Well, the conflict between evolution and creationism has made the media again. This time I saw a brief article on the BBC web site. In reality, this is mostly an issue in the US. Although, it's probable that there are many religious countries were it is not an issue and evolution just isn't taught.
Of course, the creationists, or "Intelligent Design" proponents, as they are now called, have many poorly researched arguments to try and discount evolution. I constantly find it interesting how much work they will do to discount the simplest and best supported explanation of speciation. Instead they continue to argue that organisms are too complex and therefore there must be a creator ... a being even more complex ?!!?! to control everything. The illogic somehow escapes most of them.
Not only is the ID position inherently illogical but, little known to most of the general public, the evolution position is supported by much scientific experimentation, expecially over the last decade. Not only can evolution of microorganisms be observed in the laboratory, but the fundamental molecular mechanisms of evolution are being harnessed to create new molecular species in a technique called 'directed evolution'. Directed evolution is directly analogous to evolution in that it uses rounds of mutation and selection to arrive at a species most suited to the environment. In the case of directed evolution the environment is controlled by scientists.
But, my real point today is not to dis' the IDers or to extole the virtues of directed evolution, but rather to comment that I believe there is only one real question (with a few sub-parts) facing evolution and when (and I mean when) that question is answered there will be little the creationists will have to argue about.
That question is the same that causes the greated weakness and hence is often the focus of attacks by creationists. Namely, how to go from inorganic to organic -- or, more precisely (since the early Earth at least had carbon and nitrogen), how to go from non-replicating to self-replicating. When this question is solved there will be little and creationists can do but to resort to a "trust the good book" position, as it would be clear that any other question would fall in place in a matter of time.
How to go from non-replicating to self-replicating?
This is the fundamental question remaining to evolution. But, as I mentioned, there are several sub-questions that will also have to be answered in the meantime. And those answers should also prove most interesting.
1) What set of conditions are necessary for this evolution?
Undoubtedly this should be a chemical transition with some selective pressure. However, is there a broad or narrow set of conditions? Reducing or oxidizing environment? Or either? Learning the answer to this question is a very important step on the way to the big question.
2) What conditions existed on pre-biotic earth?
The answer to this, factored together with the answer to (1) will allow us to determine whether it is possible that life actually arose on Earth or was carried here from somewhere else. Organic molecules have been detected in space and thus it may be possible that the conditions for the formation of early life may have arose in a foreign environment, either more extreme or more benign than Earth.
3) What is the mechanism for this transformation?
This question, presumable, will be at least 90% answered with the answers to the first two. The answer to this question is one of fundamental curiosity and significance to the origin of life itself. In addition, it could very well open doors to many other possibilities. Perhaps the knowledge could be used for seeding other worlds (as ours could have been?). This may also allow us to postulate on the likeliness of alternate forms of life.
I have laid the questions out in the order I think they should be approaches. We are nearing (if not already at) the stage where combinatorial techniques and directed evolution can be used in an attempt to determine the broad or narrow set of conditions that may be necessary for the transition to self-replication. All that is needed now is the will and desire.
Studies of the universe have suggested which elements and small molecules are, and likely were, common in a primitive solar system. Using these chemicals and a broad range of conditions (imagination should be the only limit at the first stage) creation of self-replicating system should be possible in some context. From there the conditions could be narrowed and hypotheses explored on the development and evolution of Earth-like life.
In all, the answers to these questions could be the greatest advance we make in the understanding of ourselves, life, and where we come from. And they are answered that I believe are within our ability to find.
Void Surfer
Friday, June 23, 2006
Technology, dehumanizing?
Some people will argue that technology dehumanizes. If those anticipating a singularity are anywhere correct, we haven't seen the half of it yet. But I say, 'perhaps, but is that a bad thing?'
Consider the world today. Or fourty years ago, or ninety years ago, or pretty much any time in human history. What is the one commonality? War. Humans excel at kill, maiming, destroying, and other violent persuits. Often we don't even think about it any more. Oh, another murder. Oh, another war for oil, or power, or skin color, or to support immaginary leaders. Violence is so common in our world that we can't help be be desensitized to it. Now consider art. A truly great artists is an amazement. Someone that can show you the world in a way you never thought existed, someone who can make you think thoughts you would have never imagined yourself. What makes a great artist? Well, many things, of course, but by definition a great artist is rare. Otherwise everyone would be a great artist and then no one would be a great artist.
So here we have the crux of what it means to be human (currently). Wars, violence, causing death are common and normal while beauty, understanding and causing feelings of amazement and welcomed awe are rare.
If this is what it really means to be human, is it really a bad thing to be dehumanized?
Consider the world today. Or fourty years ago, or ninety years ago, or pretty much any time in human history. What is the one commonality? War. Humans excel at kill, maiming, destroying, and other violent persuits. Often we don't even think about it any more. Oh, another murder. Oh, another war for oil, or power, or skin color, or to support immaginary leaders. Violence is so common in our world that we can't help be be desensitized to it. Now consider art. A truly great artists is an amazement. Someone that can show you the world in a way you never thought existed, someone who can make you think thoughts you would have never imagined yourself. What makes a great artist? Well, many things, of course, but by definition a great artist is rare. Otherwise everyone would be a great artist and then no one would be a great artist.
So here we have the crux of what it means to be human (currently). Wars, violence, causing death are common and normal while beauty, understanding and causing feelings of amazement and welcomed awe are rare.
If this is what it really means to be human, is it really a bad thing to be dehumanized?
Void Surfer
Sunday, June 18, 2006
Underclass
We are an underclass, us non-religious. We who refuse to bow to the demons and deities of ancient mythology are a second class minority. Sure there are books and articles and shows (occassionally) on the fallacies of modern religion, written, published and produced by a few brave souls. But, when push comes to shove, we are too afraid of the stranglehold that religion has on our world to form any meaningful resistance. We are simply washed away in the tide of unthinking faith.
Why is it so few take a stand, so few complain that the president of the most powerful country in the world HAS TO BE christian to get elected (similarly for most other western countries)? Why do so few comment when we are required to swear on a bible before assuming public office, or giving testimony in a court of law? Why is it that so few even notice the extent to which religious thought has invaded and pervaded our daily lives; not only our culture (TV, movies, books) but our language -- our very thought. God damn, I wish I knew. Jesus, I did it. Christ, I did it again! (see what I mean!).
So, why is it? Its because we are a second-class minority. We know that the freedoms of thought and speach that we enjoy today could all go the way of Zeus if we push too hard. The religious are simply far too strong. They control too much of the world for the rational to overcome. We know that, if we push too hard, we will be squashed they will simply push back with the might of a few billion high-ranking good Christian soldiers (let's be realistic here - Christianity holds most of the power in the world today). We know that to stir the ire of the faithful will fully wake the beast and we would be plunged back into a dark ages we would likely not escape for a long, long time.
So we, the rational, are the underclass, second class, minority. And unless the rest of the world wakes up, we will stay that way for a long, long time.
Why is it so few take a stand, so few complain that the president of the most powerful country in the world HAS TO BE christian to get elected (similarly for most other western countries)? Why do so few comment when we are required to swear on a bible before assuming public office, or giving testimony in a court of law? Why is it that so few even notice the extent to which religious thought has invaded and pervaded our daily lives; not only our culture (TV, movies, books) but our language -- our very thought. God damn, I wish I knew. Jesus, I did it. Christ, I did it again! (see what I mean!).
So, why is it? Its because we are a second-class minority. We know that the freedoms of thought and speach that we enjoy today could all go the way of Zeus if we push too hard. The religious are simply far too strong. They control too much of the world for the rational to overcome. We know that, if we push too hard, we will be squashed they will simply push back with the might of a few billion high-ranking good Christian soldiers (let's be realistic here - Christianity holds most of the power in the world today). We know that to stir the ire of the faithful will fully wake the beast and we would be plunged back into a dark ages we would likely not escape for a long, long time.
So we, the rational, are the underclass, second class, minority. And unless the rest of the world wakes up, we will stay that way for a long, long time.
Void Surfer
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Do Supergirls Dream of Blue Spandex?
Ok, so the Senseless Death stories didn't materialize (only did 1). Largely because it was to be based on a character in the City of Villains game, and I haven't played it much. However, every ending is a chance for a new beginning. And thus, I've decided to do a more involved story that is only based on characters I have created (but doesn't actually follow in-game exploits).
This falls under the global series : Tights Tales
and this story is called: Do Supergirls Dream of Blue Spandex?
The first chapter - Destiny comes to town - is now up.
It is designed to be a serial, so even I don't reallyl know where its going after the first several chapters. Once I get it going a bit I may open it up for other writers also, so post me if you are interested.
This falls under the global series : Tights Tales
and this story is called: Do Supergirls Dream of Blue Spandex?
The first chapter - Destiny comes to town - is now up.
It is designed to be a serial, so even I don't reallyl know where its going after the first several chapters. Once I get it going a bit I may open it up for other writers also, so post me if you are interested.
Void Surfer
Thursday, April 20, 2006
Terrorists, Nukes, the Flu, oh my!
Someone in the west wants us to be afraid. Not just afraid, mind-numbingly terrorized. So they have hijacked the media to spread fear of the modern versions of the boogey man. But these things are real, you say. And you are right – to an extent. I’m not denying that these three problems are real, but in reality they are just recycled fears from the past. In generaly, the average person has almost nothing to fear from any of them. Let me break it down like this:
Terrorists have existed for decades (some may argue millenia) in some form or another. The boogey men that most of us will remember most strongly are the communists of cold-war Russia. However, other groups obviously had more “true” terrorists. The most well known were/are the palestinian terrorists: PLO, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc; or those of Nothern Ireland, the IRA. So, how have things changed? They haven’t. The only reason the west has grown this new boogey man is because the US itself was finally attacked and the average American could be awoken to global politics. Of course terrorists should be combatted, but rationally. They will always have the advantage against free, democratic states. The only way to completely prevent their attacks is to live in a police state – and do we really want that? Anyway, it helps to remember that, each year, we kill ourselves far more often than any terrorists do (especially in the US – annually there are around 10,000 gun-related deaths, versus the one-time killing of 3000 people in the 11/9/01 attack).
There are some 27,000 nukes in the world (still. Despite the NPT). Who do you think controls most of them? That’s right – the west, and the US in particular. Iran has a nuclear program that has enriched uranium about 3.5%, barely enough for a small nuclear reactor. They require 90% enrichment to make a bomb. Even if they succeed in making 1 or even 10 bombs does anyone truly believe they would use them on the west, who has at least a 1000 times more (and is geographically much larger so that any devastation would be more dispersed!). It would be the surest form of suicide. Sure a good Muslim is willing to sacrifice themselves for Allah, but I can’t see their president sacrificing the entire country! It is clear to me that if Iran pursues nukes it is for the same reason the west claims to harbour them – as a deterrent. The US in particular doesn’t want Iran to have nukes because it suddenly makes an invasion impossible. Precisely the reason Iran would develop them. All countries want to maintain their sovereignty. I, personally believe that the Arabic worlds are getting the double standard treatment by the ruling west. It’s a matter of US vs. THEM and we are in control of the global governments. Of course, that’s not to say that I would like to live in an orthodox Islamic state. Of course not. But all three of the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) can be mobilized to war and violence very easily and all have their own share of fanatics. Only their methods differ (and, with the exception of suicide bombers, very slightly). The first two have become more moderate due to the development and incorporation of scientific knowledge but this can easily be a tenuous truce between reason and religion -- as the rise of the Christian conservatives in the US has shown. In general, we have more to fear from ourselves than any terrorists.
Fear of the great bird influenza epidemic has been circulating for several years now. It may or (more likely) may not come. But is the panic really necessary? Flu epidemics, of course, can be very real. There have been several periods of global epidemics in the past and that fact, combined with modern technology and the ease of travel, are undoubtedly what stimulates the fears this time. However, in the world so far there have probably been a dozen human cases and no evidence of transmission from birds to humans. Yes it is important to study it, to understand it, and to develop preventative measures and treatments. Does this really warrant the paranoia circulating in the media. I think not, but only time will tell.
Modern life is already busy and complicated enough without the powers-that-be terrorizing us with their boogey men (why they do it should be obvious). I say: enough is enough.
Terrorists have existed for decades (some may argue millenia) in some form or another. The boogey men that most of us will remember most strongly are the communists of cold-war Russia. However, other groups obviously had more “true” terrorists. The most well known were/are the palestinian terrorists: PLO, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc; or those of Nothern Ireland, the IRA. So, how have things changed? They haven’t. The only reason the west has grown this new boogey man is because the US itself was finally attacked and the average American could be awoken to global politics. Of course terrorists should be combatted, but rationally. They will always have the advantage against free, democratic states. The only way to completely prevent their attacks is to live in a police state – and do we really want that? Anyway, it helps to remember that, each year, we kill ourselves far more often than any terrorists do (especially in the US – annually there are around 10,000 gun-related deaths, versus the one-time killing of 3000 people in the 11/9/01 attack).
There are some 27,000 nukes in the world (still. Despite the NPT). Who do you think controls most of them? That’s right – the west, and the US in particular. Iran has a nuclear program that has enriched uranium about 3.5%, barely enough for a small nuclear reactor. They require 90% enrichment to make a bomb. Even if they succeed in making 1 or even 10 bombs does anyone truly believe they would use them on the west, who has at least a 1000 times more (and is geographically much larger so that any devastation would be more dispersed!). It would be the surest form of suicide. Sure a good Muslim is willing to sacrifice themselves for Allah, but I can’t see their president sacrificing the entire country! It is clear to me that if Iran pursues nukes it is for the same reason the west claims to harbour them – as a deterrent. The US in particular doesn’t want Iran to have nukes because it suddenly makes an invasion impossible. Precisely the reason Iran would develop them. All countries want to maintain their sovereignty. I, personally believe that the Arabic worlds are getting the double standard treatment by the ruling west. It’s a matter of US vs. THEM and we are in control of the global governments. Of course, that’s not to say that I would like to live in an orthodox Islamic state. Of course not. But all three of the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) can be mobilized to war and violence very easily and all have their own share of fanatics. Only their methods differ (and, with the exception of suicide bombers, very slightly). The first two have become more moderate due to the development and incorporation of scientific knowledge but this can easily be a tenuous truce between reason and religion -- as the rise of the Christian conservatives in the US has shown. In general, we have more to fear from ourselves than any terrorists.
Fear of the great bird influenza epidemic has been circulating for several years now. It may or (more likely) may not come. But is the panic really necessary? Flu epidemics, of course, can be very real. There have been several periods of global epidemics in the past and that fact, combined with modern technology and the ease of travel, are undoubtedly what stimulates the fears this time. However, in the world so far there have probably been a dozen human cases and no evidence of transmission from birds to humans. Yes it is important to study it, to understand it, and to develop preventative measures and treatments. Does this really warrant the paranoia circulating in the media. I think not, but only time will tell.
Modern life is already busy and complicated enough without the powers-that-be terrorizing us with their boogey men (why they do it should be obvious). I say: enough is enough.
Void Surfer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)