Bet they didn't show you this in any Western Civ class: the rise and fall of every kingdom from Egypt to the present in the Middle East and Europe, in about 90 seconds...
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Monday, September 25, 2006
"Not Even Lucifer..."
Perhaps you thought this fat bast-, uh, bastion of wisdom, Falwell, had reached his apex...after all, the man once blamed 9/11 on Americans by saying:
"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'"
Falwell, pastor of the 22,000-member Thomas Road Baptist Church, viewed the attacks as God's judgment on America for "throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked."
He couldn't slide much further, right? Well, he now claims that the Devil himself couldn't get the kind of political response from the religious right's that Hillary will:
On the note of stupid fundamentalists, see these great 28 Religious Right propaganda posters Austin Cline put together. I especially liked this one:
________________
Technorati tags: Falwell
"I certainly hope that Hillary is the candidate," Falwell said, according to the recording. "She has $300 million so far. But I hope she's the candidate. Because nothing will energize my [constituency] like Hillary Clinton."I'm not sure whether openly declaring a moderate Democrat to be worse than Satan is on the same level or not. You decide.
Cheers and laughter filled the room as Falwell continued: "If Lucifer ran, he wouldn't."
At that moment in the recording, Falwell's voice is drowned out by hoots of approval. But two in attendance, including a Falwell staff member, confirmed that Falwell said that even Lucifer, the fallen angel synonymous with Satan in Christian theology, would not mobilize his followers as much as the New York senator and former first lady would.
On the note of stupid fundamentalists, see these great 28 Religious Right propaganda posters Austin Cline put together. I especially liked this one:
Technorati tags: Falwell
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Reply to Nanosplit
I had two comments on the last post, and wanted to devote a whole post to a response. The first was a mild expression of skepticism by CalvinDude, which I respect...hell, I consider myself a skeptic too, nothing wrong with a little skepticism. However, the question is -- what makes us skeptical, and how skeptical can we be and remain reasonable?
How much evidence [for human evolution] is ever enough, and is your "bar of skepticism" set as high towards your religion as towards paleoanthropology? Isn't skepticism about witholding belief until suitable evidence substantiates it? What position does CalvinDude stand on in order to say that the evidence from evolutionary science is not yet sufficient to garner his belief? Is he standing on admitted ignorance? Or in some creationist myth?
Is he saying, "I don't know, and I don't know if science does either," or "I already believe and know X, and since scientific evidence contradicts X, I remain skeptical of science"? If X is based on solid evidence, and so is science, then fine, stay skeptical, but if X = the Hebrew creation myth...then...I'm afraid this is called "dogmatism", and not "skepticism".
Next, a more critical comment from nanosplit:
How much evidence [for human evolution] is ever enough, and is your "bar of skepticism" set as high towards your religion as towards paleoanthropology? Isn't skepticism about witholding belief until suitable evidence substantiates it? What position does CalvinDude stand on in order to say that the evidence from evolutionary science is not yet sufficient to garner his belief? Is he standing on admitted ignorance? Or in some creationist myth?
Is he saying, "I don't know, and I don't know if science does either," or "I already believe and know X, and since scientific evidence contradicts X, I remain skeptical of science"? If X is based on solid evidence, and so is science, then fine, stay skeptical, but if X = the Hebrew creation myth...then...I'm afraid this is called "dogmatism", and not "skepticism".
Next, a more critical comment from nanosplit:
Like every claim in the past this too will turn out to be b.s.My reply in full follows:
Heres the question--How does matter give rise to coded information? How does information evolve? How does personality evolve?
And you got the arrogance to say your not in la la land. Dig a little deeper pal.
Dear nanosplit,
Your questions were entirely based on arguments from ignorance -- posturing that if I don't know the answer to a question, that this means the question is either: 1) unanswerable via science, or 2) answered by your religion by default.
Since you have yet to demonstrate (nor your religion) any grasp of answering the sorts of questions you've posed to me in intelligible terms (saying, "God did it!" is not an explanation), I must laugh at the idea of (2). So, all you've done here is attempt to posit that these sorts of questions are out of the scope of science's powers, which I strongly disagree with, but, even if you're right, what does that mean? Should we throw our hands up in the air and go back into caves with stones and flints? Should we abandon the pursuit of knowledge via science, and go back to your ancient superstitions? Should we sprinkle bird blood on lepers again (via Leviticus 14) instead of using modern medicine?
Q: What knowledge has your religion, your faith, your set of dusty scrolls of unknown origins and unknown authorship, ever given to the world?
A: Nothing. Nothing. Nothing.
On to your comment:
Like every claim in the past this too will turn out to be b.s. [nanosplit is here referring to the "claim" that a beautifully-preserved afaresnis child was found]
Man, I agree! Over a thousand of those common creationist claims have turned out to be complete and utter bullshit! The good news is that TalkOrigins has compiled all of this utter bullshit into one big stinking pile, called "The Index to Common Creationist Claims". Even better news is that the paperback version of this index is almost available!
Wait...you were talking about creationist claims, right? Cause after all, the claims and evidence of human evolution have grown and solidifed over time, so if you're referred to hominid evolution...then I guess you'd be a dishonest person, and you're not one of those, right?
Heres the question--How does matter give rise to coded information?
I'll answer your question, after seemingly contradicting the question itself.
First, you need to understand that "code" is a very human concept. And, like the "code" of human language, there are physical limitations upon the interplay of gene and genetic code. Consider your vocal cords -- they always fall into a range of lengths and sizes. Thus, human beings could only possibly make certain sounds, and so language is restricted to those sounds.
In the same way, the laws of physics and chemistry restrict the "genetic code" to be what it is, within a range of possibilities. Consider, for instance, that AAU/AAC did not HAVE to code Asp. However, due to thermodynamics and energy efficiency, a forty-six-letter system is completely out of the question for correspondence between gene and code. And so we might start to ask some preliminary questions: why are there 20 amino acids? Why do we have a triplet system? Are those two interconnected? [Take a wild guess]
Now, can you tell me, using solely physical laws, what "coded information" means? For starters, which of the following two sequences contains "more" information, and how do you go about determining it?
Sequence 1: cag tgt ctt ggg ttc tcg cct gac tac gag acg cgt ttg tct tta cag gtc ctc ggc cag cac ctt aga caa gca ccc ggg acg cac ctt tca gtg ggc act cat aat ggc gga gta cca agg agg cac ggt cca ttg ttt tcg ggc cgg cat tgc tca tct ctt gag att tcc ata ctt
Sequence 2: tgg agt tct aag aca gta caa ctc tgc gac cgt gct ggg gta gcc act tct ggc cta atc tac gtt aca gaa aat ttg agg ttg cgc ggt gtc ctc gtt agg cac aca cgg gtg gaa tgg ggg tct ctt acc aaa ggg ctg ccg tat cag gta cga cgt agg tat tgc cgt gat aga ctg
Please use your 'procedure', whatever it may be, to measure the 'genetic information' content of these two sequences. Please write down the step-by-step process by which you measured the 'genetic information' content of these two sequences, being as clear and/or specific as you can.
I'll hold my breath waiting...
Now, since I know that you are not an expert, I'll do you one better -- read what the experts write about this sort of question, and/or actually send it off to your favorite pseudoscientist, aka "Creation Scientist", and have them answer it for you.
I'll hold my breath waiting on that one, as well...
Now, since the methodology by which we establish information is crucial to answering the question of "how matter gives rise to it", then I think you ought to qualify your question, and tell me exactly what it is you really want me to answer for you.
Short of that (since you won't be able to do this), I'll get into a more general approach to save you some face:
You do understand that the nucleic acid triplet system has nothing to do with a "CODE", in the sense that as it developed, the coevolution (it had to happen over time and a piece at a time) of gene and code wasn't "fixed" to some syntax, don't you? It's just chemistry, my silly creationist friend, and "CODE" is what humans try to make to help them understand it. The laws of thermodynamics give a range of possibilities within which the evolution (of everything, including of the components of transcription and translation) takes place, and it can do no other. Now, the code that we observe, as I pointed out above, is not some "had to be this way" necessity -- indeed, we can imagine life existing with 20 amino acids, or 10, or 100. Life would certainly be different, but it would still exist. And so can we say that our system is one out of a number of chance possibilities? Yes and no.
We can imagine life existing with our triplet system, a different triplet system (different letters for each AA), a possible quartet system, or even just a two-digit code. The code that exists is the result of deterministic physical laws, but run the whole thing over again, with slightly different conditions, and not only should we not expect the same result, but I can guarantee a different one. So in that sense, chance does play a part in the way that our code developed. But chance also plays a part in the way that each animal develops from the moment of fertilization on.
Don't believe me? Well, perhaps I shouldn't be surprised, since you've probably never taken a university course on biochemistry (I have a BS in it from Virginia Tech).
However, since we pointed out already that there are restrictions, the determination of the code via chemistry and physics wasn't "purely random" in that sense. For one thing, we have to consider whether or not we're discussing a "metabolism first" approach, since using certain metabolites restricts the sort of molecules that would end up making up our code. Indeed, DNA is composed of these nucleotides that you're familiar with, but is that also necessary? Could it have been, say, sulfates rather than phosphates that connect the bases? Or could it have been all purines, or all pyrimidines, or different ones? Yes. It could.
So when we even start to look at *how* to answer these questions, we see that it gets quite complex to attempt to give an answer
Now, to answer your question, here are two really good peer-reviewed papers on the origin of the genetic code, if you are actually interested in some testable, practical models to answer your question:
1) Selection, history and chemistry: the three faces of the genetic code (1999)
2) The origin of the genetic code: theories and their relationships, a review (2005)
The major models are (from paper #2):
1. The stereochemical theory
2. The physicochemical and ambiguity reduction theories
3. The coevolution theory
Please note that these models are not mutually exclusive and represent three different possibilities for "driving forces" that we know from chemistry and physics that certainly did play a role in at least part of the development of the "code". The question is how much for each one, and whether or not one is dominant.
Quoting the second paper:
(Model 1.) The stereochemical theory claims the origin of the genetic code must lie in the stereochemical interactions between anticodons or codons and amino acids (Crick, 1968). The theory suggests, for example, asparagine must have been codified by the codons AAU or AAC as asparagine is somehow stereochemically correlated with these codons. Several models have been proposed which indeed seem to define a stereochemical relationship between anticodons or codons and amino acids (Gamow, 1954, Pelc and Welton, 1966, Welton and Pelc, 1966, Dunnill, 1966, Woese, 1967, Black, 1973, Black, 1995, Melcher, 1974, Nelsestuen, 1978, Balasubramanian et al., 1980, Marlborough, 1980, Hendry et al., 1981, Shimizu, 1982, Yarus, 1991 and Szathmary, 1993).
(Model 2.) The physicochemical theory claims that the force defining the origin of the genetic code structure was the one that tended to reduce the deleterious effects of physicochemical distances between amino acids codified by codons differing in one base (Sonneborn, 1965 and Woese et al., 1966). In particular, Sonneborn (1965) identified the selective pressure reducing the deleterious effects of mutations as the force defining the amino acid allocations in the genetic code table (Ardell and Sella, 2001 and Sella and Ardell, 2002). Whereas, Woese et al. (1966) maintained that the driving force defining genetic code organization must lie in a selective pressure tending to reduce the translation errors of the ancestral genetic message.
A similar theory is the ambiguity reduction hypothesis. This theory claims that group codons differing in one base were assigned to groups of physicochemical similar amino acids, and the genetic code reached its current organization through the lowering of the ambiguity in the coding within and between groups of amino acids (Woese, 1965 and Fitch and Upper, 1987). Only one study conducted on 300 tRNAs sequences specific for 8 amino acids (Fitch and Upper, 1987) is in favour of the ambiguity reduction theory (Woese, 1965 and Fitch and Upper, 1987). Other and equivalent analyses are in favour of the coevolution theory (Di Giulio, 1992a, Di Giulio, 1994a, Di Giulio, 1995, Chaley et al., 1999 and Bermudez et al., 1999).
(Model 3.) The coevolution hypothesis of the origin of the genetic code (Wong, 1975) suggests that the origin of the genetic code should be sought in the biosynthetic relationships between amino acids. In particular, this hypothesis maintains that early on in the genetic code few amino acids (perhaps five) were codified: the precursors (Wong, 1975). As the other amino acids arose biosynthetically from these precursors, part or all of the codon domain of the precursor amino acid was passed to the product amino acids (Wong, 1975).
The mechanism through which the precursor amino acids passed part or all their codon domain to the precursor amino acids is postulated by the coevolution theory as occurring on tRNA-like molecule on which this theory suggests the biosynthetic transformation between amino acids took place (Wong, 1975). If the biosynthetic pathways linking up the amino acids took place on tRNA-like molecules, then a tRNA-like molecule bearing a product amino acid evolving from the biosynthetic transformation of a given precursor amino acid must clearly have recognized some of codons belonging to the precursor. Therefore, this molecule was able to evolve naturally towards a tRNA specific for that particular product amino acid and its reassigned codons.
You will have to follow up with references to the specific papers for detailed evidence of each model, and a discussion of how the evidence supports the model. That is assuming that you actually want to know...
Now, there are some answers to your question. What do you do with these answers? Ignore them and continue to present argumentum ad ignorantium attacks on the validity of science and evolutionary theory? Yes, you will. Because the truth is, you don't want science to answer these questions, you want to believe that they are rendered unknowable by some divine action, that since God is involved, that man cannot know such things. Well, the church has said this for generations, and all the while, the church's God has shrunk and shrunk in size. It used to be that the church opposed anatomical studies on human beings, saying that the workings of the body are "divine" and shouldn't be messed with.
Every fence of ignorance the church has erected, science has torn down. Thankfully. And your prospects are getting any brighter in the area of genetics.
To your next (God of the gaps) question:
How does information evolve?
If you're one of the creationists who thinks that you understand information theory and that it somehow refutes evolutionary theory, please allow Mark Chu-Carroll to correct you HERE.
You'll note he takes on information theory directly in opposition to Dembski's silliness in many different posts, but hits the nail on the head in posts like this one: creationists don't understand information theory, and real mathematicians never have and never will use it as the basis of a challenge to evolution.
Contrary to your muddled way of looking at things, disorder in a string of characters actually produces more information for coding systems -- explained here.
And now, for your last God-of-the-gaps-question:
How does personality evolve?
Ask Freud, Jung, Spotnitz and Sullivan. What do I look like, a freaking psychologist? I'm a chemist, for heaven's sake!
If you're interested in one component of personality, in particular, then altruism is a good one to study, since we observe it in other animals. A new book just came out on this very question -- The Altruism Equation: Seven Scientists Search for the Origins of Goodness. See a review of the book HERE
Now, it's my turn to ask questions:
Assuming that matter is not the fundamental substance of our universe, and that it cannot explain the questions you've asked above--
How does some invisible, immaterial, "spirit" substance contribute to any of the questions you've asked above? How does it interact with matter?
Why is it that I can take away specific parts of your brain and alter specific parts of your personality (language, long-term memory [amnesia], short-term memory, impulse control, erratic behaviors, compulsivity...etc), if the personality is not, itself, a function of the brain?
Should you recognize that your system of belief proffers you absolutely nothing, nil, in the way of answers to these same questions, why consider it a "superior answer"? God apparently didn't find it necessary to explain anything to you in the Bible concerning the workings of the physical world, so why not leave that to the physicists and chemists, and not your local preacher, who likely knows diddly-squat-shit in the way of science? Just leave him to his mystical ramblings and inanities.
And now to your last comment:
And you got the arrogance to say your not in la la land. Dig a little deeper pal.
What I say is that creationists are wallowing in ignorance and ignoring what we know to be reality. It is quite different to say, 1) that a body of knowledge is solid and contradicts your religious myths, and 2) that I have the answer to every question, and I know everything personally, or that this body of knowledge (science) is complete, absolute, and total. I never said (2), just (1). Now, which of us, on the other hand, claims to know God and what God wants and says and does? Which of us claims that they know the way to gain admission into God's heaven? Which of us thinks that the other is damned for eternity, since the other doesn't believe that kissing divine ass is a logical belief? What kind of arrogance does that require?
When you don't profess to have any answers yourself, appealing to ignorance is a dangerous thing. Dig a little deeper, and you might realize you aren't even standing on anything [faith?] at all.
________________
Technorati tags: Evolution, Creationism
Your questions were entirely based on arguments from ignorance -- posturing that if I don't know the answer to a question, that this means the question is either: 1) unanswerable via science, or 2) answered by your religion by default.
Since you have yet to demonstrate (nor your religion) any grasp of answering the sorts of questions you've posed to me in intelligible terms (saying, "God did it!" is not an explanation), I must laugh at the idea of (2). So, all you've done here is attempt to posit that these sorts of questions are out of the scope of science's powers, which I strongly disagree with, but, even if you're right, what does that mean? Should we throw our hands up in the air and go back into caves with stones and flints? Should we abandon the pursuit of knowledge via science, and go back to your ancient superstitions? Should we sprinkle bird blood on lepers again (via Leviticus 14) instead of using modern medicine?
Q: What knowledge has your religion, your faith, your set of dusty scrolls of unknown origins and unknown authorship, ever given to the world?
A: Nothing. Nothing. Nothing.
On to your comment:
Like every claim in the past this too will turn out to be b.s. [nanosplit is here referring to the "claim" that a beautifully-preserved afaresnis child was found]
Man, I agree! Over a thousand of those common creationist claims have turned out to be complete and utter bullshit! The good news is that TalkOrigins has compiled all of this utter bullshit into one big stinking pile, called "The Index to Common Creationist Claims". Even better news is that the paperback version of this index is almost available!
Wait...you were talking about creationist claims, right? Cause after all, the claims and evidence of human evolution have grown and solidifed over time, so if you're referred to hominid evolution...then I guess you'd be a dishonest person, and you're not one of those, right?
Heres the question--How does matter give rise to coded information?
I'll answer your question, after seemingly contradicting the question itself.
First, you need to understand that "code" is a very human concept. And, like the "code" of human language, there are physical limitations upon the interplay of gene and genetic code. Consider your vocal cords -- they always fall into a range of lengths and sizes. Thus, human beings could only possibly make certain sounds, and so language is restricted to those sounds.
In the same way, the laws of physics and chemistry restrict the "genetic code" to be what it is, within a range of possibilities. Consider, for instance, that AAU/AAC did not HAVE to code Asp. However, due to thermodynamics and energy efficiency, a forty-six-letter system is completely out of the question for correspondence between gene and code. And so we might start to ask some preliminary questions: why are there 20 amino acids? Why do we have a triplet system? Are those two interconnected? [Take a wild guess]
Now, can you tell me, using solely physical laws, what "coded information" means? For starters, which of the following two sequences contains "more" information, and how do you go about determining it?
Sequence 1: cag tgt ctt ggg ttc tcg cct gac tac gag acg cgt ttg tct tta cag gtc ctc ggc cag cac ctt aga caa gca ccc ggg acg cac ctt tca gtg ggc act cat aat ggc gga gta cca agg agg cac ggt cca ttg ttt tcg ggc cgg cat tgc tca tct ctt gag att tcc ata ctt
Sequence 2: tgg agt tct aag aca gta caa ctc tgc gac cgt gct ggg gta gcc act tct ggc cta atc tac gtt aca gaa aat ttg agg ttg cgc ggt gtc ctc gtt agg cac aca cgg gtg gaa tgg ggg tct ctt acc aaa ggg ctg ccg tat cag gta cga cgt agg tat tgc cgt gat aga ctg
Please use your 'procedure', whatever it may be, to measure the 'genetic information' content of these two sequences. Please write down the step-by-step process by which you measured the 'genetic information' content of these two sequences, being as clear and/or specific as you can.
I'll hold my breath waiting...
Now, since I know that you are not an expert, I'll do you one better -- read what the experts write about this sort of question, and/or actually send it off to your favorite pseudoscientist, aka "Creation Scientist", and have them answer it for you.
I'll hold my breath waiting on that one, as well...
Now, since the methodology by which we establish information is crucial to answering the question of "how matter gives rise to it", then I think you ought to qualify your question, and tell me exactly what it is you really want me to answer for you.
Short of that (since you won't be able to do this), I'll get into a more general approach to save you some face:
You do understand that the nucleic acid triplet system has nothing to do with a "CODE", in the sense that as it developed, the coevolution (it had to happen over time and a piece at a time) of gene and code wasn't "fixed" to some syntax, don't you? It's just chemistry, my silly creationist friend, and "CODE" is what humans try to make to help them understand it. The laws of thermodynamics give a range of possibilities within which the evolution (of everything, including of the components of transcription and translation) takes place, and it can do no other. Now, the code that we observe, as I pointed out above, is not some "had to be this way" necessity -- indeed, we can imagine life existing with 20 amino acids, or 10, or 100. Life would certainly be different, but it would still exist. And so can we say that our system is one out of a number of chance possibilities? Yes and no.
We can imagine life existing with our triplet system, a different triplet system (different letters for each AA), a possible quartet system, or even just a two-digit code. The code that exists is the result of deterministic physical laws, but run the whole thing over again, with slightly different conditions, and not only should we not expect the same result, but I can guarantee a different one. So in that sense, chance does play a part in the way that our code developed. But chance also plays a part in the way that each animal develops from the moment of fertilization on.
Don't believe me? Well, perhaps I shouldn't be surprised, since you've probably never taken a university course on biochemistry (I have a BS in it from Virginia Tech).
However, since we pointed out already that there are restrictions, the determination of the code via chemistry and physics wasn't "purely random" in that sense. For one thing, we have to consider whether or not we're discussing a "metabolism first" approach, since using certain metabolites restricts the sort of molecules that would end up making up our code. Indeed, DNA is composed of these nucleotides that you're familiar with, but is that also necessary? Could it have been, say, sulfates rather than phosphates that connect the bases? Or could it have been all purines, or all pyrimidines, or different ones? Yes. It could.
So when we even start to look at *how* to answer these questions, we see that it gets quite complex to attempt to give an answer
Now, to answer your question, here are two really good peer-reviewed papers on the origin of the genetic code, if you are actually interested in some testable, practical models to answer your question:
1) Selection, history and chemistry: the three faces of the genetic code (1999)
2) The origin of the genetic code: theories and their relationships, a review (2005)
The major models are (from paper #2):
1. The stereochemical theory
2. The physicochemical and ambiguity reduction theories
3. The coevolution theory
Please note that these models are not mutually exclusive and represent three different possibilities for "driving forces" that we know from chemistry and physics that certainly did play a role in at least part of the development of the "code". The question is how much for each one, and whether or not one is dominant.
Quoting the second paper:
(Model 1.) The stereochemical theory claims the origin of the genetic code must lie in the stereochemical interactions between anticodons or codons and amino acids (Crick, 1968). The theory suggests, for example, asparagine must have been codified by the codons AAU or AAC as asparagine is somehow stereochemically correlated with these codons. Several models have been proposed which indeed seem to define a stereochemical relationship between anticodons or codons and amino acids (Gamow, 1954, Pelc and Welton, 1966, Welton and Pelc, 1966, Dunnill, 1966, Woese, 1967, Black, 1973, Black, 1995, Melcher, 1974, Nelsestuen, 1978, Balasubramanian et al., 1980, Marlborough, 1980, Hendry et al., 1981, Shimizu, 1982, Yarus, 1991 and Szathmary, 1993).
(Model 2.) The physicochemical theory claims that the force defining the origin of the genetic code structure was the one that tended to reduce the deleterious effects of physicochemical distances between amino acids codified by codons differing in one base (Sonneborn, 1965 and Woese et al., 1966). In particular, Sonneborn (1965) identified the selective pressure reducing the deleterious effects of mutations as the force defining the amino acid allocations in the genetic code table (Ardell and Sella, 2001 and Sella and Ardell, 2002). Whereas, Woese et al. (1966) maintained that the driving force defining genetic code organization must lie in a selective pressure tending to reduce the translation errors of the ancestral genetic message.
A similar theory is the ambiguity reduction hypothesis. This theory claims that group codons differing in one base were assigned to groups of physicochemical similar amino acids, and the genetic code reached its current organization through the lowering of the ambiguity in the coding within and between groups of amino acids (Woese, 1965 and Fitch and Upper, 1987). Only one study conducted on 300 tRNAs sequences specific for 8 amino acids (Fitch and Upper, 1987) is in favour of the ambiguity reduction theory (Woese, 1965 and Fitch and Upper, 1987). Other and equivalent analyses are in favour of the coevolution theory (Di Giulio, 1992a, Di Giulio, 1994a, Di Giulio, 1995, Chaley et al., 1999 and Bermudez et al., 1999).
(Model 3.) The coevolution hypothesis of the origin of the genetic code (Wong, 1975) suggests that the origin of the genetic code should be sought in the biosynthetic relationships between amino acids. In particular, this hypothesis maintains that early on in the genetic code few amino acids (perhaps five) were codified: the precursors (Wong, 1975). As the other amino acids arose biosynthetically from these precursors, part or all of the codon domain of the precursor amino acid was passed to the product amino acids (Wong, 1975).
The mechanism through which the precursor amino acids passed part or all their codon domain to the precursor amino acids is postulated by the coevolution theory as occurring on tRNA-like molecule on which this theory suggests the biosynthetic transformation between amino acids took place (Wong, 1975). If the biosynthetic pathways linking up the amino acids took place on tRNA-like molecules, then a tRNA-like molecule bearing a product amino acid evolving from the biosynthetic transformation of a given precursor amino acid must clearly have recognized some of codons belonging to the precursor. Therefore, this molecule was able to evolve naturally towards a tRNA specific for that particular product amino acid and its reassigned codons.
You will have to follow up with references to the specific papers for detailed evidence of each model, and a discussion of how the evidence supports the model. That is assuming that you actually want to know...
Now, there are some answers to your question. What do you do with these answers? Ignore them and continue to present argumentum ad ignorantium attacks on the validity of science and evolutionary theory? Yes, you will. Because the truth is, you don't want science to answer these questions, you want to believe that they are rendered unknowable by some divine action, that since God is involved, that man cannot know such things. Well, the church has said this for generations, and all the while, the church's God has shrunk and shrunk in size. It used to be that the church opposed anatomical studies on human beings, saying that the workings of the body are "divine" and shouldn't be messed with.
Every fence of ignorance the church has erected, science has torn down. Thankfully. And your prospects are getting any brighter in the area of genetics.
To your next (God of the gaps) question:
How does information evolve?
If you're one of the creationists who thinks that you understand information theory and that it somehow refutes evolutionary theory, please allow Mark Chu-Carroll to correct you HERE.
You'll note he takes on information theory directly in opposition to Dembski's silliness in many different posts, but hits the nail on the head in posts like this one: creationists don't understand information theory, and real mathematicians never have and never will use it as the basis of a challenge to evolution.
Contrary to your muddled way of looking at things, disorder in a string of characters actually produces more information for coding systems -- explained here.
And now, for your last God-of-the-gaps-question:
How does personality evolve?
Ask Freud, Jung, Spotnitz and Sullivan. What do I look like, a freaking psychologist? I'm a chemist, for heaven's sake!
If you're interested in one component of personality, in particular, then altruism is a good one to study, since we observe it in other animals. A new book just came out on this very question -- The Altruism Equation: Seven Scientists Search for the Origins of Goodness. See a review of the book HERE
Now, it's my turn to ask questions:
Assuming that matter is not the fundamental substance of our universe, and that it cannot explain the questions you've asked above--
How does some invisible, immaterial, "spirit" substance contribute to any of the questions you've asked above? How does it interact with matter?
Why is it that I can take away specific parts of your brain and alter specific parts of your personality (language, long-term memory [amnesia], short-term memory, impulse control, erratic behaviors, compulsivity...etc), if the personality is not, itself, a function of the brain?
Should you recognize that your system of belief proffers you absolutely nothing, nil, in the way of answers to these same questions, why consider it a "superior answer"? God apparently didn't find it necessary to explain anything to you in the Bible concerning the workings of the physical world, so why not leave that to the physicists and chemists, and not your local preacher, who likely knows diddly-squat-shit in the way of science? Just leave him to his mystical ramblings and inanities.
And now to your last comment:
And you got the arrogance to say your not in la la land. Dig a little deeper pal.
What I say is that creationists are wallowing in ignorance and ignoring what we know to be reality. It is quite different to say, 1) that a body of knowledge is solid and contradicts your religious myths, and 2) that I have the answer to every question, and I know everything personally, or that this body of knowledge (science) is complete, absolute, and total. I never said (2), just (1). Now, which of us, on the other hand, claims to know God and what God wants and says and does? Which of us claims that they know the way to gain admission into God's heaven? Which of us thinks that the other is damned for eternity, since the other doesn't believe that kissing divine ass is a logical belief? What kind of arrogance does that require?
When you don't profess to have any answers yourself, appealing to ignorance is a dangerous thing. Dig a little deeper, and you might realize you aren't even standing on anything [faith?] at all.
________________
Technorati tags: Evolution, Creationism
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Amazing New Fossil Find Further Solidifies Human Evolution Picture
A new fossil, dated 3.3Mya and likened to "Lucy's baby" was discovered in nearly-perfect condition; this being a rare, once-in-a-lifetime type hominid discovery. It appears that this story just broke a few hours ago, as the findings were published in tomorrow's edition of Nature. For details:
CBS
World Science
How much longer will creationists be able to live in la-la land, I have to wonder?
The full-text of the World Science article is tucked below the fold:
CBS
World Science
How much longer will creationists be able to live in la-la land, I have to wonder?
The full-text of the World Science article is tucked below the fold:
“Lucy’s Baby”: pre-human fossil dazzles scientists
Sept. 20, 2006
Special to World Science
Researchers say they’ve unearthed the possibly most complete known fossil of a forebear of humans: a baby of the same species as the famed “Lucy” fossil found in 1974.
Human-like below the waist, ape-like above, the tot is a “once-in-a-lifetime” find, said Ethiopian paleoanthropologist Zeresenay Alemseged, who led the scientific team credited with the discovery.
Described as the skull of an Australopithecus afarensis baby, this measures about 12 cm (5 inches) from the bottom of the chin to the top of the head vertically. (Image Courtesy Zeresenay Alemseged; © Authority for Research and Conservation of Cultural Heritages).
The find revived memories of “Lucy,” believed to be a female in her mid-20s and hailed, when discovered, as the most complete known skeleton of a pre-human hominid. A hominid is a species on the human branch of the evolutionary tree.
The new specimen, dubbed “Lucy’s baby” by some—though it’s actually thought to have lived a bit earlier than Lucy—is likewise causing a stir over its splendid condition.
That, scientists say, makes it a treasure trove of additional clues to human origins.
Years ago, Lucy, in many researchers’ view, overturned a widespread assumption: that our ancestors evolved intelligence first and upright walking later. She was seen to refute that because her bones suggested at least some upright-walking ability, yet a small, ape-like brain.
This helped revive a notion proposed by Charles Darwin: that upright movement spurred brain evolution by freeing hands for tool use. Henceforth, success in the battle for survival would depend on ever-better tool use, and the brains to enable it.
Like Lucy, the newfound child shows the marks of a species able to walk upright, researchers said; it also offers more clues to the evolution of that skill, and of the brain and speech. It’s a “mine of information about a crucial stage in human evolutionary history,” wrote paleobiologist Bernard Wood of George Washington University in Washington, D.C., in a commentary in the Sept. 21 issue of the research journal Nature.
The scientists credited with the find described it in another paper in the same issue. They estimated that the infant died at age three, possibly in a flood that also buried it in pebbles and sand, helping preserve it.
Artist's conception of a mother and child Australopithecus afarensis. Adult females of the species were some 3½ feet tall, judging from the "Lucy" specimen.
Lucy and the baby, which date to slightly more than three million years ago, are far from the oldest known members of the human family.
That distinction belongs to the chimp-sized Sahelanthropus tchadensis or “Toumai Man,” estimated as seven million years old and found in Central Africa four years ago.
But Lucy and the tot—said to represent a later species, Australopithecus afarensis—would be part of a burst of hominid diversity noted in the fossil record from four to two million years ago.
This is thought to reflect some of the rich evolutionary experimentation that nature tossed up on the way to producing our species, Homo sapiens. Hominids of that period are collectively called Australopiths. Which lineage led to us is unknown, though.
The newfound bundle of bones, found like Lucy in the Ethiopian desert, is arguably the best fossil of its species ever found, its discoverers said. They judged that it lived 3.3 million years ago, compared to 3.2 million for Lucy, and was also female.
“The most impressive difference between them is that this baby has a face,” said team leader Zeresenay (Ethiopians’ first names are their formal names.) This face gave away the species, added Zeresenay, of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany.
Also unlike Lucy—nicknamed after a Beatles song—the baby has fingers, a foot and a torso. Tooth structures clued researchers in to its rough age and its sex, they said, while the sediments that had trapped it revealed its time period.
The tot helps explain how A. afarensis blurred ape-human boundaries, Zeresenay said: her shoulder blades resemble a young gorilla’s, suggesting she could climb trees, but her thigh bone is angled like humans’, implying good upright walking ability. Members of the species seem to have been foraging, upright walkers, capable of “climbing trees when necessary, especially when they were little,” he said.
Zeresenay first led a band of fossil hunters into Ethiopia’s Dikika region in 1999, researchers recounted. Punishing heat, flash floods, malaria, wild beasts and occasional shootouts between rival ethnic groups plague the zone.
On a shadeless December day the next year, the scientists recalled, they hunted under a pounding sun for the prize that had eluded them—our ape-like forebears. Team member Tilahun Gebreselassie then spotted the tot’s face, no bigger than a monkey’s, peering out from a dusty slope.
Tucked beneath it in hard sandstone were more bones, the whole bundle of them no bigger than a canteloupe, one finger still curled in a tiny grasp, researchers said. Zeresenay found a rare example of a hyoid bone, a throat structure later crucial to human speech, he said. This offers a glimpse of the evolution of the voice box, which under some theories is interwoven with that of speech.
Zeresenay spent the next five years scratching away rock from the skeleton with a dentist’s drill, according to members of his team.
What killed the baby is unclear. But it seems the ancient Awash River rapidly buried the body in a flood, the scientists said, preserving rare details such as a full set of both milk teeth and unerupted adult teeth. The brain cast will help reveal “whether our earliest ancestors grew their brains in the uniquely human way,” said a member of the research group, Fred Spoor of University College London.
One of her humanlike knees was complete with a kneecap no bigger than a dried pea, researchers said. But her upper body, like Lucy’s, had many apelike features: small brain, nose flat like a chimp’s, face projecting forward. Her two complete shoulder blades are the first found from an australopith, Zeresenay said; analyzing their function “will be among the exciting challenges that we will face.”
________________
Technorati tags: Evolution
Sept. 20, 2006
Special to World Science
Researchers say they’ve unearthed the possibly most complete known fossil of a forebear of humans: a baby of the same species as the famed “Lucy” fossil found in 1974.
Human-like below the waist, ape-like above, the tot is a “once-in-a-lifetime” find, said Ethiopian paleoanthropologist Zeresenay Alemseged, who led the scientific team credited with the discovery.
Described as the skull of an Australopithecus afarensis baby, this measures about 12 cm (5 inches) from the bottom of the chin to the top of the head vertically. (Image Courtesy Zeresenay Alemseged; © Authority for Research and Conservation of Cultural Heritages).
The find revived memories of “Lucy,” believed to be a female in her mid-20s and hailed, when discovered, as the most complete known skeleton of a pre-human hominid. A hominid is a species on the human branch of the evolutionary tree.
The new specimen, dubbed “Lucy’s baby” by some—though it’s actually thought to have lived a bit earlier than Lucy—is likewise causing a stir over its splendid condition.
That, scientists say, makes it a treasure trove of additional clues to human origins.
Years ago, Lucy, in many researchers’ view, overturned a widespread assumption: that our ancestors evolved intelligence first and upright walking later. She was seen to refute that because her bones suggested at least some upright-walking ability, yet a small, ape-like brain.
This helped revive a notion proposed by Charles Darwin: that upright movement spurred brain evolution by freeing hands for tool use. Henceforth, success in the battle for survival would depend on ever-better tool use, and the brains to enable it.
Like Lucy, the newfound child shows the marks of a species able to walk upright, researchers said; it also offers more clues to the evolution of that skill, and of the brain and speech. It’s a “mine of information about a crucial stage in human evolutionary history,” wrote paleobiologist Bernard Wood of George Washington University in Washington, D.C., in a commentary in the Sept. 21 issue of the research journal Nature.
The scientists credited with the find described it in another paper in the same issue. They estimated that the infant died at age three, possibly in a flood that also buried it in pebbles and sand, helping preserve it.
Artist's conception of a mother and child Australopithecus afarensis. Adult females of the species were some 3½ feet tall, judging from the "Lucy" specimen.
Lucy and the baby, which date to slightly more than three million years ago, are far from the oldest known members of the human family.
That distinction belongs to the chimp-sized Sahelanthropus tchadensis or “Toumai Man,” estimated as seven million years old and found in Central Africa four years ago.
But Lucy and the tot—said to represent a later species, Australopithecus afarensis—would be part of a burst of hominid diversity noted in the fossil record from four to two million years ago.
This is thought to reflect some of the rich evolutionary experimentation that nature tossed up on the way to producing our species, Homo sapiens. Hominids of that period are collectively called Australopiths. Which lineage led to us is unknown, though.
The newfound bundle of bones, found like Lucy in the Ethiopian desert, is arguably the best fossil of its species ever found, its discoverers said. They judged that it lived 3.3 million years ago, compared to 3.2 million for Lucy, and was also female.
“The most impressive difference between them is that this baby has a face,” said team leader Zeresenay (Ethiopians’ first names are their formal names.) This face gave away the species, added Zeresenay, of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany.
Also unlike Lucy—nicknamed after a Beatles song—the baby has fingers, a foot and a torso. Tooth structures clued researchers in to its rough age and its sex, they said, while the sediments that had trapped it revealed its time period.
The tot helps explain how A. afarensis blurred ape-human boundaries, Zeresenay said: her shoulder blades resemble a young gorilla’s, suggesting she could climb trees, but her thigh bone is angled like humans’, implying good upright walking ability. Members of the species seem to have been foraging, upright walkers, capable of “climbing trees when necessary, especially when they were little,” he said.
Zeresenay first led a band of fossil hunters into Ethiopia’s Dikika region in 1999, researchers recounted. Punishing heat, flash floods, malaria, wild beasts and occasional shootouts between rival ethnic groups plague the zone.
On a shadeless December day the next year, the scientists recalled, they hunted under a pounding sun for the prize that had eluded them—our ape-like forebears. Team member Tilahun Gebreselassie then spotted the tot’s face, no bigger than a monkey’s, peering out from a dusty slope.
Tucked beneath it in hard sandstone were more bones, the whole bundle of them no bigger than a canteloupe, one finger still curled in a tiny grasp, researchers said. Zeresenay found a rare example of a hyoid bone, a throat structure later crucial to human speech, he said. This offers a glimpse of the evolution of the voice box, which under some theories is interwoven with that of speech.
Zeresenay spent the next five years scratching away rock from the skeleton with a dentist’s drill, according to members of his team.
What killed the baby is unclear. But it seems the ancient Awash River rapidly buried the body in a flood, the scientists said, preserving rare details such as a full set of both milk teeth and unerupted adult teeth. The brain cast will help reveal “whether our earliest ancestors grew their brains in the uniquely human way,” said a member of the research group, Fred Spoor of University College London.
One of her humanlike knees was complete with a kneecap no bigger than a dried pea, researchers said. But her upper body, like Lucy’s, had many apelike features: small brain, nose flat like a chimp’s, face projecting forward. Her two complete shoulder blades are the first found from an australopith, Zeresenay said; analyzing their function “will be among the exciting challenges that we will face.”
________________
Technorati tags: Evolution
Flintstones, Meet the Flintstones!
Here we see people riding dinosaurs, or, as our creationist friends call them, "Jesus Ponies".
But, is this just a cartoon? Or ... a tour through your local neighborhood Christian Creation Museum's idea of historical reality?
Well, let's take that tour. My favorite part is where the narrator of the tour explains to us that 90% of the "problems" that people have with Noah's Ark/Flood result from "misunderstandings" (I'd agree with that), which are all based on people's ignorance of the limits of science and what Scripture really teaches (I obviously don't concur with that).
I've tucked the video below the fold, or you can watch it at Motionbox HERE.
, shockwave-flash@http://motionbox.com/external/player/type%3Dadvanced%2Cid%3D3c96d0bcb8" href="http://motionbox.com/external/player/type%3Dadvanced%2Cid%3D3c96d0bcb8" id="">
PS: Another favorite part of our "tour" is where they refer to a "feasibility study conducted by Professor John Woodmorappe" -- this is a bold-faced lie. Woodmorappe is a pseudonym for Jan Peczkis, who has always only been a secondary-level teacher (high school in IL).
________________
Technorati tags: Creationism
25 Most Corrupt Politicians
The non-profit, non-partisan Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has released its assessment of the 20 most corrupt Congresspersons and 5 "Dishonorable Mentions". You can read the PDF "Beyond Delay Report" for yourself. Also see this Netscape version. Some of the names on there might surprise you. They did me. (HT: DftCW)
The "20 Most Corrupt Members of Congress" :
The "5 Dishonorable Mentions":
Notice there are 3:17 Dems to GOP in the first category, and 1:4 in the second. So Dems are 20% as corrupt (roughly) in the House and 25% as corrupt in the Senate as Lincoln's party...
A well-established trend has been observed historically that the majority party always grows more corrupt over time, until a reversal of fortuntes occurs (as will this November), and then the fraudulence cycle perpetuates in the other direction. Hooray for change, the only constant known to man ;)
________________
Technorati tags: Politics
- Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT)
- Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN)
- Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)
- Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO)
- Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA)
- Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA)
- Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL)
- Rep. Katherine Harris (R-FL)
- Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA)
- Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA)
- Rep. Gary Miller (R-CA)
- Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV)
- Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO)
- Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA)
- Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ)
- Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX)
- Rep. John Sweeney (R-NY)
- Rep. Charles Taylor (R-NC)
- Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA)
- Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA)
- Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT)
- Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL)
- Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ)
- Rep. John Murtha (D-PA)
- Rep. Don Sherwood (R-PA)
Notice there are 3:17 Dems to GOP in the first category, and 1:4 in the second. So Dems are 20% as corrupt (roughly) in the House and 25% as corrupt in the Senate as Lincoln's party...
A well-established trend has been observed historically that the majority party always grows more corrupt over time, until a reversal of fortuntes occurs (as will this November), and then the fraudulence cycle perpetuates in the other direction. Hooray for change, the only constant known to man ;)
Technorati tags: Politics
Monday, September 18, 2006
Secular Scorecards
Here are the scorecards from our House Reps and Senators from FL:
Unsurprisingly, as a general rule, the GOP sucks ass at honoring the constitutional principle of church-state separation, while Democrats do fare better (although not as well as they ought).
| FLORIDA HOUSE | Party | RC24 | RC46 | RC48 | RC204 | RC283 | RC492 | RC378 | RC385 | RC386 | RC388 | Score |
| Bilirakis, M, 9th | R | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0 |
| Boyd, A, 2nd | D | - | + | + | + | + | + | - | - | - | + | 60 |
| Brown, C, 3rd | D | - | + | + | + | nv | + | + | + | - | + | 70 |
| Brown-Waite, V, 5th | R | - | - | - | + | - | - | - | - | - | + | 20 |
| Crenshaw, A, 4th | R | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0 |
| Davis, J, 11th | D | - | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | - | + | 80 |
| Diaz-Balart, L, 21st | R | - | - | - | - | - | - | + | - | - | - | 10 |
| Diaz-Balart, M, 25th | R | - | - | - | - | - | - | + | - | - | - | 10 |
| Feeney, T, 24th | R | nv | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0 |
| Foley, M, 16th | R | - | - | - | + | - | - | + | - | - | + | 30 |
| Harris, K, 13th | R | - | nv | nv | - | nv | - | - | - | - | - | 0 |
| Hastings, A, 23rd | D | - | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | - | + | 80 |
| Keller, R, 8th | R | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0 |
| Mack, C, 14th | R | - | - | - | + | - | - | - | - | - | + | 20 |
| Meek, K, 17th | D | - | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | - | + | 80 |
| Mica, J, 7th | R | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0 |
| Miller, J, 1st | R | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0 |
| Putnam, A, 12th | R | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0 |
| Ros-Lehtinen, I, 18th | R | nv | - | - | - | - | - | + | - | - | - | 10 |
| Shaw Jr, E, 22nd | R | - | - | - | + | - | - | - | - | - | + | 20 |
| Stearns, C, 6th | R | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0 |
| Wasserman Schultz, D, 20th | D | - | + | + | + | nv | + | + | + | + | + | 80 |
| Weldon, D, 15th | R | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0 |
| Wexler, R, 19th | D | - | + | + | + | nv | + | + | + | + | + | 80 |
| Young, C, 10th | R | - | - | - | + | - | - | - | - | - | - | 10 |
| FLORIDA SENATE | Party | RC24 | RC46 | RC48 | RC204 | RC283 | RC492 | RC378 | RC385 | RC386 | RC388 | Score |
| Martinez, M | R | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0 |
| Nelson, B | D | - | + | - | + | - | + | - | + | + | + | 60 |
Unsurprisingly, as a general rule, the GOP sucks ass at honoring the constitutional principle of church-state separation, while Democrats do fare better (although not as well as they ought).
COTG #49
The 49th edition of the Carnival of the Godless is up at Grounded in Reality.
Also, check out Chris Hallquist's take on the Brody Ruckus 3some Facebook fiasco, as well as the lovelygurl15 viral marketing scam (see her Youtube profile). It appears that more and more business-minded persons are seeing ways to take advantage of huge networking afforded by Facebook and Youtube and such to try to launch their businesses or careers.
________________
Technorati tags: COTG
Also, check out Chris Hallquist's take on the Brody Ruckus 3some Facebook fiasco, as well as the lovelygurl15 viral marketing scam (see her Youtube profile). It appears that more and more business-minded persons are seeing ways to take advantage of huge networking afforded by Facebook and Youtube and such to try to launch their businesses or careers.
________________
Technorati tags: COTG
Saturday, September 16, 2006
25 Important Stories the MSM Didn't Touch in 2006
As much as you hear conservatives drat the MSM indefatigably, you'd almost think that the top 25 stories which the MSM refused to cover as they needed to this year were all pro-right. If you thought that, you'd be wrong. The saddest story not covered that directly impinges on this current debate about "which party actually wants us safe, versus which party wants terrorists to rule America?" is probably #25, IMHO. See them all for yourself:
#1 Bush Administration Moves to Eliminate Open Government
#2 Media Coverage Fails on Iraq: Fallujah and the Civilian Death
#3 Another Year of Distorted Election Coverage
#4 Surveillance Society Quietly Moves In
#5 U.S. Uses Tsunami to Military Advantage in Southeast Asia
#6 The Real Oil for Food Scam
#7 Journalists Face Unprecedented Dangers to Life and Livelihood
#8 Iraqi Farmers Threatened By Bremer’s Mandates
#9 Iran’s New Oil Trade System Challenges U.S. Currency
#10 Mountaintop Removal Threatens Ecosystem nd Economy
#11 Universal Mental Screening Program Usurps Parental Rights
#12 Military in Iraq Contracts Human Rights Violators
#13 Rich Countries Fail to Live up to Global Pledges
#14 Corporations Win Big on Tort Reform, Justice Suffers
#15 Conservative Plan to Override Academic Freedom in the Classroom
#16 U.S. Plans for Hemispheric Integration Include Canada
#17 U.S. Uses South American Military Bases to Expand Control of the Region
#18 Little Known Stock Fraud Could Weaken U.S. Economy
#19 Child Wards of the State Used in AIDS Experiments
#20 American Indians Sue for Resources; Compensation Provided to Others
#21 New Immigration Plan Favors Business Over People
#22 Nanotechnology Offers Exciting Possibilities But Health Effects Need Scrutiny
#23 Plight of Palestinian Child Detainees Highlights Global Problem
#24 Ethiopian Indigenous Victims of Corporate and Government Resource Aspirations
#25 Homeland Security Was Designed to Fail
________________
Technorati tags: Politics
Top 25 Censored Stories of 2006
#1 Bush Administration Moves to Eliminate Open Government
#2 Media Coverage Fails on Iraq: Fallujah and the Civilian Death
#3 Another Year of Distorted Election Coverage
#4 Surveillance Society Quietly Moves In
#5 U.S. Uses Tsunami to Military Advantage in Southeast Asia
#6 The Real Oil for Food Scam
#7 Journalists Face Unprecedented Dangers to Life and Livelihood
#8 Iraqi Farmers Threatened By Bremer’s Mandates
#9 Iran’s New Oil Trade System Challenges U.S. Currency
#10 Mountaintop Removal Threatens Ecosystem nd Economy
#11 Universal Mental Screening Program Usurps Parental Rights
#12 Military in Iraq Contracts Human Rights Violators
#13 Rich Countries Fail to Live up to Global Pledges
#14 Corporations Win Big on Tort Reform, Justice Suffers
#15 Conservative Plan to Override Academic Freedom in the Classroom
#16 U.S. Plans for Hemispheric Integration Include Canada
#17 U.S. Uses South American Military Bases to Expand Control of the Region
#18 Little Known Stock Fraud Could Weaken U.S. Economy
#19 Child Wards of the State Used in AIDS Experiments
#20 American Indians Sue for Resources; Compensation Provided to Others
#21 New Immigration Plan Favors Business Over People
#22 Nanotechnology Offers Exciting Possibilities But Health Effects Need Scrutiny
#23 Plight of Palestinian Child Detainees Highlights Global Problem
#24 Ethiopian Indigenous Victims of Corporate and Government Resource Aspirations
#25 Homeland Security Was Designed to Fail
________________
Technorati tags: Politics
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
New God Study
A new Baylor study on religious beliefs is a bit more detailed than most. You can download the full report, American Piety in the 21st Century: New Insights to the Depths and Complexity of Religion in the U.S.
Many prior studies, like the CUNY ARIS I've discussed, had very generic categories of belief, and very simple questions regarding faith in God. These sorts of studies consistently found the amount of nonreligious persons in the mid-teens. This study aimed to differentiate faith in types of God, and its results are very interesting. For one thing, although 10.8% of persons are "religious nones", only 5.2% were willing to self-identify as atheists. The researchers think that the lower score here is due to the more pointed questions which differentiate between unaffiliated religious persons (unaffiliated with a particular church or denomination) and truly nonreligious persons.
USA Today
Chron.com
________________
Technorati tags: Religion
In 2004, the General Social Survey reported that 14.3 percent of the population had no religion, but by using a more detailed measure in the Baylor survey, researchers determined that only 10.8 percent of the population or approximately 10 million Americans are unaffiliated.The four "God types", referred to as Type A, B, C and D, and their % belief:
"We believe, and are going to argue, that it [the statistics] has more to do with how you ask about the religious connection than what it says about the commitment of the average American to their faith," said Dr. Kevin Dougherty, assistant professor of sociology and one of the Baylor Survey researchers. (Baylor U source article)
Authoritarian: 31.4%Another breakdown (interesting!) by regional majority of each type view:
Benevolent: 25.0%
Critical: 16.0%
Distant: 23.0%
NE -- 21.2% CriticalOf course, the high amount of Jewish persons and liberal Christians (both Catholic and Protestant) in the NE made me predict that Distant would win there, not Critical.
South -- 43.5% Authoritarian
West -- 30.3% Distant
Midwest -- 28.8% Benevolent
USA Today
The four visions of God outlined in the Baylor research aren't mutually exclusive. And they don't include 5.2% of Americans who say they are atheists. (Although 91.8% said they believe in God, some didn't answer or weren't sure.)The Waco Tribune-Herald
For example, there is a strong gender differential in belief in God. Women, he said, tend toward the more engaged versions (types A and B), while men tend toward the less engaged and are more likely to be atheist.Something else I'm not surprised about?
More than half the blacks in the study said they believe in the Authoritarian God. None surveyed said they were atheist.
Lower-income and less-educated folk were more likely to worship god types A or B, while those with college degrees or earning more than $100,000 were more likely to believe in the Distant God or be atheists, the Baylor study concluded.
Getting agnostic and even atheist participation on Baylor’s religion survey didn’t seem to be a problem, he added. Although 10.8 percent did not claim any affiliation with any faith family or house of worship, only 5.2 percent of those surveyed declared themselves to be atheists.
Chron.com
It found that about 41 percent believe Atlantis existed; 37 percent believe places can be haunted; and 52 percent believe that dreams can foretell the future. About 12 percent believe in astrology and psychics, and about 25 percent believe in UFOs.There is, and always has been, a sort of pervasive superstitous human mindset. When people accept magical, invisible beings, (angels, demons, gods) and miracles with little or no evidence, their credulity simply extends to other regions of naïveté as well -- Atlantis being a real place, UFOlogy, Bigfoot, Loch Ness...etc. Religious belief either causes this lower bar of skeptical thinking or is a symptom thereof, but it clearly correlates with it.
________________
Technorati tags: Religion
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Update on PERA
I just received the following update on the church-state minimization bill I mentioned in a prior post. Please follow the link.
The Public Expression of Religion Act, PERA: (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-2679) must be stopped!
Click on this URL to take action now:
http://capwiz.com/au/issues/alert/?alertid=9007716
The above link will allow you to compose an email to both senators from Florida and to Cliff Stearns (House Rep) containing an already-written strong suggestion for our Congressmen to protect the Constitution. Please do it!
**UPDATE 9/15/06 -- I found a Facebook group on this election issue, with 57 members as of this moment (11PM) **
________________
Technorati tags: Politics
The Public Expression of Religion Act, PERA: (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-2679) must be stopped!
Click on this URL to take action now:
http://capwiz.com/au/issues/alert/?alertid=9007716
The above link will allow you to compose an email to both senators from Florida and to Cliff Stearns (House Rep) containing an already-written strong suggestion for our Congressmen to protect the Constitution. Please do it!
**UPDATE 9/15/06 -- I found a Facebook group on this election issue, with 57 members as of this moment (11PM) **
________________
Technorati tags: Politics
Musings on the State of Our Union
Our country is indeed polarized. But for all its polarization, even the strongest windpipes of the administration's (and Congress') cheerleaders are beginning to crack. The stands have begun to empty. No one is hearkening to their cries anymore. Fear makes a callous over time, and gives way to anger.
Olberman summarizes.
The terrorists are not being helped by those who doubt the competence of our "Decider", not by those who criticize the politics of war, not by those who see a failed foreign policy and insist that we change it. The terrorists are being validated by our very own administration -- they are afraid, and they spread fear, and they allow fear to make stupid decisions which strip us of our liberties. We can only hope that the country we had before 9/11 will one day exist again, although we are assured by this administration that it never can.
I do not think that Bush and his "portable public chorus" are good enough, not nearly so, to do irreparable damage to our country. The sycophants of stupidity, and the progenitor thereof, will pass on, and their ugly scars will one day heal. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Light is being shone upon their up-to-now covert actions and activities. And as we all now, stench comes from things that fester unexposed. Their smell has given them away. The popular vote will prevail in November. I feel sure of it. I have too much trust in the courage of my countrymen to despair.
Otherwise, the terrorists have won, because we allowed them to take the one thing that made us great -- our liberty. Even as we took their liberty from them under the guise of "giving them democracy" (as if such a gift can be given), we found that we had not gained any ourselves, and had only sacrificed more. As if such a quest can ever succeed. As if freedom is not earned. As if they don't hate us more today than ever. As if it wasn't our choice to make it this way.
Olberman summarizes.
When those who dissent are told time and time again — as we will be, if not tonight by the President, then tomorrow by his portable public chorus — that he is preserving our freedom, but that if we use any of it, we are somehow un-American…See the full speech on video -- .wmv , quicktime
When we are scolded, that if we merely question, we have "forgotten the lessons of 9/11"… look into this empty space behind me and the bi-partisanship upon which this administration also did not build, and tell me:
Who has left this hole in the ground?
We have not forgotten, Mr. President.
You have.
May this country forgive you.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -- attributed to Ben Franklin, published in An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania (1759)Where are all the Franklins? The Jeffersons? The Washingtons? Why are so many without courage? Why are so many blinded by ignorance and fear? The terrorists will only win if we allow their actions to change the way we live our lives, and if we allow their intent -- to spread fear -- to materialize into reality.
The terrorists are not being helped by those who doubt the competence of our "Decider", not by those who criticize the politics of war, not by those who see a failed foreign policy and insist that we change it. The terrorists are being validated by our very own administration -- they are afraid, and they spread fear, and they allow fear to make stupid decisions which strip us of our liberties. We can only hope that the country we had before 9/11 will one day exist again, although we are assured by this administration that it never can.
I do not think that Bush and his "portable public chorus" are good enough, not nearly so, to do irreparable damage to our country. The sycophants of stupidity, and the progenitor thereof, will pass on, and their ugly scars will one day heal. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Light is being shone upon their up-to-now covert actions and activities. And as we all now, stench comes from things that fester unexposed. Their smell has given them away. The popular vote will prevail in November. I feel sure of it. I have too much trust in the courage of my countrymen to despair.
Otherwise, the terrorists have won, because we allowed them to take the one thing that made us great -- our liberty. Even as we took their liberty from them under the guise of "giving them democracy" (as if such a gift can be given), we found that we had not gained any ourselves, and had only sacrificed more. As if such a quest can ever succeed. As if freedom is not earned. As if they don't hate us more today than ever. As if it wasn't our choice to make it this way.
5 Myths About Apostates -- Why We Abandon Faith
I wanted to pass along an item that Ed Babinski (also here) brought to my attention involving a talk given a few years ago highlighting some myths about apostates. The talk was given by Prof. Ruth A. Tucker, who is a Christian and a professor at Calvin College Theological Seminary. One of her specialities is missionology. She has written numerous books, including Walking Away from Faith, about why people leave Christianity. Another recent book of interest, published in Jan 2006, is titled God Talk, and cautions those who claim to hear from God and/or speak for God.
Below is a speech she gave at a freethought group meeting in 2001.
Below is a speech she gave at a freethought group meeting in 2001.
From the FTA Minutes:
(Freethought Association of West Michigan, Meeting Minutes for October 24, 2001, #102)
There are Hedonist Christians, liberal Christians, and Evangelicals are nabbed all the time in sex scandals, child porn cases, as closeted homosexuals, etc. So is it necessary to abandon ones faith in order to pursue sin/pleasure? No.
Just ask Phillip Distasio, leader of Arcadian Fields Ministries, who was charged with sexually abusing 9 disabled boys. Just ask the Rev. Daniel Schulte, 53, of Chicago, IL, who was recently convicted for child porn. Just ask the Baptist minister Rev. Eugene Paul White, 71, recently sentenced to 180 years to life in prison for 12 counts of lewd and lascivious acts with a minor under 14, convicted of molesting his 4 adopted foster daughters. Just ask Shawn Davies, 33, of Scott County, KY. Shawn is charged with 9 counts of 2nd-degree statutory sodomy, 7 counts of furnishing pornographic materials to minors, 5 counts of use of a child in a sexual performance, 2 counts of endangering the welfare of a minor, and 4 other charges...one of the sodomies took place with a boy under 14 at a church youth lock-in, where he was the youth minister, at First Baptist Church in Greenwood, KY...
Need I go on? Any of you who subscribe to Freethought Today know of their "Black Collar Crime Blotter" section, which every month is [sadly] filled with these exact same clergy-related crime stories.
In other words, if #4 were true, it would not be necessary to "abandon faith", I could still go to church every Sunday, pray (or not), read the Bible (or not), and repent of my sinful ways (or not). I'm sure that if you asked these fellows, they surely wouldn't tell you they were atheists. If I wanted to be like them, I could keep both my unbelief and my sins secret, couldn't I?
Obviously, if you are #1 -- angry and rebellious, it begs the question on the existence of God. If I say I do not believe in Santa Claus, I cannot be angry with Santa, nor rebel against jolly ol' Saint Nick. So if someone is #1, they are not an atheist. [obviously, I can still hate Christmas, or those who celebrate Saint Nick, or consider belief in Santa to be harmful, without violating the logic of unbelief]
I think #2 and #3 are intertwined. The question of interest here is -- have they abandoned faith because they are looking for answers, or have they found the correct answers, and realized that faith never gave them an answer to their questions? If we just have some doubts about the Bible's composition, the canonization process, etc., then going to seminary may be an option. But if the problem of evil, the problem of God's hiddeness, and other strong atheistic arguments plague our souls, we are quite unlikely to find reprieve from the cracks in the dam that holds back our unbelief. I also find it interesting that the professor's research shows that more Christians deconvert when arguing with apostates than vice versa. It reminds me of Saint Paul's words..."a little leaven leavens the whole lump."
The old canard of #5 -- that someone "was never really a believer" is just what helps believers sleep at night. As hurtful as it is to tell people this, believers have to ignore the reality of a genuine faith that was abandoned. It helps them to say that we couldn't be just like them, praying, loving God, worshipping, singing hymns, obeying...
...Otherwise, they could one day be just like us.
________________
Technorati tags: apostasy
(Freethought Association of West Michigan, Meeting Minutes for October 24, 2001, #102)
Professor Tucker disclosed that she had had no other doctrinal doubts orI want to list those 5 myths concerning believers who leave the faith again concisely:
peripheral problems with biblically revealed truths. Rather, her main
uncertainty zeroed in directly on the heart of the matter: the existence of
God Itself. Findings by science seemed to continually push back this Being
from a personal, proximal one-to a less and less involved entity far off
somewhere on the outskirts of the deep vastness of space. Its heavenly home
tucked away somewhere among the billions of galaxies. These "Night
Sky" ponderings made her wish to live in the old, pre-scientific times, with
the attendant beliefs of geocentrism and a small, personal system of an Earth
lit by the greater and lesser lights of Sun and Moon, all for the benefit of
Man. She had begun to teach religious tenets, but it wasn't until she stopped
and really critically investigated the subject matter that she discovered
sharp challenges to her religious beliefs and practices...
Professor Tucker listed five myths about people who have abandoned their
faith. 1) "They are angry and rebellious." She found virtually no evidence
for this. Rather, people felt sorrow, initially. They experienced pain, not
anger. 2) "They can be argued back into faith." Because the person leaving
his/her faith has carefully and painstakingly dissected the reasons behind
this major worldview change, the Christian who proffers apologetics is more
likely to convert into non-belief in such an exchange. 3) "Doubters can find
help at Christian colleges and seminaries." This is not seen to be the case.
4) "They abandon their faith so that they can go out and sin freely." Our
presenter pointed out that too many people who profess faith sin more often
than non-believers and that this argument was not a motivational issue in
de-converting from faith. 5) "They were never sincere Christians to begin
with." She has come across example after example of the most earnest and
devout of evangelical, fundamentalist believers who became non-theists. Dan
Barker was mentioned as just one of these erstwhile believers.
She then listed some actual reasons given for "losing faith in faith."
Science & philosophy has eroded the faith of many former believers. The sense
of absence of any caring God was another. Another reason was the
myth-shattering experience of the critical examination of the scriptures.
Disappointment in God (Its apparent apathy or antipathy to Its creation) and
the hypocrisy of Christians were two other reasons listed. And finally, the
perception of a dogmatic anti-feminist and anti-homosexual stance of
fundamentalist Christianity was given for why some relinquish their faith.
1) "They are angry and rebellious."I know I've certainly been accused of leaving Christianity due to numbers 1, 4 and 5. I've also heard all five of these myths about apostates. I do find it rather humorous when people think that atheism is necessary for #4 -- they tell me I'm an atheist so I can "do what I want", or something of the sort. The funniest thing about that is that one can believe in God and do what one wants.
2) "They can be argued back into faith."
3) "Doubters can find help at Christian colleges and seminaries."
4) "They abandon their faith so that they can go out and sin freely."
5) "They were never sincere Christians to begin with."
There are Hedonist Christians, liberal Christians, and Evangelicals are nabbed all the time in sex scandals, child porn cases, as closeted homosexuals, etc. So is it necessary to abandon ones faith in order to pursue sin/pleasure? No.
Just ask Phillip Distasio, leader of Arcadian Fields Ministries, who was charged with sexually abusing 9 disabled boys. Just ask the Rev. Daniel Schulte, 53, of Chicago, IL, who was recently convicted for child porn. Just ask the Baptist minister Rev. Eugene Paul White, 71, recently sentenced to 180 years to life in prison for 12 counts of lewd and lascivious acts with a minor under 14, convicted of molesting his 4 adopted foster daughters. Just ask Shawn Davies, 33, of Scott County, KY. Shawn is charged with 9 counts of 2nd-degree statutory sodomy, 7 counts of furnishing pornographic materials to minors, 5 counts of use of a child in a sexual performance, 2 counts of endangering the welfare of a minor, and 4 other charges...one of the sodomies took place with a boy under 14 at a church youth lock-in, where he was the youth minister, at First Baptist Church in Greenwood, KY...
Need I go on? Any of you who subscribe to Freethought Today know of their "Black Collar Crime Blotter" section, which every month is [sadly] filled with these exact same clergy-related crime stories.
In other words, if #4 were true, it would not be necessary to "abandon faith", I could still go to church every Sunday, pray (or not), read the Bible (or not), and repent of my sinful ways (or not). I'm sure that if you asked these fellows, they surely wouldn't tell you they were atheists. If I wanted to be like them, I could keep both my unbelief and my sins secret, couldn't I?
Obviously, if you are #1 -- angry and rebellious, it begs the question on the existence of God. If I say I do not believe in Santa Claus, I cannot be angry with Santa, nor rebel against jolly ol' Saint Nick. So if someone is #1, they are not an atheist. [obviously, I can still hate Christmas, or those who celebrate Saint Nick, or consider belief in Santa to be harmful, without violating the logic of unbelief]
I think #2 and #3 are intertwined. The question of interest here is -- have they abandoned faith because they are looking for answers, or have they found the correct answers, and realized that faith never gave them an answer to their questions? If we just have some doubts about the Bible's composition, the canonization process, etc., then going to seminary may be an option. But if the problem of evil, the problem of God's hiddeness, and other strong atheistic arguments plague our souls, we are quite unlikely to find reprieve from the cracks in the dam that holds back our unbelief. I also find it interesting that the professor's research shows that more Christians deconvert when arguing with apostates than vice versa. It reminds me of Saint Paul's words..."a little leaven leavens the whole lump."
The old canard of #5 -- that someone "was never really a believer" is just what helps believers sleep at night. As hurtful as it is to tell people this, believers have to ignore the reality of a genuine faith that was abandoned. It helps them to say that we couldn't be just like them, praying, loving God, worshipping, singing hymns, obeying...
...Otherwise, they could one day be just like us.
________________
Technorati tags: apostasy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)