The stupidity, it doesn't stop

Posted on June 17, 2009 by Michael

This is currently on Conservapedia’s front page:

The killer at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, James von Brunn, was a white supremacist and also an evolutionary racist. James von Brunn wrote that “Only the strong survive. Cross breeding whites with species on the evolutionary scale diminishes the white gene-pool while increasing the number of physiologically, psychologically, and behaviorally deprived mongrels.” The evolutionist Charles Darwin was also an evolutionary racist. The shooter, James von Brunn, also appears to have had close ties to neo-Nazis and his ex-wife said his anti-semitism and racist hate “ate him alive like a cancer”. Adolf Hitler was also a rabid evolutionary racist.

Aside from reading like a child wrote it, this is just the same old creationist appeal to emotion. These people have no evidence to back up their horribly stupid views, so they resort to dumb things like this; evolution means racism!!! It’s therefore wrong!!1!!

But here’s the kicker. Even if one were to ignore the glaring logical fallacy in the wee little minds of Conservapedians, the argument still fails. Being wrong is also a major no-no when making any argument.

James von Brunn’s beliefs are not based upon any real understanding of evolution or genetics. If they were, then he’d know that two white people can be more genetically diverse between each other than a white person and a black person. In other words, race doesn’t have any biological grounding. So if Conservapedians actually think it is a valid tactic to judge the merits of scientific evidence based upon inconveniences that it may give, then the real argument here is that evolution informs us that racism has no good basis and is therefore stupid.

von Brunn’s idea of evolution is very close to the creationist idea of the theory. Neither one is anywhere near correct. They both use their particular versions of this revolutionary concept to suit themselves. von Brunn thought there was a significant genetic basis for races. Creationists think evolution actually says that. The only difference between these abuses is scale. von Brunn is one guy with wrong ideas and the crazy to back them up. Creationists are a huge group of poorly educated, unfortunately ignorant individuals* who harm the progress of science by rejecting the most fundamental concept to an entire field.

The Conservapedia piece mentions that Charles Darwin was an “evolutionary racist”. This is more conservative screaming and kicking. Reasonable people keep pointing out just why they are wrong, but the conservatives just switch to more convinced language. That’ll do it.

Darwin held many of the racist beliefs of his day, but he didn’t need evolution to get him there. His science stands firm, regardless of what he may have believed. But for what it’s worth, he was ahead of his time with his race views. He also was a big abolitionist.

As for Hitler, he suffered from the issues as von Brunn. In addition, however, the man may have just been abusing any old idea for his purposes. He invoked all sorts of beliefs, including the words of Jesus, to rally support for his plans, actions, and goals. This says nothing of whether or not he was right.

*Ignorance is no crime. We’re all guilty of it. Fortunately, there are remedies.

Filed under: Evolution | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

The stupidity, it doesn’t stop

Posted on June 17, 2009 by Michael

This is currently on Conservapedia’s front page:

The killer at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, James von Brunn, was a white supremacist and also an evolutionary racist. James von Brunn wrote that “Only the strong survive. Cross breeding whites with species on the evolutionary scale diminishes the white gene-pool while increasing the number of physiologically, psychologically, and behaviorally deprived mongrels.” The evolutionist Charles Darwin was also an evolutionary racist. The shooter, James von Brunn, also appears to have had close ties to neo-Nazis and his ex-wife said his anti-semitism and racist hate “ate him alive like a cancer”. Adolf Hitler was also a rabid evolutionary racist.

Aside from reading like a child wrote it, this is just the same old creationist appeal to emotion. These people have no evidence to back up their horribly stupid views, so they resort to dumb things like this; evolution means racism!!! It’s therefore wrong!!1!!

But here’s the kicker. Even if one were to ignore the glaring logical fallacy in the wee little minds of Conservapedians, the argument still fails. Being wrong is also a major no-no when making any argument.

James von Brunn’s beliefs are not based upon any real understanding of evolution or genetics. If they were, then he’d know that two white people can be more genetically diverse between each other than a white person and a black person. In other words, race doesn’t have any biological grounding. So if Conservapedians actually think it is a valid tactic to judge the merits of scientific evidence based upon inconveniences that it may give, then the real argument here is that evolution informs us that racism has no good basis and is therefore stupid.

von Brunn’s idea of evolution is very close to the creationist idea of the theory. Neither one is anywhere near correct. They both use their particular versions of this revolutionary concept to suit themselves. von Brunn thought there was a significant genetic basis for races. Creationists think evolution actually says that. The only difference between these abuses is scale. von Brunn is one guy with wrong ideas and the crazy to back them up. Creationists are a huge group of poorly educated, unfortunately ignorant individuals* who harm the progress of science by rejecting the most fundamental concept to an entire field.

The Conservapedia piece mentions that Charles Darwin was an “evolutionary racist”. This is more conservative screaming and kicking. Reasonable people keep pointing out just why they are wrong, but the conservatives just switch to more convinced language. That’ll do it.

Darwin held many of the racist beliefs of his day, but he didn’t need evolution to get him there. His science stands firm, regardless of what he may have believed. But for what it’s worth, he was ahead of his time with his race views. He also was a big abolitionist.

As for Hitler, he suffered from the issues as von Brunn. In addition, however, the man may have just been abusing any old idea for his purposes. He invoked all sorts of beliefs, including the words of Jesus, to rally support for his plans, actions, and goals. This says nothing of whether or not he was right.

*Ignorance is no crime. We’re all guilty of it. Fortunately, there are remedies.

Filed under: Evolution | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

All it takes to refute something…

Posted on June 3, 2009 by Michael

…is for some journalist to say you did. According to the headline on that article, James Perloff refuted evolution at some half-baked meeting.

Perloff tried to draw parallels throughout history, attempting to connect individuals such as Andrew Carnegie, Karl Marx, Josef Stalin and Adolph Hitler with the teachings and rationales of Charles Darwin. He also told of his own life’s inner conflict, saying he was briefly turned into an atheist at a young age due to Darwin’s theory.

Perloff went on to say, “Survival of the fittest does not explain arrival of the fittest,” and that, “[the theory of] evolution is just speculation on the past and should not been seen as scientific fact.”

There you go. EVILution has been defeated. Good job, Perloff. Honestly. It should be clear to everyone. If someone can make bogus, tinsel thin connections between ideas and people Real America loathes, then the idea must be false. Just pretend that logical fallacies don’t exist and the argument is air-tight.

The event was held in front of a small gathering and was kicked off with a prayer along with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Harold Shurtleff of West Roxbury, regional field director for the John Birch Society.

I remember as a very young kid playing Street Fighter. When the levels got too hard or my older brother beat me a bunch of times in a row, I’d start up a game just by myself. I would have a Player 2 set up, but no one was controlling it. I’d just wail all my 32 bits on that character. It made me feel good. Does anyone get the feeling that conservatives have the same frustration? I mean, the exact same frustration – one born out of immaturity and a lack of rationale. These people are kicking and screaming their prayers and flag-based prayers all over the place because it makes them feel good. Of course, I was a child when I did it. What excuse do these people have? There are more examples.

Take Sean Hannity. He’s a huge idiot. (I heard him say in the middle of a broadcast, and I paraphrase, “…that isn’t an arrogant statement. America saved the world from Totalitarianism. It did this multiple times. The world has us to thank. That isn’t an arrogant statement.”) He refuses to refer to Obama as “President Obama” in virtually every instance. He insists on calling him “The Annointed One”, or “The One” for short. You can feel his anger and immature frustration. People very rarely identify whining correctly (they tend to conflate it with active disagreement). This is not one of those cases. Sean Hannity and the new breed of ultra-radical conservatives are big, fat whiners.

Conservapedia is another great example of a bunch of crybabies. Their page on evolution (which is just a page on creationism) has a section titled “Creation Scientists Tend to Win the Creation-Evolution Debates“. I kid you not. This is their version of 32-bit wailing. They absolutely cannot win. Rather than to accept reality, they set up these conversations in their own heads where they win every time. Sean Hannity does it. John McCain did it. Dubya definitely did it. This is the path of conservatives in America. Yell and whine and if that doesn’t work, beat the crap out of Blanka.

Filed under: Creationism, News | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

More interesting fossils than Ida

Posted on May 26, 2009 by Michael

Ida is a new fossil discovery that has been horribly over-hyped. It is being called “the missing link”. Following sentences usually mention humans. In other words, some articles are crafty and don’t directly say this fossil is important to Homo sapiens. Others are less crafty. All of this non-sense plays right into the hands of the lying creationists (sorry to be redundant).

Darwinius masillae, otherwise known as Ida, is a tremendously well-preserved fossil that is a primate ancestor. As with most fossils, it was probably a relatively close cousin of one of our direct ancestors. (Note, “relatively close”. Of course, all fossils we find are eventually cousins of our ancestors, if they aren’t directly our ancestors.) How close is difficult to tell – forget saying it’s a direct ancestor. It is a member of the same suborder as humans (and apes and monkeys), haplorhine, but that doesn’t mean Ida wasn’t the last member of her particular population. It can tell us some interesting things, but it in no way independently confirms evolution. Science doesn’t work that way; theories are supported by a wide body of evidence. A single find can add a little weight to a theory, but doesn’t usually completely make a theory. (Notable, if this were found in the, say, Jurassic period, it would have been a find that actually spun evolution on its head – find me a part of creationism [or its coy, dishonest, lying cousin intelligent design] that can be falsified.)

So while interesting and not simply trivial, there are more important fossils out there than Ida. What’s more, there are more interesting fossils. (Guess which claim is the author’s opinion.) Here are some.

Lucy

Lucy

Maiacetus inuus

Maiacetus inuus

Schinderhannes bartelsi

Schinderhannes bartelsi

Tiktaalik

Tiktaalik

Filed under: Evidence, Evolution | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Only in the light of evolution

Posted on May 10, 2009 by Michael

Now that finals are over, I can devote more time to my dear, neglected blog. I begin with a series:

I am following a specific chapter in Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution is True.

The fossil record: We should see fossils in a certain order if evolution is correct. They should go from simple to more complex overall, and the fossils we see in the most recent strata should resemble extant life much more than the fossils we see in old strata.

We should also see changes within lineages. We should be able to observe instances of gradual change in species that eventually leads up to either current species or at least to the time of extinction for these species.

Here’s a simple timeline of life’s history. Click it.

What the evidence shows is gradual change. First we find simple bacteria which survived off energy from the Sun, then we see more complicated cells known as eukaryotes arise. (You are a eukaryote.) Next we see a slew of multi-cellular animals arise. They’re still simple, but much more complex than the original bacteria. A few million years later more complicated life arrives. Early (and simple) plants begin to take hold. Soon the fossil record begins to show more plant complexity with low-lying shrub such as ferns, then conifers, then deciduous trees, and finally flowering plants. Gradual changes occur in the oceans and fresh waters which lead to fish and then tetrapods (Tiktaalik comes to mind).

One of my favorite fossils is trilobites. They’re extremely common due to their hard bodies. In fact, even their eyes are well-preserved because of their hard mineral make-up. I personally recall entering touristy-stores seeing countless fossils of these guys in the mid-west to the west (which, unsurprisingly, was once a shallow sea). This image shows the different lineages of this organism. Studies show that the ‘rib’ count has changed over time in each individual species, often without regard to how the other species changed. Going back further, there is less and less divergence in each species. Eventually, as evolution predicts, they all meet at a common ancestor.

So naturally the next step is to find fossils which show more significant changes. Let’s take birds and reptiles. They hold similarities between each other, both morphologically (certain shapes and structures) and phylogenetically (genetic sequence). A good hypothesis is that they came from one common ancestor. If this is true, the links between birds and its ancestors and reptiles and its ancestors should lead to the same point. They do. Dinosaurs are the ancestors of both. The links between birds and dinosaurs are so incredibly well established that I’d prefer to not go over them in detail. But for starters, some dinosaurs sported feathers and claws and had the same proteins for the feather-making process as extant birds. The links between reptiles and dinosaurs is easier just on intuition, so I’ll leave it at that for now.

Other transitional fossils include the already mentioned Tiktaalik. A view of the history of life can be see here. This shows the change in head and neck structure. Recent research on long-ago discovered Tiktaalik fossils has shown the importance in the gradual bone changes in the neck. These changes – a hallmark of evolution – were important to the ability to turn its head. This is a hallmark because natural selection only modifies what already exists. This is precisely what happened.

Going further with this example, evolution makes predictions as to how early fish evolved to survive on land. If there were lobe-finned fish 390 million years ago and obviously terrestrial organisms 360 million years ago (which is what the fossil record shows), then if scientists are to find transitional fossils, they should date in between that time frame. There should be an animal that shows both features of lobe-finned fish and terrestrial animals. Tiktaalik is that animal. It has fins, scales, and gills, but it also has a flat, salamander-like head with nostrils on top of its nose. This is a good indication that it could breathe air. Its eyes were also placed there, indicating that it swam in shallow waters. Furthermore, it was lobe-finned, but shows bones (which eventually evolved into the arm bones you used to get out of bed today) that were able to support its weight to prop itself up. And of course, it dates to 375 million years ago.

Next, evolution says the fossil record should show recent fossils being more closely related to extant species than are early fossils. This is precisely what happens. Sixty million years ago there were no whales. Fossils resembling modern whales only show up 30 million years ago. So, again, evolution makes a predication: if transitional fossils are to be found, they will be within this gap. And so it is.

We begin with Indohyus. It was an artiodactyl. This is important because extant whales have vestigial bones which indicate that they came from this order: scientists expected to find this because, again, evolution predicted it. It should be of no surprise that this fossil dates to about 48 million years ago, right in the predicted gap. From here there is a gradual evolution shown in the fossil record which leads up to modern whales.

Filed under: Evidence, Evolution | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

It doesn’t force you to be an atheist

Posted on April 18, 2009 by Michael

Evolution simply allows you to be one.

There are two primary reasons people reject evolution: ignorance and assumption. The ignorance is abundantly obvious; creationists are wholly unable to go toe-to-toe with anyone who has a modicum of knowledge about evolution. Ignorance isn’t a crime, but it’s far from a virtue. Assumption, on the other hand is less clear.

People equate evolution with atheism: if you believe in evolution, you must be an atheist. It’s not that far off the mark, but it does make assumptions. Evolution does not force atheism, it simply allows for it. But let’s not confuse the specifics. Evolution absolutely does deny the existence of virtually every god that man has so far created. The more popular gods out there come with a whole bag of characteristics that are incompatible with reality – the most notable that humans are an intentional result of some sort of pre-ordained plan. This is inconsistent with an intense compilation of science that shows humans are a product of a long timeline of change and adaptation; humans are no more pre-ordained than a snail or where a falling rock will land. Contrary thought it wishful thinking unsupported by evidence.

Of course, the magic playland of human-created gods isn’t the same as the concept of a hands-off, deistic being. An intentional creator of the Universe has the possibility of existing, even if it’s tremendously unlikely. Most people don’t like this idea because it offers a cold and useless explanation for the Universe; a deistic being says how the Universe came to exist, but doesn’t make humans as special as most people like to think. Beyond that, it still leaves open the question of how the deity itself exists. It’s a useless middleman that is equal in validity to any theistic beliefs, just without all the baggage.

Filed under: Evolution | Tagged: , , , , | 4 Comments »

It doesn’t force you to be an atheist

Posted on April 18, 2009 by Michael

Evolution simply allows you to be one.

There are two primary reasons people reject evolution: ignorance and assumption. The ignorance is abundantly obvious; creationists are wholly unable to go toe-to-toe with anyone who has a modicum of knowledge about evolution. Ignorance isn’t a crime, but it’s far from a virtue. Assumption, on the other hand is less clear.

People equate evolution with atheism: if you believe in evolution, you must be an atheist. It’s not that far off the mark, but it does make assumptions. Evolution does not force atheism, it simply allows for it. But let’s not confuse the specifics. Evolution absolutely does deny the existence of virtually every god that man has so far created. The more popular gods out there come with a whole bag of characteristics that are incompatible with reality – the most notable that humans are an intentional result of some sort of pre-ordained plan. This is inconsistent with an intense compilation of science that shows humans are a product of a long timeline of change and adaptation; humans are no more pre-ordained than a snail or where a falling rock will land. Contrary thought it wishful thinking unsupported by evidence.

Of course, the magic playland of human-created gods isn’t the same as the concept of a hands-off, deistic being. An intentional creator of the Universe has the possibility of existing, even if it’s tremendously unlikely. Most people don’t like this idea because it offers a cold and useless explanation for the Universe; a deistic being says how the Universe came to exist, but doesn’t make humans as special as most people like to think. Beyond that, it still leaves open the question of how the deity itself exists. It’s a useless middleman that is equal in validity to any theistic beliefs, just without all the baggage.

Filed under: Evolution | Tagged: , , , , | 4 Comments »

It doesn't force you to be an atheist

Posted on April 18, 2009 by Michael

Evolution simply allows you to be one.

There are two primary reasons people reject evolution: ignorance and assumption. The ignorance is abundantly obvious; creationists are wholly unable to go toe-to-toe with anyone who has a modicum of knowledge about evolution. Ignorance isn’t a crime, but it’s far from a virtue. Assumption, on the other hand is less clear.

People equate evolution with atheism: if you believe in evolution, you must be an atheist. It’s not that far off the mark, but it does make assumptions. Evolution does not force atheism, it simply allows for it. But let’s not confuse the specifics. Evolution absolutely does deny the existence of virtually every god that man has so far created. The more popular gods out there come with a whole bag of characteristics that are incompatible with reality – the most notable that humans are an intentional result of some sort of pre-ordained plan. This is inconsistent with an intense compilation of science that shows humans are a product of a long timeline of change and adaptation; humans are no more pre-ordained than a snail or where a falling rock will land. Contrary thought it wishful thinking unsupported by evidence.

Of course, the magic playland of human-created gods isn’t the same as the concept of a hands-off, deistic being. An intentional creator of the Universe has the possibility of existing, even if it’s tremendously unlikely. Most people don’t like this idea because it offers a cold and useless explanation for the Universe; a deistic being says how the Universe came to exist, but doesn’t make humans as special as most people like to think. Beyond that, it still leaves open the question of how the deity itself exists. It’s a useless middleman that is equal in validity to any theistic beliefs, just without all the baggage.

Filed under: Evolution | Tagged: , , , , | 4 Comments »

I accepted

Posted on April 17, 2009 by Michael

I accepted the invitation to see Expelled. It was about what I expected.

I didn’t subject myself to that horrid movie since I’ve already seen it, but I did make sure to show up toward the end. I caught the last bit with the interview with Richard Dawkins. It’s hilarious. Ben Stein, horrid economist, understander of science, and vaguely entertaining actor in the 80s, asks Dawkins to put a specific number on the probability that God does not exist. Dawkins says he doesn’t feel comfortable doing this, but Stein persists. To the creationist audience that’s going to interpret absolutely everything as supporting their inane ideas, this comes across as gold. Dawkins seems to be stumbling. The truth is the question is absurd. It would be like asking a creationist to scientifically put a number on the likelihood God does exist. The more stupid breed of creationist will say “100%”, ignoring my qualifer “scientifically” – words, meanings, definitions, and honesty are irrelevant to these mooks – but the rare creationist will see the absurdity of this. More aptly, however, this would be like asking the likelihood that an elephant, shark, or wolf would evolve. No scientist is going to give a straight-up percentage. It doesn’t make sense to that, and even if it did, there are far too many variables to be in the least bit accurate. This, contrary to what the creationist mind thinks (if we are to follow its ‘logic’ to its end), does not mean elephants, sharks, or wolves could not or did not evolve. But even more aptly, it’d be like asking the likelihood that fairies do not exist. The whole thing ignores the point of the argument.

Anyway, there was a “discussion” after the movie ended. By this I mean one guy who claims to have a degree from Oxford and I had a back and forth. The details are becoming fuzzy, but to give you an idea of the sort of thing he was saying, take this. I brought up that no papers supporting intelligent design have ever been peer reviewed and published. He countered by pointing out that Michael Behe and William Dembski both have books out that have been reviewed. For the dumber of you out there (i.e., creationists who think he delivered me a knock-out punch), that is not peer review. The criteria for getting published in, say, Nature is just a tad more difficult than the criteria for seeing your book on the shelves of Barnes & Noble. Mainly, the bookstore criteria is that it will make some money. I had difficulty making this point because the leader of this whole shindig kept trying to interrupt our discussion, but I did get to mention that those books have been peer reviewed in the sense that The God Delusion has been peer reviewed. At that point, this guy (a pastor) completely misunderstood the point and not only asserted that Dawkins’ book had been panned but that it was very poorly written. Again, I was cut off before being able to counter, but c’mon. I can understand someone being so driven by a fear of evidence that they outright reject Dawkins’ arguments, but the man is a fantastic writer. Saying otherwise is just being petty.

After the discussion was mysteriously cut short by 30 minutes, I continued speaking with this pastor. He claimed that the Lucy fossil had been found over an area of 300 feet and only 1% was discovered. I told him he was wrong. This is common; creationists will get these untruths flowing at their churches (usually pushed by the leaders) and entirely believe them. Research? Confirmation? Nah. It’s a convenient thing to believe. You can do your own 30 second Yahoo! or Google search if you’d like, but if you don’t already know the answers, they are: Lucy was discovered all in one location with no duplicate bones nearby (in other words, it was certainly one animal); her body is surprisingly complete, not at 1%, but 40%. From my memory of her images, I would have guessed something a little higher, but I refrained, opting instead to get his email. I gave him this information, plus some other things debunking some wrong ideas he had about black holes (time does not “become irrelevant” at the event horizon). No response has shown up in my inbox.

Overall, it was about what I thought it’d be. A lot of quiet people who would nod their heads to the one or two more vocal creationists in the group who would invariably give me the same old tired arguments coupled with a few random numbers they think are impressive but are really just wrong. Standard.

Filed under: Creationism | Tagged: , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Evolution debate ends in compromise

Posted on March 31, 2009 by Michael

Absolutely not.

For 20 years, Texas science teachers have been required to cover the strengths and weaknesses of Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. Two decades later, that rule has been changed. They traded the curriculum for a new set of standards.

Board of Education member Bob Craig said the new curriculum will require students to use critical thinking to discuss, analyze and evaluate the information for yourselves.

Lies. The new ‘standards’ will set science back.

For example, the revised biology standard (7B) reflects two discredited creationist ideas — that “sudden appearance” and “stasis” in the fossil record somehow disprove evolution. The new standard directs students to “analyze and evaluate the sufficiency of scientific explanations concerning any data of sudden appearance, stasis and the sequential nature of groups in the fossil records.” Other new standards include language such as “is thought to” or “proposed transitional fossils” to make evolutionary concepts seem more tentative.

These people are stupid. Straight up stupid. Not politically, of course. They are, naturally, quite coy in that respect – that is the second most notable characteristic of the creationist mind. The most notable, of course, is the ability to simply not understand a single, damn thing about science. These people hate science. It conflicts with the beliefs with which they grew up, so they act like little babies and fail to realize that they are wrong. They assume what they hear of science must be incorrect because it does not fit their fairy tale. It’s rather pathetic, really.

By making these changes, the board of education hopes students will use reasoning and experimental testing to examine all sides of scientific explanations, including evolution.

“You need to have that critical thinking by the student,” Craig said, “and you need to have a free discussion of any scientific explanation.”

The revisions apply to students in kindergarten through 12th grade who take the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills or TEKS test. However, they focus primarily on high school students.

“Have that free discussion, analyze and evaluate,” Craig said. “Critique those scientific explanations, and encourage critical thinking because that’s what we want to do in all fields.”

Scientists have that free discussion. High school students are not qualified in the least bit to tackle any of the vague, coy-creationist, sneak-attack, trojan, flat-out-fucking-liar terms listed.

“Somebody’s got to stand up to experts!” cries board chair Don McLeroy.

Don McLeroy is the chairman of the Texas State Board of Education. He is also a dentist. Next time 9 out of 10 of his colleagues tell you to do this or that with your teeth, tell them they aren’t allowing you to freely discuss, analyze, or evaluate any of the evidence. Tell them it is YOU that should be critiquing the field of dentistry. Those arrogant experts have been holding down the ignorant layman for far too long, I say!

Filed under: Creationism, News | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 24 Comments »

« Previous Page — Next Page »