants is for us to reach out to him so that he can help us and lead us out of the mess we have made of our lives – a self inflicted mess - caused by wilfully turning our backs on our dear gentle lord and hurting him. And if we don't, well he's going to boil us for eternity in a cauldron of septic leper juice– as the saved sing Hallelujah over us as we writhe and squeal relentlessly for all eternity, constantly begging for relief from this constant and unbearable torment – but he still loves us!

So, why is God a bastard? Firstly, God deliberately set up man to fail. I say this because, before Adam and Eve ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they could not know that it was wrong to disobey this dictatorial and draconian god (Genesis 3:5 and 22). To make matters even worse, he put the serpent in the garden to tempt these naïve people into disobeying him (Gen 3:1-6). God even makes this evil creature in the first place (Gen 3:1). What a bastard! That shows as much parental responsibility as hiring a paedophile to baby-sit for you! Because of this situation, God condemns all mankind to die. What a thoroughly evil bastard! This is just the first of many examples of God punishing people for "sins" perpetrated by others:
Exodus 11 (very disgusting slaughter of children)
Isaiah 14:21-22 and
Deuteronomy 5:9, just for example).

Imagine the police arresting you one night because your great-grandfather was an Australian sheep fiddler or a German concentration camp guard - it is just ludicrous. Most bizarrely, he even punishes people for being evil and audacious enough to be born to unmarried parents, or because they were born in the wrong place, like Moab (Deut 23:2-3). It is truly bizarre, because he (through the birth of Jesus) is the bastard descendant of a bastard and a Moabite (Matthew 1:3-5, Gen 38, Ruth 4 and Matt. 1:18-19) – who apparently got his own mother pregnant??!!!???

Not only has God created evil, he often uses it to harm others (Lamentations 3:38, Jeremiah 26:3, 36:3, and1 Samuel 16 :14-23 to name a few). The God of truth even uses lies when it suits him (2 Chronicles 18:19-22). The bible also tells us that God hardens the hearts of those he wants to destroy, such as the Pharaoh (Ex 14:1-31) and he does this after he has bullied the Egyptians into getting his way. It didn't seem to matter that his gripe was with an individual - oh no! He just thought he would just be cruel to the whole nation instead. Then after much bum festering but holy nastiness, God basically took away Pharaohs' free will and lead him and others to destruction. What happened to mercy and forgiveness? If you are going to make Pharaoh do something, then why not just make him let the Israelites go free, without all that nastiness, plagues and the unjustifiable killing of Egypt's first born? If all this was true, you have got think Pharaoh must have been incredibly thick not to let the Israelites go. You can imagine the scene:
God "Let my people go or I shall smite you in the nuts with my boot"

Pharaoh "Nae danger ya tulip, smell yer maw ya baw bag!"

God: "Takest thou that" Boot! "now letteth my people go"

Pharaoh: "ooh yah cunt! Ma Swingers! Naw ya dobber!"

God: "Letteth them go or I'll shalt give thee piles"

Pharaoh: scratch scratch "sook ma banger ya dong"

God "OK then, I'll make it rain frogs"

Pharaoh "Ha ha ya fanny, I've got ma umbrella"

God "thou leavest me no choice. I shall createth a plague of Ainsley Harriets. Verily, that shall getteth it right up ye."

Pharaoh "aw naw, maaan, here huv them! A wis only pullin' yer plunger big man,"

The exodus probably never happened (and certainly not in Glaswegian). But that doesn't change the immoral nature of the god of the bible. Remember, this is a God who for no good reason other than because he is God, prevents people from believing in him and being saved (Romans 9:18).

The whole book of Joshua is about God-ordained acts of ethnic cleansing, intolerance and genocide. Apparently, God did not want his people contaminated with the practices of pagans. Again, this does not justify the extreme methods that God commanded, including infanticide. This means that if you are different, God does not want to forgive and enlighten you. In fact, he wants you and your babies dead. The contradiction with Jesus' hippyish New Testament theology is glaringly obvious! Have the publishers of the bible never heard of editors? Again, God's inability to be pleased (and inconsistency) is shown when he orders the Israelites to "righteously murder" the Midianites, including women and children (Numbers 31:7-18). This very act however makes the Israelites impure and unable to approach God (Num. 31:19). In other words, God says "I am the God of righteousness, who cannot abide evil. Go and carry out this evil act that I demand or I will be angry, even although this act will make you repulsive to me."

I don't know about you, but I'm getting pretty depressed at this point - but there's more.

God doesn't have a problem with forcing people into cannibalism, for example (Lev. 26:29, Jer. 19:9). Neither does he have a problem with kidnapping women, nor with making them gifts to be used as sex slaves (Jud. 21:11-14). In fact, the god of the bible doesn't think too much of women at the best of times. The following makes me sick! A rapist must marry his victim (Deut 22:28-29) and pay compensation to her father! Forcing someone to live with their abuser is surely just about the worst thing you can make them do. At least I now know how to get a wife that I can use as a sex slave - thanks God! Right from the start, God has it in for women, and lays all the blame for the original sin on Eve (1Tim. 2:12-14), and women are the property of men and were created for men, because we are superior. They must be silent in church and never hold authority over men, or even teach a man (1Cor. 11:8-9, 14:34-35, Ephesians 5:22-24, Colossians 3:18, 1Tim.2:11-14). All however is not lost, as a woman can be saved through childbirth (1Tim. 2:15). The only problem is that God would rather men didn't get married (1Cor. 7:8), and for those lucky enough to get a man, child birth will be incredibly painful (Gen.3:16). Yep, God hates women, even in the New Testament!

So, what does he like then? Well, slavery for one, as long as the slaves are not Israelite (Lev. 25:44-46). Furthermore, he doesn't mind you beating them, as long as you don't kill them (Ex. 21:22-24). God likes slavery so much; he even sets different laws for their welfare to those of their Israelite masters. If an owner knocks out a slave's eye, he must set the slave free (Ex. 21:26). If he did it to another Israelite, the law requires the loss of his eye too (Ex. 21:22-24). An eye for an eye, leaves everyone blind, according to some smart-arse like Gandhi – Pagan!.

And there's more, as God likes perfectly-formed people too. Anyone deformed may not approach him (Lev. 21:16-23). He must love having someone to hate, because the bible tells us that he knits people together in the womb (Ps. 139:13-15). So I guess every now and then, he uses his special magic god powers of righteous justice to decide exactly who to make deformed, just so he can hate them. The almighty loving God is also partial to accepting the occasional human sacrifice (Num. 31:41-46, Jud. 11:29-40). In the second example, a girl (Jephthah's daughter) was sacrificed to God because of her fathers' vows. Of course, if you question God on the subject, he denies accepting human sacrifice at all, claiming the whole idea to be abhorrent to him (Jer. 19:4-6). Nice lie your holiness! The only time God actually behaves himself, is when he is worried about how he appears to others, and not because it is the right thing to do (Ex. 32:11-14 and Num. 14:15-20). In fact, the supposed sacrifice on the cross was (as many Christians will tell you) was for his own glory.

Moral god? Don't make me laugh! I'll tell you what does make me laugh however, is the story where Elisha gets God to make some bears maul and kill 42 young boys for calling him baldy (2 Kin. 2:23-24). It's a good job that they didn't call him a specky big nosed feminist and abolitionist! If they had, the loving, forgiving and slow to anger god of the bible would probably eternally curse mankind (not again!), and make us all lesbian Moabite hunch backs. That would give him a real reason to be cruel to us.