Back in November I believe, the Daily Show with John Stewart on Comedy Central had a four part program on the theory of Evolution vs. Intelligent Design (ie Creationism dressed up to look scientific). Lately, I have been thinking more on this rather hot issue. Indeed, 80 years after the Clarence Darrow trial aka "The Scopes Monkey Trial," teaching Evolution in school is still hotly debated. I am in agreement with one of the panelists that John had on the show in the 4th showing of the series, that school boards should let teachers decide what to teach and butt out of their curiculum. If parents don't like it, they can move their child somewhere that teaches something more to their liking, or teach them what they believe themselves.
So, my thoughts on this issue? Simply put, evolution is fact, not theory. A statement echoed by Carl Sagon in his award winning PBS series Cosmos (which is being rebroadcast on the Science Channel). Dr. Sagon, and many others in the fields of Biology point to nature for their examples of evolution. There is far too much biodiversity and too many living examples of evolution. Even now, when we have mapped the human genome, we have found that we are genetically related to every living creature, plant or animal, on this planet. Seems plain to me that if there were a Supreme Being who directly created us out of clay molding as the Bible suggests, there would be absolutely no gentic similarities whatsoever. What attributes to the lack of acceptance of such a proven concept? Well, two reasons stand out in my mind. One, a fundamental lack of understanding of just how the evolutionary process works and two, the fact that your mind has to think logically and scientifically to understand the evidence presented. I will attempt to explain it in a understandable way.
The first problem is that human arrogance leads us to believe that we are the end result, that the idea is we went from monkeys, to hominids, to neanderthals, to modern humans. Creationists grasp on this concept and point out that the fossil records show many of the "links in the chain" occurred at the same time, the most prominent example being that for a period of about 10 or 20 thousand years, neanderthals and modern humans (cro magnon) co-existed. However, according to evolution, this is not how it works. The key to evolution is diversity. Even Darwin knew that. To continue to use neanderthals and cro magnon's as examples, our species and the neanderthal species were two branches on the same bush, as were the other hominids. Essentily the human bush. Cro magnon (us) had the benefit of being the only branch that survived (although recent evidence suggests that another branch of humans, pygmy humans or "hobbits" as some have called them, who were approx. an average of 1 meter tall, had survived until roughly 13,000 years ago whereas neandthals died out roughly 30,000 years ago). Apes, which Creationists are fond of saying that we Evolutionists claim we descended from them, would be a completely seperate bush, with Gorillas, Orangotans, and the various other species of primates being being branches of the primate bush. Its more accurate to say we descended from a common ancestor, an animal that was neither monkey nor human but had features of both. At some point they would have diverged into the two bushes of today, the monkey bush and the human bush. Carl Sagan had a very good explanation of how evolution works, relating artificial selection (human selection) to natural selection (see the story "The Mystery of the Samurai Crab" Cosmos 2, Chapt. 3, 10 min.).
The second road block to understanding evolution is a bit more difficult to overcome. You can't educate everyone on biology, science, etc so that they can understand these concepts. The simple fact is that people have an easier time believing in what is easy for them to understand. To most people, a supreme being creating humanity is an easier concept to grasp than understanding the underlying biological principals that lead to the evolutionary process. But when you read (or listen) to Carl Sagan's explanation of how the evolutionary process functions, he describes it in a very beautifully simple way that (hopefully) most "lamen" people could understand (if they would listen). In today's world of uncertainty, we need to turn to people who provide a well thought out, fact based explanation using scientific concepts and principals, rather than listening to people who comfort us with lies and misinformation (whether or not they believe in such rubbish). Sometimes fact is truer than truth.
In conclusion, I'll leave you with this final quote:
"Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
- Theodosius Dodzhansky, 1973
Update (2/13/2008):
I found video's to The Daily Show's series Evolution, Schmevolution. The first is a video of a panel he did with experts in Evolutionary Science, Religious Creationism, and some nut hippie. If you do a search for "Evolution" you'll find some interesting clips on The Daily Show website.
Daily Show: Evolution, Schmevolution Panel
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Google Pages
Google has seen fit to include me in its programme of building webpages using its Google Pages feature. You'll find the link below. I'll also be posting a link on the page I created to this blog. I am an engineer by trade but I will begin speaking out on the ideals and beliefs that I hold. The information I present here and on the Google Page represent my beliefs but are based on information I recieve from various sources...including some of the web links you see on here and in the Google Page site. Some information will be based on programme's I watch on things like the Science Channel, Discovery Channel, PBS, and various other TV programme's. Also a few radio programme's such as NPR's "To The Point." So...enjoy!
My Google Page
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Stuff on My Mind: The Rich
I have been thinking a lot about what my friend had said and also stumbled upon a Yahoo Finance column by Robert Kiyosaki, author of Rich Dad Poor Dad. The column is titled "Why the Rich are Getting Richer." Its very interesting. Its not so much advice how to get rich which in his first article When Good Advice Isn't he basically peddles his "products" as the tool for getting rich from his advice. No, its more an explanation of the history that led to the current economic situation of today and an explanation of why the investments people make today doesn't make them rich. That first article is also interesting because he points out what I've known for awhile, investments in the stock market are extremely risky and very costly at times. But more importantly, when reading through his articles (and a little reading between the lines) you get insight as to why there are people like my friend. One of the fatal flaws my friend made (whether intentional or not) was that anyone can work hard to become rich, therefore poor people had it coming. The problem is that our economy today depends heavily on as few people as possible being rich. So, you have people who give "good" advice that really isn't good so that only the people who know better get rich while everyone else can't because of the "advice" from the "financial expert." (Honestly, I'm not so confident in this guys advice either). Another mistake my friend makes is that anyone can do something like what Kiyosaki did. I happen to think that Kiyosaki had a bit of luck on his side as well. Something not all of us have.
I don't want to get too heavily involved in my friends rants or Kiyosaki's articles. My first point, and one of the things you can get from the column, is that the rich are in control, getting richer, and using every means in the book they can to make sure they stay in control while the rest of us our out of control. Kiyosaki also mentions of a book called "The Dollar Crisis" by Richard Duncan that talks about the impending devaluing of the Dollar. Another thing that I suspect is around the corner. You already have an idea of it based on the fact that the Euro is now stronger and potentially the replacement currency for the dollar. I mention this because it leads to my next point, which is that based on this and other things I've heard, this can potentially cause an economically catastrophic event the likes of which can make The Great Depression look like a miniscule recession. One of my problems with American Capitalism (note that I am not attacking Capitalism itself, just America's version) is the fact that it requires that there be poverty. Most rich people might say "its part of life, like huricanes and tornato's," the whole social darwinism idea. I say that is bullshit. Darwins purpose was to explain nature, where as capitalism is a manmade concept. Like our forefathers, I believe everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. How is poverty happiness? But also, I believe everyone has the right to basic needs such as food, water, and shelter, regardless of what they are or are not capable of. Our ancestors had it but had the ability to do it themselves. Now, too many people do not have it and either do not have the skills to get it on their own or are prevented by law.
I don't want to get too heavily involved in my friends rants or Kiyosaki's articles. My first point, and one of the things you can get from the column, is that the rich are in control, getting richer, and using every means in the book they can to make sure they stay in control while the rest of us our out of control. Kiyosaki also mentions of a book called "The Dollar Crisis" by Richard Duncan that talks about the impending devaluing of the Dollar. Another thing that I suspect is around the corner. You already have an idea of it based on the fact that the Euro is now stronger and potentially the replacement currency for the dollar. I mention this because it leads to my next point, which is that based on this and other things I've heard, this can potentially cause an economically catastrophic event the likes of which can make The Great Depression look like a miniscule recession. One of my problems with American Capitalism (note that I am not attacking Capitalism itself, just America's version) is the fact that it requires that there be poverty. Most rich people might say "its part of life, like huricanes and tornato's," the whole social darwinism idea. I say that is bullshit. Darwins purpose was to explain nature, where as capitalism is a manmade concept. Like our forefathers, I believe everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. How is poverty happiness? But also, I believe everyone has the right to basic needs such as food, water, and shelter, regardless of what they are or are not capable of. Our ancestors had it but had the ability to do it themselves. Now, too many people do not have it and either do not have the skills to get it on their own or are prevented by law.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Stuff on my Mind...Rich Good Poor Bad?
I got into a bit of a row with my friend and co-worker yesterday. It really upset me because she basically idolizes rich people. But what really boiled my blood was she practically accused all poor people everywhere of being a bunch of lazy good for nothing slobs. She has the typical right-wing conservative creedo of "if they're smart, they could find away to become rich." I took personal offense to that. I've grown up around people who were poorer than I. In most cases, they were the way they were either because they were not given the same opportunities, usually if they were minorities, or because they didn't have the prerequisite "intelligence" or "interests." By intelligence, I mean business or scientific aptitude (for the higher paying jobs) and by interests I mean interests in jobs such as engineering, science, business, politics, law, etc. This country favors those disciplines, rather unfairly I might add. Not only that, but this country requires you to have money for survival forcing many into a job they hate. You should be able to do what you love without having to worry about where your next meal comes from! You can't do that if you're an artist or musician (celebreties not included).
Another thing that bothered me was how she said she was against taxing the rich because then there would be "no incentive to invest money." She follows the "Reganomics" approach, give the rich tax breaks so they'll invest it and it trickles down to everyone else (aka Trickle Down Economics). NEWS FLASH...only upper middle class people invest. Rich people don't invest because THEY'RE ALREADY RICH!!! They don't NEED to invest when they have 7 figure salaries! You give them tax breaks, and they'll just hoard the money!! I say tax the damn rich people because it forces them to take social responsibility for many of the problems they themselves have caused; growing disparity between the haves and have nots, environmental damages, a large population of people whom everyday is a struggle to survive, to name a few.
Her flawed approach is typical right-wing propaganda, "work hard and you'll be rewarded." Truth is, that only works in a few cases. Most cases, its who you know, and how underhanded you are. You can't be a moral person, and become rich.
She also enjoys pointing out how conservatives are all about less government involvement. If thats true, then how come these same guys are creating laws like the Patriot Act and trying to undermine Civil Rights, Civil Liberties, and, more importantly, the Bill of Rights? Truth is, they are for less government involvement...in corporate interest. Corporate executives would love to be able to turn back the clock 100 years to the days before employee rights and protections, so they can force children to work and employees to work 18 hours/day 6 days/week for pennies. Also to the day where if there is an on the job injury, they just toss the employee into the streets and hire a new person, leaving the injured guy to fend for himself. I could go on and on.
I advocate more government involvement in the corporate world, and less involvement in my world (read the individual). Stop treating corporations like individuals and treat them for what they really are, seperate institutions that need to be monitored, regulated and enforced so that they do not take advantage of the rest of us. Do not monitor, regulate and enforce me (again, read the individual). Uphold the Bill of Rights and Civil Rights for individuals.
Another thing that bothered me was how she said she was against taxing the rich because then there would be "no incentive to invest money." She follows the "Reganomics" approach, give the rich tax breaks so they'll invest it and it trickles down to everyone else (aka Trickle Down Economics). NEWS FLASH...only upper middle class people invest. Rich people don't invest because THEY'RE ALREADY RICH!!! They don't NEED to invest when they have 7 figure salaries! You give them tax breaks, and they'll just hoard the money!! I say tax the damn rich people because it forces them to take social responsibility for many of the problems they themselves have caused; growing disparity between the haves and have nots, environmental damages, a large population of people whom everyday is a struggle to survive, to name a few.
Her flawed approach is typical right-wing propaganda, "work hard and you'll be rewarded." Truth is, that only works in a few cases. Most cases, its who you know, and how underhanded you are. You can't be a moral person, and become rich.
She also enjoys pointing out how conservatives are all about less government involvement. If thats true, then how come these same guys are creating laws like the Patriot Act and trying to undermine Civil Rights, Civil Liberties, and, more importantly, the Bill of Rights? Truth is, they are for less government involvement...in corporate interest. Corporate executives would love to be able to turn back the clock 100 years to the days before employee rights and protections, so they can force children to work and employees to work 18 hours/day 6 days/week for pennies. Also to the day where if there is an on the job injury, they just toss the employee into the streets and hire a new person, leaving the injured guy to fend for himself. I could go on and on.
I advocate more government involvement in the corporate world, and less involvement in my world (read the individual). Stop treating corporations like individuals and treat them for what they really are, seperate institutions that need to be monitored, regulated and enforced so that they do not take advantage of the rest of us. Do not monitor, regulate and enforce me (again, read the individual). Uphold the Bill of Rights and Civil Rights for individuals.
Monday, January 30, 2006
The Conservative Attack on the Supreme Court
I just finished reading this rather disturbing article from the New York Times:
In Alito, G.O.P. Reaps Harvest Planted in '82
It talks about how the Conservatives have been planning, much like a terrorist, to take over the Supreme Court so that they can wage war against decades of legal precedent. Think they'll stop with Roe v. Wade? Think again. I've heard on various radio programs (To The Point on NPR comes to mind) that this conservative "grassroots" movement (the quotes are because grassroots is a co-opted term that should apply only to PROgress, not the DIgress advocated by these guys) is planning to turn back the clock to the "good 'ole days" before 1932, when Civil Rights had not even been thought of and there were no such things as employee protections or benefits, and no such thing as consumer protections. Thats right, I'm talking about poisonous and deadly products just to save a buck at OUR expense, 6 day work weeks, 18 hours a day at minimum wage of $2/hr. It would be the good 'ole days....for them.
(Note: I saved the article in case the link changes or its retired by NYT)
In Alito, G.O.P. Reaps Harvest Planted in '82
It talks about how the Conservatives have been planning, much like a terrorist, to take over the Supreme Court so that they can wage war against decades of legal precedent. Think they'll stop with Roe v. Wade? Think again. I've heard on various radio programs (To The Point on NPR comes to mind) that this conservative "grassroots" movement (the quotes are because grassroots is a co-opted term that should apply only to PROgress, not the DIgress advocated by these guys) is planning to turn back the clock to the "good 'ole days" before 1932, when Civil Rights had not even been thought of and there were no such things as employee protections or benefits, and no such thing as consumer protections. Thats right, I'm talking about poisonous and deadly products just to save a buck at OUR expense, 6 day work weeks, 18 hours a day at minimum wage of $2/hr. It would be the good 'ole days....for them.(Note: I saved the article in case the link changes or its retired by NYT)
Sunday, January 29, 2006
My First Blog
Hello and welcome to my first ever blog. With this blog I wish to discuss science, its progess and the potential ramifications of discoveries; the problems of society, and what I think the solutions should be; life, where have we been and where are we going. I'll also throw in my iTunes Library of songs for those interested. I have been collecting music (from sources unnamed) for many years. Thanks to a friend of mine, I have discovered that a list of music can be generated by iTunes. Should make it relatively easy. Since she has Blogger, I can have her help me show my list on here.
One note: I like open forums of discussion, so please feel free to comment on what I have to say. But please be courteous, I dislike mean talking. Also, I do research my subjects so I won't always be just blabbering on without supporting what I say. If you find a broken link, please let me know, thanks.
Update (July 6, 2007): As you may have noticed, while I do hit upon the above subjects, this blog has turned into more of a "JD's OpEd" blog. It is intentional and I have indicated as much on my google website. As such, the blog name has been appropriately updated.
One note: I like open forums of discussion, so please feel free to comment on what I have to say. But please be courteous, I dislike mean talking. Also, I do research my subjects so I won't always be just blabbering on without supporting what I say. If you find a broken link, please let me know, thanks.
Update (July 6, 2007): As you may have noticed, while I do hit upon the above subjects, this blog has turned into more of a "JD's OpEd" blog. It is intentional and I have indicated as much on my google website. As such, the blog name has been appropriately updated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)