XKCD

XKCD is the nerdiest comic on the web. It's about, coding, science, and nerdy activities in general. Needless to say, it's my favorite comic, and I read it religiously (pardon the word). But today's publication deserves to be copied to my blog:

What can Jesus do?

This is fairly amusing. Thanks to PZ for pointing this out:

The 8th reason to not vote Huckabee

Huckabee actually wants to "amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards." The man has openly admitted to wanting to turn this nation into a theocratic state, yet he remains the front-runner of the republican party. What. The. Fuck? Isn't escaping theocratic opression the reason America was founded? Doesn't history teach us this doesn't work? Don't current events teach us that this doesn't work? Somebody please explain to me why we have this mentality of lining up behind someone and staying behind them no matter where they lead? Bush practically lead us off the Grand Canyon, and he still has supporters. Now we have morons assiduously asserting that Huckabee is the end-all-be-all because he is a charismatic figure, yet he's poised to lead us off of a higher cliff. Get some sense, people!

For my other 7 reasons to not vote Huckabee, see here.

School Started

So I've been incredibly busy with school again, which is why I'm posting less. I will still attempt to get 1 or 2 decent sized posts a week, however my posting will be contingent on the completion of my homework.

eLucy and eSkeleton

These are a couple of pretty cool websites.

eLucy lets you compare the skeleton of an Australopithecus Afarensis (Lucy) against a modern human or chimpanzee. Lucy is a well-known link between the human lineage and that of other apes. Here's eLucy: http://elucy.org/compant/json.html

eSkeleton is a site which enables you "to view the bones of both human and non-human primates and to gather information about them from our osteology database." You can have a side-by-side view of the bones for comparison. Here's the link to eSkeleton: http://www.eskeletons.org/

Atheist Bird

I couldn't resist...

Majority of American Voters Accept Evolution

It is a well known fact that the majority of Americans espouse a creationist view. The nescience of the American populace is deplorable, however a paper by the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology seems to show a glimmer of hope. A national survey conducted by various scientific societies and science teachers of likely voters shows that "most of [the] folk who responded to the survey accepted that life evolved, many accepted that it evolved through natural processes, and more favored teaching evolution than creationism or intelligent design in science classes." It is encouraging to see that the electorate is not as severely misinformed as I once supposed.

A key fact presented in this paper is that the phrasing of questions in polls palpably skews their results.

An analysis by the Pew Research Center shows that Americans’ views on evolutionary science vary with the phrasing of the question, however (3). For example, when people are asked to choose whether humans developed over millions of years, with or without guidance from God (a Gallup poll question), more select evolution with guidance (38%) than without guidance (13%). A Pew poll question shows a different pattern of results. Respondents were first asked, without reference to a supreme being, if they thought humans evolved or were created in their present form. Those who accepted evolution were then asked if they thought it occurred through natural processes or with guidance. When asked this way, 18% reported that evolution occurred with guidance, and 25% accepted that it occurred through natural selection.

Another important fact presented in this paper is that the respondents were more amenable to evolutionary science when the implications on human evolution weren't as conspicuous. This reemphasizes that diction is an important factor in these polls.


I was glad to see that scientific literacy was also a factor in the respondent's acceptance of evolutionary theory. This means that belief in asinine conjectures can be curtailed through proper education. In this survey, three basic scientific questions were asked. The questions were:

the continents or land masses on which we live have been moving for millions of years and will continue to move in the future (79% correctly agreed); antibiotics kill viruses as well as bacteria (43% correctly disagreed); the earliest humans lived at the same time as the dinosaurs (53% correctly disagreed).

Respondents who answered all three questions correctly were far more likely to accept evolutionary theory than those who answered two correctly, and they were more likely to be accepting of evolutionary theory than those who answered one or zero of the questions correctly.


Even more encouraging was the fact that "a majority of respondents rated learning to draw conclusions from evidence (80%), to think critically (78%), and how science is conducted (63%) as very important purposes of public school science education." Many respondents claimed that teaching evolutionary theory to better understand medicine was a convincing reason to teach the theory. Respondents also told who they would like to learn about evolution from, and I was happy to see that Americans respect the experts:

Among respondents presented with a list of people who might explain science to the public, 88% expressed interest in hearing from a scientist, and almost as many were interested in hearing from a science teacher (85%) or a doctor or nurse (84%). On the topics of evolution, creationism, and intelligent design, most respondents expressed interest in hearing from scientists (77%), science teachers (76%), and clergy (62%). Fewer people were interested in hearing from Supreme Court Justices on evolution (37%) or from school board members and celebrities on science (34% and 16%, respectively) and evolution (30% and 11%, respectively)

Perhaps we are not regressing as I once thought. Perhaps it is only a boisterous minority who want to systematically teach inanity by bringing Intelligent Design/Creationism into the classroom. Though this is still certainly far from perfect, overall I was delighted by these results.

Science Only Week

I'm planning on participating in a science only week between February 4th and 8th. Essentially, I'll only make posts about science during that week. Seeing as I'm taking Organic Chemistry, Genes, Ecology and Evolution, and electromagnetism and optics I'm sure I will have interesting stuff from class to write about. It will probably also reinforce it in my own head if I write about it. So between the 4th and 8th I'll make at least one post a day about only science topics. I will probably do less physics unless blogger has a dynamic image generator that I don't know about, but I'm sure I will find stuff from O-Chem and Biology to write about.

Debate between Sam Harris and Rabbi David Wolpe

This is an entertaining debate between Sam Harris and Rabbi David Wolpe:

http://www.ajula.edu/Content/ContentUnit.asp?CID=1766&u=7037&t=0

8 Reasons to not Vote Ron Paul

1.) Ron Paul does not "accept" the theory of evolution. See here for why this is important. [1]

2.) Ron Paul is against a woman's right to choose whether or not she should have an abortion. [2] [3]

3.) Ron Paul discriminates based on sexual orientation. [4]

4.) Ron Paul does not believe that the first amendment separates church from state and is against it on principle. [5]

5.) Ron Paul wants to "deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law." Based on rough estimates, this is approximately 10 to 20 million people. To seriously attempt to implement this would probably require a police state. [6]

6.) Ron Paul wants to vitiate the already inferior state of education in America by abolishing the Department of Education. [7]

7.) Ever seen anyone with Smallpox in the last 40 years? No? You know why? Because people are vaccinated against it. Ron Paul would prefer to bring this back. [8]

8.) Ron Paul believes "that our freedoms come not from man, but from God." That's a nice slap in the face to all the mortals who lost their lives dying to fight for freedom for this country. [9]








[1] http://youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw
[2] http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d097:h.r.392:
[3] http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.02597:
[4] http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:HR07955:@@@D&summ2=m&
[5] http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/238/what-does-the-first-amendment-really-mean/
[6] http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/border-security-and-immigration-reform/
[7] http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/education/
[8] http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/health-freedom/
[9] http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/87/statement-of-faith/

Why Evolution is an Important Topic for the 2008 Election

Many presidential candidates, especially Republican candidates, have denounced questions about evolution as irrelevant. They assert that these are questions for scientists rather than presidential candidates. From a certain perspective, they're right. It really doesn't matter whether or not a president can distinguish sympatric from allopatric speciation. But the evolution issue in context to politics transcends any scientific questions behind it.

First, and most importantly, it says something about the rationality of the politician. Is he willing to listen to the experts? If he rejects expert opinion in a case where the experts are claiming they are certain about the issue at hand, why will he listen to experts on any other issue? A president who neglects expert opinion irrevocably poises the nation for a debacle. This has been repeatedly evinced by the abject regime currently in power.

A politicians viewpoint on evolution is also indicative of whether or not they are amenable to science. There are many important scientific issues that need to be addressed now, such as global warming, stem-cell research, research into alternative power sources, and conservation of endangered species. Our next president needs to have a basic understanding of the political and ethical issues surrounding these topics and needs to trust the experts' scientific opinions on these topics.

Lastly, we get into the absurd intelligent design debate. A president who is a proponent of "teaching the controversy" is doing a disservice to the nation, and is an all-American embarrassment. While it may be true that the president can not directly influence education policy, he certainly affects it indirectly. What's at stake here is the future of this nation. So yes, the question of evolution is pertinent, Mr. Paul, Mr. Huckabee.

A Paramedics Anecdotal Proof of God

For those of you that don't know, I've been taking an EMT class. On the second day of our class, our instructor decided to offer some of his insights on why he thinks God exists. There's nothing particularly interesting about this story, just flawed logic, and an unwillingness to explore the phenomena described.

Our instructor told us a story about him and his partner going down to some lady's house who had called because her husband was unresponsive. The ambulance arrived at 6:30 AM. When asked about how long her husband had been like that, she said that he stopped talking mid-sentence at 10:30 PM last night. My instructor said he looked dead. When they hooked him up, they said he was flat-lining. He had no electrical activity in his body. They called the JP to come pronounce him dead. Some time later, the wife comes out and says she thinks he is breathing. My instructor goes in to check and sure enough he hears a gasp. The guy also has an irregular pulse. By 9:30 AM this guy is perfectly alright. The doctors find nothing wrong with him. My instructor said that the guy told him he wasn't ready to leave his family yet. My instructor took this as divine intervention.

But he's not the only person that this has happened too. More stories here: http://www.snopes.com/horrors/gruesome/buried.asp . I don't really see how he makes the jump that God did it, but I just felt like sharing.

On judgment day in front of my maker

"You're dead before God on judgment day, and you're asked to account for you life on Earth. How would you defend it in front of Him? What would you do or say to before the supreme judge who holds you accountable by his holy standards?" This is a question that I have been asked more than once. I decided to answer that here.

How dare you stand there and judge me, God! How dare you! How dare the potter blame the pot for its flaws! You are to blame if I have not lived up to your standards. You created me this way, knowing full well the consequences of your creation. It is you who should be condemned, not only for creating flawed vessels, but for every atrocity ever committed by your creation when you had the full power to stop it.

Where were you when the pharaoh took the first born?

Where were you as the mothers tried desperately to keep their newborns above the rising flood waters?

Why is it that you curse some children with fetal alcohol syndrome through no fault of their own?

Before I atone to you about my life, you atone to ME, God. You explain to me why you let your children suffer, why millions died before their time, why a million others have to live impaired in some way, when you can fix everything with the blink of an eye? If we are to be condemned for abortions, then you are a hypocrite, God! You have caused billions of abortions. If an embryo is considered life, then you have robbed billions of their life before ever exiting the womb, and you have robbed billions of parents of their children!

If you wanted your creation to know you, then why is it you kept yourself so well hidden from us? Why did you give us the ability for reason and logic and expect us not to use it? You are a corrupt and sadistic God indeed.

I will not give you the opportunity to condemn me, God, because I condemn you. If anyone deserves hell, it is you. Your feeble attempts to communicate with your creation are not nearly enough to exonerate you from the evil that you have allowed. So I condemn YOU. I refuse to join anyone as depraved as you. I will not allow you to take me into heaven, because I would prefer the depths of hell rather than compromising my morality by joining the most damnable entity in this universe. My conscience is clean. Do what you will.

7 reasons to NOT vote Huckabee

1.) He doesn't believe in evolution.

2.) Mike Huckabee believes homosexuality could pose a dangerous health risk.

3.) Mike Huckabee advocated isolating AIDS victims.

4.) Huckabee believes that ‘‘The Holy Bible . . . has truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy.’’

5.) Huckabee freed rapists and murderers if they were born again.

6.) Huckabee is a misogynist who thinks "A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ."

7.) Huckabee's son is an animal abuser. It's O.K. though since he's found Christ.

Enormous PDF of the mammalian tree

This is an enormous PDF. It's pretty detailed, and shows a mammalian tree. The file is pretty large, so it may take some time to load. Zoom in to about 2400% to see the good stuff.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/h...meline_pdf.pdf

An introduction to evolution

If some of the terminology here in the first few paragraphs is a bit daunting, don't sweat it. I will try and explain everything the best that I can. Also, if anything here isn't clear to you please let me know. I will try to clarify.

WHAT IS BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION?

Biological evolution is defined as the change in genetic composition of a population over time. A population experiences some genetic variation through mutations and sexual recombination. Natural selection deletes harmful variations from the population. Aside from mutations and recombination in conjunction with natural selection, gene flow and genetic drift can also cause a population to evolve. When one population branches out from another, it may speciate if the two populations are geographically isolated.

The modern synthesis, in the context of evolution, refers to a comprehensive, unified theory of evolution encompassing information from a myriad of biological, as well as other, fields. The modern synthesis is the most widely accepted theory of evolution today. It consists of the ideas described above. The modern synthesis is modified with newer discoveries.

Evolution provides us with a simple, yet elegant explanation for the variety of life on earth. Applying the theory of evolution in conjunction with other information that we have gives us keen insights into the history and relatedness of all life on earth, as well as insights into things of a more practical nature for the common man, such as why certain bacteria do not respond to antibiotics anymore.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF EVOLUTION

Though I feel that the history of evolution is important from an academic standpoint, I will not go into much detail on it here. I would prefer that the main ideas of evolution are understood rather than the history of it. However, I will touch on some of the more important points that I feel should be common knowledge.

Charles Darwin is credited for discovering the theory of evolution with his publication of The Origin of Species in 1859, though he called it descent with modification rather than evolution. Darwin took a five year voyage on a ship known as the H.M.S. Beagle in 1831. On his voyage, he documented various interesting details in the fossil records that he saw and in the distribution of certain animals that he saw. Darwin conceived his theory of natural selection in 1838, however he did not publish it then for fear of being thought a heretic. Darwin continued his research, making him an established naturalist. In 1858 a man named Alfred Russel Wallace sent Darwin a paper describing ideas similar to his own. This prompted the two scientists to publish a joint paper on the subject. In 1859, Darwin published The Origin of Species. Within a decade of its publication, evolution had become the accepted paradigm in the biology community.

THE GENE

A gene is a collection of chemicals known as nucleotides. All the genes in our body cumulatively make our genome. Almost all types of cells in our body contain an entire copy of our genome. Genes are the code of life, telling cells what to do. Based on which genes are "turned on" in a particular cell, the cells of our body carry out the instructions that our genes have programmed into them. In this way, cells differentiate and come together to form different tissues, organs, organ systems, and organisms.

A nucleotide is made up of a base, a sugar, and a phosphate group. The base is what is important here. It can be one of four things. Three nucleotides together, known as a codon, code for the production of a chemical known as an amino acid. The sequence of nucleotide bases is what determines which amino acid will be coded for. Multiple amino acids, coded for by a sequence of codons, come together and form proteins, the workhorses of our cells. These proteins carry out the functions of life at the cellular level. On the larger level, all the innate characteristics that make you you are essentially the cumulative effects of these proteins.

Our genome is located in 23 pairs of chromosomes, each containing a molecule of DNA, which is just an enormous sequence of nucleotides. You receive 23 chromosomes, or about 50% of your DNA from each parent. In animals that reproduce sexually, a process known as crossing over, or sexual recombination occurs. Essentially, you don't receive an entire copy of any of your parents chromosomes. Rather, each chromosome that you receive is a combination of a pair of chromosomes in one of your parents. In other words, a parent's chromosomes pair up, shuffle genetic material amongst each other, and then pass the chromosome on to the child. This shuffling contributes to an increased variety of genomes in the population, an effect that is generally beneficial as we will soon see.

When a new cell in your body arises it may contain some errors in the genetic code where the code was not copied correctly. This can be a single nucleotide that is wrong, or it can be a series of nucleotides. This is known as a mutation. If the mutation occurs in a sperm or egg cell then this mutation may be passed on to a child. Contrary to popular belief, most mutations are not harmful. They have little noticeable effect. Occasionally you will find one that is beneficial to your chances of leaving children behind. This mutation may then be perpetuated by reproduction.

NATURAL SELECTION

Natural selection is the process by which life on earth selects against harmful genes, and for beneficial genes. This is not a cognitive selection, rather it is an intrinsic property of life.

If an organism has a deleterious mutation, it is more likely to die before it can pass on its genes. If this is the case then the deleterious mutation dies with it, and is selected out of the gene pool. On the other hand, a beneficial gene will cause its host organism to have better success at reproducing. Through this, the gene will thrive in the population, and there may be an evolutionary trend in the population towards the specific characteristic coded by that gene.

It is noteworthy that natural selection selects only for genes that make an organism more likely to procreate. Though intelligence may seem great, there is no reason that natural selection would select for this trait unless it had some reproductive advantage.

A common misconception about natural selection is that it is goal oriented. People think that there is a pinnacle to evolution. Some even go as far as to say that humans are at the pinnacle of evolution. This is simply a fallacy. Natural selection has no goal. It simply selects for what is best in the here and now. Evolutionary trends are dictated through long-term environmental conditions and other selective pressures, not a preordained goal.

EXAPTATIONS.

The processes of evolution do not build new biological machines altogether, rather, they take what is already there and modify. An exaptation is a shift in the function of a trait. Though the trait may have originally evolved for one reason, it now serves an entirely different purpose. For instance, one example of this is the evolution of feathers in birds. Currently, the most widely accepted theory on feather evolution is that they evolved for thermoregulation, and perhaps courting rituals. Flight came much later.

GENE FLOW AND GENETIC DRIFT!

Earlier I mentioned that aside from mutations, recombination and natural selection, gene flow and genetic drift can also affect the genetic makeup of a population.

Gene flow occurs when an individual who did not originally belong to the population enters the population. For instance, say we had been raising 10 generations of German shepherds. If we let a Doberman inside, this would be an example of gene flow. The Doberman's genes would enter the population, and quite possibly change the genetic makeup of the population.

Genetic drift is the change in the genetic makeup of a population through purely chance events. This could allow a bad gene to linger in the gene pool longer than it should. For instance, say one bad gene has been paired up with an enormous amount of good genes. This happens generation to generation. The bad gene will affect more and more organisms. This changes the genetic makeup of the population, causing the population to evolve.

THE PAINFULLY OBVIOUS CONCLUSION

Hopefully by now you have a basic understanding of what evolution is and understand the basic mechanisms underlying it. Now that we know what it is, lets see if we can come to the same conclusion as Darwin through basic facts.

In hindsight, the theory of evolution seems so painfully obvious to me that I'm absolutely shocked that the theory was not popularized earlier. Four fairly obvious observations is all it should take to formulate an idea similar to Darwin's. In fact, it should force us to come to the same idea as Darwin. The four observations:

1.) There are qualities that an organism acquires from its parents. From this we can infer that there is a unit of inheritance.

2.) The unit of inheritance is not a perfect replicator. Albeit few, some copying errors to happen from time to time.

3.) Organisms compete amongst each other for resources to live.

4.) There are a limited amount of resources available to an organism.

The first two points account for the variation in the population, the last two points account for survival of the fittest. I do not think I can extrapolate any other conclusion from that.

SPECIATION

Speciation is the method by which new biological species arise. When a parent population becomes significantly different enough from a child population to where members of those two populations could not mate with each other then speciation has occurred. This is a cumulative effect of smaller changes. Each species can now diverge on its own line. They may end up being drastically different from each other at some point in the future. Speciation has been observed.

EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION

The best evidence that all things alive are related is our genetic code, in my opinion. The fact that everything that has thus far been examined shares the same genetic code is a very strong indicator that we all share a common ancestor. There are sixty-four possible codons an organism can make. Those 64 codons are mapped to 20 amino acids. The chance that one organism would share this same mapping with another organism without some form of common ancestry is infinitesimally small. The mathematical calculations are fairly simple. To see the chance of two subsequent events happening you multiply the probability of each event happening. The fact that one codon is mapped to the correct amino acid has a one in twenty chance to happen at random. Since we can have 64 amino acids, we need to raise that to the 64th power. What we get is remarkable: the chance that two organisms would randomly share their genetic code is on the order of 1 in 10^83, or one in 100 sexvigintillion, or about one in a million million million million million million million million million million million million million million million million million million million million million million million million. Quite literally, that many millions.

More direct evidence comes from other things as well. For instance, with modern technology we can compare our DNAs with that of other animals, and compare similarities and differences. Again, the similarities are just too striking to have happened by chance. We have a fairly rich history of life on earth through the fossil record. While it is by no means complete, it still stands in support of evolution. The geographical distribution we see of animals reflects exactly what we would expect to see had they evolved. All the detailed evidence for evolution is just too broad to get into here, however there is so much that the theory is undeniable.

If you're interested in learning more, I suggest checking out this page.

Happy New Year

Happy new year!

I'll have some new posts out soon.