I'm holed up in a hotel room, writing, writing, and writing some more, only emerging sporadically to see a little Australian sun and get a little exercise, and also to exercise my brain a bit. A few things are going on here in Melbourne.

I wish I could attend this panel discussion on the "Science and God: Incompatible?", just because it's stacked with Christian apologists who will no doubt be annoyingly superficial, and because it was the topic of my lecture at the GAC (my answer: yes. Incompatible, irreconcilable, and dear sweet baby Jebus, keep your superstitions away from the grownups). It's at the St James Conference Centre, 12 Batman St, West Melbourne, tonight at 8.

I'm skipping it, though, because I'd rather attend a lecture by Craig Venter tonight, at 6 in the Melbourne Convention Center. Evidence-based reasoning always wins over old farts exercising in wishful thinking in a church.

And tomorrow afternoon, Thursday, I'm going to try and drop in on the University of Melbourne Secular Society's dissection of creationism and specifically of Ray Comfort's bad introduction to the Origin. That's at 1:00 in Theatre 4, the Alan Gilbert Building.

I'm spending my weekend in Canberra, and I will be giving a talk to Skeptics in the Pub at 12:00 on Saturday, in King O'Malley's Irish Pub, 131 City Walk. I haven't quite decided what I'll be talking about yet, though — I'll probably sort that out on the plane on Friday.

Gosh. I have been informed that yesterday's posting of my crazy email was too, too harsh, and that I'm such a meanie. Well, I resolved to be much nicer as I worked my way through my neglected in-box, so here are a couple more letters I've gotten in the last day or two.

Citing a "sophisticated campaign" on the internet (congratulations, Michael Nugent and all the gang at Atheist Ireland), the Irish government is going to reconsider their blasphemy law.

Dermot Ahern, the justice minister, is proposing that a vote to remove the criminal offence of blasphemy be held as part of a planned series of referendums this autumn, writes Stephen O'Brien.

Well, frob me sideways with a sniny dirk…maybe there is a god.

There was a bit of unwarranted controversy in Richard Dawkins' talk here at the Global Atheist Convention. In the Q&A at the end, one woman got the microphone, declared that she was a believer, announced that she was grateful to a god, and asked the question, "What is DNA? Where did DNA come from?" (and she did not ask in the tone of someone who sincerely wanted an answer to a basic question in biology.) She was loudly but briefly jeered, before Dawkins and the organizers quieted the audience, and then Richard went on to answer the question politely and at length.

Some people felt badly about the audience reaction, and at least one person apologized to her. I don't and wouldn't. I think the response was perfect.

The woman seemed to want to trap Dawkins in what she presumably thought was a very clever question, but was actually naive and a waste of the audience's time. It is good that the audience was not passive, but expressed their opinion of the stupidity of her attempt to sidetrack the conversation, and it is good that the speaker gave her a fair hearing and an honest answer (although, apparently, she did not accept the answer, anyway, not that she would have accepted anything but that "God did it".) There were a few other instances — I'm thinking particularly of the fellow who pontificated at ridiculous and incoherent length in AC Grayling's Q&A—where people inappropriately tried to turn their moment in the spotlight into a chance to speechify.

A little incivility is a good thing. That woman was an idiot, and I'm pleased that that was briefly expressed to her by the audience before an honest attempt was made to address her point.

A similar sort of intrusion occurs just about every day in my email, and here's a recent example. Apparently, this buffoon just stumbled across an article I wrote in 2006 which describes a remarkable human chromosome rearrangement that was still viable, and didn't understand it…except that he could tell that it was supposed to correct a common creationist misconception which he'd rather not see falsified. So he writes a letter in the standard creationist style, beginning with a dismissal, following with a question that he doesn't care to see answered anyway, and then rambling off into a completely different point that he copy&pasted from somewhere. Seriously, this is pretty much the typical noise I get from these loons; I don't bother to reply, because, like the woman at the conference, they won't listen anyway.

I think it needs more jeering from the audience, though.

Oh, and the weird font size changes and inconsistent paragraph breaks (at least this one used paragraphs!)? Yeah, that's what he sent me. Please, please, please, creationists, when you write to me, if you must, go into your mail software and make sure it's sent as plain text, rather than formatted text, which will strip out all your quirky games with fonts. Typographical incompetence seems to be one of the most common symptoms of the brain damage associated with the creationist mind.

Hello just thought with all your confident propaganda you could demonstrate (not cite) an example of species change from Chromosome rearrangements which of cause would be necessary for any theory explaining us being here by chance.

"Creationists sometimes try to argue that what we consider straightforward, well-demonstrated cytological and genetic events don't and can't occur: that you can't get chromosome rearrangements, or that variations in chromosome number and organization are obstacles to evolution, making discussions of synteny, or the rearrangement of chromosomal material in evolution, an impossibility. These are absurd conclusions, of course—we see evidence of chromosomal variation in people all the time."

"variation in people" what ! they are becoming another life form?

Question - if the human brain has far more capacity than is necessary for a lifetime and yet evolutionists say a life form develops according to need "adaptation" or "Natural selection" should we not be at point of having a brain with just the capacity we need ?

Robert Birge (Syracuse University) who studies the storage of data in proteins estimated in 1996 that the memory capacity of the brain was between one and ten terabytes, with a most likely value of 3 terabytes. Such estimates are generally based on counting neurons and assuming each neuron holds 1 bit. Bear in mind that the brain has far better algorithms for compressing certain types of information than computers do. Source
The human brain contains about 50 billion to 200 billion neurons (nobody knows how many for sure), each of which interfaces with 1,000 to 100,000 other neurons through 100 trillion (10 14) to 10 quadrillion (10 16) synaptic junctions. Each synapse possesses a variable firing threshold which is reduced as the neuron is repeatedly activated. If we assume that the firing threshold at each synapse can assume 256 distinguishable levels, and if we suppose that there are 20,000 shared synapses per neuron (10,000 per neuron), then the total information storage capacity of the synapses in the cortex would be of the order of 500 to 1,000 terabytes. (Of course, if the brain's storage of information takes place at a molecular level, then I would be afraid to hazard a guess regarding how many bytes can be stored in the brain. One estimate has placed it at about 3.6 X 10 19 bytes.) Source
The brain has about 100 billion nerve cells, so at least that many bits (about 10 gigabytes) could be stored, assuming the brain uses binary logic. But it probably doesn't do so. Instead, information is believed to be stored in the many connections that form between the cells. This is a much larger number: Current estimates of brain capacity range from 1 to 1000 terabytes! It would take 1,000 to 10,000 typical disk drives to store that much information.

The above about covers current info regarding brain's capacity as compared to comp equivalent. Nevertheless, this only scratches the surface of the brain issue, which seems to be as huge as a nano universe.

I'm not a "creationist" I believe in a creator not "absurd conclusions"

David Staples ( my10 quadrillion (10 16) synaptic junctions can be my qualifications for having the Gall to reply to a 'lettered intellectual')

I will attempt to answer these questions as well as I can, given their inanity.

First, David Staples, you are an ass.

Second, I am in a hotel in Australia, and you are communicating with me via the internet. Yet you will not be satisfied with a citation of some evidence, but want a demonstration of speciation right here? What do you expect me to do, scoop up a couple of populations of marsupial mice, set them to mating, and squeeze the fucking mice through the intertubes to pop out in front of you? Well, all you are going to get from me is a link: here's a list of observed instances of speciation that includes some examples of variations in chromosome organization that were part of the mechanism of reproductive isolation.

Third, evolution includes a significant and necessary chance component to produce the variation that we see in the world around us. You are here by chance; the oocyte that erupted in your mother's ovary at the time your father's sperm was present for conception contained a random half of her genome, while the particular sperm that managed to penetrate that egg was one of billions in the neighborhood, and also contained a random half of your father's genome. You are a child of chance. And, unfortunately, it looks like you crapped out.

I will also add that evolution is not merely about chance, but also includes a non-random component, selection, which can cull out failures and impose a progressive element of better adaptedness to the environment on the process. Selection is not infallible, however, as we can see by the fact that you are still around, tapping in your semi-illiterate fashion at a computer.

Fourth, you apparently were incapable of comprehending the article that I wrote, which does make me wonder why you are bothering to pester me further. I thought it would be obvious that there is "variation in people" — after all, I am clearly a normal human being, while you are a cretin — and even a cretin ought to be able to notice that Angelina Jolie looks slightly different from Wesley Snipes. The point of my article was that there are also hidden chromosomal variations in people that do not make them members of a different species. So no, they are not turning into another life form.

Fifth, what does your question about the brain have to do with the article you are citing? Are you even capable of sustaining a single coherent thought in your head in the time it takes you to compose a short email message?

Sixth, the human brain does not have far more capacity than is necessary for a lifetime. Case in point: you. You seem to be a bit deficient. I also know that I happen to use my brain as much as I can, and if anything, wish I had a lot more capacity.

Seventh, evolution does not produce individuals with some kind of optimized ideal capacity for a specific condition and situation; it produces viable individuals who are good enough, and chance variation means that some will be less capable in particular situations and others will be more capable. We are also dealing with competing solutions: you, for instance, are a bit of a twit with very little brain, but you might be quite capable of stumbling into an opportunity to reproduce (alas), and that is all that matters to evolution.

Eighth, the brain is big and complicated. Very big and very complicated. So? It evolved. We can find a whole range of brain sizes in the animal kingdom, so we can see the steps that led up to the large organ we have; there is no reason to suppose that we need supernatural explanations to account for its origin, any more than the fact that our brains develop from a single cell to their massive size during development without the assistance of magic or angels.

Ninth, the article you quoted is garbage. It makes the fundamental error of comparing a brain to a lump of binary computer memory; the comparison does not work. Brains are analog, not digital; they compute more than they store; assigning a bit value to whole neurons is nonsensical.

Tenth, I don't know what you are, but a creator is an absurd conclusion.

Eleventh, you have approximately the same number of synapses as anyone else. The quantity of meat in your head entitles you to no special privileges; we care more about what you can do with it. And all indications are that your three pounds of cranial stuffing have been sadly abused and neglected.

I predict this cartoon will be appearing all over the place here today.

I quite like Bob O'Hara's equivalent portrait of Nature Network, too.

I am remiss in my duties. The last episode of the endless thread has expanded to excessive size while I was off frolicking in the antipodes. In my defense, I have been distracted by the remarkable habits of Australians: every time my hands were empty, they would put a beer in it. I once made the mistake of having both hands briefly unoccupied, and received two beers for my trouble.

The Pharyngufest with Chloe here in Melbourne has been captured on video, right here. Unfortunately, I don't remember my performance at all—infinite beers, remember.

Not as nasty as I feared, but the consecrated hunk o' Jesus I put it on was ghastly.

The official kick-off of the Melbourne Global Atheist convention is tonight, but we're starting without the the officials.

I met Bride of Shrek (who is not green) and Rorschach (who wasn't wearing the cool shifting pattern mask) for dinner last night. I can't say I was exactly lively company — I was coming off something like 25 hours of total travel time with no sleep at all, and was feeling like I was staggering towards a brick wall of total unconsciousness — but I survived, mostly. Got a very good night's sleep last night, too.

It's now morning in Australia. I'm heading off to an atheist blogger/podcaster breakfast meetup, just to get my day started. If I can find the place. If not, I'll be wandering the streets of Melbourne, somewhere down by the river.

At noon, I'm off to the Freethought University Alliance for a free lunch. I have to say a few words, too, but I aim to brief, because I am an old geezer and these are the Youth of Australia Who Will Change the Future. They should be doing most of the talking. They can run circles around me, too, which is why there is a rumor that I may have to fortify myself with some Jesus during the talk, just to keep up.

Then around 3ish, we're having a Pharyngufest with a mob of foaming-at-the-mouth, militant, crude, rude, angry internet atheists and Pharyngulators at the Young and Jackson Hotel. Bride of Shrek tells me that we have the privilege of sharing the pub with Chloe, which, with the prospects of my first Australian beer, will probably help soothe the horrifying horde. A little bit.

Finally, at 6, after we've already had a full day to work ourselves up to a shrieking fever pitch, the official events begin. It should be fabulous. I'll be looking for you all.

Wow. Bill Donohue is going to love Andrew Brown. Brown has written a defense of the Catholic church titled "Catholic child abuse in proportion"; you can tell right away exactly where it is going to be going. 'Only' 4% of American priests have been accused of sexual abuse of a minor, and as much as 27% of American women report a history of childhood sexual abuse (to quote just a pair of statistics he uses), therefore, Catholic priests aren't that bad. Which means…

Certainly the safeguards against paedophilia in the priesthood are now among the tightest in the world. That won't stop a steady trickle of scandals; but I think that objectively your child is less likely to be abused by a Catholic or Anglican priest in the west today than by the members of almost any other profession.

He doesn't mention any statistics on any other profession. So kids are more likely to be raped by your local policeman, college professor, grade school teacher, construction worker, farmer, dentist, carpenter, plumber, doctor, or whatever than your local priest? Brown hasn't shown any evidence at all that that is the case. And I think he would have an even tougher job trying to demonstrate that rapists in these other professions do it while carrying out their duties, or while wearing a uniform of propriety in quite the same way priests do.

As for this claim that priests now have tight safeguards…I haven't seen any evidence at all of that. The Catholic church doesn't seem to be cleaning house at all, nor does it have any history of doing so; the pattern has been to hide and protect abusers in their ranks, until they are dragged out into the light by secular investigations.

And then Brown goes ahead and lists a series of reasons why the pattern of Catholic abuse has been regarded with an especially deserved horror. Doesn't he even read what he writes?

So why the concentration on Catholic priests and brothers? Perhaps I am unduly cynical, but I believe that all institutions attempt to cover up institutional wrongdoing although the Roman Catholic church has had a higher opinion of itself than most, and thus a greater tendency to lie about these things. Because it is an extremely authoritarian institution at least within the hierarchy, it is also one where there were few checks and balances on the misbehaviour of the powerful. The scandal has been loudest and most damaging in Ireland, because it came along just at the moment when the church was losing its power over society at large, and where it was no longer able to cover up what had happened, but still willing to try. Much the same is true in the diocese of Boston which was bankrupted by the scandal.

Hmmm. Andrew Brown is a member of a beleagured institution, journalism, which by his own argument should have just as large a proportion of people who carry out child rape in the execution of their responsibilities as do Catholic priests. I think he therefore has a responsibility to turn whistleblower and report all of his colleagues who have gone out to interview children and abused their authority to obtain sex. Surely, the Guardian must be harboring nests of pedophiles that the newspaper protects by shuffling them out to distant assignments when their crimes become excessive.

Stop protecting child-raping journalists, Brown, and come clean. You've convinced me, they must be just as bad as the Catholic priesthood.