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

The Ten Commandments and Premarital Sex

Today, I am taking on morals in religion.

More Specifically: The Ten Commandments and sex before marriage.
I'll also refer to two hypocritical Christian role models who are not the exceptions.

First off, the Ten Commandments: (there are differences here, but it's basically the same)
1. I am God and you shall have no other gods before me.
2. You shall not make for yourself an idol
3. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God
4. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
5. Honour your parents
6. You shall not murder
7. You shall not commit adultery
8. You shall not steal
9. You shall not bear false witness
10. You shall not covet your neighbour's wife

Let's begin.
1. I have explained why there is no God. Let's assume I am wrong and there is a god. Why would he have to make laws forbidding worship of other gods if he really is the only god?

2. See 1.

3. Wrongful use of the name of your God? What would constitute "wrongful?"
Using his name as a swearword? Who would do that? And why? People swear. They swear very colourfully and imaginatively. People who use the thing they worship and deem to be above all else as a swearword are just stupid. That's like me using my father's name as a swearword. The ONLY reason I can think of that people use the expletive "Jesus Christ!" is because the 3^rd commandment forbids it.

4. Jesus himself reminded us of the stupidity of this law by working on a Saturday. For those of you who don't know, The Sabbath is on a Saturday. SUNday is the day God created the SUN. The FIRST day. Someone has just decided to change it. Because they had God's holy permission. Don't ask.

So... how many shops are open on a Sunday? There are millions of people who work every Sunday. Are they going to hell? Or will their mortal sin be forgiven? Why aren't people allowed to work on Sundays? Because it is decided by the bible. And the bible is never wrong (see "the bible is a work of fiction," a previous blog).

5. Why should I honour my parents? I only honour people who deserve it. My parents are intelligent and caring people who have cared for me my entire life. They deserve my respect.

But if I was raised by a father who abused me, I would not honour him. Even if he was my only source of income. (http://www.azcentral.com/ent/arts/articles/0225Mormon-Memoir-ON-CP.html)
The fifth commandment has been created by lazy parents who do not want to teach their children themselves. They want to refer to the bible and tell them "honour me cause the bible says so."

6. This is the most obvious of rules. The Jews escaped from Egypt and then created the Ten Commandments. What a coincidence (wouldn't you say?) that Egypt also had laws against murder and theft? The bible is not the basis of all morals. Some people tell me: "If it weren't for the bible, I wouldn't be as good as I am."

Let me ask you this:
If you see a man hitting a little baby, will you think "God tells us not to harm others; therefore I must feel bad right now." Or will you simply feel instant grief at such a sight? Empathy and/or sympathy are emotions built into the human brain. Primates and other intelligent mammals have it as well.

7. This is very subjective, and I won't go too far into this topic.
All I'm going to say is this:
If what you do does not (directly or indirectly) hurt any person, is it really wrong? I can agree that it is wrong to deceive someone and that person would be hurt if he/she finds out. But what if both parties agree to go their separate ways and experiment for a while? I know of a few couples who have done this. They say it has deepened their love for each other. They are exceptions, of course, but you cannot make rules which does not fit everyone and assume that it will.

And besides, no primates, and almost no mammals, are monogamous. Why are we the exception? I can love more than one person. In more than one way. I'm not going to deny people my love and attention just because someone else has "reserved" it. Do not try to twist my words around. I will never willingly deceive someone I love.

8. Refer to 6.

9. You shall not lie? Okay... So you can swear, hurt people by telling them exactly how ugly, stupid, etc. they are. But you can't lie? You can vandalize public property, torture small animals, hit children and women and force others to believe what you think is right. But you can't lie? What if you get into a situation where you will hurt someone's feelings by telling the truth?

Lying is normal. The effect and the reason for the lie is more complicated, but not all lies are evil.

10. WOW! So women are property now?
Let's disregard that sexist comment and assume that it refers to coveting things in general.

Google defines covet as:
"Wish, long or crave for."

If I did not covet living in a better home, eating good food and making a difference in this world, I would not have worked hard in my life. In fact, I would just have to sit there and be happy with what I have until I die of starvation. The bible tells us we may not covet. If human beings did not covet, the capitalist system would have fallen apart. Because no one would want anything MORE out of life. They would just resign themselves to whatever fate they are given.

The human race itself is dependant on greed.

And, to finish off the 10 commandments:
The list is incorrect.
The original Hebrew text says:
"You may not kill a Jew."
"You may not steal from a Jew."
Etc.

So the 10 commandments are in actual fact extremely bigoted and racist.

Next: Sex Before Marriage.

Why? Why do you want to wait until marriage to have sex? I can understand if someone waits until marriage for a good reason, but no one has given me one.

"Don't you want your wife to be a virgin?" is the best answer I've been able to get from a person.

My answer is: I don't care. If I marry someone, it will be because of her (or his, if I was gay) personality, intelligence and, to a degree, (I have to be honest) looks. It will be a combination of factors. "Pure" sex is not one of them.

To me, sex is an expression of love and devotion. I will not have sex with someone I don't feel strongly about, but I won't tell people that they can't have sex with anyone they want. If you say sex with any person you want is wrong, why would it be okay to make out with anyone you want? Both are expressions of love and lust. The one carries a higher risk of infectious diseases and children.

According to http://www.gotquestions.org/sex-before-marriage.html there are only two reasons why we should not have sex before marriage.
1. The bible says so (and the bible is always right)
2. There is a risk of STD's

If I breathe close to someone, I also risk infecting that person. Does that make it wrong to breathe when people are nearby? No it doesn't.

Another problem is that people say that relationships built on only sex, have a higher chance to end in divorce. OF COURSE it will end in divorce. It's built on only sex. Sex is just one part of a relationship. People who depend on only one aspect of a relationship are doomed to failure. But that does not make sex wrong. People who love their partner (or partners) in more than one aspect, are the ones who are more likely to have a lasting, meaningful relationship.

And the web sites keep saying that sex is NOT wrong, even though they keep telling everyone about the "evils of sex." It should only be practiced between husband and wife. Did you know that marriages used to be secular (not religious at all). The Romans (as far as I can tell) invented weddings. And then the Jews changed the custom to fit their own needs.

And then I'd like to end this blog with a short comment on a photo I saw recently.

It was a photo of two girls kissing intimately. I focused on the low quality cellphone photo and recognised the pair of girls. They are two very committed and well known Christian leaders. They believe in the Ten Commandments. They believe that "homosexuals are sinners who will burn in hell."

And they kissed each other.

At first I found this extremely funny. Then the implications of that photo dawned of me. And it became very sad.

These are hypocrites. Not exactly the worst kind of hypocrite, but definitely very high up on the Hypocritic scale. They not only believe that homosexuality is wrong. They also preach it. And then they kiss each other.

Usually I try to stay objective, but right now I'm making a slight exception:
What pisses me off most of all is that they are not the exceptions. Most Christians I know believe that homosexuality/premarital sex/lying/cursing/hurting people/etc. is wrong. But they still persist in doing exactly what they tell others is wrong. And I, who actually obey my own laws, am looked down upon by these hypocrites.

Next blog, I'll be taking the side of evolution.

My sources for this blog:

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

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