Choosing sides

http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/469317,CST-CONT-danger15.article

First off, I’d like to recommend the above article. It is quite amazing and is an introduction to Steven Pinker’s latest book: What’s Your Dangerous Idea, in which he questions the top experts in different fields of scientific study about their “dangerous ideas.”

Such as that legalized abortion is good for the economy.

On to a next topic:

The people who support a cause
Many people say that you can’t judge a cause by the people who support the cause. I disagree here. I think the people who support the cause can give a very good indication of what the cause is really about.

Take the evolution vs. creationism/Intelligent Design debate. Over the years, there have been many attacks on evolution. Physical attacks even, and death threats, such as this one:
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/07/professors-in-c.html

I have not taken the time to search for any fundamentalist activities by evolution proponents. Most, if not all, of them just continue with their lives. Some of them make webcomics, blogs or write books telling people why intelligent design is stupid. This is, as far as I know, the most they have done.

Evolutionists also boasts an apparently higher IQ, due to the fact that they do not get facts wrong as frequently, and seem to be able to spell more accurately. Though this may just be my biased opinion...

*ahem*
http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=4f1456031fcc05a3afaf&page=1&viewtype=&category=md
*ahem* (read the opinions below the video.)

Then there’s the abortion debate. The pro-choicers say that people should have the freedom to choose to have an abortion. The pro-lifers choose to say that no one may have freedom to choose. This is, as I have highlighted, slightly hypocritical.

Pro-lifers rally in the streets, as they have the freedom to do, to take away a portion of freedom. Some of them go far enough to bomb abortion clinics, kill doctors and nurses and hold people hostage. I have not heard about a single pro-choicer murdering people in the name of dead babies.

And, closely tied in with the abortion-debate, there is the death penalty. People who are against “the murder of babies,” are commonly in favour of the murder of full grown intelligent people. Even more shockingly, many of them are also in favour of the murder of full grown retarded persons.

Pro-choicers (or baby murderers, as the pro-lifers make them out to be), on the other hand, are commonly against the death penalty.

There’s not much more I can say is there?

I like to look at all possible aspects of a situation, and the people who support the cause is one of the integral parts.

Communism vs. Capitalism is another issue. Capitalists give people the freedom to prosper or diminish. Communism gives all people the same treatment and wishes for everyone to be content. Both are good ideas.

Unfortunately, most known communists use violence, exploitation, lies and sometimes even genocide to keep communism going. This is not really necessary in the case of Capitalism. Communism is still a good idea, but once you start to think about it, which communists don’t seem to do, you realise that it is not very practical.

Also:
http://www.johnkyrk.com/evolution.html

The above link is curious. Try it out.

Evolution, Part 2: Anti-evolutionists

Notable human evolution researchers:
James Burnet, Henry McHenry, Svante Paabo, Jeffrey H Schwartz, Erik Trinkaus, Milford H. Wolpoff, Charles Darwin, JBS Haldane, Leonard Shlain, Richard Dawkins, Alister Hardy

These are all the researches on HUMAN evolution. There are hundreds of other respected and learned biologists specialising in evolution. Wouldn't you think that it's likely that, if evolution was wrong, it would be proven to be wrong, at least within a hundred years of its lifespan? No, because evolution isn't something like the theory of gravity or quantum theory which explains things we cannot perceive. Evolution is very simple (see previous blog).

"But," says non-believers, "there is an alternative. Intelligent Design! (from here on referred to as ID)"

So let's take a look at ID:

Notable Intelligent Design Researchers:
NONE

mmm... that's very strange indeed.

Okay. Maybe I just can't find a name. Why don't you try it? Really, go ahead.

So maybe the people who invented discovered ID just didn't want to give up their names because they were so honourable and modest. (ha!) Let's look at how normal scientific (remember, ID is claiming NOT to be religious) theories are recorded and made available:

The discovery is made, such as with evolution, and then it is given up for PEER REVIEW.
Google defines peer review as: the process by which articles are chosen to be included in a refereed journal. An editorial board consisting of experts in the same field as the author review the article and decide if it is authoritative enough for publication.

Therefore, if anyone "creates", for example, the theory of relativity, he then gives it to other experts in the field (in this case physics experts, or in evolution's case, biologists) who evaluates the entire theory and tests it for himself. This process can be done by anybody who wants to do it. That is the beauty of science. If someone publishes a theory (after peer review) then any person off the street can test the theory for himself and try to disprove it. Or improve upon it. There are no patents which makes mathematic formulae illegal to use because someone else invented it. Science is truly free.

So through what processes did ID go?

Guess.

"To date, the intelligent design movement has yet to have an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal."

Surprise, surprise.

Okay... maybe no one has had the chance to research ID properly? Or the money?

"The Templeton Foundation, a former funder of the Discovery Institute and a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that it asked intelligent design proponents to submit proposals for actual research, but none were ever submitted."

Whoops...

Okay... maybe this is just an evil plot by scientists who are against ID? The true Christian scientists are probably oppressed by the evil ones. Let's get a REAL Christian scientist to defend ID for us! And that is, of course, what ID proponents did. They got Michael Behe (see link below for more). Behe is an educated, respected (by some) Christian Scientist. He made a court case for ID. Let's see what he said:

"But in sworn testimony, Behe said: "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.""

WHAT? Did Michael Behe, the biggest ID supporter in America, and a very smart man (*cough*) just admit that Intelligent Design is a completely fictitious invention?

People are completely against evolution, but only because it is slightly too complicated too demonstrate with a simple diagram (such as showing the planets' orbits). It makes them uncomfortable because they want to believe that the earth is 6000 years old and that God created everything in 6 days.

Saying ID (which tries to tell us how and when and why the earth was created) is the alternative to evolution, is like saying (unproved) biology is the alternative to dentistry. Evolution does not prove the age of the earth. Evolution simply explains how the animals that live today, came to be what they are.

Other methods predict the age of the earth. No, carbon dating is not the only way to tell the age of things. To quote:
"Forty or so different dating techniques are utilized to date a wide variety of materials, and dates for the same sample using these techniques are in very close agreement on the age of the material." (See bottom of page for more info)

And even if radiocarbon dating was "inaccurate", it's accurate enough. It's inaccurate to about 60 000 years. But if it predicts that the earth is 4, 5 billion years old, then the earth is most likely more or less 4, 5 billion years old. Radiocarbon dating predicts that the earth is "at least 4.404 billion years old." Other dating methods (using the sun's rate of growth, meteorites, planetary orbits, I don't know how exactly, read the link at bottom of page) place the solar system, including the earth, no more than 4, 567 Billion years old. They have decided upon 4, 567 Billion years and it's the closest they are going to get any time soon. Mostly because they are probably right.

And another thing:
Many, many scientific theories make sense if the earth was 4, 5 billion years old. Scientists still debate or even argue about the exact age of the earth, and the stubborn ones about the age of the universe (see Nobel Prize for Physics 2006). But they usually differ by no more than a few hundred million years. All of them (with one or two religious exceptions) think of the earth as older than 4 Billion years. But religious people (usually uneducated) believe that the earth is only 6000 years old. That's a difference of about 4,567 Billion years.

That's a big difference. It's like on person saying:
"I believe an Olympic swimming pool is about 50 meters in length. At least 49,9999999m. I used measuring tape, a ruler, an engineer's scale, gauge blocks, ultrasound distance measuring devices and a laser rangefinder. But I'm willing to accept that I'm wrong if you submit evidence which contradicts me."
And the other person says:
"No. My sacred text tells me this pool is 0,00005m long. And ultrasound distance measuring devices are completely inaccurate! You can't rely on them!"

And then this person invents a "scientific theory" to PROVE that the swimming pool is 0,000005m long. And when he cannot prove this, he says that people should accept that there are "alternatives" to ultrasound distance measuring devices.

But I'll stop here, and tell you that if you actually took the time to research ID (mostly here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design) you'll see that is complete and utter bogus.

Problems with evolution:

Peter suggested to me that I talk about evolution's emotional impact and people's problem to cope with it. Thanks, Peter, for the suggestion.

Why are people against evolution? Evolution does not disprove God. 200 years ago, Galileo discovered that the earth revolved around the sun. This made the church uncomfortable, because the Bible clearly states that this is not so. But the church had to give in, because Galileo was right.

There are other examples. Airplanes is one. Evolution is another.

Why would someone think that science is more knowledgeable than the Bible when it comes to planetary orbits, but not when it comes to biology?

Evolution does not disprove God any more than the fact that the earth revolves around the sun does. Sure it contradicts the bible. But the bible contradicts itself. It even has the stupidity to say that Pi is 3 and that light and dark was created in one day, and water(I think...) the next. This does not disprove God or the good aspects of Christianity.

Logic disproves God.

Evolution is JUST ANOTHER THEORY. Just like the theory of gravity or the magnificently complicated theories of Stephen Hawkins. The theory of gravity was discovered by Newton, who was a Christian. And Evolution was discovered by Darwin, who was also a Christian. Just because they have different beliefs about God than I do, does not make them wrong. They were both brilliant, incredible men who changed the world. And they did not think that their own theories disproved God. So why does anyone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

Evolution, Part 1

First off, I'd like to say this: I am NOT an expert on the subject of evolution. I am simply someone who is interested enough in life itself to RESEARCH things. I don't like to say things which are false. Therefore, I make sure about my facts.

How most religious people see evolution:
"Evolution in the fictional world of the Pokémon video game franchise refers to a sudden change of form in a Pokémon, usually accompanied by a dramatic increase in statistics. It should be noted that this is not an evolution in a biological sense, but rather the metamorphosis of an individual creature."

How most scientists and intellectuals see evolution:
"In the life sciences, evolution is a change in the traits of living organisms over generations, including the emergence of new species. Since the development of modern genetics in the 1940s, evolution has been defined more specifically as a change in the frequency of alleles in a population from one generation to the next."

So, for those of you who do not take the time to research things, I'll explain evolution as if to a child. It's actually quite brilliant:

This is overly simplified to get a point across.
Take, for example, a squirrel. There are several squirrels. These squirrels run around in trees. Sometimes, a predator may attack them in the tree, and the will try to escape. They will probably do this by jumping out of the tree. The ones, who are better at jumping out of the tree and surviving, will survive. The squirrels who fall to hard and break their backs or get captured by the predator, die. So, obviously, the ones who are best at jumping out of trees survive. These survivors will pass on their genes.

The children of these surviving squirrels will differ slightly from their parents. Some might be better at jumping from large trees, others might not. Recreation is slightly random. Then, these children will go through the process again. At a later stage, the squirrels will have evolved flaps at the side.

Natural Selection does NOT have a goal or a direction in which it moves. It does not require someone (god) to "select" the right species. It can be simply and very easily described by these words:

Survival of the fittest.

Some of you will, at this point, think that I am describing a random event. It is not random. For example, rolling dice is random, but always picking the higher number on two rolled dice is not random.

Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators.
- Richard Dawkins -

This is evolution in a nutshell. But it is more complicated than that.

Some of you will say that you believe that creatures can adapt and change, but you don't think that a single cell can become a fish, a fish can become a mammal or a dinosaur can become a bird. This is usually called Micro-Evolution (adapting to small changes in the environment) and Macro-Evolution (changing a species completely). This is slightly erronous, because most biologists believe that micro-evolution and macro-evolution are the same thing, with only a difference in scope (time).

Remember, evolution is a process which takes hundreds, thousands, millions of years. And it never stops. Evolution is not the process life has gone through in order to achieve us. It is the process life goes through, because it is the only option. How can the fittest NOT outlast the unfit? And fit, is of course a relative term, because "defects" can have an unexpected advantage in life.

Another Example:

Say, for example, a bird extremely good at catching fish and evading predators, finds itself upon a somewhat deserted island. This island has more than enough fruits to feed the bird. And there is no competition. The bird will survive well, no matter how it lives. Therefore, the descendants who are most economic will survive the best. The descendants, who waste energy and time on unnecessary muscles used for catching fish, will not survive as well as the lazy descendants. Then the bird will evolve into something like the dodo.

Another example: Sharks. Sharks are extremely good at catching fish, birds and seals. They have not really "evolved" (in the common understanding of the word) for the past millions of years. The reason for this is that they have no need to change. They have achieved a perfect adaptability and balance. They can swim extremely fast, detect blood more than a mile away, go for long periods of time without food, catch more than one kind of prey and they heal their teeth by simply replacing them. What more does it require? Intelligence? The smarter the shark is, the more time it will spend deliberating about things, and less time eating and recreating. The shark has achieved optimality. It will not change until it is necessary to do so.

A fish does not simply "turn" into a mammal. A fish that lives close to the shore (because it has evolved to adapt to catching insects living close to the shore, for example) may have trouble living because the waves washes the fish unto the shore. But many of the fish will live. One day, one of the fish might have a slight mutation in genes which allows him to take in more air and less water. (No one is exactly like his parents/ancestors. Everyone changes slightly from their parents.) This fish will have a higher chance of survival than the other fish. The process repeats itself until you get something like the lungfish, which can breathe both water and air. And so forth.

If you think "mutation" is too unlikely a cause for this, read this:
"Genetic variation arises due to random mutations that occur at a certain rate in the genomes of all organisms. Mutations are permanent, transmissible changes to the genetic material (usually DNA or RNA) of a cell, and can be caused by: "copying errors" in the genetic material during cell division; by exposure to radiation, chemicals, or viruses."

I'll stop explaining evolution now. If you don't get it by now, you probably never will. Or I am a bad writer. Either way, I'm moving on. The point is that you should continue reading about evolution and anything else you don't understand. If you are confident that you understand evolution, then you are allowed to talk about it and tell others whether you believe it. If you still don't know anything about it, then please stay quiet until you do.

Proof of evolution?
First off, logical reasoning, but I'll assume you don't have that. (No offence meant)

Fossil Evidence has given us an extensive family tree and history of modern species. Take a look at this photo:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Primate_skull_series_with_legend.png

It compares the modern apes with each other. Note the similar eye-sockets, teeth, sinus cavities, shape of skull, and (even though you can't see it in the photo) the way the backbone connects to the skull. These are all remarkably alike. All mammals, as you should know, have just about the same backbone. It is a very effective system for creating blood cells and safely protecting nerves; therefore, it has not changed much. This is because all mammals are descended from the same ancestor (yes, a single one), and because the backbone is very hard to improve upon, as it is now. The backbone, as an entity in itself, has achieved optimal efficiency.

I'm not going to expand on the proof much more. Go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Evidence_of_evolution

I can talk about evolution all day, because it is a very extensive and subtle theory which all rests on a single concept. It is both very simple and extremely complicated. I love it. I have read several books on the subject (busy with Ancestor's Tale, by Richard Dawkins, as well as Adam's Naval, by Michael Simms) and I will continue to do so. I have also read books in support of Intelligent Design. I really want to read The Naked Ape which ID proponents frequently quote.

I have considered both sides of the argument and I am still open to change. If someone can prove me wrong, I will admit that I am wrong.

Just to clarify: Humans did not evolve from monkeys, apes or gorillas. Humans, monkeys and other primates all evolved from the same distant ancestor. This is what makes the next statement even stupider than it already is.

"Evolution can't be true! I didn't come from monkeys!"
To which I once had the pleasure to respond:
"Even if evolution isn't true, you are still a primate, and, in your case, an ape."

These people do not think about evolution. They do not even know how it works. They simply hear that we come from monkeys, and therefore it must be wrong. They simply attack evolution because it makes them uncomfortable. They barely even try to understand the brilliance of the concept itself. Every time someone tells me that he does not believe in evolution, I ask him if he can explain evolution to me. No one has ever been able to tell me. They ALWAYS misunderstand it. And the people, who take the time and the effort to understand it, are the people who "believe" it.

People accept the theory of gravity, even though the church was against it. (For some reason, gravity was considered an attack on religion) The same can be said about the elliptical orbits and positions of the planetary bodies in the solar system. Why do people accept some facts about science, but "disbelieve" other facts?

And the clencher, of course, is the fact I have already mentioned:
Many churches are completely FOR evolution.

Many (smarter) Christians believe that God "guided" the world and primates to evolve into humans. They believe that God caused the Big Bang and created the perfect, ordered world as we know it. I have no problem with these people, because they don't (directly) cause ignorance. Believing in evolution does NOT make you a bad Christian. But not believing it, does make you ignorant.

I will be taking on the people who "disbelieve" evolution in my next blog.

The reason I use Wikipedia so often, is because it is usually right. It is a very effective and easy to read summation of the facts. Another, very good aspect of Wikipedia is its tendency to list all it's sources, which I sometimes browse through for more extensive writing on a single topic. And, most of the time, I read things in books (written by respected and learned authors) and then search for it on the internet, and find it on Wikipedia. Therefore, I have a bad habit of going straight to Wikipedia when I want a source. I'm too lazy too look things up in a book, and I assume you are too lazy and forgetful to actually find the book, read it and look for the things I quoted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution - an example of evolution in modern times.

http://homepage.eircom.net/~odyssey/Quotes/Life/Science/Ancestors_Tale.html - a page about Ancestor's Tale, a book which traces our ancestors all the way back to the origin of life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution - my main source .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_anatomy - the study of comparing the anatomy of various species.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution - another important source. Read it if you doubt that we share a common ancestor with primates.

"Hot on the heels of its magnanimous pardoning of Galileo, the Vatican has now moved with even more lightning speed to recognise the truth of Darwinism."
Richard Dawkins