Posts Tagged Darwin

Godless Business Podcast 1.3.5

Play the podcast

 

Download the audio file.

Photo of the comet Hale-Bopp above a tree. This picture was taken in the vicinity of Pazin in Istria/Croatia during a short easter holiday. The tree was illuminated using a small flashlight. To the lower right of the comet the Andromeda Galaxy M31 is also faintly visible. By Philipp Salzgeber. Philipp Salzgeber released the pictures under CC-BY-SA-2.0-AT, see bottom of http://salzgeber.at/astro/.

Some more leftover bits from episode 1.2.

Talk about life coming from comets, science trying to create new life, and Americans wanting to move in and “fix” Darwin…

A new show being recorded this weekend, to be released early in the week as usual. Then Andrew and Nige are off to Melbourne for The Rise of Atheism convention. We should also be recording an interview with another special guest while we are up there too. Super-happy fun-time!
Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , ,

Charles Darwin was wrong

Tags: , , , , ,

Egyptian prophet sets atheists straight

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Protein chains are impossible

Tags: , , , , , ,

Atheism, Evolution, and Darwin

cutbible.pngA atheist is simply to disbelief in the existence of a god or deities of any kind. That’s it. No more, no less. It does not encompass the origins of the universe (if it had one), the emergence of life, changes in living organisms over time, morality, politics, fiscal policy, or political ideology.

There are some ideas that atheists as a group will converge and agree upon by virtue of the process that lead them to atheism in the first place – rational thought, logic, and evidence based beliefs.

It is true to say that the big bang, cosmological development, and evolution have a mountain of experimentally verifiable data to support their individual hypotheses. However, to say that atheism leads to a belief in any of these things is incorrect and disingenuous. Indeed, there are many people who accept the theory of evolution as true (is it not something you “believe in”) and manage to keep their religious faith. The two beliefs are by no means completely incompatible.

Ray Comfort demonstrates massive misunderstandings of what the the theory of evolution actually says. No life form ever “walked on the land, gasped a few breaths and developed lungs”, nor did “apes evolve from horses”, nor did “both male and female sexes appear simultaneously”. To say such things demonstrates Ray has NEVER actually read any books, papers, or articles which outline the theory. It is painfully obvious he has not dome ANY research into the subject he professes to be an expert in.

Here is my feeble attempt to try and explain the theory of evolution to those who do not understand this exceedingly simple idea:

* Tiny errors in the replication of a species DNA from one generation to another leads to minute variations in their population. This is readily evident event to the most fervent creationist who invariably label them “micro-evolution”.

* Some of these variations may give the organism a slight advantage in surviving long enough to create the next generation. In the competition for the limited resources available, those with any advantage will have better odd of surviving and reproducing.

* In this manner, variations that give rise to competitive advantages eventually spread through the population, becoming more and more common with each passing generation.

* If a population of organisms is separated from the others via some external event or distance, then the two populations can pass on any variations within their groups independently.

* Given enough generations these minute changes add up to very large changes. The changes are eventually so great that the two populations can no longer interbreed with the other and produce viable offspring. At this stage we have two separate species by definition.

That’s it!

Of course, when Charles Darwin proposed the idea he was just looking a the visual similarities and difference between closely related species. He noted the huge variation in the beak shapes of different species finches and wondered why they were so similar in so many ways except a few. Looking at the larger picture one must wonder why many mammals share the same number of bones arranged in very similar ways throughout our bodies. I am always perplexed when creationists claim we “look nothing like apes”. Perhaps I see the similarities more than the differences? I am a glass is half full person.

Sidenote: For those of you with a cat or dog – Pick up your pet and count the number of “fingers” they have (the thumb on these animals has moved up the “front arm”). Count the number of bones in the forearm and upper arm. Count the number of ribs and vertebra. Notice the skull with sockets for two forward facing eyes, the nose and mouth beneath, ears to the side. Even internally (no, don’t cut your pet open) they share amazingly similar structures. How does a creationist account for this? God (in his infinite wisdom and creativity) created them all basically the same? Where’s the originality?

Charles Darwin knew nothing about cell biology, DNA or RNA, molecular biology, bioinformatics, or biostatistics. These fields have only reinforced and refined Darwin’s original concept. If he were alive today he would marvel at the knowledge we have acquired due to the deceptively simple insight he made 150 years ago.

Tags: , ,

Absurd in the highest degree

Charles DarwinCarl supplied me a link to the theory of evolution which has a few short videos regarding the theory of evolution. Since I currently have computer problems I was unable to watch the videos, but did read the accompanying article (found here http://www.AllAboutScience.org/darwins-theory-of-evolution.htm)

Some things to note:

1) For a web site called “All about science” it seems rather heavily slanted towards creationism, which is not a science at all. Science proposes models about the nature of reality, and produces predictions which we can use to test these models against. The use of such things as double blind tests, control groups, and statistical analysis sift out personal bias and random chance, leaving us with bare data. This data will either support the original notion, or discredit it. Creation science make NO predictions which we can use to test its authenticity.

2) The article makes quotes Darwin in the following way

“…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps.”

Thus, Darwin conceded that,

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
— Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

What the article neglects is Darwin’s next paragraph, where he explains the objection:

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.”
— Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

This is GOOD science. Darwin lists a number of potential problems with his theory, and addresses each in turn explaining them. In other words, Darwin admits there are ways in which his theory might be proved wrong.

Where is the “creation science” equivalent? How could “creation science” be proved wrong? In what way is “creation science” falsifiable?

Tags: , ,

Darwin’s Rival Theories

We call it Darwinism, for short. But in truth, it didn’t start with Darwin, or with his rival Alfred Russel Wallace either, for that matter. We often act today as if Darwin invented the idea of evolution itself, including the theory that human beings developed from an ape ancestor. Like evolution itself, science more often advances by small steps.

read more | digg story

Tags: , , ,