"evolution" is one of my google alerts. Along with "The Evolution of Special Effects" and "The Evolution of Tom Cruise" I see scientific articles/blogs on evolution along with blog posters taking pot shots at evolutionary theory.
One that I took note of was a Jewish Blog called Chabad, which had a short piece on evolution followed by various people agreeing or disagreeing with the original blog entry.
In my mind, the article had nothing to do with evolution and the facts of the theory, but of how morally speaking, believing in God is better than believing in evolution.
I don't actually know if this is true or not. I have no idea (in general, I think truth is superior to delusion). The thing is, does that have anything to do with whether evolution is correct or not? The big, bright, shiny word that springs to mind is "irrelevant".
What if believing the laws of motion allowed you to launch missiles into third world countries? Oh wait! It does! We shouldn't believe in them! My reaction in a posted comment said pretty much that. What does the morality of the question have to do with evolution?
The funniest thing about the blog is that as I tried to post corrections to people's misconceptions, the moderator seemed to get annoyed with me and started disallowing my posts. That was after quoting me incorrectly and then removing the comment when I corrected him.
I guess with a moderated blog, you can allow and disallow whomever you like and colour the responses in a certain light. As obvious as that is, I hadn't considered it before and thought that moderation was more about filtering out bad language and abusive comments.
I have rarely worried about evolution dissenters before, after all, what does scientific illiteracy really matter? These people still use computers, cell phones and cars, all of which were produced through the same science that produced evolution. No one seems to notice that and by posting on line, they are nearly self refuting.
Showing posts with label evolution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label evolution. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Evolution as simply as I can explain it
Evolution says that all life forms are related.
I have 2nd, 3rd and 4th cousins and if you go back further, my more distant cousins include everyone on earth.
In EXACTLY the same way, all animals are related to us if you go back even further, so are plants and bacteria. There is no difference in the relations except how far back in time you trace the ancestors.
Little changes creep in over time. We can easily see the physical differences between Chinese and Europeans. If you go back further, the differences are even greater and you have apes, monkeys, dogs, mice, worms and eventually plants.
Everything else is just details.
I have 2nd, 3rd and 4th cousins and if you go back further, my more distant cousins include everyone on earth.
In EXACTLY the same way, all animals are related to us if you go back even further, so are plants and bacteria. There is no difference in the relations except how far back in time you trace the ancestors.
Little changes creep in over time. We can easily see the physical differences between Chinese and Europeans. If you go back further, the differences are even greater and you have apes, monkeys, dogs, mice, worms and eventually plants.
Everything else is just details.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
To poll or not to poll...
From the mouth of the discovery institute comes "The More They Know Darwin, The Less They Want Darwin-Only Indoctrination" where they say that polls show that the more a country knows about the Theory of Evolution, the more they want to teach "alternatives" like Intelligent Design or Creationism.
Hmmm... I can't think of anything LESS relevant to the entire topic of evolution and education. Since when do we go out polling the population to see what should be taught in science classes? Imagine a physics professor in front of a group of university students saying, "Hey kids, instead of teaching the intended String Theory class, I'm going to give you how atoms are controlled by little fairies kept in bottles on the moon. The US population has decided that it should have equal weight."
Seriously - it is completely irrelevant.
Ken Miller was dead on when he said "If I had to give a prize for the best idea that anyone in the antievolution movement has ever had, I'd award it to whomever came up with the term 'Intelligent Design'."
The term itself is all anyone usually knows about it. After that, all the BS and sciency sounding jargon is enough to fool most people. What's the alternative to 'intelligent design'? Something un-intelligent and non-designed I guess.
Some things cheese me off. The Discovery Institute is one of them. They are a bunch of scientific minded individuals, who are smart enough to know better, but practice spinning lies to the population in hopes that they will convince some people to believe their BS. I doubt there are more than one or two in their think-tank who actually believe what they are saying. Certainly not Michael Behe or William Dembski, both of whom are complete and utter liars who aren't just misguided morons, but know enough to realize that what they are saying just isn't true.
You'd think that Behe would go away after having his books completely trashed by intelligent five year olds with a passing knowledge of evolution, or that Dembski would finally man up and produce some math that other people could actually see. Dembski's promise of an equation that can tell the difference between designed and non-designed items (genetics, mountains, sculptures?) has been in the works for 10+ years and is still just a no-show. Strangely enough - there are people who still take him seriously.
Scientifically speaking, intelligent design and creationism are the same as astrology and voodoo for what they add to an understanding of the complexities of life. The world would be a better place if they didn't exist.
Hmmm... I can't think of anything LESS relevant to the entire topic of evolution and education. Since when do we go out polling the population to see what should be taught in science classes? Imagine a physics professor in front of a group of university students saying, "Hey kids, instead of teaching the intended String Theory class, I'm going to give you how atoms are controlled by little fairies kept in bottles on the moon. The US population has decided that it should have equal weight."
Seriously - it is completely irrelevant.
Ken Miller was dead on when he said "If I had to give a prize for the best idea that anyone in the antievolution movement has ever had, I'd award it to whomever came up with the term 'Intelligent Design'."
The term itself is all anyone usually knows about it. After that, all the BS and sciency sounding jargon is enough to fool most people. What's the alternative to 'intelligent design'? Something un-intelligent and non-designed I guess.
Some things cheese me off. The Discovery Institute is one of them. They are a bunch of scientific minded individuals, who are smart enough to know better, but practice spinning lies to the population in hopes that they will convince some people to believe their BS. I doubt there are more than one or two in their think-tank who actually believe what they are saying. Certainly not Michael Behe or William Dembski, both of whom are complete and utter liars who aren't just misguided morons, but know enough to realize that what they are saying just isn't true.
You'd think that Behe would go away after having his books completely trashed by intelligent five year olds with a passing knowledge of evolution, or that Dembski would finally man up and produce some math that other people could actually see. Dembski's promise of an equation that can tell the difference between designed and non-designed items (genetics, mountains, sculptures?) has been in the works for 10+ years and is still just a no-show. Strangely enough - there are people who still take him seriously.
Scientifically speaking, intelligent design and creationism are the same as astrology and voodoo for what they add to an understanding of the complexities of life. The world would be a better place if they didn't exist.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Is human evolution over?
I have rarely posted any of my discussions on evolution and God or religion on my blog. I don't know why - it's bound to produce a lot of interest, but I have avoided it because it feels like it would end up being a lot of work. Anyway - here goes nothing.
In a recent bold statement, British geneticists Steve Jones said that human evolution has come to an end. He puts it down to 3 basic facts:
All of his points are correct - all of these things are true. Yet, why would he reach a conclusion like that? I don't exactly know.
Firstly, even according to his own words, mutation rates have lowered, not disappeared, so even according to his own facts, evolution has slowed down, not stopped.
Also, as someone who has played with genetic algorithms, I know that selection, not mutation is the driving force behind evolution. Has selection stopped?
Jones would say yes, since people aren't dying early like they used to. However, dying before reproduction is only one part of selection - there is another part: How do we choose mates?
People are very picky (even after taking alcohol into account) - what kind of things do people like in a mate? Both men and women have strong feelings about who they would pick to have children with.
I have no doubt that human evolution is proceeding in complete ignorance of what Dr. Jones concludes. No doubt, in a few years, the idea that human evolution has stopped will be look at like an earth centered universe.
In a recent bold statement, British geneticists Steve Jones said that human evolution has come to an end. He puts it down to 3 basic facts:
- Older men are having fewer children (older men have more mutated sperm, so this influences the mutation rate)
- A vast majority of people are living to reproduce (not dying before they can reproduce like the "good old days of low life expectancy")
- Small populations that don't mix is pretty much a thing of the past, spreading out genes and "averaging" everyone out
All of his points are correct - all of these things are true. Yet, why would he reach a conclusion like that? I don't exactly know.
Firstly, even according to his own words, mutation rates have lowered, not disappeared, so even according to his own facts, evolution has slowed down, not stopped.
Also, as someone who has played with genetic algorithms, I know that selection, not mutation is the driving force behind evolution. Has selection stopped?
Jones would say yes, since people aren't dying early like they used to. However, dying before reproduction is only one part of selection - there is another part: How do we choose mates?
People are very picky (even after taking alcohol into account) - what kind of things do people like in a mate? Both men and women have strong feelings about who they would pick to have children with.
I have no doubt that human evolution is proceeding in complete ignorance of what Dr. Jones concludes. No doubt, in a few years, the idea that human evolution has stopped will be look at like an earth centered universe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
