On Evolution

I ran into a claim that are no observations of evolution.

There are observed changes in allele frequency over time. That is evolution. If one wants a very specific example, then consider lactose tolerance in adult humans.

Most people become lactose intolerant after reaching adulthood. But about 10,000 years ago a mutation occurred in Northern Europe that allowed adults to digest lactose. Since the mutation coincided with the development of cattle domestication and dairy farming, it provided a survival advantage. 

The ability to digest lactose into adulthood is also a dominant trait. This means if you inherit one modified gene from either parent, you are likely to be lactose tolerant. 

So because of the spread of dairy farming and the mutation being a dominant trait, lactose tolerance in adults has spread through Europe, into North America, parts of Asia and the Middle East. Today about a third of adults are lactose tolerant 

That’s what’s called observed evidence.

A Scientific Theory explains observed facts. The observed fact in my lactose tolerance in humans description above is that lactose tolerance is spreading. The explanation, the theory, of the spread is that with the growth of dairy farming it has a survival benefit and it is a dominant trait.

The “theory” is based upon the evidence available. Tomorrow someone could discover a new piece of evidence that would supply a better explanation of the observed fact and become the new theory.

“The law recognises two sexes: science recognises seven"

This is a quote that I saw from a biologist about what biology professors say to themselves. Rather than calling "bullshit" on the claim I think I'll take it at face value. 

So what are the other five sexes?

There is certainly a wide variety of sexual variations which makes it very difficult to precisely define what is a male or what is a female. But I wasn’t aware that even extreme variations, such as Swyer Syndrome, may be considered new sexes.

There seven biological karyotypes that do not result in death to the fetus and I suppose these could be categorized as sexes but they're really just variations to my mind.

X – Roughly 1 in 2,000 to 1 in 5,000 people (Turner’s )

XX – Most common form of female

XXY – Roughly 1 in 500 to 1 in 1,000 people (Klinefelter)

XY – Most common form of male

XYY – Roughly 1 out of 1,000 people

XXX - Roughly 1 in 1,000 female births.

XXXY – Roughly 1 in 18,000 to 1 in 50,000 births

So, like I said, what are these other sexes?

As for gender. gender defines society’s expectations about the attitudes and actions associated with a given sex. In order to have more than two genders then one has to define more than two sexes. 

Gender is a continuum, ranging from man on one end woman on the other with varying degrees of gender nonconformity in between. But even radical gender nonconformity doesn’t result in a new gender. 

I can understand “gender fluid” as an individual that moves along the gender continuum for various reasons. I have no idea what “non-binary” means and transgender is the need, due to extreme dysphoria, to move from one sexual bucket into the other but isn’t itself a different gender.

Why Calories Count

I have run into a lot of nonsense recently claiming that calories don't matter in weight management for various reasons. As an engineer I disagree.

A calorie is by definition a unit of energy. A food calorie is actually a kilocalorie and equivalent to the heat energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 kilogram of water by 1 °C. 

Every food item contains energy locked away in chemical bonds. That energy is measured in calories. Once the food is ingested it is metabolized by the body to release the stored energy. Cells then capture and use this energy to fuel normal bodily functions. 

The reason you can't consume wood and coal, as one individual claimed should be possible if calories mattered, is the body can't metabolize wood and coal. 

The first law of thermodynamics states that when energy passes into or out of a system the system's internal energy changes in accordance with the law of conservation of energy. 

In other words if you ingest 2000 calories then your body just gained 2000 calories of energy. The body either uses the energy, expels it as waste or stores it. 

About 10% is expelled as waste and the rest is either used or stored as fat or muscle. It will usually only be muscle if your diet is high in protein and you're engaging in resistance training. For most people excess calories are stored as fat. 

If you consume fewer calories than the body needs then it will literally begin to consume itself to make up the difference. Typically it will first consume stored fat and then muscle. 

That's how it works. Everything else simply changes the rate at which a body consumes energy or affects the body's ability to metabolize and release the energy in the food consumed.

Hidden Forms of Discrimination?

Both the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s and the feminist movement of the 1970s were enormous successes. Let's face it, these movements were necessary because if they hadn't occurred then nothing would have changed.

But what both movements discovered was that equal opportunity does not necessarily translate into equal success. This realization led to the development of Critical Race Theory and a lot of feminist whining about "the patriarchy."

Once each movement had addressed the visible forms of discrimination, yet still didn't achieve what they consider parity, they concluded that there must be subtle, invisible forms of discrimination at work. Blacks developed the concept of "Systemic Racism" and feminists came up with "the patriarchy." Republicans, not to be undone, come up with the "deep state." 

Notice that no one thought to look for natural differences to explain the discrepancies. Everyone immediately assumed it was some outside force working against them.

Blacks score about 10-15 points lower on IQ tests than whites. Hispanics are somewhere in between and East Asians and Ashkenazi score about five points higher than whites. No one knows why this is the case and I'm not sure that anyone really understands what IQ measures but we do know that it is a good predictor of life and academic success.

This discrepancy has persisted for decades and probably isn't going away anytime soon. Even if this discrepancy didn't exist, whites have such a huge historical advantage that it's not surprising that blacks aren't achieving parity. There is no need for any hidden discrimination in the form of "Systemic Racism."

So what about women? Women have two problems when competing with men. One is fairly well accepted and the other more controversial. The first is that men are more aggressive. If one chooses a male and a female at random there is about a 60% chance that the male is more aggressive. But at the extremes, the overwhelming majority of the most aggressive individuals are male.

Trust me, no one becomes CEO of a Fortune 500 Company without being very, very aggressive. This also accounts for the so-called "gender pay gap." Men work longer hours and take on more dangerous and higher paying jobs and that's why there's a pay difference.

The second and far more controversial problem is the claim that men and women have slightly differently shaped IQ curves. The curve for women is slightly taller and narrower while the curve for men is slightly wider and flatter. 

In the average the differences are meaningless but at the extremes they become significant. As one psychologist described it the shape of the men's curve, assuming it really is that way, would mean more dumbbells but also more Nobels.

I don't hear feminists whining about men winning most of the Darwin Awards but they do complain about men dominating the CEO positions and Nobel prizes.

So, I lean toward rejecting the existence of hidden forces and suspect it's just the ways things are. This is why I reject the whole concept of DEI. Equity is not a reasonable objective if there are natural differences and variations.

Trump Pulls out of Paris Accords

President Trump has announced that he intends to pull out of the Paris Accords on climate.

If you needed any additional evidence that Trump in particular, and Republicans in general, care absolutely nothing for the country, the planet and the people living on the planet this should do it.

This is a pure play to the under 80 IQ trailer part set. This is beyond stupid; this borders on criminal.

The science on climate change is very clear despite what some conservative pundits try to claim. It's not that hard to understand.

By digging up fossil fuels such as oil and coal, and burning them, we have added to the carbon cycle by putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Add to that deforestation and the cutting down of rain forests, which decreases the amount of carbon dioxide being taken out of the atmosphere, and you get a slow but steady build up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

This is clear from measurements.

Carbon dioxide is a hothouse gas. It tends to hold in heat. This is leading to a slow but steady rise in global temperatures. The rise in global temperatures is leading to melting icecaps, rising sea levels and shifting climate.

Everyone in the world appears to understand this except Trump. the Republicans, Syria and Nicaragua.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

This is a "proof" of the existence of God made popular by William Lane Craig and adopted by giddy theists everywhere. It has the appearance of simplicity and, to the casual reader or listener. may even look convincing.

The reality is that the argument's "simplicity" comes from being fast and loose with the precise meanings of words and making a number of unfounded assumptions. The argument, as put forward by Craig, is actually in two parts.

Part 1 - Demonstrating that the Universe has a cause.
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
Therefore:
3. The Universe has a cause.

Part 2 - Defining that cause as God.
1. The universe has a cause;
2. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;
3. Therefore: An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.

There are so many issues with this argument that it's difficult to know where to begin. Let's look at the argument a bit closer.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. - Says who? In order to make such a statement you must have perfect knowledge of everything that has ever begun to exist or that ever will begin to exist.

While we're at it, define "begins to exist?" When does a table "begin to exist?" After the carpenter finishes building it? When the carpenter starts building it? When the wood arrives from the lumber yard? When the wood is cut at the lumber yard? When the tree from which the lumber is made is cut down or when the tree from which the lumber is made is planted?

Then you can define "cause." Are we speaking about a material cause? An efficient cause? Both? Sticking with the table analogy, the material cause would be the wood; the efficient cause would be the agent of change or the carpenter.

If you say that "cause" here only refers to a material cause then you are admitting that no efficient cause or agent of change is required. If you say "cause" refers to either an efficient cause or both then you are effectively assuming the conclusion in the first premise.

2. The universe began to exist - Again, says who? The mathematics of General Relativity that is used to wind the universe backward no longer works beyond when the universe is a Planck Time old (about 1x10-43 seconds). So no one can say anything about the universe prior to then. We don't know whether it existed or not.

The "Big Bang" simply marks the beginning of the expansion of the universe. No one knows anything about anything prior to that including whether the universe existed or not.

Given that neither premise is necessarily true, the conclusion that the universe had a cause is not necessarily true.

However even if you accept the premises and conclusion, the remainder of the argument that this "cause" should be "changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful" and be a "personal creator" doesn't follow. These are simply a pair of unjustified assertions. An unsupported leap to the desired conclusion.

Even if there was a cause for the universe, this is no reason to conclude that this "cause" was intelligent or even that it survived the creation of the universe.

So, there really is no reason to be impressed with the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I'm not sure if Craig really believes this crap or if he knows it's nonsense but hopes his audience won't recognize it as such.

Talking Evolution

From time to time I will fall into the trap of trying to explain science in general and the Theory of Evolution in particular to someone who thinks the creation myth in Genesis should be accepted as literally true.

It's always an effort in futility. The ignorance level of these people and their inability to even comprehend simple English is utterly astounding.

It's not that they're stupid or illiterate, it's that they have been taught a certain way to view things and have been taught a whole bunch of stuff that's so absurd that's it's not even wrong. They just can't seem to wrap their heads around anything that contradicts what they've been taught and there is no amount of evidence that you can present to convince them.

I'm not even talking about whether evolution is true or not but about what evolution actually says. I just went around in circles with a guy that could not get the idea through his head that evolution does not say that dogs turn into cats.

Nor could he comprehend the idea that if you make a positive assertion about anything, you have the burden of proof to provide evidence to justify that assertion.

Evolution is not that complicated a concept yet your average Evangelical Christian seems incapable of understanding even the basics. I swear that I often think some of stuff they come up with has to be satire. Poe was right. You can't come up with a parody of a fundamentalist Christian that someone won't think is real.

Defending Evolution

One of the things I find utterly appalling is the number of people in the US that reject the Theory of Evolution.

Every once in a while I will make the mistake of responding to a video or opinion piece which purports to "disprove" Evolution and I will get into an extended exchange of posts with someone of that ilk. I used to do this more often when I was naive enough to still think that evidence mattered.

I know it's a waste of time but I get sucked in until I finally throw my hands up and exit the conversation.

It's unbelievable, it really is, how misinformed people are about science in general and evolution in particular. I suspect one reason for this is that in many areas of the country the topic is so fraught with peril that the schools gloss over it.

It's also incredible about the things they "know" to be true that are just flat out wrong. You run into the same objections over and over again. That groaning sound you hear is me being told for the umpteenth time that "there are no Transitional Fossils" or "Radiometric Dating doesn't work" or "the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics disproves Evolution" or "a cat can't give birth to a dog" or simply "that (whatever evidence it may have been) still doesn't prove Evolution."

Yes there are Transitional Fossils. Hundreds of them in fact but one has to understand what constitutes a Transitional Fossil. It is not a creature that's half of one species and half of another. It's a fossil that has the traits of different types of animals. For instance a fish with feet (Tiktaalik) or a reptile with the features of a bird (Archaeopteryx) to name two of the more famous.

Yes Radiometric Dating works. There are between 35 and 40 methods and they all agree within 3%-5% of each other. This validates the one critical assumption that radioactive decay occurs at a constant rate per isotope. The common objections such as the unknown starting quantities and possible contamination can be eliminated by using the slightly more complicated Isochron Dating method.

No the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics doesn't disprove Evolution because the Earth's Biosphere is not a closed system. It is constantly importing energy from the sun. If that weren't the case a seed couldn't grow into a plant; a fetus couldn't develop into a baby and a baby couldn't mature into an adult.

It's a true statement that a cat can't give birth to a dog and Evolution doesn't say it can. As a matter of fact if a cat ever gave birth to a dog the entire fabric of Evolution would unravel because the theory says that can't happen. But, based upon the differences in DNA, cats and dogs had a common ancestor about 55 millions years ago that was not a cat or a dog.

As for "proving Evolution," technically you can't PROVE anything outside of the realm of mathematics. The Natural Sciences work with probability. What one can do is pile up evidence so high that it would be irrational not to accept something as true.

And so on and so forth. I'm not a biologist but I've educated myself adequately to understand what Evolution actually claims and why the evidence is so strong.

Let's Talk Jenner

I haven't said anything about the Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner story because, to be completely honest, I don't really know what to say about it.

Even when I read descriptions from people like the American Psychological Association, it makes little or no sense to me.

"Sex is assigned at birth, refers to one’s biological status as either male or female, and is associated primarily with physical attributes such as chromosomes, hormone prevalence, and external and internal anatomy. Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for boys and men or girls and women."

Seriously? So your plumbing and chromosomes don't define your gender? Your gender is defined by the roles, behaviors and activities expected by society?

So does the definition of gender change over time? Would that mean if you were to be time ported into the past (or future) you might have a gender identity problem? Perhaps some of us wouldn't be looked upon as male in ancient Sparta because the roles, behaviors and activities expected of ancient Spartan males we might find somewhat repulsive?

Then there's sexual orientation.

"Sexual orientation refers to an individual’s enduring physical, romantic, and/or emotional attraction to another person, whereas gender identity refers to one’s internal sense of being male, female, or something else."

Something else? You know, I'm just going to let that one slide.

So, if your sex is male, gender identity is female and sexual orientation is male, you're apparently considered heterosexual. However if your sex is male, gender identity is female and sexual orientation is female, you're apparently considered a lesbian.

Sure that make perfect sense to me. Well, not really.

Here's my problem. I'm having a hard time buying that gender is simply a societal definition. Does anyone seriously think if we were to start an isolated society someplace and totally reversed the definition of gender roles that it would work?

I don't understand but I suppose that doesn't really matter. My lack of understanding is no reason for me to judge so I suppose I'll just shrug my shoulders and go with the flow.

The Hayflick Limit

What exactly is the Hayflick Limit? I'll tell you.

Basically the Hayflick Limit states that the maximum number of times that cells may divide is finite and somewhere between 40 and 60.

Prior to Leonard Hayflick's experiments in 1961 cells were thought to possess the ability to divide an infinite number of times.

So, what does this mean to you? It means you're not going to live forever. The Hayflick Limit essentially limits how long the human body can repair itself before it gives out. Hope that your limit is closer to 60 than 40.

Oh, by the way, it also pretty much rules out any chance of people living to ages near 900 like in the Bible. The simple fact is that ancient peoples exaggerated everything about their cultural heroes including how long they lived.

In a Persian epic poem several Shahs are said to have had extremely long lifespans. Zahhak lived 1000 years, Jamshid 700 years and Fereydun 500 years.

In China Zeng Pu supposedly lived for 800 years during the Yin Dynasty and Zuo Chi lived for 300 years during the Three Kingdoms Period.

Similar legends can be found in Japan, Korea, the Roman Empire, Poland and the Czech Republic.

All of these lifespans are as impossible as those in the Bible.

Lake Mead

In 2008 I was in Las Vegas. We took a tour to Lake Mead, the reservoir behind the Hoover Dam, and I noticed the water marks of the rocks surrounding the Lake indicating that water level was fairly low.

A day or two later, in exchange for some show tickets, we were working our way through a time- share presentation of some very, very nice new high rise buildings. I had no real interest in a time-share (although the apartments were REALLY nice) but I remember asking the sales guy where all these high rises were going to get water and he simply said "Lake Mead" as if it was obvious.

Given what I had seen at the lake and looking at all the new construction, I had some doubts about how obvious a solution that was.

Now I see on the Internet that Lake Mead is at an all time low and they're predicting water shortages and even possibly "dry days" by 2015. This comes as no real surprise to me given what I've seen in Vegas.

I wonder how the strip is going to make out when there are days when you can't take a shower?

This is only the first effects that we're about to see from climate change rendering the water supply in the western states more and more iffy.

I wouldn't panic just yet, but the problem is Conservatives refuse to even recognize the fact that there is a looming problem.

In the final analysis this is an engineering problem and there is (hopefully) an engineering solution. But we're not going to find that solution until we get engineers looking at the issue and that's not going to happen until we recognize that an issue exists.

Why the Intelligent Design Argument Doesn't Work

The Intelligent Design Argument, which I still see with discouraging regularity on the internet, is the same as Paley's watch argument.

Basically the argument goes that when you see a watch, or a car, or an airplane or any other complex construct, you know immediately that it is designed and didn't come into existence through natural processes without human intervention.

Therefore, given that life is infinitely more complex than a watch or a car or an airplane, then it must also have a designer who is much more intelligent and powerful than a man.

Here's the problem. When you first see a watch or car or airplane you actually know nothing about it. But you do know about thousands upon thousands upon thousands of other similar objects. You know how they were designed and built. Therefore it is reasonable to infer that this watch or car or airplane was designed and built in a similar fashion.

You can't make the same sort of inference with the Earth's biosphere because this is the only biosphere that we know about. We can't infer anything about this biosphere from our knowledge about other biospheres because we don't know of any other biospheres.

So, why can't we use our knowledge of the design of inanimate objects to infer design of the biosphere?

You can't do that because inanimate objects don't biologically reproduce. You can't get a little car by putting together two big cars. It ain't going to happen. You are literally comparing two classes of object that have absolutely no similarity.

Therefore any sort of inference about the Earth's biosphere based upon inanimate objects is totally meaningless.

I Agree with Pat Robertson

Someone needs to check whether or not hell has frozen over because I find myself in agreement with Pat Robertson.

The other day, on his CBN show, Robertson said that you had to be "deaf, dumb and blind to think that this earth that we live in has only 6,000 years of existence."

You got that one right Pat. In 2009 I wrote an entry about Ray Comfort talking to Pat Robertson where I expressed the opinion, based upon the look on Robertson's face, that he was humoring Comfort but thought he was nuts. I suppose I was right.

Ken Ham, of Answers in Genesis and the Creation museum, isn't taking kindly to this and claims that Robertson's comments were "beyond ignorant," that Robertson was "undermining the authority of the word" and "any attack on the word is an attack upon the person of Jesus Christ who is the word."

Now Robertson is not well versed in science and some of his remarks, in particular talking about carbon dating and millions of years, did display some scientific ignorance. But that doesn't change the fundamental accuracy of his main point, YOU DO HAVE TO BE DEAF, DUMB AND BLIND TO THINK THE WORLD IS ONLY 6,000 YEARS OLD.

As for an attack upon "the word," I'd like to point out to Ham the Ignorant that NOWHERE in the Bible is the claim that the earth was created 6,000 years ago. Something that I'm sure Ham knows very well.

The number is based upon a calculation by  Bishop James Ussher that creation began at nightfall preceding Sunday October 23rd, 4004 BCE.

He arrived at this number by (1) adding up the ages of the supposed unbroken male lineage from Adam to Solomon and then (2) from Solomon on, cross referencing the events in the Bible to other known rulers, events and cultures.

It is in fact a fairly impressive calculation based upon the facts and assumptions that were known at that time.

However in history as in science one must be willing to re-evaluate one's conclusions when new information becomes available. I absolutely guarantee you that if Bishop Ussher knew then what we know now from natural science, history and archaeology, he would discard his 6,000 year conclusion.

Even based upon Ussher's limited knowledge there are several glaring faults with his calculation especially the part related to adding up the ages of the males from Adam to Solomon.

1. The classic assumption is he is assuming the "days" in Genesis were consecutive 24 hour days when there is no real justification for that in the actual Hebrew. Most Christian Bibles give the distinct impression of counting with "the first day," "the second day," "the third day" and so on but the actual Hebrew is different.

In the actual Hebrew text the word "yom" has no definite article so better translations would be "one day," "a second day," "a third day" as in most Jewish translations and the New American Standard Bible (NASB). So there is no guarantee of the length of the day OR how much time may have passed BETWEEN the days.

2. He is assuming that the ages in the version of the Bible (which I assume was the KJV) he used are correct. The fact is that different Bible versions give different numbers. For instance the Septuagint apparently gives ages that add 1500 years. I suppose that's why you hear some hedging by Creationists about the age of the earth.

3. He is assuming that every male in the lineage is listed and he has to be assuming the age of the father at the birth of the son because that isn't always specified.

4. How can he possibly know how long Adam and Eve were in the garden before getting booted out?

Of course we now know, with pretty much absolute certainty, that Ussher's calculation of 6,000 years is wrong just as we know that Lord Kelvin's calculation in the 1890s was wrong. Kelvin calculated that the earth was between 20 million and 100 million years old based upon the thermodynamics of a cooling solid earth. Kelvin's calculation was wrong because he didn't know about radioactivity, which generates heat, and his assumption that the core of the earth is solid was wrong. It's actually molten.

While Kelvin never issued a retraction of his estimate he did concede privately that radioactivity made some of his assumptions unworkable. Even the best scientists can become dogmatic and dig in their heels when a favorite conclusions of theirs is attacked. That's why there are no authorities in science and peer reviews are so critical.

OK, I went off on a bit of a tangent there. The point is, if you believe in evidence, and if it matters to you what the truth is, you cannot escape the conclusion that the earth is something like 4.5 billion years old.

Robertson is right and Ham, as usual, in my opinion, is delusional.

Discrimination, Gay Marriage and Climate Change

Some days you just get a rash of events.

In Arizona, Governor Brewer didn't wait until Friday, she vetoed the discrimination bill SB 1062 but I'm sure it won't be the last really stupid thing Conservatives try.

In the meantime a federal court judge in San Antonio has struck down Texas' ban on gay marriage. Ok, this is getting really silly. We get it, the Supreme Court rejection of DOMA is being interpreted by federal judges all over as meaning that gay marriage bans violate the 14th Amendment.

Texas gets added to the list of Utah, Oklahoma and Kentucky. Let's just go to the envelope please and see what the Supreme Court has to say.

The handwriting is on the wall. It's only a matter of time before gay marriage is legal all over. All the current Supreme Court can do is delay the inevitable and put itself on the wrong side of history. Here's hoping the court is too smart to do that.

On the Global Warming front, the experts at the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society say that, despite the hiatus in raising global temperatures, they are more certain than ever that human activity is changing the global climate even though they don't fully understand every detail of the climate system.

The two scientific societies are hoping a new report called "Climate Change: Evidence and Causes" will move the debate into the arena of deciding how to limit the impacts on society.

Two chances, slim and none. Not unless the Rapture happens and we get rid of all the Evangelicals and Republicans. But trust me, it's not going to happen so I suspect we have a ways to go on this one.

As for the hiatus, the report addresses it in a 20 part Q&A section.

Question: "Does the recent slowdown of warming mean that climate change is no longer happening?" 

Answer:  "No, blame the slowdown on interactions between the ocean and atmosphere, quiet solar activity and an increase in sunlight reflecting particles."

Damn it's Been Cold

I spent a week in the Florida Keys and missed the last big snowstorm of about 14 inches. Every place I look there are mounds of snow. The inch or two dusting we got the other day put a nice pretty white covering on the piles underneath.

I freaking hate snow, really I do. That's one of the reasons I ignore the Winter Olympics. That plus I find just about all of the events kind of boring.

So, where's Global Warming when you need it?

Apparently it's on vacation as well. The latest NASA reports on average temperature continue to show what looks like a pause in the planet's warming trend. In fact, temperatures have been pretty much flat for the last 10 to 15 years. But the increase in greenhouse gases has continued.

So what exactly does this mean? Are the doubters correct? Perhaps, but on the other hand maybe not.

Climatologists have a number of ideas as to why we may have hit a temporary pause including the El Nino Southern Oscillation in the Pacific, a cyclic decrease in solar activity and, something I found sort of hard to understand, China using more coal.

I always thought burning coal contributed to Global Warming but apparently not. Coal burning produces sulfur particles which I'm being told tends to cool the climate and could cancel out the warming trend from the greenhouse gases.

OK,  then why not just use lots of coal? Well, it seems the pollution is harmful to human health for other reasons.

If this all sounds to you a little, or a lot, like rationalizing, welcome to the club. This is going to make getting anyone to do anything more than a little difficult.

Facts are facts and the facts say that the models were wrong and for at least the last decade there has been no measurable warming trend. Time will tell whether the explanations being put forth are correct or an attempt to save face.

To be honest it would be nice if the whole Global Warming thing did turn out to be a fantasy because the models being relied upon are wrong or too unsophisticated because it's going to get ugly if it is really happening.

Bryan Fischer: Defeating Darwin in Four Easy Steps

The title come from a blog written by Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association. There are so many things wrong in that blog that it's difficult to know where to begin. If I were to address all of the factual errors, misunderstandings and quote mines in the blog, I'd have to write 10 times the amount of the original blog.

This is called a "Gish Gallop." The fact is the Creationist can make far more absurd assertions than anyone can explain in the same timeframe. But I'm going to address at least some of them.

First let's start with some preliminary assertions.

#1 - The Assertion that Bill Nye, in his debate with Ken Ham, didn't have answers for the most important questions about evolution. 

The questions were identified as:

(1) Where did the atoms that made up the big bang come from?

First of all this has nothing to do with evolution. This is the province of the Science of Cosmology. But let's answer it anyway. Atoms weren't what "made up" the Big Bang. The idea is it all started with an energy plasma that was infinitely dense and infinitely hot. The plasma then began to expand.

How long the plasma existed and why it began to expand are unanswerable questions. Maybe a god created the plasma and willed it to expand? It's as good an idea as any.

A few seconds after the start of expansion the first elementary sub-atomic particles began to form and these would later be part of the formation of the first atoms.

How do we "know" all this? We don't. But, it's the best explanation we have given the evidence. What evidence you ask? There are four independent lines known as the "Four Pillars of the Big Bang Theory."

Line #1 - Almost all galaxies are moving away from us and are millions of light years away. This suggests that billions of years ago everything was concentrated in a single point.

Line #2 - The abundance and amount of elements that we see around us. Amazingly enough, the ratio of elements appears to exactly match what you would expect to find if the universe was once a really big star.

Line #3 - The background cosmic microwave radiation. During the Big Bang there would have been an enormous release of radiation. Now, billions of years later, it would be moving away from us so fast as to have shifted into a microwave wavelength.

Line #4 - The large scale structure, such as galaxies, that we see in the universe.

(2) Where did man's consciousness come from?

No one knows the answer to this question but so what? We know that it did form.

The basis is probably electrical. All complex life forms appear to have some sort of consciousness so it doesn't seem to be much of a big deal.

(3) How can matter produce life? 

Again, this has nothing to do with evolution but belongs to the science of Abiogenesis.

Maybe God created the first cell? But once the first cell exists, evolution takes over.

#2 - On several occasions Fischer asserts that something is a "scientific law" and not a "theory" with the obvious implication that somehow a "scientific law" outranks a "theory." 

That's not how it works. A "scientific law" is simply a description, often mathematical, of an observation. For instance, the Law of Gravity simply describes, mathematically, how the mass of the earth affects a nearby untethered object.

Theories provide explanations for observations. "Scientific laws" are a part of theories. The "Law of Gravity" is a part of the Theory of Gravity.

Now for the "Four Easy Steps."

Step #1- The First Law of Thermodynamics - Matter and Energy can neither be created or destroyed therefore science cannot address the question of why there is something rather than nothing.

Once again, evolution doesn't care. By the time evolution becomes a factor there are a whole lot of things including molecules, amino acids, stars, planets, water and at least one living cell.

If one goes back to the idea of infinitely hot plasma, that's energy. The universe began as all energy.

Where did the energy come from? Maybe a god created it? Maybe it was a god that annihilated itself in order to form the matter in the universe?

One wild speculation is as good as another.

Step #2 - The Second Law of Thermodynamics - Increasing entropy must lead to more disorder while evolution requires greater order or as Fischer put it "...in every chemical or heat reaction, there is a loss of energy which is never again available for another heat reaction."

Well at least this is actually related to evolution. For the 26,432nd time. This is true in A "CLOSED SYSTEM."

A "closed system" cannot import energy from an outside source. The Earth's biosphere is NOT a "closed system;" it is constantly importing energy from the sun and cosmic radiation.

If "greater order" could not "evolve" in our biosphere then seeds couldn't grow into plants, a fetus couldn't become a baby and a baby couldn't become an adult. These are all examples of "open systems" importing energy and becoming more complex.

The universe as a whole may well be a "closed system" which is why some scientists speculate that it is destined for a "heat death" billions, upon billions upon billions of years in the future. I suspect that's not something for us to worry about right now.

Step #3 - Fossils - There are no "transitional forms."

Here's where we get the quote mining. Ok, simply put, the assertion that there are "no transitional fossils" is just flat out not true. There are hundreds, if not thousands by now, of transitional fossils and, despite fossilization being very rare, more are being discovered every year.

But, we have to address the "quotes" in this section as well as the nonsense statements about the Cambrian Explosion (which Fischer calls the "Pre-Cambrian explosion) and Punctuated Equilibrium.

Quote #1 -Yale University's Carl Dunbar - "Fossils provide the only historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms."

Dunbar got his doctorate in 1917 (YES, 1917!) and taught at Yale from 1920 to 1959. In other words he made this statement long before we had any significant understanding of DNA.

Quote #2 - Harvard's Stephen Jay Gould - "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology." 

I'm very familiar with this quote. This is Gould arguing that "Punctuated Equilibrium" explains the fossil record better than "Phyletic Gradualism." Gould is talking about transitional fossils at the species level and arguing that they are so rare because speciation happens relatively rapidly in short spurts.

That, by the way, is the actual definition of "Punctuated Equilibrium." RELATIVELY rapid bursts rather than consistent change as hypothesized in "Phyletic Gradualism." But we're still talking millions of years just less millions of years sometimes.

As for transitional fossils, Gould clarifies in "Evolution as Fact and Theory," "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups." 

Quote #3 - The British Museum's Colin Patterson - "...there are no transitional fossils" not even a single one "for which one could make a watertight argument."

The quote comes from a letter from Patterson to Creationist Luther Sunderland. Sunderland had asked why there were no examples of transitions between species in Patterson's latest book. Patterson is responding that the fossil record does not indicate which particular species gave rise to another particular species. 

Let's put the quote in context shall we:

"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. . .I will lay it on the line, There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record." 

The Cambrian Explosion - Fischer makes it sound like the "Cambrian Explosion" was instantaneous. The fact is we're talking about something like 70 or 80 million years during which most major animal phyla seem to appear in the fossil record. Note I said PHYLA and not SPECIES as some cretins sometimes quote. A Phylum is five levels above Species in the hierarchy of biological classifications.

Step #4 - Genes and Genetic Mutation - Naturally occurring genetic mutations are inherently harmful.

Nope, they're not. If they were we wouldn't have diverse races which are the result of genetic mutations, we wouldn't have black furred rock mice thriving on the cooled lava flows in the New Mexico Desert and we wouldn't have bacteria that can digest nylon.

We get some quotes here as well.

Quote #1 - The University of Chicago's James Shapiro "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular systems, only a variety of wishful speculations."

I'm not sure where this quote is from (and Fischer doesn't help by not providing ANY citations) but I'm guessing it's from Shapiro's book "Evolution: A View from the 21st Century."

Shapiro challenges the basic notion that evolution occurs through small changes. His book starts by saying "Innovation, not selection, is the critical issue in evolutionary change." 

Shapiro believes that what he calls "natural genetic engineering" rather than Darwin's "natural selection" is more of the driving force in evolution.

"Natural genetic engineering" would allow a form of natural hybridization that would greatly speed up evolutionary speciation.

So this isn't an argument against evolution, rather it's a hypothesis that there is a more efficient process driving it. I don't see how this helps Fischer's case.

Quote #2 - Bristol University's Alan Linton - "Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another" and "if it's never been observed in the simplest of organisms, it shouldn't come as a surprise that its never been observed with more complex forms. There is no evidence for evolution throughout the whole array of multicellular organisms."

Alan Linton is a Professor Emeritus of Bacteriology at the University of Bristol and the quotes here are accurate and mean what they appear to mean.

Linton is also a devout Christian, a Young Earth Creationist that believes the earth was created 6,000 years ago and has written a book called "Israel in History and Prophecy."

Now, none of that means he's wrong, but it doesn't make him a very convincing source either.

So Fischer's "Four Easy Steps" are pretty much a load of crap.

Now that would be OK if this was the first time he's published these "Four Easy Steps." But it's not. He's published them before and I'm sure he's been told before that pretty much all of what he is saying is either inaccurate, a misunderstanding or just flat out not true. Yet, he continues to publish it.

Where I come from that's called LYING. Christians are dishonest. Here's another example of how dishonest they are.

No Evidence for Evolution?

Evolution was developed based upon the evidence that we have. To say there is "no evidence" for evolution when evolution emerged from the evidence that exists is by definition wrong.

If you have a better explanation for the evidence that we have, then please feel free to present it. The trail starts with morphology, continues through the fossil record and the geographic distribution of species, then into genetics and DNA along with the various genome studies that have been performed.

The acid test of a theory is can it make accurate predictions? Two successful predictions that Evolution has made that I'm aware of are (1) that a human chromosome was fused (turns out to be chromosome #2) and (2) the existence and almost precise depth of the "fishopod" Tiktaalik.

Then there is the track record of the scientific method which has taken us from the dark ages to the doorstep of space. Science feeds us, gives us clean water to drink and protects us from pestilence. Two of those three are helped along by the science of evolution and that's the best evidence. EVOLUTION WORKS. Just like physics, chemistry and quantum mechanics work.

Cold Weather and Global Warming

No, really cold weather or major snow storms DO NOT disprove Global Warming.

There is a difference between CLIMATE and WEATHER.

Not only that, Global Warming is expected to produce greater extremes. That means the possibility of unusually frigid weather at times in the winter or larger, more brutal blizzards.

Conservatives who deny Climate Science are just like the Conservatives that deny Evolution. They don't make any effort to understand the science and base their opinions on how they want things to be rather than how they really are.

Is it possible the Climatologists are wrong and this is just a passing phase? Yes it is but it's looking less and less likely that's the case.

The Latest Poll on Evolution

While I find it terrifying that we still have to ask this question in the 21st Century, Pew Research released a new public opinion poll on Evolution on December 30th.

Overall 60% of the public accepts the Evolution of humans while 33% reject it and say we've existed in our present form since the "beginning" (whenever that was).

What's interesting is the variation based upon political affiliation. Democrats by 67%-27% and Independents by 65%-28% accept Evolution. But that's a minority position among Republicans where only 43% accept Evolution while 48% reject it.

I've always said the Republicans were stuck in the 1950s. Guess I'm wrong, most are stuck in the 1850s.

The good news is that rejection of Evolution, like rejection of Gay Marriage, appears to be a literally dying position. While in all age groups a majority accept Evolution, the amount decreases by age as follows:

Age 18-29:  68%-28%
Age 30-49:  60%-33%
Age 50-64:  59%-35%
65 & Older: 49%-36%

Education makes a big difference. Those with at least a college degree accept Evolution by 72%-24%; those with at least some college accept it by 62%-33 and those with HS or less by only 51%-38%.

By religion, White Evangelical Protestants, also known as the village idiots, REJECT Evolution by 64%-27%, as do Black Protestants by 50%-44%. At the other extreme White Mainline Protestants accept Evolution by 78%-15%, the Unaffiliated by 76%-20% and White Catholics by 68%-26%. Hispanic Catholics accept it by 53%-41%.

Someone should tell Catholics that Evolution is the "accepted" position of the Catholic Church. I put "accepted" in quotes because I suspect that 83% of Jesuits are working night and day to keep it that way.

One surprising difference is that while men accept Evolution by 65%-28%, women only accept it by 58%-38%.

Omnibus/YouGov Poll on Evolution

A poll held July 8-9, 2013 on Evolution among 1,000 people shows SOME encouraging news but not a hell of a lot.

The options were Naturalistic Evolution, humans evolved with no direction from God, Theistic Evolution, humans evolved but evolution was directed by God, Creationism, humans were created by God in their present form in the last 10,000 years and Not Sure.

Overall 21% chose Naturalistic Evolution and 25% Theistic Evolution for a total of 46%. Only 37% chose Creationism and 17% said they weren't sure.

Among males, 26% chose Naturalistic Evolution and 30% Theistic Evolution for a total of 56%. 31% chose Creationism and 13% said they weren't sure.

Among females, only 17% chose Naturalistic Evolution and 20% Theistic Evolution for a total of 37%. A plurality of 43% of females chose Creationism and 21% said they weren't sure.

That's a huge difference between males and females. One has to wonder why that is? Evolution almost certainly occurred, yet some 64% of females don't seem to be aware of that.

Acceptance of Evolution was highest among those aged 18-29 (60%) and lowest among those 65 or older (43%).

53% of Democrats accept some form of Evolution along with 47% of Independents but only 35% of Republicans. Only 5% of Republicans chose Naturalistic Evolution while 28% of Democrats and 26% of Independents did.

In terms of education, 60% of respondents with a college degree, and 70% with a post graduate degree, accepted some form of Evolution.

In the West, 63% accepted some form of Evolution and in the Northeast it was 54%. In both the Midwest and the South it was only 37%.

The racial breakdown was something of a surprise. While 48% of whites accepted some form of Evolution only 24% of blacks did. Only 6% of blacks accepted Naturalistic Evolution compared to 25% of whites.

Again education appears to be the critical factor followed closely by the region of the country where you happen to live. I was a bit surprised by the disparities by sex and race but this isn't a very large sample size so by sex has a margin of error in the 4% range and the poll among blacks a margin of error in the 10% range.

Still, the results are interesting. It would be even more interesting to see a correlation between sex, race, education and region of the country but that information wasn't available in the report I read.