Everything Evolves

During my June vacation in Washington D.C., I had the pleasure of visiting the Smithsonian Natural History Museum. Very cool! Free entry, too!

Rocks about 2.5 billion years old reveal that the Earth's atmosphere hasn't always been supportive of life as we know it today.

Water life adapts to droughts and evolve into land animals.

Ideas also evolve-- slavery was upheld by the United States Constitution at first; later, it was repealed. Women were second class citizens, now they are more and more being treated with proper fairness.

For one while, you couldn't legally buy a strong drink! 

Yikes!

And yup . . . even religions have evolved. Denominations splinter off from each other and become less and less familiar with how their scriptures lay out the tenants of their faith. Doctrines change and people tone down the more radical passages found in their scripture texts. Yes, even faith evolves.

And look at the United States today-- we seem to be at the threshold of allowing homosexuals to live their lives with full freedom as well. This is long over due in my opinion, just as Women's rights and Minority rights were long over due (and perhaps, still not fully realized even now).

Yes-- even the so called "Land of the Free" is still striving and evolving towards a more perfect union.

Evolution is everywhere. We might as well accept it. And we might as well use the engine of evolution to push our nation towards becoming a nation that is truly, fully free.

Just Give Us the Facts

Around 2001, students from Jefferson High School in Lafayette, Indiana petitioned the school board by requesting that Special Creationism (Intelligent Design) lessons be taught along side evolution.

These students were not asking for evolution to be muted in their classrooms. They simply wanted Special Creationism to be taught along side evolution.

These students articulated that they wanted to be given all of the facts and then be allowed to decide for themselves what was true. They felt that Special Creationism had merit and needed to be taught along side evolution so that they can make an informed decision.

While this petition was student led, I'm confident (though not certain, of course) that an adult or two were behind this effort.

I suspect this because I started a bible study back in my high school years. Despite my religious enthusiasm in those days, an adult prompted me to meet with my high school principal to gain permission to meet. He prepped me with legal information as leverage (which actually backed my principal into a corner when she first seemed hesitant to comply). Also, adults supported our meetings which furthered our drive as students. We didn't impose our meetings on others and did not meet during school hours. We could meet before or after, according to the law at the time (which I think is still valid, for those of you who insist that prayer has been taken out of school).

So, I'm confident these students had similar influences even thought they were probably just as passionate about this debate as the adults who possibly put them up to this petition.

During the formal presentation of their petition to the school board, the students eloquently made their case. And many of the students who supported the petition donned black T-shirts with white type that read:

Just give us the facts and then let us decide.

And on the back of their snazzy black T-shirts was printed the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Nice touch, I must say.

Students kept insisting to the school board that they deserved to have all the facts. Somehow, they seemed to "know" that Special Creationism was as valid as evolution and deserved to be taught in their biology classrooms. "Just give us all the facts and then leave us to decide", they reiterated.

Interesting . . .

Honestly, I loved their T-shirts. I want one! But I don't think they really understood what they were asking. I think they only fashioned their words to sound like they wanted all the scientific information that was available to them.

But what they really said was:

Just give us the facts and we'll decide which ones we like and don't like.

Because the fact is, Special Creationism is not a scientific theory.

Nope.

Special Creationism doesn't help us understand why a monster strain of Tuberculosis is on the rise. Nor does Special Creationism give us clues as to how we stop it.

Intelligent Design doesn't answer questions about why certain people are immune to the AIDS virus and how that may one day help us achieve a cure.

Special creation "theory" doesn't help HIV patients live longer by understanding that the virus evolves as it continually duplicates inside it's host-victim.

For example:

As an HIV patient takes medication for a while, a variant of the AIDS virus becomes resistant to the medication as the other variants of the virus die off in the patient's system. As a result, a dominant strain overcomes the medication and causes the patient's condition to worsen.

If planned carefully, medication can be paused for a period of time. During this time, the resistant variant starts to make varied strains of the virus again. But in doing so, the resistant HIV population becomes dwarfed by it's own diverse offspring of viruses which are once again susceptible to medication. This tactic has extended the survival and health of patients who are battling AIDS.

The insight for this treatment plan comes from acknowledging and studying evolution. Not from studying Special Creation or Intelligent Design.

Nope. Sorry.

Think of another example. What if you were studying fish in a pond? You needed to find out why the fish were contracting a fungus that was killing many of them. You soon discover that some of the fish are sexual in their reproduction and others are asexual (clones).

You learn from observation that the healthiest fish are offspring of sexual parents while the asexual fish become sick by the fungus most often.

Why?

During your study, the pond dries up due to a drought. All the fish either die or migrate. But fortunately, the pond fills up with water again after the drought and the fish population returns.

Ugh! But you see the previous health trends reverse! Now the asexual are healthier than the sexual fish and the fungus seems to hit the sexual population extra hard.

Why?

Can Intelligent Design answer this question?

No. But studying evolution can.

The genetic diversity in the asexual fish is always very low. So the fungus can run amok with the asexual fish because they have little diversity driving traits that resist infections.

But when the pond dried up, the fish population shrank so much that the sexual population of fish had to inbreed in order to survive! As a result, the sexual fish became more clone-like than the asexual fish; the diversity of their gene pool fell lower than their asexual counterparts!

After understanding the problem, the solution can easily fixed the problem. Find some genetically diverse fish that reproduce sexually and add them to the pond. The offspring of the sexual fish become resistant to the fungus just as before-- all thanks to studying evolution.

If you must insist that Special Creationism is science, then the ways of creation must be studied through the theory of evolution.

Evolution is a fact. Of course we don't understand everything about it. And while we don't know if we humans came from slime billions of years ago, we do know that we have common ancestors with other species of apes from millions of years ago.

So when you say that you simply want the facts, be sure that you really mean that. That's what a good scientist strives for-- just the facts.

Even the uncomfortable ones.

So those students in Lafayette, Indiana were getting the facts. Some of the students simply didn't like what the facts started to imply concerning their literal interpretation of the bible. As a result, they decided that they wanted an alternative to the facts instead.

As it turns out, the school board kindly and gently rejected their petition.

And most of the biology and chemistry teachers at Jefferson High School wiped sweat from their brows as they sighed a great sigh of relief.

Why Lying to Children About Evolution is Dangerous

In Russia, a super strain of Tuberculosis is slowly creeping across the world. Russian prisoners are crammed into prison cells under unsanitary conditions. When a prisoner contracts TB, he rarely completes his medication due to funding, thus the formation of a super TB strain results. And this super strain requires even more aggressive (and more expensive) treatment. This makes proper treatment of the prisoner even less likely. And sometimes, the TB strain is so highly evolved that no medication known to humankind will fight the uniquely formed strain of TB.

For some prisoners, contracting TB is a death sentence. Either the funding will not be provided to treat these prisoners, or they've contracted a terminal variant of TB. These prisoners die in their jail cells.

But sometimes a prisoner with a super TB strain completes his prison sentence and is released directly into the general population-- hacking and coughing as he walks out of the facility and into the public.

Then someone in the general population contracts the super strain of TB after unwittingly spending time in the presence of the infectious, coughing ex-convict. This poor person departs from his presence to make his or her way to the airport. This person plans to make an extended visit to New York City, for example, where he or she will eventually start hacking and coughing.

Why does this happen? Where will this stop?

Some studies have shown that a small percentage of people are immune to the HIV virus. In each person found so far, a mutation was noted. They don't have any receptors on their white blood cells like most other people. As a result, the HIV virus has no way to invade their immune system. Interestingly, this same trait is traced back genetically to survivors of the Bubonic Plague hundreds of years ago.

How can this be? Could this be a clue to a cure for AIDS? How can we better understand this?

As predators change over time, those who are most successful live to pass their traits on to their offspring. The prey who allude capture are awarded that same opportunity to pass on their genes to their offspring. Thus, you have a constant honing of predatory skills and evasive tactics between predator and prey. One sharpens the other over time. This is one of the components that drives the engine of evolution.

Real problems are happening and will need to be solved by understanding evolution.

If members of our society succeed in cranking out armies of young people who think evolution is science fiction, then we will dilute the upcoming scientific community. We will stop producing the necessary minds for solving these real, growing problems. We will produce doctors, scientists, and chemists who will fail the public when the next big biological problem come to visit humankind.

So many people hate the idea of evolution because the implications threaten their Fundamentalist beliefs in God. With clouded minds they lie to as many children as they can within our school systems for the express purpose of preserving their so called "American Values".

What good will come of preserving "American Values" if we are all wiped out by a super virus because nobody took into account the phenomena of evolution and how it drives the changes we see in biological life-- not just from millions of years ago, but for today as well?

OK, so you insist all day long that life was designed.

Fine. Sure. OK.

I don't care. Whatever.

You win.

But just know that even if you insist that life was designed by a creator, you cannot escape the fact that our world was then designed with evolution as part of the plan.

To overlook the fact of evolution is irresponsible. To ignore the fact of evolution is delusional.

And to insist that evolution is science fiction to millions of school kids across the nation is down right dangerous for our survival in the future.

And that's regardless of whether you believe in any particular god, or not.

Dominance

Upon closer examination of the human psyche, I now understand why gods have anthropomorphic traits. To say that gods are simply reflections of mankind might still be true. But even so, such a description may be a bit too simplistic.

According to Christianity and Judaism at least, humans are made in the image of God. This has been debated to mean that humans are like God in that we share the capacity for emotion and personality just like God does. Many other origin stories of humanity involve some anthropomorphizing of nature-- thus nature creating humankind becomes a supernatural event.

In light of this interpretation, it only makes sense that God would be anthropomorphic in his (or her) behavior. Humans have a nature for sure. We are social yet territorial. We are cooperative, yet always find ourselves in conflicts and struggles with each other. We are generally altruistic, and have the potential to be murders. We humbly give in one minute and can then seethe with angry jealousy the next.

The God of the Old Testament (at least) had to be human-like if we were designed after him; It only makes sense.

But one oddity I find in this analysis is that we humans are deeply social. Thus, the dichotomies I mentioned above. Our social nature makes conflicts inevitable. We are not Utopian creatures. We live in a competitive environment with limited resources. Selfishness is sometimes a virtue when there is only one precious item left-- but many people need or want it.

See, the fact that the social nature of humanity brings out the best and worst in us begs (in my opinion) an important question:

Why is it that God (who is solitary and omnipotent) exhibits the traits of social creatures?

Ah! But God is not alone. He's the alpha-male over his angels. He has a beta-male rival named Lucifer who tries to take away God's most prized possession-- Mankind, the crown jewel of all that was created.

Lucifer was kicked out of heaven, like a beta-chimp who failed in his coup against the alpha-male of his troop.

So the God of the Old Testament is most likely described with accuracy if we are indeed made after his image. God is jealous. He will crush those that oppose him. Now it makes sense that God would threaten to make you burn for eternity if you angered him enough. Just give him a reason to make an example of you and he will do it.

The idea of Hell is simply a deterrent devised to protect the next Utopia God creates-- AKA "The Afterlife".

Beta-deities need not apply.

God is at the top of the grand social hierarchy of the universe. He is dominant over all creation.

Dig back into time and archeology will suggest that Yahweh was contending for the top spot in a pantheon of Canaanite gods thousands of years ago. When Yahweh finally reached the top, he didn't just simply declare himself and his consort the ruler of all other gods, but he eliminated all gods and declared himself the only true deity of all time.

No wonder we humans act so much like God!

Ah, but then there is another alternative.

God is an artifice of the human psyche and thusly, any given god acts like us humans.

Either way, God can be a brute just as we can be. He's prone to be irrational, illogical, and irritable just like we. He enjoys bragging that he's the best-- even to the point of claiming omnipotence-- though at times he's failed to fulfill this description.

Just as we humans sometimes do.

People constantly vie (in overt and subtle ways) for dominance. God (and any other "little" god) is no different.

Yes, God is no different from us; He is human.

And it's human nature for me to refuse kneeling down* to any god upon this revelation. No human kneels to anyone else without first witnessing a proper display of dominance. Only after that will most people humble themselves into a state of abject submission.

So tell me then . . . is that analysis descriptive of creationism?

Or does that sound like hard core evolution?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

* I can't help but think of these lines from the movie 300:

Xerxes: It is not the lash they fear. It is my divine power. But I am a generous god. I can make you rich beyond all measure. I will make you warlord of all Greece. You will carry my battle standard to the heart of Europa. Your Athenian rivals will kneel at your feet if you will but kneel at mine.

Leonidas: You are generous as you are divine, O King of Kings. Such an offer only a madman would refuse. But the, uh, the idea of kneeling, it's... You see, slaughtering all those men of yours has, uh, well, it's left a nasty cramp in my leg, so kneeling will be hard for me.

Xerxes (now, infuriated): There will be no glory in your sacrifice. I will erase even the memory of Sparta from the histories. Every piece of Greek parchment shall be burned and every Greek historian and every scribe shall have their eyes put out and their tongues cut from their mouths. Why, uttering the very name of Sparta or Leonidas will be punishable by death. The world will never know you existed at all!

Leonidas: The world will know that free men stood against a tyrant, that few stood against many and, before this battle is over, that even a god-king can bleed.

Show Me

I can't seem to think of a good or clever way to start this post.

So, I'll just start it:

Is teaching Intelligent Design in a high school biology class fair?

Maybe (just maybe) Intelligent Design should be mentioned in a history class or philosophy class.

But, in my opinion, Intelligent Design should not come up in a science class.

At least, no one should be forced to teach ID as a scientific theory.

I don't mean to belittle history of philosophy with my previous statements. These subjects have a different emphasis that may warrant discussing a topic such as Intelligent Design.

But within the subject of science, Intelligent Design has no place-- especially if introduced as a scientific theory.

You know, an equivalent alternative to the theory of evolution.

Let me explain my point of view in a nutshell:

Science says, "show me"; religion says, "only believe".

Now, here's the long version of my point of view:

The word science has Latin roots which mean to know or knowledge.

Science sets out to learn what we don't yet know. Good science attempts this quest for knowledge while still realizing we don't (and probably won't) know everything. Also, science attempts to gather knowledge with the realization that we make mistakes and sometimes misinterpret our findings during our knowledge quest.

So then, a hypothesis should be thoroughly examined and supported by a wide range of facts before members of the scientific community accept it as a scientific theory.

And even after becoming a scientific theory, the idea should remain subject to scrutiny, modification, and even deletion should new facts come along.

But scientific theories are usually supported by a lot of intellectual substance. A hypothesis already has trouble becoming a theory. So, overturning a theory won't come so easily, either.

And, I will admit here that bias can interfere with this process.

However, the error-correcting mechanism that I alluded to beforehand is the overall goal of science.

And when the scientific world finally accepts an idea as knowledge or as a scientific theory, the proponents of such findings tend to stick to their claims.

At least, until better information comes along.

Such tenacity from scientists can sometimes be mistaken as dogmatism.

And I will also admit here, that sometimes it is dogmatism. But not always. Otherwise, we wouldn't enjoy the advances of technology that we have today.

The followers of religion tend to place faith within a scripture text whose interpretations and meanings can be quite subjective. Also, faith is often placed in a tradition with is passed along from parents towards their children or from proselytizing efforts towards a non-believer. The congregants of faith tend to share in the same traditions and teach new disciples how to follow the rules of faith. Yet these rules of faith, like scripture, are often subjective based upon the interpretations of believers and non-believers alike.

And some people are bold enough to forge their own religious faith from within their hearts. I admire this very much and find that a bravery goes along with doing such. But even here, such religious notions are subjected to the interpretations of the lone disciple.

For many religious people, the adherence to a religious belief becomes a source of knowledge. The belief itself becomes the evidence of an assertion or claim. And while one has a right to opinions and beliefs, this does not necessitate that such opinions or beliefs are actually right.

Or wrong, for that matter . . .

The tenacity that one has for his or her religious beliefs can often be admirable.

But when religious belief is treated as an absolute truth that everyone must follow (rather than an opinion or personal preference), such tenacity often changes from admirable faithfulness to religious dogmatism.

Now, don't get me wrong: you don't have to believe that life formed out of a soup of hot water and chemicals to accept evolution. And not everyone who believes in an Intelligent Designer rejects evolution. Many religious people with a deep sense of faith accept evolution. Evolution doesn't answer the questions about the origin of life-- only the origin of species. Evidence showing that life could have formed in a hot soupy mix is growing. But that notion still remains a hypothesis, unlike in the theory of evolution where one species slowly gives rise to another.

And since evolution is a scientific theory with a series of facts supporting it, teaching evolution in a science class (such as biology) is quite appropriate.

But what tangible evidence merits teaching Intelligent Design as a scientific theory in a science class alongside evolution?

The proponents of Intelligent Design theory often accuse evolutionists of dogmatism. They claim that evolutionists are biased towards Darwinism and only teach the theory because evolutionists constantly ignore the "other valid theories".

Like the Intelligent Design "theory", for example.

However, evolution has a wide range of testable, verifiable evidence whereas Intelligent Design has no evidence of any scientific sort.

Faith does not count as evidence in science.

I don't look down on anyone who believes that God created the universe. I don't look down on anyone who believes life originated through an Intelligent Designer. You can find good scientists who personally believe this way.

But to ask the students, teachers, and practitioners of science to treat Intelligent Design as a scientific theory is no more appropriate than asking religious followers to allow Darwinism into their Sunday School classes and pulpits as a "valid" explanation for the Genesis account.

Often, believers reject evolution theory on the grounds of their religious belief. As a result, many believers fail to see the evidence that supports evolution. And worse, too many believers (but not all) fail to see the difference between tenaciously supporting a scientific theory in lieu of a so called Intelligent Design theory.

Science will not accept Intelligent Design as a theory without some solid evidence.

While individual scientists may personally believe in a Designer or Creator, the discipline of science remains reluctant to simply believe.

The scientific method will always pose this same unwavering challenge:

Show me.

Even Some Penguins Oppose Proposition 8

Okay, so you won't see penguins marching around with picket signs protesting California's Proposition 8, but apparently penguins have been observed exhibiting homosexual behavior for some time now.

Interestingly, German zookeepers were monitoring a specific male couple that made attempts to mate with each other. This 'gay' couple also tried to take rocks and attempted to hatch them as though they were eggs.

Boy, they really wanted to start a family.

And even more interestingly, a heterosexual penguin couple abandoned their egg for whatever reason. The egg was given to the homosexual penguin couple. They cared for it until it hatched.

Now the male couple cares for their brand new little chick.

A happy family.

So is nature trying to teach us something?

Read the story for yourself here: 'Gay Penguins' Rear Adopted Chick

Darwin Misunderstood

Today is the 200th birth anniversary of Charles Darwin and the 150th anniversary of the introduction of his theory of Evolution.

Darwin's works are largely misunderstood according to many biologists. And many magazine articles of late have made a huge point of this.

Once I heard an interesting comparison between the Bible and Darwin's works -- they were both the least read books on Earth.

And both are also the most misunderstood.

I think the most powerful misunderstanding that I once held was that evolution had little evidence to support it. I've come to change my mind about this. To me, the evidence is very convincing and plentiful. Another misconception I had was that Darwin's work supported slavery. I have also heard often that Darwin believed in slavery and expressed this in his works.

But this BBC news article says something quite different. Darwin seems to have abhorred slavery and quietly hoped his work would help imply how wrong slavery truly was.

Even if you don't agree with evolution-- Darwin Style, consider making sure you truly understand his works. That way when you agree or disagree with him, you'll really know why for yourself.

That goes for me, too.

I plan to do this by reading through Darwin's works for myself throughout this year. If I find that the BBC article was inaccurate in my reading, I'll try to do a post about it.

As a matter of fact, if I feel I need to retract anything I've written about evolution after reading it -- I'll try to do a post about it.

Nothing takes the place of knowing for yourself.

Doing this with the Bible isn't such a bad idea, either.


Happy Darwin Day!

Oh, and I'd also like to give a shout out to ol' Honest Abe. It's his bicentennial birthday, too.

Green Leafy Slug

Remember high school biology? Plants have chlorophyll-- that stuff that makes their leaves green and helps them make their own food from sunlight. And making food from sunlight is called photosynthesis.

Remember?

Brings back memories, huh?

Well, I personally just learned about a sea slug that eats algae. I read about it in the February 2009 issue of the Smithsonian Magazine.

And . . . ?

The sea slug absorbs the chloroplast and genes from the algae it eats.

Then the slug has the ability to perform photosynthesis for itself.

Just like a plant does.

But, the slug is an animal!

Just imagine if you ate salad for a few weeks. Then afterwards, you could produce your own nutrition for the rest of your life just by standing in the sun!

And your skin would turn green and leafy, too. Kewl!

I wonder if sea slugs will even need to eat algae after a few million years go by. Too bad I won't be around to see that!

When I learn things like this, I have a hard time dismissing the theory of Evolution.

Sea some pictures, read more details:

Wild Things: Life As We Know It: Green Energy

Elysia Chlortica: Wikipedia

New Scientist: Solar-powered sea slug

Move Over, Anaconda

Many animals that are small in modern times had larger versions of their species millions of years ago.

Here's a great example: Fossil of Monster Snake Found in Colombia

And here's a different, shorter article on the same discovery: Largest snake 'as long as a bus'

Discoveries like these make me even more confident in Darwinian evolution.

Be Fruitful and Multiply?

God said we should be fruitful and multiply.

But, maybe we don't need to take his command quite so seriously. In reading a science and nature article on overpopulation, these two sentences jumped out at me:

For humanity, this portends a potential cataclysm exceeding anything in our history. Our chance to avert such an outcome depends on our ability to address our numbers before nature reduces them for us.

Some environmentalists are saying that dealing with overpopulation is essential to saving our environment. But, many people want to ignore this problem and refuse to address it.

Read the following article for more information: Population: The elephant in the room

Mosquitoes

Mosquitoes are known for more than just being pesky. They can spread disease, too.

Mosquitoes spread malaria, West Nile, and all sorts of other nasty stuff.

Scientists have realized now that mosquitoes have antibodies that shred the genetic code of these diseases when they contract them. Yet, they still spread the stuff to their hosts when they feed.

How come they get a better immune system than us? Hey, what gives?!

Did God do that on purpose?

Anyway, scientists might find a way to create antibodies for people because of the mosquitoes immune system.

It's the least those nasty little pests could do for us.

On the Evolution of Evolution

Wow -- I've taken some time to really soak in the significance of the theory of evolution.

Here are some things I've come across lately which I think are note worthy.

The 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth is in this February (2009). His book, On the Origin of Species will also make it's 150th anniversary this year. This is significant because the overall theory that Darwin proposed concerning natural selection is still sound and only gathers more evidence after 150 years of scrutiny. Other facets of biology expand because of evolution -- and in turn, other facets of biology improve upon Darwin's original theory.

The scientific community at large is gearing up to pay tribute to Darwin. His findings are considered to be in rank with Copernicus, Newton, Galileo, and Einstein, according to many scientists.

The magazine Scientific American has dedicated the January issue to the evolution of the evolution theory. This issue is full of fascinating articles to read which really give light to the full implication of evolution's theories and clears up many misconceptions and misunderstandings.

Genetics is seriously tied to evolution -- as I've said recently in another post. Genes control all sorts of things such as the level of lactose tolerance one has, to heart issues, and mental health. The passing on of genes plays a large role in how a species evolves and buds off to new classes of life.

Also, lately I wonder how much of the information from genetics and evolution can help us with our heath -- in practical every day situations such as diet, exercise, and achieving ideal weight. Maybe going back to our ancestry will provide understanding of what we need to eat. The NY Times article alludes to this. Maybe the obesity explosion we see has little to do with laziness, slothfulness, or lack of self control. Maybe our "modern" processed foods are not suited to our genetic makeup. Couple that problem with sitting at a desk all day and wham o! -- you're over weight.

Well, I can't even do justice to all that I've read recently . . . so here are some sources that can better say what I ever could:

The Evolutionary Search for our Perfect Past : This article doesn't seem to mention it, but it is a great overall synopsis of the articles found in the January issue of Scientific American. If you can't devote the time to the Scientific American issue, this NY Times article will provide some worthy highlights.

Key Gene Linked to Blood Pressure Identified : Just in case you thought genetics was a joke.

Scientific American Magazine : January 2009 Issue : If you have any questions or doubts about evolution, skim through this magazine. Maybe all your questions won't get answered, but you'll be hard pressed to maintain your doubts.

Atheism Explained : a book by David Ramsay Steele. I'm not completely finished reading it yet, but it has a very interesting chapter on evolution. While evolution doesn't disprove God in his view (and in mine, too), we can no longer hold to the traditional view of the classical Judeo-Christian model of God. For many believers, such a notion is blasphemous and atheist enough to disapprove vehemently of evolution -- in spite of the overwhelming evidence for it.

Lazarus, Come Forth!

Back in May of 2008, a team of researchers at the University of Melbourne took a gene from the extinct Tasmanian tiger and applied it to a mouse embryo.

The gene expressed itself in the developing mouse; the gene worked.

Researchers insist that this study will not resurrect any extinct species in the near future, if ever. But, with the constant explosions in technology and the new ground breaking discoveries that keep happening in biology -- we all might be in for quite a surprise one day.

Check out the various news coverage concerning this research:

Thylacine Mouse

Extinct Gene Brought Back to Life

Tasmanian Tiger DNA Comes Alive in Mouse

Tasmanian Tiger Gene Fragment Resurrected

If you happened to stumble on this post, also check out my previous post concerning Genetics and Evolution.

If You Don't Believe in Evolution, You Might As Well Reject Genetics, Too

People continue to decry the theory of Evolution (as I once did). But they fail to understand an important point. Their rejection of Evolution has nothing to do with science. Oh -- people may say that the science is faulty, but that isn't their real reason for rejecting Evolution.

Search your feelings, you know it to be true . . .

I can say this because evolution and genetics are tied together and the science is solid for both. So, if you don't believe evolution is sound science, you might as well reject genetics, too.

The following article is a great example of the relationship between these two studies : Genetic Secrets from Tassie Tiger

History Repeats Itself

Nicolaus Copernicus wrote a book entitled On the Revolutions of Heavenly Bodies which stated that the Earth revolved around the sun and was not the center of the universe.

His book was banned by the Catholic Church.

Galileo Galilei agreed with Copernicus and wrote a book entitled Dialogue Concerning Two Chief World Systems which compared old views of the cosmos versus the Copernicus view. This book advocated and supported the Copernicus model of the world.

Galileo was taken before an inquisition and placed on house arrest for the last years of his life. He was forced to renounce his scientific findings and was labeled a heretic by the Catholic Church.

Today, various states have legislators who are trying to draft and legalize disclaimers on the flaps of public school text books that mention the theory of Evolution.

Again, someone wants to keep scientific findings quiet.

Opponents of Evolution claim that the science is bad. That's not really why they oppose evolution though.

Opponents against Copernicus and Galileo made the same claims.

But again, that's not really why they opposed these two great astronomers of the past.

Copernicus and Galileo had sound scientific observation on their side.

Their opponents -- the Bible.

Guess who finally give in and change their minds.

Hopefully, everything will come full circle and history will again, repeat itself.

Why do I say this? Because, like Copernicus and Galileo -- Darwin has sound science on his side, too.

Our Cells, Pt. 2

In an earlier post about our cells, I went on and on about how our cells have these neat properties and make up who we are as humans; I learned of this through a documentary.

Here is a link to some recent research that is right up that vein:

Cancer Cells 'Cheat Suicide Call'

What if cancer is the evolutionary attempt at eternal life? What if one day, we get the break through we need and can suppress cancer while enhancing and prolonging the life of healthy cells?

What if evolution produces people whose good cells start to cheat suicide while the bad cells only die?

What if Heroes is becoming a reality?

Okay, I guess that's taking it too far, huh?

Six Silly Sayings

I recently ran across some material that made an attempt to prove God's existence in six points.

I will share each of the six points. Following each point, I will give my opinion about why I think these are weak arguments. I'm not saying that my rebuttals will disprove God -- but these arguments are not strong enough to prove that God exists.

1. Our planet's complexity points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.

My rebuttal: Science shows us that at the very least the Biblical account of creation is a myth. Science proves the Earth is billions of years old, not just thousands or a few million per the Biblical account. If God did create us, he used evolution to do it.

But more importantly, the perceptions and assumptions we humans have concerning the "obvious" are often flawed in critical ways. We assume that everything with structure needs a builder because we must build and design. That assumption does not have to be true for our universe.

For example, observe the image to the right:

The two lines that run across the star burst pattern appear bent; however, they are parallel lines. If you could print out this image (or one similar) and check the lines with a ruler -- you would observe that they are indeed straight lines. Our perceptions can be fooled. We assume the lines are bowed at first glance. But upon further inspection, the lines are actually straight lines.

A complex universe and complex life doesn't mean a creator is necessary. Evolution is a complex process that took millions of years -- yet few people want to say that God created us this way.

2. The complexity of the human brain shows a higher intelligence behind it.

My rebuttal: This second point is really just restating of the first point. I will only add here that evolution shows us that our brains developed over a painstaking process over millions of years. Biologists have found caves where no sunlight reaches inside them. Therein, you can find a pond that has formed from a stream of water that flows inside. Fish swim around in the ponds. Since there is no light, these fish have no eyes! They only have nodes or bulbs that have formed. Biologists surmise that the ancestors of these fish had eyes. After millions of years of swimming in the dark, natural selection decided not to bother forming the eyes in these fish any longer.

Is that intelligent design?

3. Natural causes and chance are insufficient explanations for our existence.

My rebuttal: This third point is barely different from the first two points. Evolution, again, shows us that our course of development is left to a process of natural selection. Perhaps this isn't pure chance, but the survivors and offspring in any given species continues to thrive as long as they are well suited for the environment in which they live.

Also, scientists have found that when non-organic elements found in asteroids are mixed with non-organic compounds found in earth a chemical reaction happens and organic compounds are created. Just like taking oxygen and hydrogen and putting them together -- you get water. Or, just in the same way that you take sodium and chloride and form table salt. Asteroids pelted the earth during it's early formation. Life easily could have formed from this natural occurrence.

Besides, saying that God created everything is insufficient as well. We still have questions. Who made God? Saying that he always existed is no different from simply saying that the matter and material of this universe has always existed.

4. The enormously vast number of people who are passionately convinced that there is a God must be ignored should you say God does not exist.

My rebuttal: Galileo Galilei had to ignore the enormously vast number of people who were passionately convinced that the earth was the center of the universe. Nuff said.

5. We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him.

My rebuttal: You cannot say that this pursuit is true for everyone because you have not met everyone to ask them if God has sought him or her out. Besides, why is God so subtle if he is pursuing us?!?!?! Also, since so many people have a vast difference of opinion in who God really is, (because he's so subtle in his "pursuit") how can you say the same God is calling a Muslim to pray when at the same time he calls a Christian to prayer? Perhaps God only exists because we still have questions about ourselves. The more questions we answer with science, the less we need God and scripture to explain everything.

6. Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God pursuing us.

My rebuttal:

The Pagan Origins of the Christian Myth
The Bible's Buried Secrets
The Hidden Book of the Bible

And that's just for starters . . .

I'm not declaring that I've disproved God's existence in my rebuttals. However, I am saying that the six arguments offered for God's existence are not sound and cannot prove his existence, either.

Truth Seekers

Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.

John 8:32

Many Christians say they believe in truth. People who fervently adhere to doctrine are often said to "love truth".

However, real truth often gets overlooked in the Christian world.

The abuse by ministers often gets swept under the rug. The victim is simply told that the abuser should be forgiven and the matter dropped . . . Many times, the issue is never addressed at all.

Why? Because, God's "truth" must prevail.

What is to be said about God's truth when it contradicts the reality you know?

What happens when you realize the earth has to be billions of years old? Much older than what they Bible claims.

What happens when you realize the stars and planets in the sky are millions of miles away and no heavenly throne is found in the sky?

What happens when you realize the stars cannot fall to the ground like figs?

What happens when you realize ministers from all faiths everywhere ignore and even hide abuse, though they claim the church is a place of safety and refuge?

What happens when you realize life is most probably forged through the process of evolution and that life is most probably scattered throughout this vast universe? Even if we never find other life, chances are good that within the billions of stars and planetary systems life similar to ours might exist.

What happens when your realize God's "word" is nothing more than the collective writings of mere men?

What happens?

You break free.

Jesus was right about one thing. The truth shall make you free.

Of Apes and Women

Here's another discovery that gives very strong evidence for evolution:

Dr. Penny Patterson took an ape at around toddler age and taught her sign language. Koko is the name of this intriguing ape.

Dr. Patterson started out wanting to accomplish her doctorate degree by researching how well apes could learn sign language.

Here findings revel that apes already have a gesturing system of their own. Koko learned sign language just like an infant learns to talk.

It just sort of happens.

But, this isn't just learned responses from an animal. Not the lab rat stuff like pressing the bar 10 times to get a sugar cube. Or, flip the switch 8 times and get a treat.

Koko communicates.

She demonstrates that she understands English. Ask her questions and make requests and she'll do them.

Okay, so a trained dog can do that.

But, walk into the room and give Koko the bad news that her darling pet kitten died and Koko responds through sign language by signing the words "sad" and "cry". Her facial expressions shows she's hurt and understands. Then she groans in bereavement; she comprehends that her pet is gone at that very moment.

She comprehended this because Dr. Patterson signed this information to her and told her with words. Koko didn't have to "figure out" her kitten was dead after missing her pet for weeks or months. She understood the gravity of the event right then when she was told.

Koko really understood.

What does that say about man's kinship to the apes?

And Koko isn't the exception. Other apes have shared past memories through sign language!!!

Remember, apes already have a natural inclination to gesturing.

They simply don't talk vocally because they don't have the same type of vocal cords as humans. The human vocal cord is unique.

But, they can talk with their hands and their eyes and their hearts.
Like we humans often do, too.

Dr. Patterson's work is amazing.

Read more about Dr. Penny Patterson and Koko if you don't already know about them.

And even better, check out Nature: Koko -- part of the PBS Nature series.

See for yourself. These examples are not embellished! Check it out!

Also, at the time this blog was posted, Netflix has this documentary as part of their instant viewing selections. So if you're a Netflix member already, just watch it on your PC or on your TV through your Roku device.

(gotta love Netflix . . . and that nifty little Roku, too!)

The Church of the Atheist

I stated in an earlier post that I really don't think one can seriously call atheism a religion. I argued that religion in the most common definition requires the worship of a higher power or governor of the universe (AKA god). Atheism rejects this notion. At best, atheism is a philosophy. Passion about an idea isn't a religion -- but can be described as religious. But again, not in the sense that Christianity is a religion.

I still stick to that idea.

I'm still planning to meet with a group of local atheist for my first time. I'm a little nervous and curious as to what I'll witness.

I have found someone to share this with that respects my emerging non-belief. But, I got an odd comment about my plans:

Isn't this meeting the same as going to church? I mean, you're meeting to encourage each other. Christians do the same thing when they meet for church.

Maybe.

Church certainly has a social structure to it. And the more active and enjoyable the social atmosphere of a church, the more motivated the members tend to be.

But, church isn't just a social club. Church isn't only a place for Christians to mingle and share ideas. Besides, not all churches participate in allowing members to become close-nit so that they become comfortable sharing ideas and emotions with each other. When all else fails, church is supposed to be the hub of worship towards God for that group of believers who meet together. The sacred rites of Christians are performed -- Eucharist (Communion), baptism, worship and praise, repentance, reconciliation and so forth.

I'm sure none of that will be going on at a meeting of atheists who have come together to share their views. Just because the group is atheist doesn't mean they will all agree on everything.

But, there is a solace when you know you aren't alone.

I know that church provides that, too, for believers. But that similarity still doesn't make atheism a religion -- even if they meet to share their, er, non-belief.