Showing posts with label Evolution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Evolution. Show all posts

May 9, 2013

I chose curiosity


Wax on... wax off

Alan Watts said, “All things are known by their differences from and likenesses to each other”. Watts was speaking to individual perceptions of our universe. Considering that, how do you consider yourself in relation to your fellow humans and the rest of our universe? Are you a part of it… or the center of it?

We humans know our universe only by individual experience. Everything… every activity we undertake and every perception we hold… these are mere reflections of our experience and our understanding of those experiences. Every time we have a new experience it produces an outcome expressed in one of two values; either we like it or we dislike it. All interactions with and reactions to our fellow humans will rest upon one of those two values… and these are mostly dependent upon our individual personalities.

It is these variables that shape our perception of our universe and produce our reaction to our fellow astronauts on this Pale Blue Dot. We have some choice in how we process our new experiences and whether we wish our response to be fear or curiosity. The evolution of mankind… perhaps even the survival of our specie… requires that fear recedes and curiosity dominates.

###

February 12, 2013

September 10, 2012

Tennessee in the perpetual fog

Calling Clarence Darrow! Mr. Darrow, you're needed in Tennessee again.

"Yoakley supported the student and then ran into trouble when school yearbook ran an article about a gay student. Other teachers complained about publishing such an article and Yoakley was asked to resign. He was then notified that he would be transferred as parents called for his firing."

But Susan and Bubba had a far more pleasant experience.
###

August 27, 2012

Science Guy Bill Nye speaks to the adults

...and I sure hope our Texas State Board of Education is listening.



###

June 1, 2012

Between the Bible and the Deep Blue Sea

Gallup’s 2012 public opinion poll on the acceptance of evolution in the U.S. is out. The results indicate that Americans feel pretty much the same now as we have since Gallup started polling the question 30 years ago.

When asked which of the several statements most closely match the respondent’s views on the origin and development of human beings, 32% believed that "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process." Only 15% said that "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process," while the majority, fully 46% were convinced that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."

Gallup provided this nice graph tracking the results from 1982 to this most recent polling.


The poll results are "based on telephone interviews conducted May 10-13, 2012, with a random sample of 1,012 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia." And have a sampling error of +/- 4%. Respondents with a lower level of education leaned more toward the creationist view.


In 2006 a group of researchers Led by Jon D. Miller, a political scientist at Michigan State University used the Gallup results to compare the U.S. results with similar polls in 31 other countries. The results were published in the Journal Science in August 2006.

The 2006 Gallup poll showed that in the U.S., only 14 percent accepted that evolution is "definitely true," while those completely rejecting the theory was about 32%. In this comparison, in the European countries of Denmark, Sweden, and France, somewhere over 80% accepted the concept of evolution. Europeans calling the theory "absolutely false" numbered between 7% in Great Britain to 15% in the Netherlands. 


A 2010 Topline poll conducted in Great Britain asked many questions, but there were two that could be used to measure the differences between that country and the U.S. on the question of evolution. 

“We depend too much on science and not enough on faith”
Agree 29
Disagree 46

”Human beings have evolved from other animals”
Agree 68
Disagree 17

In the Miller et al paper, there are three key influences that seem to make Americans more susceptible to doubting Darwin. First and foremost is the effect of fundamentalist religious belief. Miller shows this effect to be almost twice as prevalent in the U.S. as in Europe. Fundamentalists in the U.S. view Genesis as accurate.

In Europe, after the 16th century break from the Catholic Church, Protestants retained a political hierarchy and maintained it as part of their educational system. "In the United States, partly because of our frontier history, most of the Protestant churches are congregational—they don't belong to any hierarchy," says Miller. "They're free to choose their own ministers and espouse their own beliefs." This is the cafeteria model of religious belief. Keep what you like and discard the rest.

This cafeteria system spawned the creation of Bible colleges that trained preachers in some oddly configured theologies. As Miller says, "If you send them to a Bible college that teaches only the Bible, they'll come back preaching only the Bible," The study authors further stated that "There are very few European counterparts to that." 

Miller’s team next looked at our American political philosophies. They found that individuals identifying as socially conservative Republicans and holding anti-abortion views rejected evolution to a much higher degree than those with more liberal, pro-choice views. 

In Europe no such correlation between Darwin deniers and individuals holding anti-abortion or right-wing views could be determined. Miller says that this indicates evolution in the U.S has become politicized "in a manner never seen in Europe or Japan." 

"In the second half of the 20th century, the conservative wing of the Republican Party has adopted creationism as part of a platform designed to consolidate their support in Southern and Midwestern states," writes Miller. 

Miller offers the example of when Ronald Reagan was running for President. The soon to be President would slip in the comment, "I have no chimpanzees in my family," into his speeches. This was Reagan’s way of denying that humans had evolved from lesser creatures, and it was his way of attracting the votes of lesser educated individuals. When a respected presidential candidate utters such denial, it "lends a degree of legitimacy to the dispute." 

The study found also that some knowledge of genetics is more likely to lead to a positive attitude toward evolution. Unfortunately the study revealed that in the U.S. a rather large percentage of adult Americans are woefully undereducated in even basic scientific knowledge. To illustrate this Miller cites a 2005 study showing that fully 78% of adult Americans believed that animals and plants had evolved from lesser organisms, but in the same study 62% also stated that humans were created by God outside of evolution, and that less than 50% could offer even a minimal definition of DNA. 

Seems that it is pretty easy to understand why Americans tend to be such deniers of accepted scientific theory. While the church in the rest of the world seems to not have so much of an effect, the fundamentalist churches in the U.S. have demonstrated a measurably negative effect on even the most basic and accepted data. 

The conclusion is obvious. Christianity is dumbing America down into a third world status, and the Republican Party is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the fundamentalist Christian church.

###

May 4, 2012

Religious wingnut supports rewriting history

This is what is running for the Texas State Board of Education.

 

The social studies curriculum this loon supports with her own alternate version of history was roundly criticized even by the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute. The religious wingnuts are staging a hostile takeover of Texas public schools with the intent of indoctrinating the children with their false history and religious myths.

In a state where (1) a large percentage of rural, voting age citizens shun education in favor of just accepting what they are told, and (2) 51% identify themselves as "very conservative", and (3) straight party ticket voting is allowed, reason and intellectualism may well be driven somewhere north of the Red River.

I miss Ann Richards and Moly Ivins.

H/T

###

February 8, 2012

Apologizia


A creationist (xian) apologist using the Argument from Design recently made this astounding claim to bolster her argument.

"Did you know that you have over 75 Trillion Living cells within your body, each composed of 200 trillion protein molecules?"

Being a skeptic, not entirely clueless but certainly not good enough with math to process a response on the spot, I resorted to the stall… “Let me get back to you on that.”

Fortunately there are skeptics who are quite good at math and in the analysis of such claims. A little Internet research reveals this particular complexity argument, although new to me, is not uncommon… and neither is the response. All were basically the same so, more for my benefit than hers, I randomly picked one using simple terms.

Proteins are made up of amino acids. For the sake of this discussion we will assume a ridiculously simple organism made of just one kind of protein… composed only of a single, simple amino acid. Glycine is the amino acid with the simplest physical structure: NH2CH2COOH. Adding the molecular weights of each of the components we get about 75.04g/mol of glycine molecules.

(75E12 cells/body)x(200E12 proteins/cell)x(75.04 g/mol)
= 1.87E6 g/body
6.022E23 proteins/mol
= 1870 kg (+/- 4120 lbs.)

This reveals that the organism described by my antagonist would weigh in at somewhat over two tons, even using the most incredibly lightweight of protein.

Weight Watchers anyone?

To make the argument remotely viable would require that complexity be reduced by a factor of three digits… turning trillions into billions. If the full range of amino acids and the proteins of which they are composed were considered this particular complexity argument would be further reduced… but still remaining in the 10 digit plus complexity range.

So we cannot say that the argument to complexity (and thus design) has zero merit, but this particular confrontation does a good job of illustrating the apparent need of theist apologetics to exaggerate. The complexity of organisms, and especially the higher order mammals is incredibly fascinating without the need for exaggeration.

As it turns out the young lady was simply repeating something read in one of the xian publications, which likely was quoting something spouted by yet another apologetic. She had accepted it without question because it confirmed her predisposed bias and stroked her need to believe that her particular mythology was true. Even if the original claim of complexity were accurate, it still fails to imply design. The appeal is circular, having no supporting empirical evidence. Exaggerations and omissions abound.

So the next question posed to my particular gadfly was, “Why do xians so often feel compelled to lie in support of their argument?

###

October 6, 2011

Genius

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

With apologies to my friend David Brady...

I really don't know much about Steve Job's personal life, but if he never got to wake up to the smell of campfires with mist rising off the river, if he never got to run laughing through the pouring rain while camping, or was visited by the Armadillos at Ft Wilderness Campground, or listened to the howl of coyotes from a Panther Junction hillside, or watched the red sun rise on the West Texas prairie while trying to keep warm from a steaming cup of coffee........I'm not sure I would trade lives.

Each of us here live better than the Kings of a century ago. We have found our passion and are likely not slaves to the world order, but have made it our slave. I would like to think I would honor your lives as equal, or even surpassing Steve Jobs. While I admire his successes, His brief life is a good reminder that we have precious little time to enjoy our success and no amount of money can help when your number comes up.

Jobs was riviled by some, loved by many, and there likely is much that could be said to strip away the veneer of greatness. Regardless of how you feel, it must be acknowledged that the man was just crazy enough to change the world .



"Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast."
― Isaac Asimov

###

September 23, 2011

Fun flies when you're having time

Cheeses! That was fast!

A recent article from the economist may explain a bit about why you may feel so rushed and stressed these days.

"Over 23% of all the goods and services made since 1AD were produced from 2001 to 2010, according to an updated version of Angus Maddison's figures."
Then they offer this chart:


The analysis lends somewhat to the overpopulation argument. We have to wonder just how long this old planet can sustain this kind of growth... from both the economic and population perspective. The old gal has got to be feeling some strain. 
###

February 12, 2011

Elementary

For this Darwin Day let us discuss anniversaries, and we will begin with a riddle.

What is the common link between the years 1809, 1852, 1859, 1949, 1984 and 2011? I’ll explain, but perhaps it is best to take these a little out of order. This may seem a bit chaotic and some may begin to doubt my sanity… but here goes.

Today is the 12th of February, 2011… which is just another date on the calendar to most… except that today marks 202 years since the day of Charles Darwin’s birth… in 1809.

It was in 1949 that author Eric Arthur Blair published what would become his most popular work. Blair was a popular author in his time, with eight books already in print. One of these was a runaway best selling novel relating a fairy tale of animals on a farm and illustrating the failures inherent to communism.

Never heard of him? Perhaps that is because all of Blair’s works were published under a pseudonym, including that 1949 futuristic novel that raised the ominous specter of Big Brother watching.

It is perhaps simple coincidence that George Orwell’s epic work is titled 1984, which is the year Alex Trebek first hosted the very popular and long-running television game show we know as Jeopardy.

Another very popular author, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, is best known as the creator of the fictitious super sleuth, Sherlock Holmes. All but four of the Holmes novels were narrated in the first person by another fictitious character, John H. Watson, MD. Dr. Watson’s birth date, according to Doyle, was July 7, 1852.

This may seem like circles upon circles, but as unlikely as it may seem, Doyle’s character Dr. Watson is the common thread linking most of the pieces of this seemingly chaotic piece. I’ll let IBM’s newest supercomputer explain… the IBM computer that goes by the name… Watson.
IBM’s Watson, a very high level of development in the evolution of artificial intelligence, is the product of a collaborative international team of some really bright nerds. These engineers are as representative of high-level human evolution as Watson is of computer evolution. Cream of the crop… they are.

IBM's Watson seems to enjoy playing Alex Trebek’s Jeopardy, and in the next few days the machine will have the chance to match wits with the two highest scoring human Jeopardy champions in the history of the program; Ken Jennings and Brad Rutler. Watson sparred with these two in practice matches already, and so far has triumphed. Practice likely will have honed both the organic and electronic minds, so the contest will likely be worth watching. We get that chance day after tomorrow, with a three-game match starting February 14th.

By now you may have guessed that this message is about evolution. Indeed it is, and it is the theory of evolution that gives us reason to celebrate this anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth. Darwin’s observations over the five-year voyage of the HMS Beagle led eventually to another book of note… a wholly insignificant little tome titled On the Origin of Species.

An insignificant little tome that helped change the worldview of one specie in particular.

Happy birthday, Mr. Darwin. I raise my glass to you.

###

This is not the Darwin Day message I had planned… but for some reason it seems so much more appropriate. The piece I’d originally drafted will be posted at a later date.

###