No, this cartoon isn't the argument, I just found it amusing and quite apt.I was reminded a few weeks ago that I had made a promise to refute, in its entirety, the erroneous and terrible misunderstandings (I'll refrain from using "lies" at this point) in a certain post some time ago, but never actually got around to doing so... And seeing as I now have the time (due to some fortunate/unfortunate circumstances), I present you with that argument point-by-point: Why Steve's "Evolution’s Big Problems, Part 1" are not big problems at all, and why some of those aforementioned "Big Problems" are actually just uneducated misses on his part.
We'll begin with Steve's first "big problem" and just go down the list, shall we?
1. In the history of scientific research, living organisms have never formed from non-living matter. Evolutionists hold the unscientific belief that this is possible as the first phase of evolution, but they cannot explain, replicate, or prove it can happen.
Au contraire. I actually blogged about this very topic back in February of 2008 when a fascinating article ran on Discover's web site--about how the building blocks of life arose from non-living chemicals... No, a large chimp didn't appear in the ice. No, it did not dwell on it's existence, question it's place in the world, or seek absolution from its inherent sin nature. It was RNA and DNA created in ice from ammonia and cyanide. Nothing more, nothing less. Of course, it was considerably more than the seven days, lacked a certain flair for the dramatic perhaps. After all, it's ice cubes forming the basic building blocks of life! How droll!
2. Nothing has ever given birth to something more genetically complex than itself. This is just assumed by evolutionists to be possible. Never before has information been added to the genome of a species.
Again, something I've blogged about! Here, mainly, but also here.(This may end up being easier than I thought!) Actually, lots of plants and creatures have reproduced offspring more complex then itself, and we've many times seen "information" (think RNA/DNA) added to a genome! For example, a new species of plant arose via polyploidy (when the chromosome count multiplies by two or more) (de Wet 1971).Primula kewensis(a new type of primrose) was created when Primula verticillata and Primula florbunda(each with 18 chromosomes) interpollinated. The new flower, Primula kewensis has 36 chromosomes and cannot breed with either of its parent species,but can promote itself with itself, thus fitting the definition of a new species, having also the added benefit of additional chromosomes (i.e., having had information added to it's genome...) Two birds, one stone. Sweet... And then you can read this post about a bacteria that not only fuses its DNA to its host (thus "adding to the genome"), but this once-independent-minded little creature actually has its DNA passed on with its hosts, and can be recreated even after antibiotics are used to kill it.
3. No single-celled organism has ever morphed into a multi-cell organism. Evolutionists firmly believe this can happen as the second phase of evolution, despite the fact that it has never been observed in the history of scientific research.
Ever heard of algae? Most algae exists as individual free-floating cells (phytoplankton) and occasionally, sometimes even within the same species of normally free-floating cells, these cells cluster together. There is probably some evolutionary advantage to doing so--facilitate exchange of genetic material between the cells, for example. In some species, these cells start to show some level of "specialization." Specialization allows to make the cells more efficient at their task but tend to make the cells more dependent on the other cells... So, should such a clusters of specialized cells (that often multiplied from a single cell and hence contains the same genetic information) be considered a single organism (such as the Portuguese Man-O-war?) or simply a collection of single-celled organisms (such as a clump of algae?) Well, the limit is a bit blurry and subjective; evolution by definition is progressive but, in many "true" multi-cellular organisms, specialization is the normal state of being for a cell, and it's not expected for a cell to revert to a general state. As such, many cells lose their ability to revert to general cells and to re-specialize into something different. Cells which still have this ability, by the way, are called "stem-cells"--and you've heard of them, I'm sure :)
4. No creature has ever given birth to something that was a different kind of organism than itself. This is again just believed by evolutionists to be possible, although it has never happened in recorded history. Evolutionists believe that over time, lizards change into birds and fish turn into mammals. Yet, of all the billions of lizards on Earth, not a single one is in turning into a bird. Of all the billions of fish on Earth, not a single one is in the process of becoming a mammal.
Oh. My. God. To have so much so wrong in so little a paragraph... Well, for starters, just head back up there to #2. As stated, lots of creatures and plants give birth to something completely different then itself. Happens more often than most would believe, actually. That being said, and as I also expect this to be a *very* long post, I'll try to sum up simply and concisely why not all lizards have "become" birds, and why not all fish have "become" mammals--try and stay with me on this: Despite the fact that evolution happens most times in small, local steps as necessity, chance, and environment dictate--say, that fish with the stronger fins able to flop to the next puddle and survive until the rainy season as opposed to the others whose fins weren't as strong and couldn't make the land crossing... This process ensures that only those stronger-finned fish will pass on their genes (DNA), as well as the learning process of moving over land to reach a more suitable area. The same type of fish on the other side of the forest had no such need to "walk" to another body of water, and thus will change and adapt only as much as it needs to--and thus, separated by maybe only a few hundred yards, you may have the beginnings of speciation occurring and, given a bit more time, other environmental factors, and other causes such as disease and predation, you may end up after only a few hundred years with two completely different looking fish that had the same genetic base--and further, may now not be able to interbreed with one another, thus ensuring that both branches of this tree will survive and continue to grow more branches. Of course, branches that haven't had enough time can still intermingle--maybe due to lack of similar mates, or some sort of quake that separated one from the rest--and some of those changes may then re-enter the original gene pool, but certainly not enough to ensure that all the guppies (or what-have-you) will have super-strong fins, and perhaps may even be bred out of this population as the need isn't present! Now, take that one step further (for, as anyone with a multi-cellular brain can tell you, macroevolution is the exact same thing as microevolution), and perhaps you can glimmer why we still have lizards *and* birds, fish *and* mammals...
5. Never in the history of science has any mutation benefitted an animal’s species long term, or made it more genetically complex. Evolution would require billions of these mutations to be happening constantly both today and throughout history, and yet none have ever been observed. All mutations ever witnessed in reptiles, birds, or mammals are either a loss or a scrambling of existing genetic information, and are either neutral or negative to the mutated animal.
Oh my. I see we're beginning to get redundant. Well, again, read #2. Let me know when it starts sinking in. Okay? Got it? Positive mutations documented and noted? Great. Hopefully number 5 isn't the same argument reworded and repeated.
6. Transitional species required for the theory of evolution to be true are called “missing links,” instead of “links,” because they do not exist.
Uh, no. But thanks for trying. Trouble is, every time someone discovers a "missing link," it creates two new gaps "which prove that an unseen hand was at work" (as if...) The Earth is billions of years old. To create fossils, a very unique set of requirements is needed. Thus, to say "every single gap must be filled before I will believe in evolution" not only means you probably failed at "connect the dots" in elementary school, but over billions of years, lots of fossils are made and lost through erosion and cataclysmic events--but, since you think the Earth is some type of closed system that swallows all bones and preserves them like a giant freezer, you still wouldn't believe if I had a Polaroid of each and every second of every step from the first microscopic strand of RNA until your mother spewed you our of her uterus, so... Good look with that...
7. It is impossible for a cold blooded animal to give birth to a warm blooded animal; and yet this is believed by evolutionists in the fish to mammal and lizard to bird theories.
Because there's no such thing as a warm-blooded lizard or fish? See here concerning warm-blooded sharks and tuna, or here, or even here.
8. Plants have been around since the beginning of life, and despite all the supposed evolution that should’ve taken place, they have not evolved intelligence.
And thank you for proving you know nothing about evolution. Where, in any and all of the scientific data on evolution, does it state that some form of intelligence is necessary? That intelligence should be a by-product? That intelligence is a goal, or the goal of evolution? Because the one has absolutely nothing to do with the other.
9. There are no instances of plants morphing into animals.
And now I'm beginning to think you're trying to be an a**hole. Since when has evolution ever claimed that plants turned into animals? Or vice versa? I thought this was supposed to be the "Big Problems with Evolution," not the "Stupid Arguments I Thought Up on the Crapper."
10. Eyes are far more complex than anything man can create, and yet they’ve been around since the first animals of an evolutionist timescale. In addition, fossils indicate that they’ve always been just as complex as they are today, which means that evolutionists face a fundamental problem. For instance, trilobites had extremely complex eyes, and were supposedly alive long before people according to evolutionist assumptions. Their eyes had two lens layers that allowed everything to be in focus without the need for refocusing, and yet had no spherical aberrations (distortion) because of the precise alignment of the lenses. Chuck Darwin, the founder of the religion of evolution, didn’t even believe eyes could have evolved:
“To suppose that the eye… could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” -Charles Darwin, in ‘The Origin of Species,’ 1859, p. 217
Again, something I've blogged about before here. You've also COMPLETELY and MISLEADINGLY and DECEPTIVELY misquoted Darwin. Why a Christian would need to mislead (dare I say "lie" at this point?) is, indeed, a grave mark against taking anything else you say seriously, but I'll digress if only to continue showing how foolishly ignorant you are of even the most basic evolutionary principles. Darwin goes on to say: "Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound." (This is where my mom usually says, "What? What is that in layman's terms! Speak English!") Darwin acknowledges first the complexity of the eye in its various, interworking parts and states up front that, if one were to simply say the "eyeball evolved" exactly as it presently is into being, thinking so would be absurd! (As is thinking the sky god made it as it is!) Nothing simply pops up into existence so complex! But he goes onto explain that, through small, numerous changes over periods of time involving genetic variance and natural selection, such a complex thing comes into being as it continues to need improvement for the survival of the fittest, as well as for the species itself! But, of course, being as you fundies don't like using reasoning or logic, you simply say, "Wow! It must have been a god!" and totally ignore (conveniently) Darwin's simple, clear explanation of how it came to be. You can read the rest of that old blog post if you care to actually learn anything. For now, we'll move onto your next "big problem":
10. Virtually every species of animal has two genders required for reproduction. How this system could have randomly changed from cell division, when it started, and how it manages to be so consistent is inexplicable by evolutionists. I wonder how any species survived before it gained the instinct and ability to reproduce.
Would it be remiss to note that you have two #10's? Is that a "big problem" as well? Anyway, onto sexual reproduction!! First off, there are more than two genders--but I expected that kind of ignorance from you. Second, sexual reproduction is cell division. Third: not all creatures need the opposite sex present to reproduce, like this blog post about the a shark in an aquarium. Fourth, add to that the fact that no creature that produces sexually ever produces it's "own kind." It may be seen as a matter of semantics, but every creature born through sexual reproduction is an "average" of the two creatures that mated. If there's anything else you still don't understand about why cell division is sex, you need to head back to the ninth grade...
11. Nature is full of “irreducible complexities,” or things that could not function if a single part is removed. Since evolution is a gradual and slow process, things like the human knee joint could not have evolved, because they would not function until they were fully formed. If one part/aspect were missing, they would serve no purpose. This is inexplicable by evolutionists.
This one has also been beaten to death, especially since the Dover trial in PA in 2005. The fact that you still have it listed as a "Big Problem" proves to me that you aren't interested in educating yourself so much as hoping no one will take the time to call you out on your "big problems."
12. No creature has ever evolved or “adapted” a new body-part to suit it’s environment, despite evolutionist belief, and they do not have the capability to do so. Among the ridiculous claims of evolutionists, one would be the land mammal that evolved into a whale. I’d like to see the transition where the nostrils supposedly change into the blowhole and move to the top of the head, and learn how the hind legs could magically morph into a tail flipper, all while continuing to function for millions of years.
Have you heard of seals? Manitees? Walrus's? Lungfish? Well, if you care to learn about whale nasal drift or tail formation, see here or you can order a very educational DVD from PBS here. Happy learning!
13. Spiders have been found perfectly preserved in amber that supposedly date back “hundreds of millions of years,” according to evolutionist faith-based dating systems. These spiders spin webs, and are no different from today’s modern spiders. If evolution were true, spiders should have changed significantly over millions and millions of years. To the contrary, spiders remain the same spiders throughout the fossil record. How would the first spider gain the ability to spin a web? By accident?
Go back and read the answer to #4. It's a doozy! (And accurate!) If you can't make the leap after that, you're more hopeless than I thought...
14. DNA has to already be present in order to create protein, and protein has to be present in order to create DNA. Both are required as building blocks of a living organism. Which formed first, randomly, from the primordial soup that may or may not have existed, and how is that possible?”
And now you can go back and read the answer to #1! Wow, we've come full circle! Do you see, Steve? Your big problems have been taken care of, in some cases years ago! Not that I expect this will change anything, but at least you no longer have these pathetic excuses to fall back on.
One of the things that comes up a lot in conversations with some Christians and other religiously-inclined individuals is their appeal to a higher power--i.e., morality must be absolute, and to be so it had to have come from a higher power--as if we, as thinking, conscience humans are incapable of deciding for ourselves what "good" and "bad" should, could, or would mean as we strive and struggle to create social groups in which we can live in harmony and propagate the species...
In one such conversation I am currently having over on Facebook, a young man said:
What about the "laws of nature"? Nowadays, when we talk of the 'laws of nature' we usually mean things like gravitation, or heredity, or the laws of chemistry. but the older "thinkers" called the law of right and wrong 'the Law of Nature,' they really meant the Law of Human Nature. The idea is that, just as all bodies are governed by the law of gravitation, and organisms by biological laws, so the creature called man also had his law--with this great difference, that a body could not choose whether it obeyed the law of gravitation or not, but a man could choose either to obey the Law of Human Nature or to disobey it. [...] There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. [...] Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked.
The gist of his question/statement, if it is to be nut-shelled, is: Where does the moral nature of man come from? Evolution does not provides a satisfactory answer for all mankind sharing a common ethical set of principles. Man's semi-common sense of "right" and "wrong" must have come from a higher source."
The problem in this statement is that a much stronger claim is being made than is actually warranted by any of the evidence. There isn't a consistent code of ethics being followed by billions of people, although there are consistent ethical principles that people follow. There are principles against killing the innocent in most societies, but those codes inconsistently define who is "innocent" and who is not. There are many principles against theft in most societies, but those codes inconsistently define the nature of private property and what is to be done with it.
Both the consistency of the general principles as well as the inconsistency of the codes which express those principles are quite understandable in the context of evolution.
The reason why there are laws against murder in all cultures is because nobody wants to be murdered (believe it or not...). In every culture, people got together and agreed that having a law against murder is a good idea (although that society will still kill people based on other "moral" laws held by that same group). With a law against murder they can all worry a little bit less about being murdered themselves within their particular social group as long as they adhere to the other moral precepts and codes. Same thing with theft: People do not like having things stolen from them. They got together and enacted laws against theft (although people will still steal if they are short-sighted enough to think of their own survival rather than the societies' survival). It is evolution that is responsible for the desire to survive (not be murdered) and thrive (one part of which is keeping the the things we own and not having them stolen from us). The evolutionary process on each individual has made us all similar enough as a society (due to those particular individual traits surviving in individuals in those groups, expressing those traits would have been more desirable for mating as they were better for the group and/or society where potential mates were located) in wanting similar things. So when we get together and decide on a moral or legal code, there are things that will end up being illegal or "immoral" in all cultures IN PRINCIPLE. On an individual level, the societies mentioned still have the same basic laws (again, in principle), and if you ask the individuals in those cultures, they will tell you they have a conscience and know right from wrong within the context of their definitions of private property, innocence, public property, et cetera.
Religious morality claims to be based on absolute moral law given down by a god. However, it is easy to look at the varying moralities of members of the same religions over history and in present day, and see that in fact RELIGIOUS morality constantly changes as secular societies change and interpretations of religious texts change as well (and thus, the moral stances of that religion changes). One of the implications of this sort of moral code is that when you harm someone, the wrong you have done is disobeying God, not harming that person. The harm to that person becomes fairly inconsequential. If an action is to be objectively wrong, then it is to be wrong for anyone--including God.
One example is slavery. Using the bible, there is not one passage that flat out condemns slavery. Slavery existed for thousands of years under societies that were strictly controlled by religious forces. The bible was used in the defense of slavery before and during (and after!) the civil war. Nowadays, however, most Christians will say that the bible opposes slavery. They have simply chosen to take different passages and interpret them in a different manner than those who have preceded us for thousands of years. Both groups can quote from the bible to support their arguments, yet both are completely convinced that theirs is (or was, since pro-slavery forces have mostly died away and/or become unpopular) the God-given moral law.
There are hundreds more examples besides slavery, from basic rights that were once considered morally necessary but are now laughed at, to major issues like equality amongst the genders.
The fact is, religious morality stems from the same place atheistic morality stems from. People. There is no "natural" or "moral" law. If morality WERE part of the order of nature, it would be inviolable, like gravity, or the laws of thermodynamics. What is called "natural law" is actually social consensus, arising out of the fact that people need to cooperate with one another in order to survive.
Morality is credited to evolution, and it is worthwhile to remember that large society is a very new thing (mostly due to medical and technological sciences based on those very evolutionary truths). Before 10,000 years ago, we lived in small hunter-gatherer type groups with no formal government per se. And this is much too short a time span for any evolutionary change to occur. Natural selection (one part of the equation that makes evolution what it is) works on the individual and their genes, not on societies or populations as a whole. The catch is, just because a group is a small, hunter-gather society does NOT mean there is no government-entity to enforce socially-agreed upon moral precepts. It may be informal, yes, but a government it is. If you lived 100,000 years ago and you stole food from an individual in your group, then it doesn't take lawyers to decide you're harming the group--one pack elder could frown and have you killed as a liability to the group! These behaviors are not unique: they have been witnessed in other animals, such as ravens and great apes and others. This type of proto-legal government would quite rapidly tend to favor those with group-friendly behaviors. Thus, a common across-species "morality" is carried through the generations across the species who survive due to socially-accepted mores and laws which are then taught, through both words and actions to the next generation, not necessarily genetically (although genetic predisposition cannot necessarily be ruled out either!).
Saying morality and goodness must flow from a deity not only puts the cart before the horse, it disregards the horse (evolution) completely as the driving force of the cart (carries our common ethical principles).
This is a story of a fish. Not a particularly beautiful fish, not too red, not too blue, not too large, not too small... It's not the one that supposedly swallowed Jonah (that fish was much too large), nor was it the fishes Jesus supposedly fed 5,000 people with (those fish were much too small), and neither is it the type of fish a researcher would dream up with the sole intent and purpose of driving a literal creationist mad...
But then there's this fish, the oddly named California Sheephead (and it may just be me, but when I look at it, the name "Dolly" doesn't exactly spring to mind...) The remarkable thing about the California Sheephead, however, isn't so much its size, or its color, or its ability to eat mollusks... It's the willful ignorance and sheer exuberance of this fish to defy set-forth biblical law! Hello, "male and female he created them"? Does the California Sheephead not have a bible!?
You see, California Sheephead are all born female. Each and every one. All female (but before the feminists get carried away, you should finish reading...). So there they are, a whole flock of scaly vagina's, loving life, swimming free, eating mollusks, until... Well, depending on factors such as size, age, and how many other California Sheephead are lurking in the general vicinity... Well, it seems they then grow a penis, much to their own consternation... (The feminists of the group may now cry with anger and frustration...) Every single California Sheephead eventually ends up a male--usually four-fifths of their life is spent wondering where this new organ came from and why they feel the need to stab the younger ones with it who haven't grown one--yet. In fact, they usually end up spontaneously growing this penis at about seven or eight years of age, then spend the rest of their almost fifty years on this earth lugging it around making a new batch of females with the other females who have yet to undergo gender reassignment surgery...
I suppose this means Chaz Bono wishes he had been born a California Sheephead. But then again, maybe not...
Believe it or not, there a quite a large number of fishes who have this female-to-male sex switching going on (and not in the 1970s kind of way--hello swingers, wherever you are!), but California Sheepheads are unique in that they are the only ones who always start out female and always end up males! (And you thought the orgies you attended were confusing!)
And of course, I never did care overly much for s/he-food...
Now, while there may be something that needs to be said about the whole "Hmm? I wonder what I would do if one morning I woke up the opposite sex!?" (all straight men reading this suddenly started rubbing their chests knowing they would spend all day playing with their new boobs...) I know I personally am breathing a sigh of relief that I know I'll still have what I have when I wake up tomorrow morning...
As long as I stay away from Lorena Bobbit...Sources:
This blog post is mainly a response to a discussion going on here at War of the Waves.The problem with saying "Darwinism" is at fault, or at least "the scientific rationale for Communism-an ideology" is it's not only a mis-directed blame-ology, it is a false argument at it's core. It would be much like trying to say it's the bible's fault that people have used scripture as the basis for some of the bloodiest and deadliest wars in all of recorded history. Just because Marx was able to twist Darwin's writings on natural selection as a way of building a government system with which to subjugate and control most of a continent isn't Darwin's fault, and it certainly isn't evolutions fault--it's Marx's fault! And you, Richard Ramsey, are making the same misplaced logic that Marx was at fault for using! You just have a different goal for misreading evolutionary theory! (not to say that the misreading is entirely "on purpose," but it is nonetheless twisted and misread on your part...)
And while it may be nice, even a worthy goal, to read up and study Communism's faults, foibles, and history upon earth as it relates to human history and such, it is still a very bad casual connection to say Darwin and evolutionary theory are somehow to blame for Communism's brutal and bloody reign. The bible, and the wars fought on it's behalf (or, if you will, the beliefs held by those who have read and misread it for eons) have caused just as much misery, pain, torture as Marx--more, if truth be entirely told. And while it is easy to see how Marx could misread and use evolutionary theory to build a governmental system meant for subjugating a people, the fault lies in that, instead of seeing how Marx misread the writings of Darwin, but that you think Marx read them correctly and thus it must be Darwin's fault (or at the very least evolution's fault!) means that you think Marx's misreading and misapplication must have been the only true and accurate way of reading Darwin's material in the first place!
I am hoping you see the distinction here, but if you think I'm not being entirely clear here on the distinction, let me know and I can try to figure out another way to phrase or illustrate my point...
Now, onto your second point, "how can one go about observing one species changing into another?"
First, I suggest you read up on how micro- and macroevoltion are the exact same thing.(You can see my 29 posts about the topic of evolution and it's impact on all our lives, or if you do a simple Google search on macroevolution and find many reputable, scientific articles, sources, and facts about macroevolution and its many proofs). Of course, none of this will mean a pile of dingo's kidneys if you refuse to look at any of it with any type of critical thinking (so many refuse to engage in critical thinking when it comes to these topics of "creationism V evolution") but I like to think most people keep an open mind when considering any point of view or reading any new material... :)
I know, I know, dear reader. You think me a slacker--a lazy, good-for-nothing blog-abandoning sloth. The truth is I've been so busy in the physical world my digital world has suffered, and I do apologize for that.
But as I sat down tonight--my first night of leisure in what seems an eternity--I read something so entirely disturbing I had to rip myself away from the leisurely pursuit of reading other blogs to post about it. Mind you, you may think it not a big deal and actually kind of a bore, but as it's my blog, I think my concerns take a bit more precedence than yours. ;)I think it important to "know thine enemy," as it were, and after spending about two hours reading those blogs I generally enjoy and agree with (when it comes to blogs of opinion and not just daily life), I like to take some time to see what all the fundies are up in arms about. What's getting their goat lately, what's eating their cheese, what's taking the "fun" out of "fundamentalism," so to speak.
I stopped at one web site I hardly ever check on anymore, mostly because I find it's authors so totally warped and wrapped up in the dogma as to make the Pharisees of Jesus' time look like kittens who hugged too much.
Their latest "comment-getter" can be surmised as such: Teaching evolution causes people to kill people. Creationism and Genesis are the only things that can save us from ourselves. Which, to say the least, is about as dogmatic and simple-minded as it gets. I said as much (putting it as nicely as I could), but then I felt the need to come back here and say my own piece. I'm sure the author's will follow back here (and perhaps be a bit dismayed to find I'm a bit harder on them over here than I was over there) but such is life. After all, if I can't please everyone, I may as well blog about it, yes?
What really got my goat (if we are so inclined to beat a metaphor like the proverbial horse in need of an undertaker) was the following statement from the article to which they were "discussing":
The president of Creation Worldview Ministries says decades of teaching "evolution only" in public schools and universities is partly responsible for crimes such as the mass shooting earlier this week in Virginia.
Dr. Grady McMurtry [...] says, public schools and universities have taught the theory of evolution as fact, with no opposing viewpoints — and the result, he contends, is a lack of respect for human life.
Therefore, he asserts, people should not be surprised when mass shootings occur, such as the one on the Blacksburg university campus on Monday.
As you can tell, this article (and most likely this blog post by them) is a bit dated, but nonetheless speaks to the dangerous mindset of fundamentalism.
It's still a bunch of hogwash. Let me explain:
As I touched on in a few earlier posts (here,here, and here, just to name a few), teaching creationism as if it were a science, let alone pretending it's some semblance of a good argument, is one of the most immoral things fundamentalists have tried to do for years. Not that trying to claim humility and humbleness while claiming you are special enough to be worth the death of a god wasn't a bad enough irony-laden position, but now to actually try to spin your fairy tale as "science that will prevent murders"? It's like they are in a one-man race toward the bottom of what it means to be stupid while appearing to be smart--and failing miserably.
To begin with, evolution is not about us being "glorified animals." It is a theory (much like gravity and flight, which I'm sure will be the next bone of contention among fundamentalist circles) which explains, quite succinctly, adequately, and truthfully, about the diversity of life upon this, the third rock from the sun. It does not speak to humanities supposed "greatness," it does not dwell on our "superiority," and is not a driving philosophy to fill the empty hours when people who wish for something just a bit more than life itself say such boorish things as "Why am I here?" and "What is my purpose in life?" As if we all have the time to give you meaning and purpose. Get a life.
Second, if anything serves to drive down meaning and purpose (again, as if living life itself weren't wonderful enough), creationism teaches nothing more than that god was bored one day, just he and his other two supposed personalities in their timeless existence, and he decided to create mud that he could play with and bring to life. And not content just to play with that life, he pretended to kill one of his personalities for the sake of "buying back" the "souls" of his Ken and Barbie dolls so that he wouldn't have to place them in the trash compactor. Splendid. I feel full of fuzzy warms already. "You mean he loves me sooooo muuuuuuch that he'll burn me forever if I don't grovel at his feet and stroke his ego? Sign me up!" If that doesn't teach you that god thinks life is disposable, nothing will. He killed his kid (or, if you prefer, he allowed his son to commit suicide [how do the Catholics explain THAT one!]) for crying out loud! And we're supposed to think he holds our lives as sacred? Seriously?
Third: To teach that evolution is nothing more than a "guess" does a serious disservice to the science community, which has proven the usefulness of evolutionary sciences in the fields of biology and medicine to provide life-saving medications and treatments. Not only has evolutionary theory kept us thriving for the last hundred years (the turning point being the polio vaccine, in my opinion), it has actually allowed humanity to be a much greater moral species--it has allowed us, using our brains and our senses, to find new ways to help one another, to save one another, to make one another's lives better! Not just to survive, but to thrive! Where people use to just sit and pray and light candles, they can now be proactive and get medicine and therapy built on the very evolutionary sciences that fundamentalists are scoffing at! Where people use to blame god's wrath or anger, we can now prevent certain conditions, heal wounds, and even bring back from death those very same people that, just even fifty years ago, would have been proclaimed as having been "called home to heaven." And people thank god? Thank a scientist! Thank a doctor, a pharmacologist, a university professor, an inquisitive mind! Thank Galileo, Newton, Einstein, and a host of others disregarded, ridiculed, and sometimes banned and killed by the church for "witchcraft" and "blaspheme." These are the people, the pioneers, of today's life-saving medicines. (And if you think these forefathers to modern scientists are unrelated to this discussion, you are worse off than I even considered!)
When it comes right down to it, however, this is really a moot point, as science never has, and possibly never will, speak to the existence of imaginary beings outside of our realms of inquiry. Believe it or not, the purpose of science is not to "attack" Christianity any more than it's purpose is to prove that jelly is, in fact, butter. The purpose of science is to ask questions, provide answers, and then keep hammering and hammering and hammering at those answers. This is the very truth of the scientific method. To continually seek new data, see how it fits into what is previously known, and change what was thought to be known based on what is now known. Science is not static (much to the chagrin of many a fundie), as they are constantly revising and updating and finding new information. Every year, in fact, there are huge arguments within the scientific community as notions are challenged, ideas are placed on the table, new data is verified, tested, and re-examined by anyone who is anyone. It is because of this method, this very morally justifiable method, that most people are even around to argue the silliness of creationism as there are today. If not for the scientific method, 90 percent of us wouldn't be here today, including myself, because we all would have sat around, staring at each other, thinking god was angry and not being able to do anything about it except more staring and praying.
Believe what you wish--science ultimately doesn't care, mostly because what you believe has little to do with anything outside of your own head. But don't you dare claim that what you believe is justifiable as an alternative to facts. Because it isn't.
Ultimately, creationism (most fundamentalist positions, actually) is very self-serving and ultimately self-defeating. The more they try to "prove" creationism by cutting out everything that doesn't fit, and then claiming that left over 1 percent is "evidence," will eventually lead to (hopefully) the eye-opening reality check for the fairy tale that it is. What's truly sad is so many hold dogma and doctrine in much higher regard than their own world and lives, and so many of them (fundies) will continue to scream, stomp their feet, and demand that they, and only they, can have the answer because of an old Hebrew text told by word of mouth for thousands of years before finally being put on paper, during captivity by the Babylonian Empire, to be read for thousands more.
To summarize: To deny and prevent the use of the evolutionary sciences will harm humanity as a whole, not only knowledge-wise, but in the very scary realm of disease, pestilence, and death--a very immoral position which places humanity in jeopardy from future problems and issues relating to virus's, bacterium, and genetically destructive mutations. Therefore, if we reduce the ability of sciences to cure, prevent, or treat human causes of suffering over "theologically important" views, an immoral and deadly position has been staked. Ergo, to support evolutionary facts and discoveries, and opposing false sciences based on theological criteria, is the right and moral thing to do.
To quote a pretty well-known Latin proverb, "Unless what we do is useful, glory is vain." Indeed, creationism holds nothing useful, not even to Christians. It will only continue to erode the very "rock solid" foundation they claim to stand on. And while many modern Christians have indeed realized that science is not a threat to their belief (and in fact, many have revised their interpretations of scripture so that they are in fact quite complimentary), whenever something is viewed as "unchanging," it will always get left behind.
And until fundamentalists realize that evolutionary sciences aren't a life philosophy, and are in fact actual truths and laws, the sooner they can give up wasting time fighting it and spend more time loving their neighbors and worshiping their god(s). Anything more would be glory for glories sake, and vanity of the highest order. Anything less would be immoral.
I wonder how a race of homosexuals would do in regards with natural selection and the survival of the fittest? Not too many babies will come if you don't procreate in a natural way.
It seems they would be doomed by Darwin if not by the Bible.
--Obaminable Zombie, Brookfield, CT
If you ever care to see what stupid looks like in front of a keyboard, just hang around the Topix forum for a while. It's, to say the least, unnerving.
But I hear this a lot from rabid evangelicals, things like "If evolution were true, homosexuality would have been weeded out ages ago!" and "Homosexuals are proof evolution isn't true!" Never minding that religion just proves that sometimes evolution goes in reverse (socially speaking), it seems we must delve into the world of evolution and natural selection once more in an attempt to educate the ignorant masses (assuming it is possible to educate strict adherents to doctrine as opposed to lovers of knowledge...)
I suppose we must first start out by defining the two differing types of homosexuality (and I don't mean "lesbians" and "gay men"):
the sexual activity between two individuals of the same gender, and
the innate sexual preference for one's own gender.
In layman's terms, there's the act itself, and then there's the individual.
Back in the day (Yesteryear, Yonder, and Yore), both the scientific community and the church (at odds even then) were both of the mistaken conclusion that homosexuality was a purely human characteristic and trait--that is, the church took the stance that "No dumb animal is drawn to this evil"; Greek society and other enlightened cultures were said to have stated that "All irrational animals merely copulate, but we rational ones are superior in this regard to all other animals. We discovered homosexual intercourse. Men under the sway of women are no better than dumb animals" (Source.). Such was the ignorance of all mankind.
Of course, today we know that homosexuality (the act) is indeed abundant--nay, the norm--in most animal communities, least of all our closest living cousins the primates! Over 450 species of vertebrates have been documented and observed engaging in homosexual behavior (Source and Source); thus, we have at least established that not only is homosexuality present in a great deal of the animal kingdom from which we are a product, but indeed established as a naturally occurring act (for if it is observed in nature, how could it possibly be labeled "unnatural"? It can't!)
Of course, human homosexuality is neither new nor "unnatural" and has been documented in almost every single culture we have discovered (of course, making no statement on how homosexuality was perceived in that culture, just that it has been documented), one must ask how the seeming paradox of evolution and natural selection has kept the "dead-end reproductively" homosexual perpetually throughout most (if not all) species might seem to be easily answered on the surface: "If evolution were true, the non-reproducing homosexual traits would have been naturally selected out of the population in short order, thus eradicating it from the gene pool, thus proving it is a CHOICE, not inherent."
If only life were so simple. Take, for example, sickle-cell anemia. It is a disease passed on through the genes of humans to this day, and continues to be fatal if undiagnosed and treated. Sickle cell anemia is only inherited when BOTH parents pass on the gene to the child. Both parents could have no trace of the disease (being as they each only have ONE copy of the gene), but if their child gets one recessive copy from each, that person has the disease. However, if the child only gets ONE of the sickle cell genes from one parent, and the normal gene from the other parent, that child will exhibit no signs, and thus, the disease will continue to be carried throughout the genome unnoticed and undiagnosed. Even people with sickle-cell anemia have children, after all, another way this seemingly useless and anti-naturally selective trait is passed on to future generations. Thus, something seemingly undesirable can continue with a species forever, as long as the species can continue to procreate.
Add to the fact that societal stigmas (human society and culture, if you will) have long (in European circles, at least) stigmatized the homosexual, many a homosexual has indeed gotten married and sired children (both men and women) against their natural inclinations--indeed, this is still all-too-frequent in today's world, in which a homosexual person is made to hide their natural inclinations for one more socially acceptable to the mob, thus ensuring that, even if homosexuality could only be passed on by a "full blown" homosexual, societal norms of the reining culture are thus ensuring that the inclination of same-sex attraction continues in the human population--in fact, such a cultural stance ensures that homosexual tendencies will be expanded, not neutralized or eradicated.
However, these examples and scenarios, in regards to both the "sickle cell anemia" passing of gay traits and the "hide it from society" passing of gay traits, assumes that homosexuality is an undesirable trait that continues to thrive in the population.
More recent studies have shown that perhaps homosexuality is a necessary, even beneficial, trait of animal and human populations. From societal and social gains (Source) to the naturally selective plus that a woman who gives birth to homosexual children generally HAS more children (greater species propagation; Source) to more adults being on hand to raise children (Source), homosexuality in a species could be either a side affect of other choices in natural selection and evolution (the number of children a woman can bear greatly enhances the chances of homosexual children) or it could be a direct result of the mating habits of our ancestors (a male reducing the copulations and gene dispersal of other males as in polygamy or "herding" of females for one sole male), or it may even be something entirely different that we haven't explored yet. The fact is, science is learning new and fascinating things about what it means to be human every day. From our eating habits, our sleeping patterns, to our choices in sexual partners, all of these are the result of years of evolution both at the fundamental genetic level and the greater perpetuation of the species level.
To make off-the-cuff, ill-educated remarks like "Homosexuality would have been gotten rid of if evolution were true" does nothing to further understanding of either the human condition or the individual, and does both a great disservice, not to mention the disservice to science in general.
So all of this to say what? That we are still learning how we, as a species, fit into the growing body of knowledge we call reality. While it might be easy to vilify the things we don't understand and regulate it to the "undesirable" column, that could be the very thing that could undo us as a species. After all, who is to say that "straight sex" is the only type of copulation that will keep us from going off the deep end? It could very well be that homosexuality is the saving grace of our species.
Or, it could just very well mean that there's nothing like a nice piece of ass, no matter who's ass it happens to be. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and that, my friends, is the driving force behind natural selection.
Being the ever-popular blogger that I am, I get the occasional email along the lines of "You're going to hell" and "Jesus loves you, but not your homosexual lifestyle," and all sorts of other garbage full of good intentions and sorely lacking on common sense.
I was recently e-accosted earlier this week by person_of_the_lord@yahoo.com with the following statement:
Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.
The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.
Sounds pretty good, doesn't it? I mean, here he is, appealing to the natural world without appealing to the bible. You might read the above and think, "Oh, well, that makes sense--tell me more!"
But let's start off on the right foot, shall we? Sadly, a quick Internet search discovered that this was a cut-and-paste job--that is, "person_of_the_lord" isn't even using their own words (unless "person_of_the_lord" is Ken Ham, founder and curator of the fairy tale known as the Creation Museum, which I highly doubt...)
Second, and perhaps more paramount than the illusion that "person" took the time to think about what they were writing, is the basis of the argument itself: that science "start[s] with different presuppositions." Nothing could actually be further from the truth (which is supposed to set you free...)
Science is not a "grab bag." That is, scientists do not run around saying "We must preserve the theory of evolution at all costs!" Evolution (and as stated earlier, all of the sciences of medicine and biology) are built on solid facts, tested and confirmed theories. Indeed, if one were to attend any type of forum on evolution, one would quickly realize that, not only does every single statement made have a high demand of proof, but that the bar for even being considered part of the scientific algorithm is so high that it takes years, decades, even multiple decades before something is accepted as a part of the evolutionary theory! This isn't a matter of "different presuppositions" but a matter of understanding the basics of science as a whole.
All of science is based on observation, experimentation, more observation, and more experimentation. There is no "guess work," in that, nothing is assumed, and nothing is taken for granted. When scientists discuss the Theory of Evolution (or the Theory of Relativity or the Theory of Flight), they are not expressing reservations about its truth.
Now, is all reasoning based on "axioms"? An axiom, by definition, is a fundamental principle widely accepted on its intrinsic merit. And on the surface of this statement, Ken actually says something true! (I'm a little shocked too!) The problem comes in when Ken (and by default, "person_of_the_lord") stops short of using critical reasoning.
Let's say Marge is a starfish. How many legs does Marge have? It would be reasonable to assume that Marge has five legs. Most starfish do. However, we also know that there are starfish with more (and less) legs than five. Hence, while we can reason that Marge has five legs, when we look at all the criteria for starfish and the number of legs they have, we must then ask follow up questions, such as: What kind of starfish is Marge? Is Marge a starfish at all? Does she live in salt water or fresh?
This is sort of how critical reasoning works: Not assuming anything, not taking anything for granted, but taking what we've observed about the world, and how it may apply to the given situation or question, which in this case is: Is Marge a starfish? And why does the number of legs she has matter in the natural world?
Creationist reasoning goes something like this: Marge is a starfish. How many legs does Marge have? Let us consult the bible.
Granted, a starfish may be a silly example, but it nonetheless proves the point, much as does the comic above. Creationism checks "critical" at the door and expects "faith" to fill that void... Unfortunately, all that's left is... A void.
Time magazine recently ran an article on the up-and-not-so-coming movie Expelled, in which Ben Stein pretends to know something about nothing. One thing the article said, which I think needs to be repeated endlessly until it sinks in through all the self-delusion of creationists is as follows:
But all scientific knowledge is built this way. A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish.
Indeed, just ask the fish. Because creationism smells of hoards of them rotting away in the sun, and people just don't want to take notice.
I would first like to apologize for this not happening on Saturday as was originally proposed: I was dealing with--well, let's just say a "stomach thing" and spare you all the details, shall we?First off, let me be clear on this: What I want to do is make a positive argument for evolution, not necessarily against creationism. After all, it is hard to do the one without doing the other, but I am going to make a concerted effort to keep this about evolution's positives, not creationism's severe lack.
With that said, we must first lay out what it is exactly that I mean by "moral." "Morality" is usually tied into a religious frame, the underlying rationale being "all good things come from god." Hence, for anything to be labeled moral or immoral, it must automatically be framed by and for (and sometimes against) religion. Morality, of course, has no such qualms--it need not be a "religious" thing than a "nonreligious" thing; morality, simply put, is a set of rules or norms for the "right" way of behaving in a society of human beings(underlined words are key). In other words, when speaking of anything in moral terms, it must be viewed as that for which it is: What we decided, as a society, was best for the society, and the individual inhabitants of that society. And while "moral concepts" could be wedded to religious tenants and doctrines, it is not necessary nor is it fundamental to the concept.
What then could I possibly mean by a "moral defense" of evolutionary theory? you may be wondering. What does a science about the diversity of life on the planet have to do with "doing the right thing" in "a society of human beings"?
Well, I'm glad you asked... And if you didn't ask, take the above as what you should have asked... Moral arguments are not relevant to the historical evidence of evolution, nor to the predictive power of the theory of evolution, but by suppressing or undermining knowledge of biology with "creationism," medical progress is impeded, as you will see below. And that means death, suffering, and disease that might have been prevented; thus, creationism should be judged as morally evil.Evolutionary theory, as noted above, is the science devoted to the diversity of life on the planet, and how that diversity came to be, nothing more, nothing less. (And before you go off on a tangent about the meaning of "theory" and how it relates to science, see here) It does not speak to origin of life at all, nor does it speak to "creators" in any way, shape or form (that is strictly for philosophical and quasi-philosophical circles...). Be that as it may, many rabid bible readers like to force upon evolution much more than it is in the hopes of waylaying the theologically inconvenient facts about evolution, so far as to try to equate a lack of scientific study, scientific research, and scientific facts known as "Intelligent Design" or "Creationism" with an overwhelming host of scientific study, scientific research, and scientific facts known as "The Theory of Evolution," so much so that they demand it be taught in American classrooms during science and biology classes. And we must ask, is that right? Is that moral?
The short answer is: No! Creationism shouldn't be given equal time and attention in school as, not only is it a horse of a different color (not to mention world), but it's not science, and it would be completely immoral to pretend it was so.
The long answer goes like this: No!(Don't worry--long answer continues in next paragraph...)
The long answer goes something like this:
ID'ers and creationists say that evolutionary science is dangerous, and leads to all kinds of immorality, and that it should not be taught in schools (or taught in such a way as to make it seem like "a guess" and watered down to nothing more than "maybes" and "far-flung" possibilities). In effect, this would mean not only less children going into the scientific fields of biology and medicine, as well as other evolutionary-based sciences, but that the public at large will grow up ignorant of the basics of science and biology.
DNA and genome-based treatments and medicines rely on the facts of evolution--its methods, practical applications, and its general knowledge--to fight infectious diseases, develop vaccines, new therapies and treatments... This list could go on forever! DNA mapping sequences don't just happen, you know. And neither do vaccines and medicines. All of the research and time spent on developing these medicines to save lives are based on the very real, very factual evolutionary sciences. Thus, evolutionary science (and by default, the theory of evolution) are moral sciences taking moral actions, saving human lives, treating human problems, making human lives better.
To deny and prevent the use of the evolutionary sciences will prevent and harm humanity as a whole, not only knowledge-wise, but in the very scary realm of disease, pestilence, and death--a very immoral position which places humanity in jeopardy from future problems and issues relating to virus's, bacterium, and genetically destructive mutations.
Therefore, if we reduce the ability of sciences to cure, prevent, or treat human causes of suffering over "theologically important" views, an immoral and deadly position has been staked.
Ergo, to support evolutionary facts and discoveries, and opposing false sciences based on theological criteria, is the right and moral thing to do.
Arguably, the only thing creationism has brought to bear in the realm of disease-fighting is prayer--prayer which has lead to the deaths of hundreds of people throughout history, most recently a poor 11-year-old Wisconsin girl, who's parents decided she didn't need a doctor for her diabetes, just prayer. (From the article: [Everest Metro Police Chief Dan] Vergin said an autopsy determined the girl died from diabetic ketoacidosis, an ailment that left her with too little insulin in her body, and she had probably been ill for about 30 days, suffering symptoms like nausea, vomiting, excessive thirst, loss of appetite and weakness. The girl's parents, Dale and Leilani Neumann, attributed the death to "apparently they didn't have enough faith," the police chief said. They believed the key to healing "was it was better to keep praying. Call more people to help pray," he said...) You won't find the term "diabetic ketoacidosis" in any book of the bible, and we can certainly see that prayer doesn't do people a lot of good when it comes to the moral implications of this story: You simply cannot rail against the evils of science and modern society without creating very dangerous ignorance.
Evolution is the central underpinning, the central truth of which all biology is understood and revealed (and by which all of medicine is based upon). To remove evolution from classrooms--indeed, to say creationism is somehow equal to or greater than evolution--would be like saying that biology itself is somehow unimportant, or even false! It would be much like if creationists got upset about the way math works, especially in regards to addition (but claimed no real issue with subtraction, multiplication, or division) all because of a passage in which god claimed he made two plus two equal five: Whether or not they had a problem with the other three basics of math wouldn't matter, because they would in effect be rendering all of mathematics as somehow "false" because it was theologically inconvenient! And while we could take the time to explain how an engineer builds an automobile based on certain premises, the least of which includes two plus two equaling four, not five, but I think you get the picture: Saying that math is false based on the bible is a stupid thing to say, just like saying evolution is false for the same reasons.
The truth of evolution is what has kept most of them alive today (a moral quandary of sorts, if you ask me), and to try to somehow negate facts to suit your "religious freedom" not only is insulting to all science and medicine as we know it today, but an injustice to any type of "moral stance" religion tries to make. After all, it was not a god or a devil which came up with cancer, AIDS, or polio: just an algorithm known by us as evolution. And it was evolution which also allowed us to fight, prevent, and sometimes cure these very ailments, plus many more.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny ...' " --Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)
For years all we've been hearing is that "Life just doesn't happen." In fact, it is one of the main tenants of "creationist theory" (Ha!) that, since one has yet to create "life" in the lab, it must therefor be impossible, and hence, we must need a god...
Insert new knowledge:
One morning in late 1997, Stanley Miller lifted a glass vial from a cold, bubbling vat. For 25 years he had tended the vial as though it were an exotic orchid, checking it daily, adding a few pellets of dry ice as needed to keep it at –108 degrees Fahrenheit. He had told hardly a soul about it. Now he set the frozen time capsule out to thaw, ending the experiment that had lasted more than one-third of his 68 years.
Miller had filled the vial in 1972 with a mixture of ammonia and cyanide, chemicals that scientists believe existed on early Earth and may have contributed to the rise of life. He had then cooled the mix to the temperature of Jupiter’s icy moon Europa—too cold, most scientists had assumed, for much of anything to happen. Miller disagreed. Examining the vial in his laboratory at the University of California at San Diego, he was about to see who was right.
As Miller and his former student Jeffrey Bada brushed the frost from the vial that morning, they could see that something had happened. The mixture of ammonia and cyanide, normally colorless, had deepened to amber, highlighting a web of cracks in the ice. Miller nodded calmly, but Bada exclaimed in shock. It was a color that both men knew well—the color of complex polymers made up of organic molecules. Tests later confirmed Miller's and Bada’s hunch. Over a quarter-century, the frozen ammonia-cyanide blend had coalesced into the molecules of life: nucleobases, the building blocks of RNA and DNA, and amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. The vial’s contents would support a new account of how life began on Earth and would arouse both surprise and skepticism around the world.
Did anyone else note the lack of a cosmic sneeze or the presence of clay?
Ice may prove the crucial ingredient here, too. Deamer and his former student Pierre-Alain Monnard (now at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico) have run experiments frozen at 0°F for a month, without the aid of templates. In those relatively brief experiments they already see RNA molecules up to 30 bases long, at least as long as other researchers have seen in similar experiments without ice.
That is a good start, but it leaves unanswered the question: How do you get from tiny snippets of RNA to longer, well-crafted chains that could have acted as the first enzymes, doing fancy things like copying themselves The shortest RNA enzyme chains known today are about 50 bases long; most have more than 100. To work effectively, moreover, an RNA enzyme must fold correctly, which requires exactly the right sequence of bases.
A young scientist named Alexander Vlassov stumbled upon a possible answer. He was working at SomaGenics, a biotech company in Santa Cruz, California, to develop RNA enzymes that latch on to the hepatitis C virus. His RNA enzymes were behaving strangely: They normally consisted of a single segment of RNA, but every time he cooled them below freezing to purify them, the chain of RNA spontaneously joined its ends into a circle, like a snake biting its tail. As Vlassov worked to fix the technical glitch, he noticed that another RNA enzyme, called hairpin, also acted strangely. At room temperature, hairpin acts like scissors, snipping other RNA molecules into pieces. But when Vlassov froze it, it ran in reverse: It glued other RNA chains together end to end.
Vlassov and his coworkers, Sergei Kazakov and Brian Johnston, realized that the ice was driving both enzymes to work in reverse. Normally when an enzyme cuts an RNA chain in two, a water molecule is consumed in the process, and when two RNA chains are joined, a water molecule is expelled. By removing most of the liquid water, the ice creates conditions that allow the RNA enzyme to work in just one direction, joining RNA chains.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen: Abiogenesis has happened. No, a large chimp didn't appear in the ice. No, it did not dwell on it's existence, question it's place in the world, or seek absolution from its inherent sin nature. It was RNA and DNA created in ice from ammonia and cyanide. Nothing more, nothing less. Of course, it was considerably more than the seven days, lacked a certain flair for the dramatic perhaps. After all, it's ice cubes forming the basic building blocks of life! How droll!
Indeed, it is a little bit funny (this feeling inside). And, apparently, this is not a "eureka" moment. Eureka moments are far and few between in science, that pain staking art which continually tries and tests everything to find out the truth. After all, isn't it the truth that will set you free? Or is it the facts which set you free?
"I maintain there is much more wonder in science than in pseudoscience. And in addition, to whatever measure this term has any meaning, science has the additional virtue, and it is not an inconsiderable one, of being true." --Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)
I hope you all will take the time to read the entire article--this is fascinating stuff.Thanks to Whore Church for bringing this article to my attention.
Despite tons and tons of scientific evidence, right-wing groups much like the ill-named "Family Research Council" spends much of their time and resources trying to scrape together enough "evidence" (READ: mis-read on purpose data to support preconceived silly notions) in an effort to "prove" the tales taken as history in the bible.
The latest round of "outrage" came in the form of an email entitled "Design Found, Intelligence Lacking in Latest Attack by Darwinians." Because, you know, that's what science is all about, right? Disproving a fairy tale! Despite the claims of the title of the article, they present no links OR names of the, and I quote, "peer-reviewed articles on the concept and the credentials of 700 doctoral-level scientists who have publicly questioned Darwinism." In other words, they know that if they tried to hold up any one of these "scientists" it could be blasted away by the common lay-person in a nano-second (which, of course, they would argue didn't exist as it isn't mentioned as a time period in the creation story).
The National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine have mounted yet another attack on the scientific theory of intelligent design, publishing an 89-page book titled Science, Evolution, and Creationism. The new publication falsely equates "intelligent design" (a scientific theory which infers the necessity for intelligent design from scientific evidence) with "creationism" (a term usually used for a theory of origins that begins with the Bible or some other religious text). It also lumps together concepts of microevolution within species (such as the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria), which are not controversial, with the more contested theory of macroevolution, which seeks to trace all existing forms of life to a common ancestor. It appears to dodge altogether the crucial question of how living things could have arisen from non-living things in the first place. It also slanders intelligent design as "unscientific" despite peer-reviewed articles on the concept and the credentials of 700 doctoral-level scientists who have publicly questioned Darwinism. Perhaps the biggest problem with the defenders of Darwinian evolution is that, ironically, they have reversed the roles in the supposed historical "war between science and religion," by declaring Darwinism to be inerrant dogma, and punishing its doubters by burning them at the academic stake.
Here's a clue about why microevolution (otherwise known as "adaptation on a small-scale) is EXACTLY the same thing as macroevolution: Macroevolution is nothing more than the accumulated sum of all the microevolutionizing that the species has been going through that has resulted in a distinct, new species.
Mind-boggling, isn't it?
I suppose we need to point out the differences between the terms before we can get into any lengthy (or not-so-lengthy, as the case may be) discussion as to why they are, at heart, one and the same.
Macroevolution: is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [note 1]). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.
Microevolution: refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species. It can also apply to changes within species that are not genetic.
Despite what creationists would have you believe (and yes, "Intelligent Design" is just poorly disguised creationism...), macroevolution and microevolution and quantifiable, scientific terms which actually mean something--not just general lazy terms carried on the winds of whim.
Regardless, in science, there really is no "fine line" in which microevolution suddenly becomes macroevolution in all cases: at some point, however, science recognizes that a macroevolution has occurred when a species that used to be one and the same is now not interbreeding, cannot interbreed, and show distinct signs of being different.
For example, new species of plants arose via polyploidy (when the chromosome count multiplies by two or more) (de Wet 1971). One example is Primula kewensis (a new type of primrose), which was created when Primula verticillata and Primula florbunda (each with 18 chromosomes) interpollinated. The new flower, Primula kewensis has 36 chromosomes and cannot breed with either of its parent species, but can promote itself with itself, thus fitting the definition of a new species, having also the added benefit of additional chromosomes (meaning that the argument of creationists that all changes within genetic components are bad is a false claim). The new prim rose (pictured here) not only added to its genetic code beyond what was given it by its parents, it can now NOT go back and undo this! It can't even try to tone it down by continued breeding with its parent species! It is a NEW SPECIES. It is evidence of macroevolution.
Of course, creationists think that macroevolution only applies when dogs turn into fish and orangutan's turn into people! Not only is this a false use of the term (meaning that creationists think only when huge amounts of both micro- and macroevolution have occurred has macroevolution actually occurred) it shows a basic ignorance of very basic scientific concepts. And while creationists can continue to ignore vast amounts of evidence concerning both micro- and macroevolution (see here for 29+ evidences for macro [heavy reading, but well worth it!])
But this is all just smoke and mirrors to a creationist, isn't it? Their beef isn't really with evolution. We have to be honest (even if the creationists don't): The biggest issue creationists have with evolution is the misguided notion that somehow it should speak to where life came from, when all Darwin was doing was explaining where the variety of life came from. But it is a logical question to draw from a discussion on the variety of life: where did this life come from?
Of course, creationists would have you believe god sneezed into some mud, and that miraculously it made a man. And when god realized his mistake in not doing a double-sneeze, he then had to amputate a rib from Adam (as apparently, in the beginning, there wasn't enough dust to go around to make a woman) in order to try to make his mistake at least a fun time for Adam.
Yes, god allergies are easier to believe than sound, reliable evidence and facts, isn't it?
Science has actually made some amazing headway into this question! The following are just a sample of the amazing amount of actual scientific links (READ: NOT to Answers in Genesis or any other pseudo-science site) about some of the theories and discoveries about where life might have come about:
Prokaryotes, Viruses and Origin of Life from multiple web sites and BIOLOGY: The Science of Life by Wallace, King and Sanders 2nd Edition Scott, Foresman and Co. 1986
Really, this could go on forever. Is there any conclusive evidence yet? Of course not--and there may not be for some time! But I will tell you one thing conclusively--none of the evidence supports the God Allergy Hypothesis of Creationism!
As Douglas Adams once put it in his most brilliant of books, The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy,
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It proves you exist, and so therefore, you don't. Q.E.D.."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
You have to wonder though--these fundies that, instead of relying on faith like a child, twist and falsely present data in order to make their faith seem more "realistic"--do they actually have faith at all? Does their over-riding need to try to "prove their faith correct" actually negate the faith they are supposed to hold above all else?
Granted, Nathaniel Abraham shouldn't have been fired for his religious beliefs. Never mind that someone being fired for their religious beliefs falls into that "special rights" category that homosexuals want--after all, Jesus himself would only want religious beliefs protected, not sexual behavior ingrained into the DNA he himself supposedly had a hand in creating, right? (not to mention the civil union the father and holy Casper have been in since before time began while raising poor, motherless Jesus!)
It seems that, in "casual conversation," Mr. Abraham mentioned (at his job at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution) that he did not believe in evolution...
A conversation he was having with his supervisor. At the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution is dedicated to research and education to advance understanding of the ocean and its interaction with the Earth system, and to communicating this understanding for the benefit of society.
Note that the institution is dedicated to "research and education to advance understanding." Something tells me they should be more selective in their screening process of whom they hire, but I guess that's kind of beside the point, isn't it?
But, I wonder, would Mr. Abraham have a lawsuit if he had mentioned, in casual conversation with his supervisor, that he didn't believe two plus two equaled four? That the supposed Theory of Gravity was a lie invented by science to lessen the importance of the Christian god?
The article states that Mr. Abraham is being represented by the Christian Law Association (surprise! surprise!), and his lawyer is quoted as saying:
"And what the scientific community seems to be saying to creationists or [those who hold to] intelligent design is if you're going to hold that belief, keep it in the closet -- hide it. [They are saying] if you let someone know that you hold that belief, we will indeed, in this case, shun you, terminate you, punish you for having that religious belief."
Now, it's not every day you see that kind of spin! Makes a dradle seem tame! I also love how they adopt the whole homosexual metaphor of closets and such! Classic victimology! I wonder if the bright-eyed bushy-tailed lawyer even realizes he's claiming victimization in a metaphor used by their classic victims--do you think he does?
Tell you what--you think this is a hoot--you should read some of the comments left under the article!! Reminds me of part of the reason I stopped going to church--you know, besides the whole disbelief in god thing. That many uneducated morons in one place gives me the willies! And not in a good way...
Well, perhaps it is. I promised Journey Woman I'd post about my honest for-real-and-for-true feelings about race (and although I'm not sure she'll hold me to it it!), I have much more to say than I thought I would--but then in turn, my mind wanders a horrendous amount on to tangents and thus, I end up having to do things like this for the off-shoots to be extracted from the main post in an effort to
keep the forthcoming post on-topic,
clear my mind of the tangents,
and express things I normally don't think of expressing
and thus, the Procrastinator's Post is born...First, about the banner at the top: "Embrace Diversity." I'd like to say for the record that there is a vast amount of distance between embracing diversity, and tolerating stupidity. Just because you believe a pink unicorn saved your grandmother from cancer last Christmas after promising to never miss praying naked in the woodsy hallows on sacred unicorn holidays does NOT mean I should automatically give your belief system due respect and credit, and thus allow it to be embraced as valid in this reality of ours. This, of course, does also in turn NOT mean I believe all people of faith are stupid--in fact, many people of faith have brought brilliant and enlightening things to light, have done a lot of good for mankind in general, and don't hoard their faith to their ass, trying to suckle life from the Dying Babe of Fairies! However, it must be said that an embracing and celebratory nature of DIFFERENCE does not equate a celebratory embracing of ALL DIFFERENCES.Second, two plus two will ALWAYS equal four. I don't care how much you pray, have faith, sacrifice time, and do good works in an attempt to prove to the world that Genesis is a historically accurate and literally true account of where life--and its subsequent diversity--came from. Math doesn't lie. Math is a universal truth. Two plus two will always equal four, I don't care how much you want it to be five, or negative seven, or ten to the six-hundredth power.
This all started with what can only be called the DUMBEST magazine in the entire world being located in my parent's bathroom, called Answers (put out by the notorious psuedo-science group, Answers in Genesis). In this episode of Answers, they claim that tigers have claws and fangs NOT because they eat meat (even though they do), but because before the fall of mankind, when every creature was supposedly a vegetarian, the tiger ate plants that were really tough to chew through... Of course, that's never minding the fact that they don't have molars for chewing plant fibers, that they've been around for nigh on two million years (NOT four thousand) eating the flesh of other creatures, and ignoring how a human sin could possibly effect a tiger's dietary habits...
Need I mention that they also claim that somehow, in 4000 short years, micro evolution is the reason there are so many big cats that all descended from two semi-large cats that Noah had on board his tugboat?
This would be a prime example of stupidity that need not be celebrated under the umbrella of diversity.There... I feel a bit better. Now I can concentrate better on what might be a pretty lengthy piece about race in America.
No, this cartoon isn't the argument, I just found it amusing and quite apt.
