tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11327469055067758582024-03-05T04:28:22.559-08:00Dueling DogmaGranthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14151416582796784877noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1132746905506775858.post-71271992334188305602010-11-02T10:21:00.000-07:002010-11-02T10:23:16.846-07:00Faith Balanced By ReasonI recently ran into someone using that phrase in a discussion I was involved in. In about half a second this jumped into my brain:<br />
<br />
<object height="346" width="576"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8ljv-5bLTAM?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8ljv-5bLTAM?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="576" height="346"></embed></object><br />
<br />
Because the truth is there is no such thing as "balancing" faith with reason, at least not the kind of "faith" we are talking about in the context of religion which is where this phrase is inevitably utilized. Faith is UNreason. Faith is what is resorted to when you realize reason isn't going to support you believing in that thing you really want to believe in. But people don't want to look at it that way, so they instead try to make this silly argument that if they mix in <em>enough </em>reason over <em>here</em> then that it somehow mysteriously offsets the areas where they're not being reasonable over <em>there</em>. <br />
<br />
Sorry folks, doesn't work that way.Granthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14151416582796784877noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1132746905506775858.post-34861100927314004032010-08-04T08:58:00.000-07:002010-08-04T08:58:30.126-07:00The Abortion DebateSo I was reading Andrew Sullivan's blog the other day and came across a reference to <a href="http://trueslant.com/erikkain/2010/07/29/abortion-and-slavery/">this bit of nonsense</a> from E.D. Kain. The entire thing can be read at the link, an excerpt follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote>If you believe in your heart of hearts that an unborn child is nevertheless a child – a living, growing, human being – and yet the law of the land dictates that said living, growing human being is not in possession of even the most basic right – the right to life – then how different is this from slavery? </blockquote><br />
<br />
Ugh. Let us re-phrase Kain's idiotic comment in a different context. I believe we can all grant that I am a person? And that I myself enjoy a "right to life"? Tomorrow I am diagnosed with a serious illness. My liver is shutting down. I'm dead in a day if I don't find a liver donor to donate a piece of their liver to me to keep me alive.<br />
<br />
There is one compatible donor available.<br />
<br />
They say no.<br />
<br />
OMG Slavery! My right to life has been denied to me! <br />
<br />
Is anyone incapable of seeing the idiocy of <i>that</i> statement? Yes... I have a right to life... however NO person, anywhere in our society, under any conditions... enjoys the kind of "right to life" Kain is claiming is being denied to the fetus. A right to life that over-rides another person's right to control over their own damn body. I cannot declare that because I need a piece of that person's liver to continue living they are legally required to consent to the surgery to cut it out of them and give it to me because I have a "right to life". <br />
<br />
But let's go further.<br />
<br />
I've been in a car accident. Some idiot drunk driver swerved into my lane and I'm in bad shape. I need a blood transfusion or I'm going to bleed out. I'm a rare blood type. There is exactly one person available who give me the blood to keep me alive. Just give me some damn blood... a little prick with a needle and some temporary inconvenience. Almost non-existent risk. I STILL can't invoke any "right to life" to make that person do it because it's their damn body, not mine.<br />
<br />
The person in question is the drunk driver who hit me.It's his fault I'm in this situation! Guess what? STILL can't force them to do it. Their body, their call, no exceptions EVER. And I am not being in any way made a "slave" by having some non-existent right to commandeer another person's body to keep me alive denied to me. And there is damn good reason for that, going down the road where you start saying people can place themselves in positions where they irrevocably forfeit the right to control over their own bodies? THAT gets us slavery.<br />
<br />
And if I, an undisputed person with a "right to life", can't require another person to do something as trivial to their body as give a little blood against their will to save my life then someone explain to me what "right to life" Kain is blathering about that would let another "person" require a woman to undergo an entire nine month pregnancy and the act of birth against her will, which is what we are talking about when we talk about making abortion illegal.<br />
<br />
If Kain wants to toss the word "slavery" around he might want to take a good long look at what the word means and then have a good long think about what making abortion illegal would involve. He's directing the term at the wrong side of this argument.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote></blockquote>Granthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14151416582796784877noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1132746905506775858.post-40461884790054179512010-07-16T11:45:00.000-07:002011-05-09T08:53:49.963-07:00Ervin Laszlo's ForumAnyone who has actual read through the older postings here may be aware that an article he wrote provoked the first substantive post on this blog. <br />
<br />
Since then he's established what he is calling the "Forum On Science And Spirituality". So far it is heavy on the latter and light on the former.<br />
<br />
The most recent posting there to catch my eye is one that decided to make use of a popular tactic employed by people who peddle bizarre claims that science has dismissed or shot down. It goes something like "oh yeah!? Well scientists thought Einstein was wrong once upon a time!". <br />
<br />
The offending article in question is <a href="http://ervinlaszlo.com/forum/2010/07/12/the-real-issue/">right here</a>.<br />
<br />
My response can be read in the comments section there, or right here:<br />
<br />
=====================================================<br />
<br />
I find myself continually disappointed in the understanding of basic scientific principles demonstrated by contributors to what is supposed to be a “science and spirituality” forum. This time we find ourselves confronted with the old canard that once upon a time people resisted proposals from the likes of Einstein or Galileo and therefore science types should be more open minded to new ideas because they’ve been wrong to dismiss hypotheses before.<br />
<br />
Completely overlooking the fact that these were both examples of science working the way it is *supposed* to work. Science is skeptical by design, and for good reason. You are not entitled to simply stroll in with a new hypothesis that sounds interesting and have everyone instantly take you seriously. You WILL be challenged, vigorously and ruthlessly. Your idea WILL be required to bring evidence to the table to support it… the more “revolutionary” it is the higher the bar will be set because the more currently established evidence it must call into question and require re-interpretation of and we don’t just do that willy nilly because someone thinks “wouldn’t it be neat if…” That would result in limitless wastes of everyone’s time to the detriment of the entire process. Sagan summed this principle up most succinctly with his observation that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.<br />
<br />
You will notice that initially harshly challenged these revolutionaries may have been.. but they were given opportunity to make their cases, and when that was done their ideas were relatively rapidly accepted, incorporated, and built upon. If you have a revolutionary idea that is actually correct, then you can find the evidence to demonstrate that and you can present it, and your hypothesis will undergo *and survive* all the testing and challenges and attempts to falsify it which it will then be endlessly subjected to and science will continue it’s march forward with your new idea tucked firmly in with the other theories and hypotheses which have met the very deliberately harshly rigorous criteria science sets for claims to knowledge. If you cannot bring that evidence to the table then your idea will rightly be marched right over top of and ground underfoot.<br />
<br />
To imply that the proper and deliberate application of the critical review required by the scientific method is nothing more than the stubborn clinging to of “old dogmas”, and to attempt to draw any degree of relation between this and the resistance to contradictory information encountered in the confines of religious teachings and church hierarchies demonstrates a profound lack of familiarity with how science operates and why it enjoys it’s unparalleled success at uncovering new information about the world while slaying erroneous or just plain useless ideas one after another.Granthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14151416582796784877noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1132746905506775858.post-25495429876097771502010-07-08T12:35:00.000-07:002010-07-08T12:35:49.276-07:00SaganI miss that guy... as a posting at Pharyngula just highlighted.<br />
<br />
<object height="308" width="512"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pxlPVSAnWOo&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pxlPVSAnWOo&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="512" height="308"></embed></object>Granthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14151416582796784877noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1132746905506775858.post-3832560469920489252010-07-08T11:16:00.000-07:002011-05-09T08:57:51.663-07:00Ignorant, Stupid, or Delusional?a.k.a. "the three degrees of cluelessness".<br />
<br />
It's an unfortunate fact that there is a strong tendency for people to lump these three things together, mainly because their observable effects tend to be prettty much identical... the making of spectacularly stupid statements.<br />
<br />
The problem is if you don't differentiate between someone saying something stupid because they've never been taught any better, someone saying something stupid because they're genuinly not bright, and someone saying something stupid because they've decided they have a preferred view of the world and to hell with any pesky facts that contradict it... then you've basically decided that you're not in the business of changing anyone's mind about anything. The status quo is just fine with you. For example, <a href="http://duelingdogma.blogspot.com/2010/06/people-who-just-arent-helping.html">this guy</a> appears to have no interest in doing anything but hurling invective at people on the internat all day. Does he need to differentiate between the ignorant and the stupid to do so? Well, no. I'm not sure exactly what he gets out of doing what he does, but whatever.<br />
<br />
For those of us interested in actually teaching people things however differentiating between those three classes of people matters. Because an alternate set of terms for them is:<br />
<br />
Teachable, Teachable With Difficulty, and Not Worth The Effort.<br />
<br />
If you are responding to every stupid infactual statement someone makes by calling the person who makes it a retarded fuckwad you are driving away those that might be educated with even a little effort. And if the existence of people who make stupid statements is irritating enough to you that it evokes that kind of response one would think you had a legitimate interest in reducing their numbers. Which means <i>at least</i> engaging with the teachable, if not the "teachable with difficulty". <br />
<br />
<b>Identification</b><br />
<br />
At first glance it can be hard to tell the difference between these three types of people of course. Some individual came storming in to your discusion of the evidence for the age of the earth ranting about how the magnitic field of the planet is decaying therefore the earth HAS TO BE YOUNG!!!!<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Are they saying that because nobody has ever actually taught them that the manetic field fluctuates constantly, and even sometimes reverse itself? Are they saying that because people have tried to teach them that but they're too stupid to understand the concept? Or are they saying that because they work for Answers In Genesis and they spend their entire existence thinking up ridiculous reasons to believe the bible is literally true and have no interest in any data that says anything else? Who knows? You can't tell from the statement itself.... you're going to have to exchange at least a few sentences with this person to find out. <br />
<br />
If the first one is "you're a brain dead moron" the only thing you're goin to find out is that people react with hostility to being called a brain dead moron. If on the other hand your first sentence is "I think you may be unaware that the earth's magnetic field actually does this..." you are better positioned to provoke different responses from the three different groups of people.<br />
<br />
The ignorant (btw, don't call them that) may not immeditately believe you but should be open to having it demonstrated to them.<br />
<br />
The stupid may not be able to grasp what you just said but might be reachable if you can figure out a way to simplify the subject.<br />
<br />
The delusional will have a tendency to declare that that's just what the evil evolutionist conspiracy wants us to think and declare you hate Jesus... or something along those lines at least. You can write these people off. At this point feel free to call them brain dead morons if that does something for you.<br />
<br />
<b>Engaging</b><br />
<br />
Once you have some idea what you're dealing with you can decide how to proceed. If you have a relatively intelligent person who just doesn't have the information required to properly understand the subject, give it to them! Do it respectfully, without implying they're an idiot for not knowing it already, and you have decent chances of reaching these people.<br />
<br />
If you have someone who just doesn't seem to have the brain power to handle the subject it's trickier (and more depressing). It really depends on exactly how well YOU know the subject, and what skills you have in simplifying complex subject matter <i>without</i> distorting it, which is harder than it sounds. You may want to make the attempt, you may not. Your call. If you don't however... PLEASE try not to poison the well for someone down the road who might want to try teaching this person. Just let them know you don't think they're getting the full picture and disengage... don't get in a screaming match with them about how they're too stupid to discuss this with.<br />
<br />
If you have a deluded person, the discussion is your amusement park. I really couldn't care less how you play with them. Enjoy!Granthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14151416582796784877noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1132746905506775858.post-46011089860084824512010-07-06T10:13:00.000-07:002010-07-07T12:11:54.729-07:00Ranking Presidents<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">Every few years the Sienna College Research Institute conducts a survey of historians to rank the US presidents. they just finished the latest round since 2002. Anyone who follows politics in the US even a little will probably have heard Bush or his supporters saying how history will judge his legacy kindly. Well, history has a long way to go:</div><br />
<a href="http://www.siena.edu/uploadedfiles/home/parents_and_community/community_page/sri/independent_research/Presidents%20Release_2010_final.pdf">Worst Ever: A. Johnson, Buchanan, Harding, Pierce and G.W. Bush</a><br />
<br />
Bush was ranked 5th worst of all time. <br />
<br />
Now that alone is pretty bad... but frankly if I was surprised by anything it was that he managed to come in that high. So I decided to figure out why. It's just... sad.<br />
<br />
The rankings were conducted based on 20 independent criteria... these were Bush's rankings in each (out of 43):<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhjL-0D94oEvqYegm-88cKl9yrPySkcE-vs0t7Fqk5SRuxHVX4396knMd0X_vjsUUgZNkPXBGswGC7_q_pOspjPAzsLTuzTl653mUAwUjop0pSTPo9g38xbVV7MzFLnP3-A62idCk1upo/s1600/untitled.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="252" rw="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhjL-0D94oEvqYegm-88cKl9yrPySkcE-vs0t7Fqk5SRuxHVX4396knMd0X_vjsUUgZNkPXBGswGC7_q_pOspjPAzsLTuzTl653mUAwUjop0pSTPo9g38xbVV7MzFLnP3-A62idCk1upo/s400/untitled.JPG" width="400" /></a></div><br />
<br />
Now, there are 3 categories he did uncharacteristically well on relative to his general performance... and 2 he did somewhat better on. Let's take them in order.<br />
<br />
<strong>Bush's Great Presidential Strength</strong><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Criteria # 7. Bush's top score out of all 20 criteria evaluated. He ranked 18th out of 43 on this one. It was....</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><em><strong>Luck.</strong></em></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">I shit you not.</div><a name='more'></a><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Now I'm not sure which to be more dumbfounded about... that this criteria was used at all, or that this ended up being Bush's strong point. How exactly is "luckiness" a defining quality of how good a president is at their job? Do people think if you're good you somehow create luck? And how in the world were the historians surveyed supposed to evaluate how "lucky" the presidents were anyway? "Well... the midwest wasn't struck by a rogue asteroid during Reagan's administration, gosh that's pretty lucky..."??? And that aside... BUSH... LUCKY? Lucky to what... get elected to a second term? What the hell else "lucky" happened to the guy? Lucky 9/11 happened on his watch? Lucky the WMDs weren't actually there? Lucky he never stumbled across Osama? Lucky the financial sector imploded before he managed to leave office? Lucky that hurricane hit New Orleans and gave him the opportunity to showcase his adminstration's mad emergency management skills? WHAT was he lucky about?</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Ok... 18th isn't exactly saying he's history's luckiest president or anything, but still... <em>you have got to be kidding me.</em></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><strong>Bush's <em>Other</em> Great Strength</strong></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Criteria # 9. This one was right behind luck, Bush came in at 19th out of 43 on this one. And it was...</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><em>Willing To Take Risks</em></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Oh for the love of...</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Ok, let me explain something to the people making this poll. "Risk taking" CAN be a good thing. But it's just a little tiny bit dependent on some other factors. For example, you probably don't want to take STUPID risks. Being willing to take STUPID risks is bad, not good. So sure, give me a highly intelligent risk taker who knows when to roll the dice. Oh look! One of the criteria was "Intelligence"! Let's see, criteria #18, well let's just see how Bush sco... ugh...</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><em>FORTY SECOND. </em>Out of 43 freaking presidents. Somehow Harding managed to beat him to the bottom of the list on this one. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Well ok... you say he's dumb as a brick but he's lucky! Remember? He'll just fluke into avoiding the rally big critical mistakes when he takes all these risks! So this will totally pay off! Wait... what? "Ability To Avoid Critical Errors" was a category too? Great! Criteria # 19... we'll just go look at how he scored there and....</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><em>THIRTY EIGHTH. </em>Thirty eighth out of forty three presidents. This guy never met a crucial mistake he didn't want to get to know better. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Ok, so the mentally challenged guy who can't avoid making crucial mistakes is <em>willing to take risks</em>... who thinks this should be considered a <em>strength</em>? </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Moving on... </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><strong>Bush's 3rd and-4th Greatest Presidential Strengths</strong></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Criteria #2: Party Leadership: <strong><em>23/43</em></strong></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Criteria #4: Relationship With Congress: <strong><em>32/43</em></strong></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">This just keeps getting worse.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Ok.. .so now we have the second least intelligent president in history who couldn;t avoid making a critical error to save his life but is totally willing to take risks... who has some moderate skill at convincing his party and the Congress to follow him over the cliff. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Wow. And these are his relative STRENGTHS. These pulled his average UP.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">The only other criteria Bush scored out of the bottom 6 on... and that just barely, was criteria #1. Background (Education, experience, etc...). Lot of good that did us. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">The bottom line is that I have difficulty imagining a more disastrous combination of factors then the ones we just saw listed here. If the nation had had an error prone moron who at least KNEW that and avoided taking risks it probably would have muddled through only mildly traumatized. Or if the country had an error prone moron who was clueless about that but who was also completely incompetent at persuading Congress to go along with his idiocy the damage might have been contained.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">But no... the U.S. got Bush. The walking disaster idiot savant.</div>Granthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14151416582796784877noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1132746905506775858.post-65022790423082319502010-06-24T10:53:00.000-07:002010-06-24T10:53:44.877-07:00Defining a BailoutDid I mention I'm Canadian?<br />
<br />
Well, I am. And recently while I've been keeping up on economic news I've been encoutering two really popular themes about the home country.<br />
<br />
<ol><li>"Canada's banks are really, really stable."</li>
<li>"That's a LIE! The government gave them a massive bailout!!!"</li>
</ol>So, which is it? (Spoiler: It's the first one.)<br />
<br />
First, some examples of people making the latter claim. <a href="http://www.pacificfreepress.com/news/1/6260-when-a-bailout-isnt-a-bailout-when-news-is-fiction.html">This guy at Pacific free Press</a>. <a href="http://dailyreckoning.com/dont-underestimate-canadian-economic-growth/#comment-87857">"Sean" in the comments section.</a> <a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12007">The people at "Global Research".</a> etc... <br />
<br />
I'm particularly dissapointed in that last one... I'd expect someone who uses the word "research" in the name of their very organization to, well, research things. And it's not like it takes a lot of reseacrching to find the problem in these claims after all. Opening a dictionary and looking up the definition of two little words would get the job done:<br />
<br />
<ol><li>Bailout: <em>noun</em>. A rescue from financial distress.</li>
<li>Insurance: <em>noun</em>. A promise of reimbursement in the case of future loss.</li>
</ol>Now, let's look at what that link at "Global research" has to say about how the Canadian governemnt "bailed out" the Canadian banks, shall we? I'm going to go ahead and highlight a word in the statement they spend consireable time ranting about:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>"Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) will purchase up to $25 billion in <strong>insured </strong>mortgage pools as part of the Government of Canada’s plan, announced today, to maintain the availability of longer-term credit in Canada." (Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Supports Canadian Credit Markets, CHMC Press Release, 10 October 2009)</blockquote>So apparently the Canadian banks were rescued from the financial distress of... holding a bunch of mortgages that they were guaranteed not to lose a penny on. <br />
<br />
Wow, they must be so grateful for that "bailout".<br />
<br />
What actually happened, is that the government bought the mortgages so that the banks would have more cash on hand to engage in more lending. And the reason the government wanted this to happen is because at the time the global recession was seizing up credit markets all over the world and they wanted to make sure Canadians kept ready access to credit while this was happening. It was a simple recession-fighting measure that had nothing to do with rescuing (a.k.a "bailing out") the Canadian banks. There was nothing to rescue them from.Granthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14151416582796784877noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1132746905506775858.post-19410778924043706132010-06-17T12:06:00.000-07:002010-06-17T12:06:14.156-07:00People who just aren't helping.This will require a little background...<br />
<br />
A few weeks ago while I was engaging in some discussion about evolution in a comments section somewhere I encountered a poster who goes by the name of "Human Ape" who is... well, very angry about some things. That's something I can empathize with, since I happen to get pretty angry about a lot of the same things he does. <br />
<br />
I didn't really have much interaction with him but apparently he clicked through the links to my blog, read some stuff here, and posted a comment in "<a href="http://duelingdogma.blogspot.com/2010/04/creationist-mindset.html">The Creationist Mindset</a>" post stating, and I quote:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><em>"Lance is a typical creationist. Too stupid to understand anything. I admire the patience you have with idiots."</em></blockquote>I replied, and moved on. Then the other day while I was wandering through the blogosphere I came across <a href="http://darwin-killed-god.blogspot.com/2010/06/lets-compare-science-of-evolutionary.html">this post</a> on his blog. <br />
<br />
<blockquote><em>First of all, asshole Christians, intelligent design creationism and Bible creationism are the exact same things, and if you deny this obvious fact you're a fucking liar.</em><br />
<em></em><br />
<br />
<em>If you retards call magic "design" it's still magic. Understand Christian assholes? If not you can fuck off.</em><br />
<em><br />
</em><br />
<em>...</em></blockquote>...and, well, it continued on.<br />
<br />
Recognizing the author as the same person who just three weeks ago was admiring my "patience with idiots" I left a comment suggesting that getting that worked up about the issue was counter-productive and he really might want to try taking a deep breath and counting to 10 before posting these things. Which led to <a href="http://duelingdogma.blogspot.com/2010/06/that-pesky-second-law-of-thermodynamics.html#comments">this</a>, and <a href="http://darwin-killed-god.blogspot.com/2010/06/atheist-wimps-who-suck-up-to-religious.html">this</a>.<br />
<br />
Apparently in three weeks Human Ape's position on the possession of patience with dealing with creationists had gone from "I admire that" to "that makes you responsible for terrorism". <br />
<br />
That's quite the impressive turnaround in his worldview in less than a month. <br />
<br />
Now the problem I have here isn't with some angry person on the internet calling me names. It's with some angry person on the internet running around everywhere making atheists look like people with Tourette syndrome and serious anger management issues. I'm engaged in an effort to employ reason and logic to bring undertanding of certain complex scientific realities to people who don't understand them and don't believe in them... and I really don't need my position being associated with conduct like this. It doesn't exactly make my task easier. I can understand the occasional outburst, dealing with this particular debate can ger *really* incredibly frustrating... but when you start declaring that the only two sides of the issue are that you're either screaming profanity at creationists or you're a terrorist sympathizer we're a little beyond that.<br />
<br />
Now apparently making this point to this particular person is not really an option that is available consideering the response it generated the first time I tried it... but for anyone else out there feeling frustrated when you discuss evolution or religion with fundamentalists and feeling the urge to scream obscenities at them... could you please fight it? For me? <br />
<br />
I'll give you a cookie...Granthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14151416582796784877noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1132746905506775858.post-69735593678713219602010-06-11T11:43:00.000-07:002010-06-11T12:04:54.271-07:00That Pesky Second Law of ThermodynamicsIt seems creationists never get tired of this one. I've lost count of how many times I've been told that it makes evolution impossible, and I just ran into someone using it again <a href="http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/06/evolution-and-entropy-magic-of-sunlight.html">over here</a>. <br />
<br />
Let's begin by getting something straight. This is the actual, real life, second law of thermodynamics:<br />
<br />
∫(δQ/T) ≥0 <br />
<br />
It is not some kind of cosmic legislation written down in the Universe's list of statutes that states "things shall not get more complex naturally!" It's a mathematical expression. More precisely, it's a mathematical expression that describes <em>a specific set of conditions</em>. But when you need to explain what that means to people who don't "speak math" you have to translate it into english instead, which is where the problem happens.<br />
<br />
You can do it well:<br />
<br />
"<em>The total energy available to do work in an isolated system can never increase."</em> or... <em>"The total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease" </em>or several other formulations that are all equally valid. (The "isolated system" part is particularly critical)<br />
<br />
Or you can do it like creationists:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://totalcompute.com/yolandaginn/2010/05/26/second-law-of-thermodynamics-and-evolution/"><em>"The Second Law of Thermodynamics, simply stated, says that everything has a tendency to run down, decay and get worse, if left to itself.</em></a><br />
<br />
Click the link, I don't make this stuff up. They actually say this. The second law of thermodynamics makes abandoned houses get run down and cars left outside get trashed. It's not just that guy, I've heard this so many times I've lost track. Ugh.<br />
<br />
While we're on the subject, you can do the same thing with the meaning of entropy. <br />
<br />
Real definition: Entropy = The total energy in a system no longer available to perform work.<br />
<br />
Creationist definition: Entropy = Disorder and decay! <br />
<br />
Now to get into why creationists have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to thermodynamics we should start by defining some terms...<br />
<br />
<strong>Entropy</strong>: See above<br />
<strong>System Boundary: </strong>The dividing line between the system you are examining and it's surrounding environment. Can be physical, or simply definitional... but MUST BE SPECIFIED.<br />
<strong>Open System: </strong>A system which can exchange matter and energy with it's surroundings across the system boundary.<br />
<strong>Closed System:</strong> A system that can exchange energy but NOT matter across it's boundary.<br />
<strong>Isolated System:</strong> A system that cannot exchange either matter or energy across it's boundary.<br />
<br />
It's only in that last one where the second law says you can't see a decrease in entropy. Where there is no external source of energy providing fuel for the process the system is going to continuously use up the energy it has available to work with until it's all gone.<br />
<br />
Creationists try to claim the second law means evolution is impossible because it causes localized decreases in entropy. For the second law to actually say that was impossible evolution would have to be doing this without getting the energy for it from anywhere... the earth would have to be <em>an isolated system</em> that does not receive any external energy input. <br />
<br />
So... the next time a creationist tells you the Second Law makes evolution impossible then assuming it's daytime tell them to go outside, look up, and ask them if they see a giant ball of burning plasma in the sky bombarding them with light and heat. (a.k.a.... energy!)<br />
<br />
I almost feel embarassed to be burning a post on such a worn out issue, but as long as creationists keep using it people need to keep correcting them I guess.Granthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14151416582796784877noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1132746905506775858.post-48589111295755521862010-06-10T13:42:00.000-07:002010-06-10T14:54:54.538-07:00The (Vastly) Underappreciated Importance Of FalsifiabilityI would say this is something that's usually only properly appreciated by people with a science background... except I've met so many people who work in the sciences who also don't get it that I would feel dishonest making that claim. <br />
<br />
<div></div>The quick and dirty version of the concept of falsifiability is if you're going to make a claim, or present a theory/hypothesis... you need to know<em> how to tell if you're wrong</em>. That sounds like it should be simple and straightforward but it just flies right over the heads of an astounding number of people on a regular basis. Religious people in particular, but it's not just isolated there. I know a disturbing number of people who think of themselves as rational scientifically minded individuals and are actually quite skilled and knowledgeable in the sciences, who simply do not properly appreciate <strong><em>why</em></strong> falsifiability is so important. They reach the point of knowing they have to be able to tell if they're wrong so they can slap a "right" or "wrong" label on an idea and stop there. It's a little more than that.<br />
<br />
See, the primary way we figure out if we're wrong about something is we use it to make a prediction, then test it. When we hit a situation where something is unfalsifiable it's generally for one of two reasons. <br />
<ol><li>It can be used to predict<em> nothing. </em></li>
<li>It can be used to predict <em>anything.</em></li>
</ol>Now in the first case it should be obvious that this makes whatever idea you came up with effectively worthless. It doesn't actually contribute to our understanding of how the world works in any way whatsoever if it can't make any predictions about how that world will behave. As soon as I post that list however I find people have a tendency not to understand why that <em>second</em> one is bad. Being able to predict anything! Wow! That's great!<br />
<br />
No... that's<strong> <em>useless.</em></strong><br />
<br />
In this context, "predict anything" means no matter what happens, no matter what outcome a test has, you can claim it was predicted by your "theory". To demonstrate why this is so spectacularly pointless, an example of such a "theory":<br />
<br />
<strong>Newton Vs. The Matter Directing Elves</strong><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Let's say we have two competing "theories" about how stuff moves around the universe... Newton's laws of motion, and the Matter Drecting Elves theory that says magic invisble elves are actually moving everything around.<br />
<br />
Now, the former makes specific, testable predictions that everything is going to behave in a certain way if it is right. It tells us where the earth is going to be in an hour, where that asteroid over there is going to be in a year, where that bullet you just shot is going to go, etc... <br />
<br />
The latter predicts that absolutely ANYTHING could happen. No possible observation is inconsistent with its claims. It can never, ever, ever, ever be proven wrong. It is totally unassaiable. Completely ironclad.<br />
<br />
If tomorrow the moon started orbiting the earth in the opposite direction? Newton's laws are in trouble, but the Matter Directing Elves theory is going strong! They just decided to turn around because they were bored always going the same way or something. Elves theory wins!<br />
<br />
If tomorrow everything in the universe just plain instantly STOPS? Newton's laws have had it. The Matter Directing Elves theory on the other hand is golden. They obviously got tired and/or went on strike over their work conditions. Elves theory wins!<br />
<br />
Etc...<br />
<br />
So if the Matter Directing Elves theory is consistent with ALL possible observations and is NEVER proven wrong... why do we throw it out without giving it a second thought? Because it's worthless. It has exactly as much informational content as if you just said "Something will happen". That is a statement that is always right, and tells you absolutely nothing whatsoever. Pretending that just because something you said is never proven wrong makes it a valid explanation of how the universe operates is absurd. <br />
<br />
The real bar is that it is never proven wrong <strong><em>when it could have been if it was.</em></strong><br />
<br />
If an idea is not falsifiable, it is useless. It tells us nothing. It is an illusion of understanding... sleight of hand, nothing more. You're taking something you have absolutely no clue about, slapping a title on it like "Matter Directing Elves"... then pretending you have explained it just because you assigned responsibility for it to a name you made up.<br />
<br />
And that doesn't just apply to when we're formulating official scientific theories. <br />
<br />
<strong><em>Homework assignment</em></strong><br />
<br />
Someone tell me what observation would falsify the hypothesis "God exists".Granthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14151416582796784877noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1132746905506775858.post-934146093354607082010-06-06T17:19:00.000-07:002010-06-06T17:19:27.756-07:00More On ProbabilityThis might drive home how slippery a subject probability is. Warning... anyone not terribly interested in the finer points of how probabilities of events are calculated will risk being rendered unconscious by reading this post. It is not building up to any profound philosophical or political insights, there's no payoff for you if you wade through it t reach the end... it's just arguing about how to properly move numbers around.<br />
<br />
On the other hand if you are such a hopeless geek that you consider reading about that to be a payoff in itself, carry on.<br />
<br />
There is a raging debate going on in certain quarters about the following question:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>"I have two children. One is a boy. What is the probability I have two boys?"</blockquote>The two answers most people are arguing over are 1 in 2 (50%), and 1 in 3 (33%).<br />
<br />
This is an example of a question where overthinking the problem gets you into trouble. I generally hate to use the term "overthinking", in most cases as far as I'm concerned there's no such thing as too much thinking... but there are exceptions to every rule and this is one of them. <br />
<br />
First, I'm going to do this the easy way.<br />
<br />
One kid is a boy. One kid is of unknown gender. Assuming for the sake of simplicity no biological biases towards a kid being either gender the odds of the unknown kid being a boy are 50%. Therefore the odds of there being two boys is 50%.<br />
<br />
That seems pretty obvious, right? Now let me take you on a trip through the wonderful world of people who love to overcomplicate things and trip themselves up.<br />
<br />
Now, generally speaking there are two ways to approach a problem like this. Start with what you know about the situation, and construct a matrix of all possible outcomes given that information. (The easy way we just used)<br />
<br />
Start with a matrix of all possible outcomes assuming you know NOTHING, then start introducing information and eliminating outcomes that information makes impossible one by one. (a.k.a.: the hard way that is just asking for trouble and gives us answers like 13/27 when people do it wrong)<br />
<br />
Now, for an example of this calculation gone wrong, you can see write-ups of it by a couple of it's advocates. One is at the <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18950-magic-numbers-a-meeting-of-mathemagical-tricksters.html?full=true">New Scientist</a>... and one is in an article in the <a href="http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/mr-smiths-gambling-problem/">NY Times</a>. Neither of these people is anywhere in the neighborhood of being clueless about probability, but that isn't stopping them from making the same error by overcomplicating a simple situation while all the while thinking what they're really doing is revealing a profound counter-intuitive truth that the general public just doesn't understand probability well enough to grasp. The New Scientist write-up is particularly mind-bending since it decides to also introduce the information that the boy we know about was born on a Tuesday then insist that it matters. (It doesn't).<br />
<br />
For the purposes of illustrating the concept, I'm just going to deal with the approach in the Times to the simpler problem, walk through it, and show where it makes it's mistake.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<b>Step 1. Define your search space by listing ALL possible two child combinations by gender.</b><br />
<br />
GG (girl/girl)<br />
BG (boy/girl)<br />
GB (girl/boy)<br />
BB (boy/boy)<br />
<br />
Simple right? Not really. While the listed combinations are 100% correct, the manner in which they have been represented here is setting the stage for the error to come. The designations "B" and "G" are not adequately specific and will cause the people using this method to lose track of what they're really dealing with later.<br />
<br />
<b>Step 2. Assign probabilities to all the possible combinations.</b><br />
<br />
GG = 25%<br />
BG = 25%<br />
GB = 25%<br />
BB = 25%<br />
<br />
This is completely correct.<br />
<br />
<b>3. Introduce the information about the two children we have been given and adjust odds accordingly.</b><br />
<br />
"One is a boy" tells us at least one of the children is absolutely, definitely, 100% certainly a boy. <br />
<br />
So people following this approach do what? Well obviously they eliminate the "GG" option because that's now impossible:<br />
<br />
<strike>GG = 25%</strike><br />
<br />
BG = 25%<br />
GB = 25%<br />
BB = 25%<br />
<br />
And adjust the odds of the remaining possibilities accordingly:<br />
<br />
BG = 33%<br />
GB = 33%<br />
BB = 33%<br />
<br />
Ta Da! The odds of having two boys is only 33%!!!!<br />
<br />
And, the error has been made. They didn't finish accounting for the information that one of the kids was DEFINITELY a boy before rushing on to declare what the odds were. And the reason they missed it is at least partly because of how they presented the information in step 1. There is more information content in that statement than they are seeing. Here's what they should have done (IF they insist on using this silly unnecessarily complicated method in the first place that is):<br />
<br />
<b>Step 1. Define your search space by listing ALL possible two child combinations by gender.</b><br />
<br />
G(1)G(2)<br />
B(1)G(2)<br />
G(1)B(2)<br />
B(1)B(2)<br />
<br />
See, here was the problem the first time around. It is not wrong to list BG and GB as two distinct and seperate possible outcomes. But in doing so you are also stating that the order in which a given "B" and "G" are placed MATTERS. So not keeping track of which one you're talking about will cause you problems later.<br />
<br />
<b>Step 2. Assign probabilities to all the possible combinations.</b><br />
<br />
i: G(1)G(2) = 25%<br />
<br />
ii: B(1)G(2) = 25%<br />
iii: G(1)B(2) = 25%<br />
iv: B(1)B((2) = 25%<br />
<br />
Same as before... still completely correct...<br />
<br />
<b>3. Introduce the information about the two children we have been given and adjust odds accordingly.</b><br />
<br />
"One is a boy" tells us at least one of the children is absolutely, definitely, 100% certainly a boy. <br />
<br />
It doesn't tell us which one. Does that mean we ignore that detail? No. That means we have to take into account BOTH possibilties. EITHER the boy we have been told about is B(1) OR the boy we have been told about is B(2). Both of these situations is possible.<br />
<br />
IF he's B(1) then we get this:<br />
<br />
<strike>i: G(1)G(2) = 25%</strike><br />
<br />
ii: <b>B(1)</b>G(2) = 25%<br />
<strike>iii: G(1)B(2) = 25%</strike><br />
iv: <b>B(1)</b>B((2) = 25%<br />
<br />
<br />
...because child (1) can't be a girl if it's a boy (duh). So NOT ONLY is a GG combination impossible, the odds of us having a mixed gender combo have been impacted. On the other hand IF the boy we have been told about is B(2) we get this:<br />
<br />
<strike>i: G(1)G(2) = 25%</strike><br />
<br />
<strike>ii: B(1)G(2) = 25%</strike><br />
iii: G(1)<b>B(2)</b> = 25%<br />
iv: B(1)<b>B(2)</b> = 25%<br />
<br />
...because child 2 can't be a girl if it's a boy (duh again).<br />
<br />
Now... to repeat, we DO NOT KNOW which of these situations we are dealing with. It could be either one. So what is the FULL range of possibilities we now face?<br />
<br />
The boy is B(1), child (2) is a girl = <b>B(1) </b>G(2) = 25%<br />
The boy is (B1), child (2) is a boy= <b>B(1)</b> B(2) =25%<br />
<br />
The boy is B(2), child (1) is a girl= G(1) <b>B(2)</b> =25%<br />
The boy is B(2), child (1) is a boy= B(1) <b>B(2)</b> =25%<br />
<br />
Now, two of those possibilities have two boys in them. And the totals add to 50%. The correct answer, same as the one we get when we do it the much much simpler way at the beginning of the post.<br />
<br />
Or, if you want to think of it another way... before we were told one of the kids was a boy the odds of each of the kids being a girl were 50%. There was a 50% chance the "first" kid was a girl, and there was a 50% chance the "second" kid was a girl. <br />
<br />
Once we were told one of the kids was a boy however, the odds of one of the kids being a girl dropped to 0%... because we know one kid is a boy. We didn't know WHICH kid that had happened for, but we do know it had happened. And the people who argue the answer is 33% and not 50% are not accounting for that detail. <br />
<br />
I anticipate if any advocates of the second approach wander across this they will proceed to lecture me sternly that I don't know what I'm talking about. I'm guessing by claiming that by applying the level of specificity I did to the labels for each child I claimed to know whether the boy that was discussed at the beginning was th oldest or youngest, <i>even though I specifically stated that we don't know that and based the calculations on that being an unknown factor. </i>(I don't know why they do this, but it's been an ongoing theme.)<br />
<br />
The counter argument goes like this. Once they have reached the stage where they eliminate the GG combo as impossible:<br />
<br />
BG = 33%<br />
<br />
GB = 33%<br />
BB = 33%<br />
<br />
They start demanding you tell them which kid is the boy. Is it the first one? You don't know!?!?!? Then that one is still possible! Is it the scond one? You don't know!?!?!? Then that one is also still possible!!!!<br />
<br />
And they're right, but still wrong. See, the total range of options here is not "impossible or JUST AS possible as it was before". <br />
<br />
To demonstrate why, let's play poker (my own unique variant at least).<br />
<br />
We have just started a fresh deck of 52 cards. I have dealt you 5 cards, and myself 5 cards. You have looked at 4 of your cards, and one is face down on the table and you don't know what it is. the 4 cards you can see are a:<br />
2,3,4,6 (different suits)<br />
<br />
You are really hoping that card on the table is a 5. But you have to bet before picking it up and looking at it. So you figure out all the possible straights you could end up getting:<br />
<br />
2,3,4,<b>5(spades)</b>,6 = x% <br />
2,3,4,<b>5(diamonds),</b>6 = x%<br />
2,3,4,<b>5(clubs),</b>6 = x%<br />
2,3,4,<b>5(hearts),</b>6 = x%<br />
<br />
(I don't feel like crunching the numbers and it isn't necessary to demonstrate the concept)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
You add up all those percentages to get your total odds of holding a straight right now. And you're all ready to make your bet. <br />
<br />
Then I tell you I'm holding a 5. (Let's say the rules of the game specify I'm not allowed to lie about my cards, so if I say it it's true)<br />
<br />
Uh oh. I didn't tell you which 5. So using the argument of our friends above:<br />
<br />
Which 5 is it? <br />
Is it the 5 of spades? You dont know!?!?!? Then 2,3,4,5(spades),6 is still possible! You can't eliminate it!<br />
Is it the 5 of diamonds? You don't know!?!?!? Then the 2,3,4,5(diamonds),6 is still possible! You can't eliminate it!<br />
Is it the 5 of clubs? You dont know!?!?!? Then 2,3,4,5(clubs),6 is still possible! You can't eliminate it!<br />
<br />
Is it the 5 of hearts? You don't know!?!?!? Then the 2,3,4,5(hearts),6 is still possible! You can't eliminate it!<br />
<br />
All true statements by the way.<br />
And then you conclude that since you can't eliminate any specific combination up there they are ALL still in play simultaneously and you still have the exact same odds of holding a straight. If you actually thought THAT was a true statement I would be asking you over for a cash game real soon. You see, it doesn't matter that we don't know WHICH possibility to eliminate. All that matters is that we know one of them is no longer possible, and adjust the TOTAL odds accordingly.Granthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14151416582796784877noreply@blogger.com41tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1132746905506775858.post-62515480900389494832010-06-03T11:41:00.000-07:002010-06-03T11:50:45.107-07:00Hypocritical Political Leaders... Better Than The Alternative?Interesting point I saw raised a while back by one of the readers at Andrew Sullivan's blog, which has since been percolating in the back of my brain...is it really always such a bad thing to have hypocritical political leaders?<br />
<br />
The immediate reaction to that question will tend to be an emphatic "yes!", but given the assumption that no politician we ever get in office, anywhere, in any capacity, is ever going to be perfect... do we really want a leader who does the NON-hypocritical thing and says "well, I really have quite a few shortcomings when it comes to financial ethics (for example)... so I'm not going to try and make anyone else play by those rules any better than I do"... or do we want the leader who is going to crack the whip and keep everyone else in line regardless of how good he is at staying in line himself, even if that is hypocritical of them?<br />
<br />
Or the leader who can't stay on a diet, so he does the non-hypocritical thing and refuses to contribute any effort into educating the children of the nation that eating healthy is a good thing?<br />
<br />
Or, pick your personal shortcoming... <br />
<br />
I have to say, after giving it considerably thought, given those two options I kind of want the hypocrite. I mean sure, ideally I'd want the leader who holds the government and the nation to the highest standard AND meets that standard themselves... but let's be realistic. Not happening. Any human being is going to fall short of the standards we'd like to see maintained in *some* area. But we still want the nation held to the highest standards in ALL areas, at least ideally. So... if you look at it a certain way, hurray for hypocrisy!<br />
<br />
On the other hand, there's hypocrisy and there's hypocrisy. For example... if I think it through I'm pretty ok with the guy who rides around in private jets burning through fossil fuels while trying to champion the envirnoment. I mean... bad optics, but I find it hard to get seriously outraged about it. <br />
<br />
However, no matter which way I look at it I get enormously ticked off by the guy who is condemning people as shameful and immoral for their sexual orientation while they're running around Europe with a gay escort they claim is only there to "carry their luggage".<br />
<br />
And the difference between those two that's making me reach different conclusions about how acceptable they are is the first one is an example of someone trying to improve the lives of others with their advocacy even if they're not perhaps living up to their own ideals... and the other is just some jerk who is spreading hatred and bigotry over an issue that I frankly have difficulty believing he actually really thinks is the great evil he runs around telling people it is so that they'll give his organization money to fight it.<br />
<br />
Of course, I appreciate that a certain segment of the population views that last situation differently. Your mileage may vary.Granthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14151416582796784877noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1132746905506775858.post-49356198690713224522010-05-31T13:54:00.000-07:002010-05-31T13:54:45.652-07:00People Don't Understand Media Bias(I'm flirting with starting a running "people don't understand..." theme on the blog, considering the endless supply of topics it supplies.)<br />
<br />
There is a general public awareness, at least in the United States, that there exists this thing called "The Liberal Media". To a certain extent, that label can be justified. Journalism, as a profession, does tend to be populated by people who identify as liberals much more than conservatives. Unfortunately, that isn't how the term is usually used. People aren't claiming there are liberals in the media... they're claiming the content of the media is deliberately and blatantly biased towards liberal ideology.<br />
<br />
Now here's the problem. The people making this claim have a definition of "biased" that is... well... let's call it "divorced from reality". You see, bias in journalism is when instead of reporting the plain facts of the matter at hand, you distort them to say something else that suits your own agenda. In the minds of the people who rant and rave about "The Liberal Media" however bias is when you report a bad thing about someone they like, and don't immediately follow it with either a good thing about someone they like, or a bad thing about someone they don't like. Because see... you have to be "balanced".<br />
<br />
Now I may be crazy, but I always thought the job of the news was to report the facts, not to play reality referee and dishonestly <i>manipulate</i> the reporting of the facts so it looks like both sides of any ideological dispute were perfectly equal. I'm pretty sure in fact that THAT would be displaying bias.<br />
<br />
For an example of what we're talking about, this startlingly insightful individual (you'll encounter their like a lot if you spend any amount of time in political discussion forums) has concluded that <a href="http://www.yelp.com/topic/new-york-foxnews-is-the-most-balanced-election-coverage---pew-research-centers-project-for-excellence-in-journalism-2008">Fox News provided the fairest news coverage in the country of the 2008 elections. </a><br />
<br />
Yeah, you're reading the title of the link right. Fox. When you click on that link you'll find the study they cite to back up this entertaining claim is one done by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism which... counted how many positive and negative things different networks said about the candidates. Seriously.<br />
<br />
<i>"Well... they said this many nice things about one side... but only this many nice things about the other side... BIAS!"</i><br />
<br />
Yes, the only possible way that could happen is biased reporting. As opposed to... just possibly... there actually being in real life more positive or negative aspects to report about one side than the other. (But nah... it's clear McCain ran exactly as effective a political campaign as Obama did, right? I mean Obama ran what is widely regarded as one of the most effective campaign operations in modern political history... and McCain told the nation that Sarah Palin was the most qualified person in America to run the country after him. That's got to balance out, right?)<br />
<br />
You know, there are days when it's really hard to be optimistic about the future of the species.<br />
<br />
Let's apply these brilliant criteria for unbiased journalism to a hypothetical test case. We're going to travel back in time and cover, say, one of the trials of Charles Manson. On the one hand, we have the coverage by GNN (Generic New Network). On the other hand, we have the coverage by Faux News.<br />
<br />
<b>GNN:</b> Every story they write is talking about this guy being accused of murdering people! They mention he's a repeat offending ex-convict! It's all negativity all the time!They never say <i>anything</i> nice about the guy!!!<br />
<br />
<b>Faux:</b> They put up some stories about him being accused of murdering people. But they also put up just as many stories about how he considers himself a dedicated family man.<br />
<br />
GNN is, therefore, 100% horribly horribly biased. Faux News on the other hand is what journalism is meant to be. They're balanced. And that's fair.<br />
<br />
And that's what's <i>really</i> important in journalism. Right?Granthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14151416582796784877noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1132746905506775858.post-62654346587173687222010-05-30T14:55:00.000-07:002010-05-30T14:55:13.572-07:00Proving Evolution : Post 7 - Piling On... And Finishing Up.<b>Chromosome Fusions</b><br />
<br />
A lot of animals have different numbers of chromosomes. An often raised objection to evolution is that this means at some point an organism would have been born with a different number of chromosomes from the rest of the population but it wouldn’t have had anything it could mate with that had the same number of chromosomes so the mutation wouldn’t have been preserved. This objection is based on the false idea that animals with different numbers of chromosomes are incapable of interbreeding. <br />
<br />
If this was true the existence of modern domesticated horses would be something of a genetic miracle. Domestic horse populations have 64 chromosomes… wild horse populations have 66. <br />
<br />
In reality chromosome fissions and fusions are hardly an unknown phenomenon. <br />
<br />
One such fusion clearly occurred after the hominids branched off from the rest of the primates. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, all the rest of the primates have 24. Evolutionary theory and the nested hierarchy then tells us this means there was a fusion event which reduced the number of chromosomes in humans to 23 after their ancestors split off from the wider population. If this prediction is true, we should be able to see clear evidence of it in a chromosomal analysis.<br />
<br />
Lo and behold:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm" onclick="urchinTracker
('/outgoing/http_www_evolutionpages_com_chromosome_2_htm');" target="_blank">Chromosome fusion</a><br />
<br />
There is overwhelming evidence that human chromosome 2 is the product of the fusion of two chromosomes which just happen to look basically identical to two chromosomes found in chimpamzees… as seen in the image included in the above link.<br />
<br />
Note that this is not just evidence that human and chimp genetic sequences kind of look the same. The telomere and centromere sequences in the middle of human chromosome 2 are clear indication that that chromosome is the product of the combination of <i>two different pre-existing independent chromosomes</i>. If humans had been independently created in their modern form rather than having evolved into it from a common ancestor with other animals there is no reason to expect find something like this in the human genome… but there it is.<br />
<br />
<b>Biogeography and Paleobiogeography</b><br />
<br />
Biogeography is the mapping of spatial patterns of biodiversity. Ie: which animals and types of animals are found in which geographic regions. Combined with paleobiogeography, which is the mapping of the same in the fossil record, this presents us with yet another piece of corroborating evidence for evolution. Fossil forms which are morphologically transitional stretching back from modern animals back to earlier ones are found in geographically contiguous locations throughout the record. Obviously this is something which is to be expected if all those transitional forms were to have evolved one from the other. If they were <i>not</i> transitional ancestral organisms but rather just completely independent separately created lineages of some kind there would be no reason to expect the geographical distributions we do observe that they fall into. <br />
<br />
<b>Properties of DNA Replication</b><br />
<b></b><br />
<a name='more'></a><b></b><br />
<br />
DNA is the genetic identity of an organism; it’s the primary factor in making an organism what it is biologically. The DNA changes - the organism changes.<br />
<br />
It is a well established property of DNA that it undergoes mutation during replication on a fairly regular basis. Different nucleotides are substituted for each other, new nucleotides are inserted in or deleted from a sequence resulting in shifted reading frames, entire genes are occasionally duplicated and subsequently subjected to independent mutation events, chromosomes split and fuse… and over time those changes spread even as they continue to accumulate. There’s no avoiding that simple fact. <br />
<br />
The genetic code of all living things is in a constant state of change and thus all living things <i>are</i> changing. Generation, after generation, after generation. <br />
<br />
Another simple fact is that, unless under the influence of some restraining factor which places boundaries on the absolute range of change achievable, this fact presents us with a very simple equation:<br />
<br />
Constant Change + Time = Greater Change.<br />
<br />
And in dealing with the history of biological life on Earth we are considering a very, very great length of time indeed.<br />
<br />
As for that “restraining factor”, this is one place you’ll see a great deal of anti-evolutionists try to take a stand… if you can call it that. You’ll see them say things like <i>”Oh sure, evolution can happen… but only <b>microevolution</b> that produces variation <b>within</b> species. Evolution doesn’t make new species.”</i><br />
<br />
Of course they’re quickly forced to retreat from this claim as soon as the numerous examples of observed speciation events are called to their attention demonstrating quite unequivocally that evolution not only can but <i>does</i> produce new species. <br />
<br />
The fallback position from that point is usually to say that evolution can’t produce new “kinds” of organisms. Even a cursory examination of this position topples it in short order as well. When asked to define how to recognize what a “kind” is so that this claim can be put to the test no answer ever seems to be forthcoming. When asked the nature of the genetic barrier somehow preventing genetic changes from crossing the threshold between “kinds” no answer ever seems to be forthcoming. When asked for an example of which genetic code would be preserved by this barrier they can’t describe no answer ever seems to be forthcoming. When asked on what possible other basis the claim that evolution doesn’t result in these new “kinds” is made no answer ever seems to be forthcoming. When asked how exactly a person can claim that “A” never happens when they can’t explain why it is that “A” never happens or even worse, define what “A” <b>is</b> in any detail whatsoever … well, just guess. <br />
<br />
<b>Rates of Genetic Change</b><br />
<br />
Another claim you’ll see sometimes made against evolution is that there hasn’t been enough time for all the observed “microevolution” to produce the degree of biological diversity we see today. Again, a claim that is quickly debunked. <br />
<br />
Multiple studies have been done measuring average rates of mutation within species, average genetic divergence between species, and amount of time since divergence of those species ancestral lines indicated by the fossil record in which that genetic divergence had to occur. Despite the vague claims against evolution in this respect every time an actual objective measurement is performed it somehow fails to turn up any kind of problems. <br />
<br />
For example: the fossil record indicates the ancestors of chimps and humans diverged approximately 6 million years ago. Based on analysis of the regions of the human and chimp genomes with the highest divergences from each other today (worst case scenario from the evolutionary perspective) and using that as the basis for calculating how fast mutation would have had to occur to produce the differences between those sequences if starting from a common genome the required rate of mutation arrived at is approximately 2x10^-8 nucleotide substitutions per site per generation… taken from Futuyama’s ‘Evolutionary Biology’, Third Edition. Current measurements of the average rate of mutation of human and chimp genomes gives a figure somewhere between 1x10^-8 and 5x10^-8 nucleotide substitutions per site per generation… right where it should be. <br />
<br />
<b>Conclusion</b><br />
<br />
Every way we can think of to look at the data it comes out supporting evolutionary theory. Geology... Biology and Molecular Biology... Paleontology... Genetics... every way we have of approaching this issue gives us the same answer. That evolutionary theory has it right.Granthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14151416582796784877noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1132746905506775858.post-32293174689280963092010-05-30T10:28:00.000-07:002010-05-30T10:29:15.281-07:00Proving Evolution: Post 6 - Phylogenetic AnalysisPreviously we skimmed over the creation of a phylogenetic tree with a simplified example of how they are constructed using only a few major genetic characteristics. In the last post we touched on how even much less obvious genetic characteristics can also be analyzed for phylogenetic relationships… like ERVs. As the discussion progresses the importance of the nested hierarchy and it’s nontrivial nature will continue to become more apparent. Like in the case of ERVs it goes significantly beyond such superficially obvious observations as “we never expect to find snakes producing orange juice”. It applies right down to the molecular level even to genetic sequences which have absolutely <i>no</i> reason, from the standpoint of observing the “obvious” groupings of organisms, to display nested hierarchical patterns... except that evolutionary theory says they should <i>because of their patterns of common ancestry.</i><br />
<br />
When actually constructing a consensus phylogenetic tree such as the one shown at (<a href="http://tolweb.org/tree?group=life_on_earth" onclick="urchinTracker
('/outgoing/http_tolweb_org_tree_group_life_on_earth');" target="_blank">Life on Earth</a>) not only are a great many genetic traits taken into account, but a rigorous mathematical analysis of the actual DNA sequences of the organisms in question (where such DNA is available) is done to create cladograms (the branching diagrams showing patterns of descent) with the highest possible percentage confidence. These techniques have been tested in situations where the correct evolutionary relationships are already independently known for an absolute certainty to verify that they do in fact not simply produce an evolutionary relationship but the <i>correct</i> evolutionary relationship to within a <i>very</i> low margin of error..<br />
<br />
One example:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/19/2/170.pdf" onclick="urchinTracker
('/outgoing/http_mbe_oxfordjournals_org_cgi_reprint_19_2_170_pdf');" target="_blank">http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/19/2/170.pdf</a><br />
<br />
In the paper above the researchers started with an original sample of DNA from Trypanosoma cruzi. They bred it over successive generations and allowed it to continually mutate, and every 70 generations 2 of the resulting DNA sequences were isolated at random and then used to found new populations. This process was repeated 4 times until 16 different ancestral DNA sequences had been generated. A rough diagram illustrating the process is shown in Figure 1 on page 2 of the paper.<br />
<br />
Now this might not sound like much… but the number of possible phylogenetic trees that can be generated for a group of N different related genetic sequences increases in a steeply exponential manner as N increases. That number is described by the equation: (2N-3)!/((2^(N-2)) (N-2)!). <br />
<br />
For 2 organisms this gives us only 1 possible tree (which should be obvious).<br />
<br />
For 3 organisms it gives us 3 possible trees.<br />
<br />
For 5 it gives us 105.<br />
<br />
For 10 it gives us over 34 million.<br />
<br />
For 16 organisms that gives us a total of (29!)/((2^14)(14!)) = 29!/1.428x10^15 = <b>6.19028x10^15</b> possible phylogenetic tree diagrams that can be generated. Picking the correct one isn’t something you can do by luck... unless of course you can beat better than 6 quintillion to 1 odds. And if that's the case, why aren't you in Vegas right now?<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
If you have mathematical routines that can, when applied to genetic sequences from those 16 organisms, subsequently generate the correct tree or even a very close approximation of it, it can safely be concluded that it’s because the routine works and works well. <br />
<br />
So, they subjected the 16 final (terminal) sequences to phylogenetic analysis to see what the calculated highest likelihood phylogenetic tree for the organisms was. The result is displayed in figure 3 on page 5 of the paper. The top tree is the actual observed branching pattern during the experiment. Each of the circles represent a point at which sample sequences were isolated to found new populations… ie: an evolutionary branching of the population into two separate groups. They are numbered to correspond to the illustrated points in figure 1. The numbers along each branching line along the diagram represent the “branch length”. A value that can be used to represent either time between nodes… or amount of genetic sequence changes between nodes. In this case, the latter. For example, between node 2.1 and 3.1 the sequence undergoes 5 changes… while between node 2.1 and 3.2 it undergoes 6. T1 through T16 are the final 16 sequences generated as the end result of the process.<br />
<br />
Displayed below that is the highest probability tree returned by the phylogenetic analysis of the sequences. Note that not only is every single node and branch correctly placed but the predicted length of each branch is also found in 29 out of 30 cases to within the calculated margin of error (on the branch linking the 2.2 and 3.3 nodes it missed the branch length by 1 sequence change more than it’s calculated margin of error.) <br />
<br />
The entire evolutionary history of all 16 terminal sequences back to their common ancestor… reconstructed completely starting only from the end product and working backwards. Just as we can do with any other living things we have DNA samples from.<br />
<br />
In short, the method works. Very well.<br />
<br />
As noted in discussion of the previous topic there are, occasionally, some grey areas where it is not clear where a species should be placed in the tree to within a node or so due, in most cases, to some small scale discrepancy between phylogenies based on morphological data and phylogenies based on molecular or genetic data. An example will follow further down the post.<br />
<br />
Evolution critics will often point to these regions of uncertainty as some kind of indication that evolutionary theory is incapable of explaining the evolutionary origins of some species… that evolution is “stumped” by certain species and should therefore be rejected. This is ludicrous. Even in a cladogram of only 16 organisms if this had been true of one of them… and a single branch had been mis-located by one node… given the amount of possible trees that had to be eliminated to arrive at the correct location for each of those nodes and branches it amounts to the equivalent of a margin of error in the results of 1 part in roughly 3x10^15…. or a measurement inaccuracy once we reach the equivalent of the 14th decimal place. An incredibly tiny margin of error if ever there was one.<br />
<br />
To contrast … last I checked the charge of the electron has been measured reliably to 7 decimal places. G, the gravitational constant, to 3 decimal places. Nobody in their right mind suggests that this means we need to toss out physics and start from scratch because G and the charge of the electron “stumps” us through our inability to achieve a 100% <i>perfect</i> correlation between experimental results and theoretical modelling. 99.99% is pretty damn good too. <br />
<br />
99.999999999...% is <i>extraordinary.</i> (They don’t say that evolutionary theory is one of the (if not <b>the</b>) most strongly evidentially supported scientific theories in the history of science just because they think it sounds good.)<br />
<br />
Is it frustrating on those occasions when there is one branch on the tree with a positioning uncertainty of one branch... or maybe even two on sufficiently zoomed in scales? Yes. Ideally we would like to have absolutely every last detail right down to every single individual species nailed down with absolute certainty. It is why scientific research always continues to try to narrow those uncertainties... to add just that one more decimal place to that correlated value…<br />
<br />
Is it somehow fatal to evolutionary theory that we still require some more data and better measurements to get that one branch position nailed down once and for all? Ridiculous.<br />
<br />
Actual example of discrepancy between two phylogenetic analyses:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/croc.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="166" src="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/croc.gif" width="400" /></a></div><br />
These are two different phylogenies for species of crocodile. One based on the morphological data, one based on a molecular analysis of the c-myc proto-oncogene… taken from this study:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://163.238.8.180/%7Efburbrink/Courses/Seminar%20in%20Systematics/gharials.pdf" onclick="urchinTracker
('/outgoing/http_163_238_8_180_fburbrink_Courses_Seminar_20in_20Systematics_gharials_pdf');" target="_blank">http://163.238.8.180/~fburbrink/Cour...s/gharials.pdf</a><br />
<br />
Morhohological data will under almost any circumstances be considered secondary to molecular and genetic analysis... this being because the units of biological inheritance are the genes themselves. Analyzing morphology is observing a secondary characteristic of inheritance and thus has an expected slightly larger margin of error which can occasionally cause minor discrepancies in the two phylogenies like this one. If you scan down to the figure on page 8 of the linked paper you get a slightly better picture of the extent to which the sequences are analyzed to establish the tree in a genetic analysis. The chart shows the multiple mutations which were experienced along each branch to arrive at the final c-myc sequences.<br />
<br />
The two charts created differ only on their placement of Gavialis. Based on the morphological data it was expected it would be less closely related to Tomistcoma than to other crocodiles… but the genetic analysis says they’re more closely related than other crocodiles. Notice that with the exception of the single Gavialis branch both trees are identical. <br />
<br />
Note that even if we are to consider only these 8 species in isolation from the much larger tree into which they fit, and in which their position is well established, a difference of a single branch position for a single member of the group between one measurement and the other is minuscule. There are over one hundred and thirty five thousand possible phylogenetic trees for a group of 8 organisms… having the morphological and genetic sequence data correlate to this degree is an impressive level of agreement. Resolving that last branch position is the same as resolving a measurement out at the 4th or 5th decimal place.Granthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14151416582796784877noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1132746905506775858.post-45802922226571178552010-05-29T21:09:00.000-07:002010-05-29T21:10:00.491-07:00Proving Evolution : Post 5 - Non Coding Genetic SequencesAlright… so we’ve covered radiometric dating and why it’s considered reliable, the geologic column and the fossil record conforming to overall evolutionary expectations, the existence of transitional sequences within the fossil record showing evidence of past evolutionary events, and the distribution of genetic characteristics among modern life that conforms to the pattern produced by a biological evolutionary process in which traits are inherited from common ancestry. We’ve covered that the fossil record also overlays that distribution to a high degree of accuracy with characteristics in inner nested groups in the hierarchy having their first representations later in the fossil record.<br />
<br />
Next piece of evidence. Vestigial and other non-coding genetic characteristics.<br />
<br />
<b>Vestigial genetic sequences.</b><br />
<br />
Looking at the nested hierarchy shown in the third image of post 4 in this series we can see humans and chimps (along with the rest of the primates) are grouped inside a larger group of animals. Their grouping also indicates a recent evolutionary divergence from that group. This is corroborated by the fossil record. Now… the members of this larger group of animals are capable of synthesizing ascorbic acid, also known as vitamin C. Humans and primates are not. As our little evolutionary branch of the tree only recently diverged from the rest of the group, and since large scale gene deletions are extremely rare (usually a gene is disable because of a disabling mutation… it is not completely removed from the DNA) if evolutionary theory is correct we should expect to still be able to find clear evidence of the genetic sequence responsible for the synthesis of ascorbic acid in humans and primates (even though we are not capable of such synthesis) and subsequently compare it to the functional sequence in other animals and determine what alteration made to it caused it to become non-functional. <i>This is a prediction unique to evolution, relying entirely on the premise that we inherited our genetic material from an ancestral source we share in common with those other animals in the larger group.</i><br />
<br />
This prediction was confirmed in the early 1990s with the identification of the L-gulano-gamma-lactone oxidase genetic code in humans and primates. Subsequent analysis showed it had experienced a frame shift mutation that had caused it to become non-coding.<br />
<br />
Let me summarize this again to ensure it is fully understood.<br />
<br />
1. Humans and primates do not produce their own ascorbic acid. From simple direct observation there is NO reason to think they would have the genetic code required to do so.<br />
2. The nested hierarchical structure humans and primates fit into within an evolutionary framework however indicates that they diverged from a wider group at a time when ascorbic acid synthesis was already present in the genome of the group, and thus that genetic information should have been inherited.<br />
3. Since we do not produce ascorbic acid, and since it would be unusual to have an entire gene simply deleted in entirety from the genome, evolutionary theory <i>and evolutionary theory alone</i> predicts we should find vestigial genetic code for the production of ascorbic acid which was inherited from an earlier common ancestor in the human and primate genomes… and which has since been deactivated by mutation.<br />
4. They looked for it. They found it. Deactivated by a frame shift mutation that wiped out the end of the sequence on that gene. Prediction confirmed.<br />
<br />
Once again… I can’t stop someone from looking at this clear example of evidence of common evolutionary descent and declaring “it just <i>looks</i> that way because it was designed that way” but at this point, whether it’s impossible to disprove that statement or not, it would be beginning to get silly… proposing that the same <i>non functional</i> section of genetic code would be designed into humans and primates… and in such a way that it looked just like a functional piece of code in other animals that had undergone a mutation. If you want to design an organism that doesn’t synthesize its own ascorbic acid you sure as heck don’t need to give it most of the genetic code to do so only to make it not do so!<br />
<br />
And this is hardly the only example of a vestigial genetic sequence that fit this pattern…. Olfactory receptor genes, RT6 protein genes, etc… the genetic code of all kind of organisms is packed with pseudogenes that used to code for something in an ancestor… still codes for that same function in related organisms, but has been disabled in one particular group by a crippling mutation <i>while the bulk of the genetic code remains present</i>.<br />
<br />
Continuing on that line, there is also the matter of endogenous retroviral insertions.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<b>Endogenous Retroviral Insertions</b><br />
<br />
Retroviruses contain viral RNA, as opposed to the DNA in humans and other animals and plants… and they also contain a reverse transcriptase. What this means is that they have the ability to insert the complimentary DNA sequence of their own RNA genetic code into the genetic code of the host organism they infect. It’s how they reproduce. Example of a retrovirus: HIV.<br />
<br />
Here’s how it works in a little more detail.<br />
<br />
The virus infects a cell. It then releases the reverse transcriptase. The reverse transcriptase makes a copy of viral DNA from the viral RNA. The viral DNA then gets spliced into the DNA of the infected host cell, at a random location… so from now on every time that cell’s DNA is replicated the viral DNA gets replicated right along with it. In the meantime the viral DNA in the cell serves as the template for producing new copies of viral RNA. Now, while the initial insertion point of the viral DNA is random, in any subsequent copies made when the cell reproduces the exact same location of the viral DNA will be copied as well.<br />
<br />
(Side note: The random nature of the retroviral insertion is one well known hurdle faced by researchers of genetic therapies, since if they attempt to engineer a retrovirus to deliver their developed therapy to their patient a random insertion could place it in the middle of DNA that was already coding for something else that was fairly important)<br />
<br />
When a retrovirus infects a host’s reproductive system - and thus the copies of the host’s DNA which will be passed on to it’s offspring - it becomes heritable by the host organism’s offspring, passed onto them just like any gene would be. And again, the location of the viral DNA within the genetic code will be the same as in the parent organism the DNA was inherited from.<br />
<br />
The human genetic code is huge. It’s over 3 billion base pairs long. The genetic codes of the other primates (chimps, gorillas, orangutans, gibbons, etc…) are similarly massive. The odds of a single retrovirus infecting two of these individual species independently and just happening through pure coincidence to randomly splice themselves into the exact same location in their DNA are, obviously, not good. <br />
<br />
So if we were to find, for example, that an analysis of human and chimp DNA revealed a single identical retroviral genetic sequence at an identical location that would be extremely solid evidence that they had both inherited that genetic sequence from a common ancestor who was originally infected by the retrovirus… thus also inheriting it’s common location in their genome. Not only is this a similar type of evidence that is possible from analysis of other genetic information… but this information in particular is completely immune to being hand-waved away as being somehow due to “common design” of similar appearing animals or functions as IDers and creationists attempt (and I stress “attempt”) to do with other findings. There is no rational way to argue that a viral infection was an element of the design of an organism.<br />
<br />
So, in all of our studying of the genetic codes of humans, chimps, and other primates have we found a case of a retroviral insertion in an identical location in both humans and another primate? No…<br />
<br />
We’ve found multiple cases.<br />
<br />
The odds of finding a single example occurring by coincidence are mind bogglingly bad. The odds of finding multiple examples occurring by coincidence are exponentially worse. They defy description. And for the final nail in the coffin (as if we needed it), there’s the pattern we find these common insertions in:<br />
<br />
So far (with the sequencing of the human and primate genomes still far from complete) the primate species we share the most common insertions with are chimps, which all other genetic evidence says are the most closely related primates to humans. We share the second most common insertions with gorillas… the second most closely related primates. Third and fourth most common insertions = orangutans and gibbons respectively… also the third and fourth most closely related according to the other genetic evidence. Fifth most = old world monkeys… sixth most = new world monkeys… fifth and sixth most closely related groups, respectively, according to the other genetic evidence.<br />
<br />
A diagram of the pattern of insertions in question, courtesy of talk.origins ("Grant, do you just take all your evolution related imaged from talk.origins?" you ask. Pretty much. They're just that good. Go read the site when you're done here):<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/retrovirus.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="266" src="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/retrovirus.gif" width="320" /></a></div>The arrows show where the evidence indicates the original retroviral infection occurred. That pattern look familiar? If it doesn't, shame on you for skipping post 4.<br />
<br />
Again, it’s impossible to prevent a claim that this is the case “just because God made it that way”… but again, it’s getting silly when the alternative hypothesis to what has been presented is that God deliberately designed identical remnants of past genetic <i>infections</i> into different species in a nested hierarchical structure in just such a way that it would really really <i>look</i> like they evolved from common ancestry.Granthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14151416582796784877noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1132746905506775858.post-30532066731371446952010-05-29T10:26:00.000-07:002010-05-29T12:52:56.882-07:00Proving Evolution: Post 4 - The Nested HierarchyThis is one of the most fundamental concepts which need to be understood if you want to properly grasp the evidence for evolution. It describes the structure of the pattern of biological diversity produced by an evolutionary process. Evolution is the <i>only</i> process ever proposed which predicts and explains such a pattern.<br />
<br />
The nested hierarchy is a consequence of the way in which genetically heritable traits are transmitted from generation to generation. For an illustration, see the following:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/4890/phyloanimated0in.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="146" src="http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/4890/phyloanimated0in.gif" width="320" /></a></div><br />
“NGT” represents a point at which a new genetic trait is introduced to a population which through natural selection comes to be spread throughout that population to the point where it reaches fixation in the genome. From that point on it will be heritable by all the future generations of that population. Such an event can occur at any time, in any group, but due to the nature of biological reproduction and genetic heritability it can be propagated only “downstream” of the point at which it is introduced. So, the earlier in the process a new trait is acquired, the wider a cross-section of the final population it will be present in. Any traits acquired after that point will be found grouped into smaller and smaller cross-sections of the population and always <i>completely contained</i> within the groupings of earlier acquired traits.<br />
<br />
For example, let's say that trait "D" up there was the introduction of, say, a specific alteration to the eye of one species that significantly improved it's visual acuity. That species up top on the other hand, developing along that path that leads to them having traits "A" and "F"... their eyes suck. Well, they're out of luck. Because that new trait for improved vision is only able to be passed on through inheritance so they're not getting it. It can only propagate downstream in the process. <br />
<br />
To contrast, if we were examining the products of a common design process we not only could, but <i>would expect to</i> see such outcomes all the time. If while working it’s way along those branching design paths a designer came up at some point with that “D” trait and noticed… “hey, this works better than anything I’m using over on that “AF” development line” then of course any designer would utilize that knowledge in his other designs. For example: The human eye vs. the octopus eye. The eyes on an octopus are far superior in design to our eyes. Their optic nerves attach in a manner which does not produce a blind spot in their vision, that same attachment anchors their retinas, and because all the nerve connections come in through the rear of the eye they do not degrade visual acuity. In our eyes the optics nerve pokes through the back of the eye causing a blind spot which our brains must constantly imperfectly correct for, because our retinas are not anchored by the nerve attachments a sharp blow to the head can detach them, and because the nerve attachments are in the front they get in the way of incoming light screwing up our visual acuity. Any designer who knew how to build an octopus eye would know there was a better way to design an eye than that. The evidence indicates however that the octopus evolutionary path simply experienced optical development which was superior to anything that occurred in human ancestry after the two branched off from each other… and after that branching occurred there was no way in which to share the advances experienced on one line with the other. Not within an evolutionary framework.<br />
<br />
Now, what do we see when we look at the pattern of biological diversity present today? Here’s an example using 30 major examples (animated gif, modified from the universal phylogenetic tree diagram in Doug Theobald’s “29 evidences for macroevolution”. Takes a little while to cycle through.)<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j243/gcomeau/Phylo_Real_Animated.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="367" src="http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j243/gcomeau/Phylo_Real_Animated.gif" width="400" /></a></div><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j243/gcomeau/Phylo_Real_Animated2.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="367" src="http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j243/gcomeau/Phylo_Real_Animated2.gif" width="400" /></a></div><br />
<br />
As you can see, a distinctive nested hierarchical pattern, precisely what is predicted and explained by an evolutionary development process. No other process has ever been proposed that would produce that particular distinctive pattern. I am quite aware that someone can now come along and say “well a designer could have designed it so that it made that pattern on purpose” but the point is that it doesn’t matter <i>what</i> pattern was found you could always say the same thing. It’s an unfalsifiable hypothesis... which is another way of saying a completely useless answer. It tells us nothing. At all. It’s the same as saying “I hereby predict we will find… something!” and then when we do find “something” pointing out how the findings are completely consistent with your “theory”. <br />
<br />
Evolution on the other hand makes a very specific prediction which is a necessary consequence of the mechanisms it describes… a prediction which, if the theory were wrong, could very easily be disproven. That prediction is however specifically confirmed by the data. That’s considered very powerful evidence that a theory has it right.<br />
<br />
What is considered even more powerful evidence is that the fossil record overlays the nested hierarchical pattern created by the phylogenetic groupings of modern species which is shown above to an extremely high degree of accuracy. The innermost (and therefore within an evolutionary framework, latest to be introduced) groupings of genetic characteristics are the latest to have representation within the fossil record… etc…<br />
<br />
This excellent cross-correlation of data between modern biological diversity and the fossil record is known as the twin nested hierarchy.Granthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14151416582796784877noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1132746905506775858.post-26435088922008407612010-05-28T17:42:00.000-07:002010-05-28T17:45:04.212-07:00Proving Evolution: Post 3 - Transitional Fossils<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">Having covered in posts 1 and 2 why radiometric dating is considered reliable, how the geologic column appears, and how the cross correlation of radiometric dates, fossil composition, and layer depth in the column all converge on expectations it’s time to take a closer look at some of the transitional sequences in the fossil record. The Transitional Vertbrate Fossils FAQ at talk.origins does it very well so I’ll leave the listing to them:</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"></div><br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html">Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ</a></div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">Instead, here I’ll focus on just a few example transitions with some detailed discussion.</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><strong>Reptiles to Mammals</strong></div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">The list provided at the link above for this particular transition is extensive, covering a sequence of 30 fossil species… the early quite reptilian, then reptilian but with some somewhat mammalian features… then reptilian with some more than somewhat mammalian features… then a solid mix of reptilian and mammalian features… then decidedly mammalian with reptilian features… then mammalian with some somewhat reptilian features, and finally mammalian with few if any reptilian features.</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">One particularly well illustrated example they proivide of what was occurring during this process is the development of the mammalian ear from reptile jaw structures… illustration here:</div><div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/jaws1.gif">(Click me to see the inconveniently large image)</a></div><div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">Starting at the far left side of the image we have the timescale of which periods each of the fossils are found from. As we move forward from the Carboniferous to the Jurassic we see the clear gradual change in the shape of the skeletal structure in each consecutive example. The left hand column of images if the view of the jaw from the inside. The right hand column is the view of the same jaw from the outside. The bone highlighted in yellow is the articular reptilian jaw bone, which eventually becomes the mammalian malleus (the “hammer” in the ear). The bone hignlighted in pink is the reptilian angular jaw bone, which eventually becomes the tympanic annulus in mammals. The bone highlighted in light blue is the reptilian quadrate jaw bone, which eventually becomes the mammalian incus (the “anvil” in the ear). </div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"></div><br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">This particular sequence is also an excellent illustration of the gaping flaw in claims of “Irreducible Complexity”. Such arguments simply don’t understand how evolution progresses. Someone who held to the IC line of argument would look at something like the ear and say “Well, what good is an ear without the hammer? Huh? What good is half an ear? All those interconnecting bones would have to evolve all at the same time! That’s just silly... so the ear is Irreducibly Complex”. (And yes, people <a href="http://www.bbcrefuted.com/bbc_evolutionary_2.html">really do make that argument</a>)</div><br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">On the surface of it, if you don’t really understand how evolution operates, that article has a certain compelling appeal to common sense. People who haven’t been exposed to the full weight of the evidence for evolution and how it operates think that is a perfectly reasonable statement. It is however dead wrong, as we can clearly see. They look at a modern human ear, which is the product of millions of years of refinement to optimize it for operating with the structures available to it… and then just because after all that fine tuning if you suddenly come along and yank a gear out of the mechanism it stops working it couldn’t have developed gradually? Nonsense. Nobody with any knowledge of evolution would ever say that at some point in the past there was some animal with an ear that was completely missing a malleus… but otherwise was an ear exactly like a modern human with all the same bones in the same shape for no apparent reason whatsoever… just waiting around for a fluke mutation to pop that bone right in there out of nowhere. That is an absurd representation of evolutionary progression and does not remotely resemble what is encompassed by evolutionary theory. It is nothing but a flimsy strawman. </div><br />
On to the next example:<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<strong>Reptiles to Birds</strong><br />
<br />
Another of the big ones, and also another of the favorites of the Irreducible complexity crowd. “What good is half a wing?” is a question you’ll see asked quite often in Evo/Creo discussions. <br />
<br />
Well, let’s just see about that by taking a look at another illustration courtesy of talk.origins:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/bird_forelimbs.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" gu="true" src="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/bird_forelimbs.gif" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div align="left" class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: left;">Here we have four images of different forelimbs. </div><br />
<br />
At the top we have Ornitholestes. A bipedal dinosaur found in the late Jurassic. <br />
<br />
Below that we have the rather well known Archeopteryx, found at the very end of the Jurassic. Notice the forelimb skeletal structure is practically identical… the claws are a little more hooked, the second and third digits seem to have fused, the bones are just a slightly different shape… but Archaeopteryx is feathered. Apart from that it is clearly more reptilian than bird and there’s almost no chance it was capable of flight. At best it’s modified forelimbs provided it with some extra lift while leaping.<br />
<br />
Below that we have Sinoris. An archaic bird from the Cretaceous. It had everything it needed anatomically to be fully flight capable. That’s right… that forelimb is an early version of a wing…. which still has the claws from when it used to be a forelimb on the end of it. I don’t exactly see a useless “half a wing” stage between those first three forms. Do you?<br />
<br />
Below that is a modern chicken wing… which serves to demonstrate just how much a wing can change given 60 million years of evolutionary adaptation... but that’s a change between wing and wing so there’s hardly a need for a “half a wing” stage between those two. Unless of course, considering the rather unimpressive flight capabilities of the chicken, you consider them to have "half a wing".<br />
<br />
<strong>Hominid Evolution</strong> <br />
<br />
<br />
And for the final example… us. Back to talk.origins yet again for a pretty picture (because they have so many great ones):<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" gu="true" height="186" src="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />
Entries are: <br />
<br />
<br />
A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern <br />
B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My <br />
C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My <br />
D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My <br />
E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My <br />
F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My <br />
G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My <br />
H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My <br />
I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y <br />
J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y <br />
K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y <br />
L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y <br />
M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y <br />
N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern<br />
<br />
With the exception of the first skull, a modern chimpanzee for comparison purposes, all the skulls are arranged in chronological order. The blue pieces in the skulls are reconstructions, everything else is original fossil material. The progression should be obvious. Decreasing upper jaw protrusion, increasing brain cavity size, the changing brow ridges… on some other skulls (examples below) where dental records are more intact changing size of the canines is also evident. <br />
<br />
I should also mention that the consensus view today I that the Neanderthal were not direct ancestors to modern humans but more like cousins. A very recent branch off of the hominid line which subsequently went extinct. <br />
<br />
Now, if we were only to display B and N directly next to each other I doubt that there’s an anti-evolutionist on the planet who wouldn’t immediately declare something very like [I]“Well, one’s an ape and one’s a human. They’re obviously different. Don’t tell me you think we could have come from THAT”<br />
<br />
But just put B and C next to each other and ask them if “microevolution” could change one into the other. I doubt they could deny it. And thus they would declare they were the same “kind” and this was only minor variation within kinds.<br />
<br />
Only put C and D next to each other and ask.<br />
<br />
Only put D and E next to each other and ask.<br />
<br />
Etc…<br />
<br />
This is clearly a transitional sequence between a modern human form and an early primate form… exactly the thing it creationists are constantly claiming doesn’t exist. <br />
<br />
For a better of view of some of these fossils click this link then follow the instructions below it:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/#">Human Evolution: The fossil evidence in 3D</a><br />
<br />
-Click on “Enter the Gallery”. Don’t have pop-ups disabled.<br />
-Along the bottom of the window that opens click on the seconf last image that looks like a gorilla (it’s actually a chimp).<br />
-If you click and drag on the skull that comes up you can rotate it through a full 360 degrees. This lets you get a much better look at the overall shape of the skull. Also, if you hold down the shift key then click and drag you can measure the skull since they aren’t displayed to scale<br />
-After that move on and click on the picture of the human, the bottom sequence will zoom in to show a progression of fossil hominids. You can click on each of them and manipulate them the same way. They are also arranged in chronological order as they are dated and found in the column.<br />
<br />
To sum up... the claim that "there are no transitional fossils" has been around for a very long time... and it has been completely wrong for a very long time.Granthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14151416582796784877noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1132746905506775858.post-53912086271490987402010-05-28T08:59:00.000-07:002010-05-28T14:48:23.268-07:00Proving Evolution : Post 2 - The Geologic ColumnWhen the geologic column was first being mapped out by geologists they could only establish relative dates of the position of formation of a given layer in the column based on the premise that 'layers buried further down' = 'older than newly formed surface layers'… with care being taken to ensure you weren’t analyzing something like an overthrust where one section of plate has pushed up on top of another one. Then came radiometric dating which allowed them not only to independently test that hypothesis but to assign specific age values to each of those layers… resulting in the modern understanding of the geologic column. For example, in Glenn Morton’s article on the geologic column at Talk.Origins (<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/">The Entire Geologic Column in North Dakota</a>) one of the references used is a well dug in North Dakota to a depth of over 15 thousand feet. The following layers were encountered at the respective depths: (Fm = Formation, Lm = Limestone, Grp = Group)<br />
<br />
Tertiary Ft. Union Fm ...............................100 feet<br />
Cretaceous Greenhorn Fm .......................4910 feet<br />
Cretaceous Mowry Fm............................ 5370 feet<br />
Cretaceous Inyan Kara Fm.......................5790 feet<br />
Jurassic Rierdon Fm................................6690 feet<br />
Triassic Spearfish Fm..............................7325 feet<br />
Permian Opeche Fm................................7740 feet<br />
Pennsylvanian Amsden Fm.......................7990 feet<br />
Pennsylvanian Tyler Fm...........................8245 feet<br />
Mississippian Otter Fm.............................8440 feet<br />
Mississippian Kibbey Lm...........................8780 feet<br />
Mississippian Charles Fm..........................8945 feet<br />
Mississippian Mission Canyon Fm................9775 feet<br />
Mississippian Lodgepole Fm.....................10255 feet<br />
Devonian Bakken Fm.............................11085 feet<br />
Devonian Birdbear Fm............................11340 feet<br />
Devonian Duperow Fm...........................11422 feet<br />
Devonian Souris River Fm.......................11832 feet<br />
Devonian Dawson Bay Fm.......................12089 feet<br />
Devonian Prairie Fm...............................12180 feet<br />
Devonian Winnipegosis Grp.....................12310 feet<br />
Silurian Interlake Fm..............................12539 feet<br />
Ordovician Stonewall Fm........................13250 feet<br />
Ordovician Red River Dolomite.................13630 feet<br />
Ordovician Winnipeg Grp........................14210 feet<br />
Ordovician Black Island Fm.....................14355 feet<br />
Cambrian Deadwood Fm.........................14445 feet<br />
Precambrian.........................................14945 feet <br />
<br />
The article also includes 25 other sites where the entire column has been observed. <br />
<br />
The span of ages since associated with each of those eras since the advent of radiometric dating are:<br />
<br />
Tertiary –------------------ 1.8 million -> 65 million years old<br />
Cretaceous --------------– 65 million -> 145 million years old<br />
Jurassic ----------------– 145 million -> 205 million years old<br />
Triassic ----------------–205 million -> 250 million years old<br />
Permian –---------------- 250 million -> 290 million years old<br />
Pennsylvanian –---------- 290 million -> 325 million years old<br />
Mississippian –------------ 325 million to 355 million years old<br />
Devonian –--------------- 355 million -> 420 million years old<br />
Silurian –----------------- 420 million -> 445 million years old<br />
Ordovician –-------------- 445 million -> 490 million years old<br />
Cambrian Deadwood Fm –- 490 million -> 545 million years old<br />
Precambrian –------------------------ 545+ million years old<br />
<br />
So, the further down we go, the older the dates we see. Exactly as predicted. But that isn’t the only indicator to consider, there is also the fossil composition of the geologic column. I’ll do a quick overview of which fossils are found in which layers for now... starting with what are dated as the oldest layers and progressing through to the youngest. Note that the precise locations of many of these "earliest known fossil" finds are constantly being adjusted to some degree as more and more fossil finds come in and the body of what is known is added to.... for example, not too many years ago the earliest known multicellular fossils were early Cambrian (540 million years old) but then someone found some in layers about 20 million years older than that and the date of the earliest known multicellular fossils got shifted back a few percent into the late Precambrian. This is to be expected... and will certainly continue to happen in the future. <br />
<br />
<strong>Precambrian</strong><br />
<br />
--In the oldest dated layers of rock in the Precambrian there has never been a fossil found. Of anything. Ever.<br />
<br />
--As we move to newer layers in the Precambrian we start finding fossils of single celled organisms at about the 3.5 billion year mark. They appear to be prokaryotes. We find fossils of nothing else.<br />
<br />
--In still newer layers we begin finding fossils of what seem to be eukaryotic single celled organisms. (Prokaryotes have cell structures that lack mitochondria and nuclei, eukaryotes incorporate mitochondria and nuclei).<br />
<br />
--In the late Precambrian layers leading up to the Cambrian, we begin finding fossils of small, simple, multicellular organisms (for example: the Ediacaran fauna) and also fossils of what appear to be simple chloroplasts.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<strong>Cambrian</strong><br />
<br />
--Once we reach the Cambrian we have the “Cambrian Explosion”. Keep in mind that this “explosion” takes tens of millions of years… some people have the unfortunate tendency to think this means that: *poof*… a bunch of different animals just all showed up simultaneously. <br />
<br />
--By the end of the Cambrian we see the emergence of the earliest representatives of most existent phyla. Note that for the most part they look absolutely nothing like modern representatives of those phyla… another point on which people have an unfortunate tendency to become confused. They think that (for example) because we have brachiopods today, and brachiopods showed up in the Cambrian, therefore modern brachiopods have been around since the Cambrian. This is just plain wrong.<br />
<br />
--Among the organisms first appearing in the Cambrian are: Arthropods (trilobites!), Molluscs, Chordates (near the end of the Cambrian), Brachiopods, etc…<br />
<br />
<strong>Ordovician</strong><br />
<br />
--The first fossil Bryozoans show up in the Ordovician, little colonies of interconnected aquatic organisms that ten to inhabit rock surfaces, etc…<br />
<br />
--The first coral fossils.<br />
<br />
--Earliest jawless fish, although there is some evidence they may have shown up in the late Cambrian.<br />
<br />
<strong>Silurian</strong><br />
<br />
--Fossils of jawless fish are abundant and diverse. Earliest fossils of fish with jaws are found.<br />
<br />
--The first fossil evidence of any land organisms. Fungi, and also cooksonia, the earliest known plant with a vascular network. <br />
<br />
--By the late Silurian we also find primitive fossil arachnids and centipedes.<br />
<br />
--Note that we have four and a half billion years of rock layers and find no evidence of anything non-aquatic until the latest ten percent of them.<br />
<br />
<strong>Devonian</strong><br />
<br />
--Earliest fossils of tetrapods (amphibians). <br />
<br />
--Towards the end of the Devonian we find the earliest fossils of seed bearing plants.<br />
<br />
<strong>Mississippian and Pennsylvanian (Combined = Carboniferous)</strong><br />
<br />
--Earliest amniote fossils.<br />
<br />
--Tetrapod fossils become increasingly diverse.<br />
<br />
--Land based plant fossils also diversify. <br />
<br />
--Towards the end of the Pennsylvanian the earliest diapsid fossils are found (animals with two fenestrae. Ie: reptiles)<br />
<br />
<strong>Permian</strong><br />
<br />
--For most of the Permian increasingly diverse examples of the previously mentioned groups are found…<br />
<br />
--At the end of the Permian there appears to be a large scale mass extinction event. A massive number of species found in the fossil record prior to this time cease to be found at any point later (goodbye trilobites… you had a good run…).<br />
<br />
<strong>Triassic</strong><br />
<br />
--The emergence of the dinosaurs in the fossil record. The popular giant versions are not found at this point in the fossil record… Triassic dinosaur fossils consist of smaller representatives of that group.<br />
<br />
--Towards the very end of the Triassic we find the first fossils of small mammals.<br />
<br />
<strong>Jurassic</strong><br />
<br />
--Dinosaur fossils get bigger and more diverse.<br />
<br />
--Crocodiles show up.<br />
<br />
--By this point in the fossil record aquatic life is extremely diversified. Sharks, rays, fish, squid, ammonites, all kinds of aquatic plants…<br />
<br />
--Land plants also become increasingly diverse, as well as mammals.<br />
<br />
--Near the end of the Jurassic, we have Archeopteryx. Clearly reptilian… but feathered.<br />
<br />
<strong>Cretaceous</strong><br />
<br />
<br />
--Fossils of flowering plants (angiosperms) appear.<br />
<br />
--Fossils of modern looking versions of some mammals and insects.<br />
<br />
--Dinosaur fossils continue to diversify. A crowd favorite, T-rex, makes it’s appearance in the cretaceous layers. Unfortunately for it:<br />
<br />
--At the very end of the Cretaceous there is another apparent mass extinction event, the K-T event. No further fossil evidence of dinosaurs and many other species found previous to this point in the fossil record are found in later layers. The K-T boundary marks the end of the Cretaceous period in the geologic column, a thin layer in the column with heavy iridium concentrations, found worldwide, leading to the hypothesis that there was a massive meteor/asteroid strike at this time which kicked up enough impact debris to lay down a coating over the entire surface of the planet. This event is more well known than the Permian mass extinction, even though it appears to have wiped out a smaller percentage of the extant species than did the Permian event.<br />
<br />
<strong>Tertiary</strong><br />
<br />
--Within the Tertiary layers we find fossils of modern animal forms. Modern angiosperm plants, mammals, ray-finned fish, birds, etc…<br />
<br />
--We begin finding the first primate fossils right near the KT boundary. They’re small… in appearance they resembled something like a squirrel. The first prosimian fossils (for example: Smilodectes) show up in the early Tertiary layers. The first ape and monkey fossils begin appearing in the mid-Tertiary layers. ( Apidium, Aegyptopithecus, etc…). Ape and monkey fossils continue to diversify throughout the later layers of the Tertiary. Approaching the end of the Tertiary the first Hominid fossils are found, dating back approximately 5-6 million years. It bears thinking on that hominid fossils occupy only the upper approximate 1% of the geologic column. Fossils of homo sapiens are not found in Tertiary layers.<br />
<br />
Note that the well mentioned earlier was dug in a basin, beginning below the very upper layers (the Quaternary layers which are dated at 1.8 million years to present) which are populated with modern looking animal and plant fossils. <br />
<br />
Hominids of varying morphological similarity to homo sapiens are found throughout these layers, with fossils classified as archaic and then modern homo sapiens found in the most recent layers, dating as far back as several hundred thousand years... a fraction of a percent of the span represented by the column.<br />
<br />
We never find mammal fossils embedded in pre-Carboniferous layers. We never find bird fossils in Permian layers. We never find primate fossils in Jurassic layers. We never find angiosperm fossils in the PreCambrian. We never find reptile fossils in the Ordovician layers. Etc.<br />
<br />
This kind of distribution presents quite a distinctive pattern... which will be elaborated on in the posts to follow.Granthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14151416582796784877noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1132746905506775858.post-30893643067200109882010-05-27T12:34:00.000-07:002010-05-27T12:34:43.424-07:00Proving Evolution: Post 1 - Dating MethodsFirst, a note on the title of the series of posts. Science does NOT "prove" things. Anything. Ever. (No, really... not <em>anything</em>). "Proof" is for math and alcohol. What we are really talking about here is "evidentially supported to the greatest extent manageable". But if you say that then people who don't understand science just declare "Aha! But you didn't PROVE it!" ...as if that was relevant. So, we end up with titles like this. Any science purists out ther who are outraged at the inexact terminology, my abject apologies.<br />
<br />
Now, getting down to things. This is a series of posts I wrote up a long, long time ago while banging my head against the brick wall that is "people on the internet who believe in Creationism". I think it does a pretty decent job of covering a LOT of information while maintaining a balance between being not so technical the average non-scientific type can't understand it if they take a real shot at it... but technical enough that it remains accurate and not distorted by horrendous over-simplification. I'll be throwing them up here over he next week or so.<br />
<br />
====================================<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: large;">Dating Methods</span></strong><br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>Carbon (C14) Dating:</strong><br />
<br />
C14 dating is used to date the remains of organic, air breathing organisms up to approximately 50,000 years old. While living these organisms breathe the atmosphere, which contains trace amounts of the radioactive isotope Carbon 14 that is constantly being produced in the upper atmosphere through neutron bombardment. So long as they are alive the C14 content of their bodies will remain in equilibrium with the C14 content of the atmosphere. When they die respiration ceases, along with the intake of any new quantities of C14. Over time the C14 decays with a half-life of 5568 years into N14. By measuring how much C14 remains un-decayed the time elapsed since the death of the organism can be determined.<br />
<br />
A common misperception of C14 dating is that it relies on the assumption that atmospheric C14 levels remained constant in the past so that we can know how much C14 an organism started off with. While this was an assumption made when the technique was first developed about half a century ago it has not been the case for several decades. Historical atmospheric C14 concentrations have been charted and calibrated using both dendochronology and lake varves which incorporate organic sediment in their annual deposition layers. One particularly good example of this is Lake Suigetsu in Japan where cores have been drilled to a depth of 45,000 annual layers. Because of the layering process we have an independent count of exactly how old every layer is… and because the layers incorporate organic material (the remains of a surface algae which dies off every year and sinks to the bottom of the lake) each layer can be C14 dated as well, and using these two data points the atmospheric C14 content can be charted all the way back for the entire time span encompassed by the varve core. This data (cross-checked against <em>multiple</em> other sites and methods) then allows us to apply C14 dating to other sites already knowing how fluctuations in atmospheric C14 concentrations in the past will effect the results… and allowing us to calibrate out error that would otherwise be introduced due to those past fluctuations.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Just one more note on C14 dating... once this calibration scale was applied it was discovered that previous C14 dates had been underestimating ages. By a few percent. There are also the occasional examples of C14 dates which have supposedly been wildly inaccurate. Many of these examples are the result of grossly improper applications of the method. For example, one I have encountered quite often is the "C14 dating of a living snail shell" that came back as thousands of years old... I believe this is one of Hovind's pet illustrations. The mollusks in question were extremely inappropriate subjects for C14 dating, which anyone familiar with the method would know. They form shells which are in equilibrium with the carbon content of the water sources in which they live... NOT the atmosphere. No C14 lab worth it's salt would ever date such an organism without warning the person requesting the test of the reservoir effect that would most likely render the test results invalid. <br />
<br />
<strong>Longer Ranged Radiometric Dating:</strong><br />
<br />
There are a great many longer ranged radiometric dating methods using radioactive isotopes with longer half-lives than C14. I’ll quickly review a couple of them.<br />
<br />
1. Argon-Argon (Ar40-Ar39) dating. Argon-Argon is a method closely related to Potassium-Argon, where the age of a sample is determined by measurement of how much of the potassium-40 in the rock has decayed into Argon-40. However, with the Argon-Argon method it is also possible to tell if there is any Argon-40 present which is NOT a product of the decay of the potassium in the sample. This is done by placing the sample to be dated in close proximity to a nuclear reactor for several hours. The resulting neutron bombardment from the reactor causes potassium-39 in the sample to be transformed into Argon-39. Argon-39 has a half-life of only 269 years, and is not found in nature… so any subsequently detected argon-39 is known to be a product of the decay of the potassium-39 in the sample. After this is done the sample is then put through an incremental heating process and the released argon-40/argon-39 ratios are measured at every stage. A sample that contains only argon-40 that is a product of the decay of the potassium-40 in that sample will release argon-39 and argon-40 in the same proportion at EVERY heating step. If there is parentless argon-40 in the sample that is not a product of the decay of that sample’s potassium-40 however the ratios will change at different heating stages. This eliminates the popular claim that excess parentless argon in a sample can cause that sample to date as older than it really is. <br />
<br />
2. Rubidium-Strontium (Rb-Sr) dating. Very useful for dating igneous rocks in particular. There are many different isotopes of Strontium (Sr-87, Sr-86, etc…). Rubidium-87 decays into Strontium-87. When magma first cools into an igneous rock formation all parts of the rock will have the same ratio of strontium-87/strontium-86 because the isotopes are freely dispersing through the molten rock prior to that time. However, once the rock hardens different parts of the rock will have different rubidium/strontium ratios than others since the atomic make-up of rubidium is larger than that of all the strontium isotopes and it will be incorporated into the structure of some minerals more or less easily than that of others. From that point on the rubidium will continue decaying into strontium-87… and the areas of the rock with higher initial ratios of rubidium/strontium will have their concentrations of strontium-87 increase at a higher rate than those with a lower ratio of rubidium-strontium. By taking multiple measurements from different sections of a sample and plotting their final ratios of strontium-87 to other strontium isotopes which, not being byproducts of the radioactive decay of other elements, have remained stable since the formation of the rock… the initial ratios of those isotopes throughout the sample can be determined and the elapsed time since the samples formation is established. Again, this method is highly resistant to any objections that we have to assume the concentrations of the isotopes in the samples being dated in order to date them. That is simply not the case. The initial concentrations are experimentally determined.<br />
<br />
For further info on the various radiometric dating methods, and since (I believe) all the other participants in this discussion are Christians, I would highly recommend this page:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page%206">Radiometric Dating</a><br />
<br />
Dr. Wiens goes into considerably greater detail than I have, there’s the added advantage of several visual aids, and he’s not a godless atheist like me for those that tend to distrust us as a matter of principle… just in case there are any of those reading along.<br />
<br />
<strong>Constancy of Decay Rates</strong><br />
<br />
For my last point in this post I’ll address one more often-encountered claim. That we just assume that decay rates have remained constant over time. This is not true. The constancy of decay rates over time has been independently established by multiple tests. Among them the isotopic analysis of the byproducts of the Oklo Natural Fission Reactor at Gabon which establish that decay rates have undergone absolutely no detectable change for a minimum of the past 1.8 billion years. There is also an entire battery of interstellar observations that can be made that would detect a past alteration of decay rates since that would require a change of the fine structure constant of the universe… with quite readily observable effects. Effects which are never observed no matter how far away (and thus how old) the object is we are looking at.<br />
<br />
And that is a summary of the “evolutionary” position on dating methods. The dates arrived at are accepted and used in establishing ancient evolutionary timelines, ages of fossils, etc... because there is <em>extremely solid</em> evidentiary support for the reliability of those methods.Granthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14151416582796784877noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1132746905506775858.post-23202724974096141742010-05-26T09:25:00.000-07:002010-05-26T09:38:36.326-07:00"Faith"Well, I got started with the content creation then kind of slacked off for a while. To try and kick start things again I've hunted down some previous writings of mine from various discussion forums and will be putting them up here.<br />
<br />
This one is on a subject that just recently came up again in another conversation I was having... which caused me to remember this post. I wrote this about two and a half years ago... my views on the subject are unchanged since then.<br />
<br />
=========================<br />
This is a topic I've wanted to address in greater detail for some time now. Let's start with a few examples of what "faith" is, as there are many different kinds.<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>1. "Faith" as a description of confidence in extremely reliable data.</strong> For example, I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow morning. The reason I have faith in this is because I have massive amounts of data available to me that inform me that this will occur barring an incredibly unlikely occurrence... like the sun exploding overnight or the space fairies halting the Earth's rotation. The sun has risen all 11,000+ days of my life to date, right on schedule, and I have no reason to suspect that pattern will be disrupted in the next 14 hours or so.<br />
<br />
<strong>2. "Faith" as a description of well earned trust.</strong> For example, you can have faith that a good friend or close acquaintance will deal honestly and fairly with you. This is based on your experience of and familiarity with this person and their personality and behavior. Your judgment of their character. Really, you are expressing confidence in your own ability to evaluate the trustworthiness of another person when you encounter and interact with them.<br />
<br />
<strong>3. "Faith" as an expresssion of loyalty and commitment.</strong> Usually to an individual or ideal which you have good reason to hold as worthy of support, as in 'keeping the faith'. You have evaluated and judged this person or principle and have come to the conclusion that it is worthy of your loyalty and efforts to advance it, and faithfully stand by it. <br />
<br />
<strong>4. "Faith" as a description of an insistence on believing in something without regard for or even in direct opposition to any related information or evidence.</strong> For example, to cite some extreme cases, you can have faith that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven's_Gate_(cult)">there is a spaceship carrying Jesus riding along and hiding behind the Hale-Bopp comet and if you commit suicide while it passes your soul will float up to zoom around with Jesus in outer space</a>. Or, you can have faith that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inedia">food and water are unnecessary for your survival, and humans can survive by being photosynthetic or something</a>. People clinging to this type of faith can usually be identified by statements such as <em>"It doesn't matter what you say you can't change my mind, I hold my position through faith and my faith is unshakable!" </em><br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Now, on to the heart of the matter. Those four somewhat famous words... "faith is a virtue". That rather begs the question, what kind of faith are we talking about? The first two types of faith are not exactly virtuous, they're simply descriptions of a state of mind. I would not feel terribly compelled to praise someone for their virtue because they trusted people close to them or were confident in solid data, there's nothing uncommon or particularly commendable in either of those things. There's nothing unsavory about them either, but I wouldn't call them virtues.<br />
<br />
I would consider that four word phrase to apply most to the third type of faith. To display the courage of your convictions, to steadfastly struggle to advance the principles you believe are worthy of upholding, and to loyally support and defend those people you judge to merit such devotion is not as common a trait as it should be, and does display nobility of character.<br />
<br />
The fourth type of faith is nothing like the third, and yet it is often substituted for it. There is nothing virtuous about it, and yet those four words "faith is a virtue" are most often employed when defending this application of it. It is one thing to display loyalty and conviction to a cause or a person which you have good reason to conclude is worthy of that devotion. It is entirely another to squeeze shut your eyes, clamp hands firmly over ears, and refuse to even consider whether that which you are committing yourself to actually warrants it while yelling <em>"I have faith, I'm not listening, I have faith, you can't change my mind".</em> A person possessing the third type of faith would not continue to lend their support to a cause gone wrong, or a person turned malicious or dishonorable, or a course of action demonstrated to be incorrect or flawed. A person possessing the fourth type of faith shuts themselves off from even considering if that could be the case. Deliberately blinding themselves to any possibility of recognizing a possible error, the equivalent of declaring that they consider their own judgment to be infallible, that there is no way they could even consider that they could be wrong about what they have chosen to believe because that would somehow compromise their faithfulness. <br />
<br />
And people are praised for it. It's tragic.<br />
<br />
As is probably obvious to many, particularly those familiar with my posting history, this is mostly directed at people of a religious persuasion. To get this out of the way immediately, no, I am not saying that all people of a religious bent are guilty of indulging themselves in that fourth type of faith. And no, I am not suggesting that its application is limited to the religious. But it is more prevalent within religions than it is without due to the nature of religious claims and teachings. Religions usually need their adherents to accept claims that simply cannot be objectively verified or rationally investigated. And they have a strong tendency to encourage that those claims not just be provisionally entertained as possibilities to be considered, or philosophical musings to serve as a means of shaping thought, but fervently clung to as profound absolute truths. <br />
<br />
When you combine the presentation of unverifiable claims with a need to have those claims presented as unassailable facts then you are left with little choice but to embrace that last type of faith as a means of encouraging the necessary mindset in the adherents of whatever religion you are dealing with. It is seen throughout history, organized religions holding up blind faith and acceptance of their central claims as a shining example of behavior to be praised and emulated, and questioning of those same principles as unfaithful, and at times flat out criminal. Something to be discouraged or outright reviled. <br />
<br />
It is my opinion that this type of mindset can be found at the root of many of the world's problems. Conflicts become unresolvable when both sides refuse to consider the possibility that they could be wrong because they are "faithful" and thus will not doubt or question the contents of their beliefs, religious conflicts are some of the most virulent and deeply entrenched because neither side is conditioned to even consider that the other might have a valid position or that theirs might be wrong. Ignorance is clung to fervently because an honest exploration of the knowledge available to a person on any number of subjects might conflict with the articles of faith that individual has been raised to hold dear, and it would be "unfaithful" to seriously consider anything that spoke against them. Sheer, wrongheaded prejudice and stupidity are defended by appeals to the "commendable faith in their beliefs" of the person holding their stance against overwhelming evidence that they are incorrect. And people shy away from criticizing it when it is done out of fear of offending someone's religious beliefs because long centuries of ostracizing anyone who questioned religious teachings have attached a stigma to doing so, even though criticism is what such actions most deserve. I have seen any number of discussions broken off when one side of the debate suddenly realized they were near to getting into a difference of opinion about the other's religious beliefs, as if that somehow rendered that person being just plain incorrect in their arguments or statements inconsequential. Abandoning any attempt to reconcile differences of opinion or to reach a common understanding because religion barred the path. On other subjects differences of opinion can be found that are also deeply entrenched and fervently and stubbornly defended, but only when you begin to tread on religious claims is even making the attempt to resolve them often considered some kind of transgression since it involves requiring the people involved to seriously examine and question the claims involved.<br />
<br />
And there you have my $0.02 on the subject of faith. If you're going to try to cultivate that particular virtue in yourself please take care to nurture the third type, and not allow yourself to slip into becoming trapped in the fourth.Granthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14151416582796784877noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1132746905506775858.post-83190116050468429182010-04-24T16:26:00.000-07:002010-04-25T09:59:32.940-07:00"Agnostic"... The Most Abused Word In The English LanguageWell, probably. I don't have hard data or anything but if it's not number one it has to be in the top five.<br />
<br />
If I were to tell you, the reader, that I was an agnostic I would put good money down that you would think I had just told you I was something that was somehow...somewhere... between an atheist and a theist. Because that is how everyone uses the word, despite the fact that that is ridiculous and nonsensical. <br />
<br />
Here is how the words "atheist", "agnostic" and "theist" actually properly relate to each other:<br />
<br />
<table border="1" summary="This table explains the proper usage of the words atheism, theism, and agnosticism."><tbody>
<tr><th></th><th></th><th align="center" colspan="2">Do you believe it is possible to KNOW if a diety exists?</th></tr>
<tr><th></th><th></th><th align="center">YES</th><th align="center">NO</th></tr>
<tr><th rowspan="2">Do you BELIEVE a diety exists?</th><th align="center">YES</th><td align="center">1</td><td align="center">2</td></tr>
<tr><th align="center">NO</th><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">4</td></tr>
</tbody></table>Now, depending on your answers to those two questions you are going to fall in one of those four boxes. And this is what you are as a result:<br />
<br />
1: You are a theist.<br />
2: You are a theist AND an agnostic.<br />
3: You are an atheist.<br />
4. You are an atheist AND an agnostic.<br />
<br />
There... simple, right? And yet nobody gets this correct. It's incredibly annoying.Granthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14151416582796784877noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1132746905506775858.post-18746421342556598592010-04-22T13:00:00.000-07:002010-05-28T10:45:44.134-07:00A Quick Note on Health Insurance and Free MarketsHaving lived through the recent unpleasantness that was the public debate over health care reform in the US there are a lot of observations I could, and probably will, make. Number one on the list, and the focus of this post, is the bizarre level of blind faith a very large number people in the US place in the idea that just turning any economic problem over to "the market" will automatically fix it. <br />
<br />
Before getting into why this idea is spectacularly wrong when it comes to things like health insurance, let me get something out of the way first.<br />
<br />
1. No, I'm not a communist.<br />
<br />
2. No, really, I'm not a communist. <br />
<br />
3. I LIKE capitalism. It works really well for lots of things. If I got to build my very own custom-designed society from scratch and I had to figure out what system to put in place to keep its people supplied with basic commodities like food and clothing and transportation and books and televisions and little yellow rubber duckies for the bath, I'm going with the market. It's GREAT at that kind of thing.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, instead of treating it like the useful tool that it is and putting it to use doing things it's designed to do and then hanging it up on the wall when you're finished, there is this large segment of the US population (I'll call them... Republicans) that has decided to practically deify it and declare it's the right tool for ALL jobs economy related. And this is where we run into trouble. Because a free market *sucks* at handling insurance. Any insurance at all really... but <i>especially</i> something like health insurance. To illustrate why this is let's take a look at a very simple example of how market forces act on two different businesses. <br />
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<b>The Market and Food</b><br />
<br />
For example number one, let's say I sell vegetables. Now this is a fairly straight forward process. It costs me a certain amount to produce each vegetable, I need to sell enough of them at sufficient price to make up my costs and produce a suitable profit. <br />
<br />
Now let's look at my ideal customer. Is it:<br />
<br />
A) Uncle Joe who thinks vegetables are something you occasionally put on a hamburger, and only because Aunt Susan is making him.<br />
<br />
B) The vegetarian buffet downtown.<br />
<br />
I'll end the suspense and provide the answer. That would be "B". You want a customer who is going to use a LOT of your product, because the more they use the more they buy, and the more they buy, the more you make.<br />
<br />
So what does this mean? It means I'm going to structure my business to meet the needs of people who want my product the most so that I will attract them as customers. I'm going to maintain sufficient quality of my product to make them want it, I'm going to price my product competitively so they don't choose my competition over me. In order to be able to keep those competitive prices low I'm going to maximize the efficiency of my operation to minimize my costs so I can afford to charge those lower competitive prices.<br />
<br />
And nobody needs to force me to do any of this... the market simply pushes me to do it naturally. YAY! Hooray for markets.<br />
<br />
<b>The Market and Health Insurance</b><br />
<br />
Now, let's say I sell health insurance. This is where things go terribly, terribly wrong.<br />
<br />
Does it cost me a certain amount to provide each policy? No actually. How much it costs me depends almost entirely on how much the person uses it after they buy it. The more they use it, the more it costs me. So now let's go back to looking at ideal customers. Is my ideal customer:<br />
<br />
A) Grandpa Bill, who is getting old, and has known heart issues, and has to see the doctor often for all kinds of procedures and prescriptions.<br />
<br />
B) Cousin Mark, who is 25 years old, in perfect health, never does anything terribly physically risky, and whose only encounter with a doctor is when someone reminds him he should go in for a checkup because he hasn't been in a long time... <br />
<br />
Option B again. Only this time for the OPPOSITE reason it was option B when I was selling vegetables. There, I wanted a customer who was going to use my product the most. Here, I want the customer who is going to use my product the <i>least</i>. I want the guy who will pay me for his policy, then go away and never, ever, EVER use the thing while I count his money.<br />
<br />
So, how am I structuring my business if I'm obeying the forces of "the market"? Am I doing what I can to make my policies appealing to people who need them most? Hell no I am not. I don't want those people as customers. So is you just leave thing to the market is the market going to create an insurance industry that naturally takes care of the needs of society in this area?<br />
<br />
NO.<br />
<br />
It's going to create an industry that goes out of its way to AVOID meeting those needs. Because doing so is not profitable. <br />
<br />
So why in the world would I want to turn health insurance over to the free market? So I can make sure the health insurance industry is doing everything in its power to make sure I can only get insurance when I don't really need it? Because that is what the market says is the best thing for an insurance company to do.<br />
<br />
And that's before we even get into little things like the consequences of having the market acting on a commodity whose demand is as close to totally inelastic to pricing as it is possible to be in the real world... which can be the subject of another post some other time.Granthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14151416582796784877noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1132746905506775858.post-48839921905445847212010-04-22T11:00:00.000-07:002010-04-22T11:11:47.200-07:00The Creationist MindsetThis will be a quick one, just felt the need to comment on something.<br />
<br />
After making my "people don't understand probability" post I was scanning the intertubes looking for relevant examples and found someone had written a letter to the editor all about how evolution was so unlikely, therefore we should be teaching creationism in schools.<br />
<br />
I signed up to comment and... disagreed. In some moderate level of detail.<br />
<br />
The response was for the letter writer to declare that I was an imposter. That "Grant" was not my real name. And to imply that I was there serving some shadowy agenda.<br />
<br />
I am still unclear on who I was supposed to be if not myself... why this person I was supposed to be would disguise themselves as "Grant" (Does my name carry some kind of attached prestige which would lend weight to my arguments I'm not aware of)... what cause was supposed to have "sent" me... and why they would care to do such a thing. So I asked, employing levels of sarcasm that were perhaps excessive but really, really obvious. <br />
<br />
The response was for the person in question to declare that I had admitted that I was not posting under my real identity (because I had asked why I, Richard Dawkins... or perhaps the ghost of Steven J Gould, would care to disguise myself as this "Grant" person) and they began basking in an apparent sense of validation that they were <i>right</i> about their conspiracy theory.<br />
<br />
Now, my point here is that I could just dismiss this as an isolated incident of a crazy person on the Internet, except that this is the kind of mindset one needs to have in order to deny evolution in the first place. The belief that the entire world's scientific community is somehow engaged in some vast plot to make you believe evolution happened, for mysterious unexplained reasons. Which is... well... <i>crazy</i>.<br />
<br />
For anyone interested, the exchange in question can be found here: <a href="http://www.stillwatergazette.com/articles/2010/04/16/opinion/764col15anderson.txt">(click me!)</a> and the conspiracy theorist in question is the letter writer, Lance.Granthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14151416582796784877noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1132746905506775858.post-75183678269577993632010-04-21T15:58:00.000-07:002010-04-25T09:28:22.746-07:00Popular Media Sucks At ScienceIf you wanted to look for a root cause of why the general public seems to often have serious issues with scientific literacy and understanding the true state of current scientific understanding of the world around us, look no further than the title of this post.<br />
<br />
Now, I'm not criticising journalists for not being scientists. That's not their job, and I have no desire for it to be their job. What I would like, very much, is if they put a little more effort into making sure their readers kept this fact in mind whenever they wrote stories about science. Case in point...<br />
<br />
Recently, in the Journal of Physical Chemistry B, there appeared a report on a study that had been conducted. The title of this report was <a href="http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/jp7112297"> "DNA Double Helices Recognize Mutual Sequence Homology in a Protein Free Environment"</a><br />
<br />
It's highly technical, it's very complicated, and very very few people who are not geneticists are ever going to actaully read it or fully understand it if they tried. We're not going to make the attempt here, but I am going to produce a block of text from the conclusion of the report for anyone interested in seeing what it looks like, and for purposes of comparison to what we'll look at next:<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<blockquote><div style="background-color: gainsboro;">We hypothesize that the origin of this recognition may be as follows.15 In-register alignment of phosphate strands with grooves on opposing DNA minimizes unfavorable electrostatic interactions between the negatively charged phosphates and maximizes favorable interactions of phosphates with bound counterions. DNAs with identical sequences will have the same structure and will stay in register over any juxtaposition length. Nonhomologous DNAs will have uncorrelated sequence-dependent variations in the local pitch that will disrupt the register over large juxtaposition length. The register may be restored at the expense of torsional deformation, but the deformation cost will still make juxtaposition of nonhomologous DNAs unfavorable.14 The sequence recognition energy, calculated from the corresponding theory is consistent with the observed segregation within the existing uncertainties in the theoretical and experimental parameters (Supplemental Theory). This energy is 1 kT under the conditions utilized for the present study, but it is predicted to be significantly amplified, for example, at closer separations, at lower ionic strength, and in the presence of DNA condensing counterions.10,15 <br />
<br />
Presently, we cannot exclude other mechanisms for the observed segregation. For instance, sequence-dependent bending of double helices may also lead to homology recognition by affecting the strand-groove register of two DNA molecules in juxtaposition. The juxtaposition of bent, nonhomologous DNAs may also be less energetically favorable under osmotic stress, since it may reduce the packing density of spherulites. In addition, formation of local single-stranded bubbles and base flipping23 may cause transient cross-hybridization between the molecules, as proposed to explain Mg2+ induced self-assembly of DNA fragments with the same sequence and length.16 We consider it to be rather unlikely in this instance, since the probability of bubble formation in unstressed linear DNA of the studied length is very small in contrast to the case where topological strain is relieved by bubble formation in small circular DNA molecules.23 Furthermore, bubble formation would distort the cholesteric order of spherulites and we see no evidence of this in spherulites composed of a single type of DNA molecule.</div></blockquote><br />
If you're not usually someone who spends their time reading highly technical scientific papers and you feel your brain dribbling out your ears, no worries, you're not alone. This creates a legitimate need for people who can translate something like the above into a more plain-language presentation that the general public can digest so they can remain somewhat informed about what is going on without needing to earn a PhD in any field they're curius about. <br />
<br />
This is where we run into problems... because journalists have a tendency not to just want to clarify when they report on science. Clarifying is boring, and it doesn't attract many readers. No... they want to dress things up and make them exciting too. So they start exercising a bit of what they call "artistic license" in their presentation of the story. Which is how we get from the previous technical discussion of how individual DNA molecules can act on each other across a few nanometers of space through electrostatic effects and whatnot... to this:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.livescience.com/health/080124-dna-telepathy.html"><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>DNA Molecules Display Telepathy-like Quality</b></span></a><br />
<br />
...which inspires in me the urge to bang my head against a wall. Repeatedly.<br />
<br />
Now, if you click on that link the rest of that article actually did a relatively good job of explaining that they were really talking about probable electrostatic effects between molecules over tiny tiny distances and that the "telepathy" was nothing of the kind and no weird supernatural things were happening... but when you're throwing up a headline like that you're asking for trouble. <br />
<br />
If only that was all we had to deal with.<br />
<br />
While the author of the LiveScience article contented themself with some sensationalist hyperbole in their article title as an attention grabber, as you get further out on the fringe of internet journalism people get less and less concerned with accuracy. Which is how we end up with:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/02/dna-found-to-ha.html"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>DNA Found to Have "Impossible" Telepathic Properties</b></span><b></b></a><br />
<br />
Now where the last article went there in the title but then walked it back in the article, if you go click on this one you'll find it stufffed with outlandish claims that science is stumped by this behaviour! That it defies all scientific understanding! That there is no explanation for how these DNA molecules are communicating with each other! That the effect is impossible according to the laws of chemistry and a source of wonder and amazement to scientists!<br />
<br />
And at no time will you find them clearing things up by telling people that actually, no, nothing supernatural or scientist-stumping is happening here and they have a pretty decent idea what is going on. Because what fun would that be when you can incite wild speculation about how science has discovered some mystical phenomena that nobody understands?<br />
<br />
And then all this leads to some hyperventilating individual who read that last article bursting onto some online discussion forums ranting about how science has shown that DNA has telepathic powers and this means the universe has a concsiousness and blah, blah, blah which is how I was introduced to this particular example and came to write this blog entry after realizing how many more people are going to end up reading that last article than will ever even attempt to read the original research that it's so spectacularly distorting and not realizing how completely wrong the information they are being given actually is.Granthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14151416582796784877noreply@blogger.com0