Thursday 30 August 2012

Shockingly Pro Life Chapter

At 8 weeks. The baby has its own heart beat and all of its internal organs are already distinct and growing.
Book 3 of the "Destiny's Child" series.

I've been reading a science fiction book called "Transcendent" by Stephen Baxter this past month. He's one of my favorite sci-fi writers because he mixes real science and politics with his fictional stories so well. I haven't loved all of his books, but most of them I've really enjoyed. I've read 9 or 10 books of his so far over the years. He's definitely very much an evolutionist, but his stories often hint at the concept of Intelligent Design playing a role in the evolution of life on earth, especially with regards to mankind. Usually it's aliens manipulating or helping to push things (evolution) along, speeding it up, and stuff like that.

But yesterday I read a short chapter in the book "Transcendent" that absolutely floored me. I have NEVER read anything in a fiction story that so blatantly and powerfully hit the Pro-Life topic right out of the park. It's shocking to me because I never would have expected it, but suddenly there it was.

I'm going to try and write out the short chapter for you to read here, because I was so impressed and moved by it, but I need to give a quick little bit of background so this will make sense. The story jumps between two drastically different time periods, one not too far in the future from now, and one half a million years into the future where mankind is on the verge of reaching some sort of "higher plane" of existence, Transcendence.

Alia is a young woman in that future who is trying to join the Transcendent organization. She has to go through a number of trials and experiences before she can fully be accepted into the group. One of those experiences is being a "passenger" to people that have lived in the distant past. You basically share the body and mind of a person but get no control over anything they do. You experience the person's WHOLE life, from the very beginning to the very end. And that's the shocking first thunderbolt in the chapter. Life absolutely starts at conception!

Here's the chapter. I highly recommend everyone read this! It really blew me away.

But first, a warning. The descriptions here in Stephen Baxter's writing are very good and there is no doubt at all that the baby is very aware and conscious from beginning to end. That means that for anyone who has tragically suffered the loss of a baby through miscarriage or some other complications, reading this is probably going to stir up a lot of emotions and hit you deep and hard. It's emotional without having experienced such sadness. So I warn the reader ahead of time that this might trigger some very powerful emotions. You might want to read it when you're in a place where you're better prepared for it, or where you're free to cry without co-workers all around. Just in case.

(I typed this out myself from the book, so some spelling or word errors may have crept in).


There was no detail, nothing to be said about this which was separated from that. There was only the separateness itself, a relation between abstracts, beyond analysis or understanding. But that was something to cling to, a source of a deep formless pleasure - an exultance that I am.

 Then something more. A king of growing. Splitting, budding, a complexifying of the I, of whatever it was that had separated out of the rest. The growth was geometrical: two, four, eight, sixteen, a doubling every time, rapidly exponentiating away to large numbers, astronomical numbers. Cells: they were the units of the dividing, specks of biological matter each with their walls and nuclei and complicated chemical machinery.

The cluster that was growing out of the doubling cells was an embryo.

But that was a wrong thought, an inappropriate thought. It was not something the I shoulder understand, not now, not yet. And that realization of wrongness was itself wrong. A recursion set in, a feedback loop that multiplied that awareness of wrong. Here was another sudden separating, a distancing. Within the I - or around it, or beside it - was another point of view, separated from the I by an awareness that could never be part of the I itself. The viewpoint was a witness to this growing thing, this budding coalescing entity. It felt everything the I felt; it was as close to it in every sense as it was possible to be. And yet it was not it.

The separated view was Alian. She knew herself, who she was. She even had a dim, abstract awareness of her other life, like a half-remembered dream.

And meanwhile the I, the subject of her inspection, continued to grow.

That relentless budding was not formless. In the final body there would be more than two hundred different kinds of cells, specialized for different purposes. Already an organization was emerging in this growing city of cells. Over there was a complicated cluster that might become a nervous system, with terminations flowering into what might become fingers, eyes, a brain. And over there were simpler clusters, blocks that might become kidneys and liver and heart.

This was a wondrous process, for there was nothing here to tell the cells how to organize themselves in this manner. As the cells split and grew and split again, they communicated with their neighbors through salts, sugars, amino acids passed from one cell's cytoplasm to another's. In this way the cells formed collectives, each dedicated to developing a special function - to become an eardrum or a heart valve - and, through a clustering of the collectives themselves at a higher level, to ensure that ears and hearts, arms and legs, all developed in the right place. Out of this mesh of interaction and feedback the organization of a human body developed.

The whole process was an emergence, an expression of a deep principle of the universe. Even the I, the wispy unformed mind that was lodged in this expanding, complixifying cluster, was itself an emergent property of the increasingly complex network of cells. And yet already there was consciousness here, and a deep, brimming, joyful consciousness of growth, of increasing potential, of being.

Now, strangely, death came to the differentiating cluster of cells. Succumbing to subtle pressures from their neighbors, cells in the shapeless hands and feed began to die, in waves and bands. It hurt, surprisingly, shockingly. But there was purpose to this dying; the scalpel of cellular death was finely shaping those tiny hands and feet, cleaving one finger from another.

The growing child lifted its new hand before its face. Not its, Alia thought - his. Already the processes of development had proceeded that far. His fingers were mere nerveless stumps yet, and could not be moved; and in this bloody dark nothing could be seen, even if the child had eyes to see. And yet he strained to see even so, motivated by a faint curiosity.

His curiosity, not Alia's.

She was embedded deeply in the machinery of the child's shaping body; she felt everything he did, shared every dim thought, every sensation. But she was somehow, subtly, separated from him, and always would be. She was a monitor, a watcher; she shared everything the child lived through - and would throughout his whole life - but not his will, his choice.

And there was something wrong, a note out of place in this great symphony of manufacture and assembly. There was something not quite right with the heart, she saw, a place where the mindless self-organization had gone awry. Nothing was perfect; this was not the only flaw in the growing body. Perhaps it would not matter.

As his body and nervous system developed, the child's mind continued to evolve.

At first there had been no sense of time, or space. There were only abstractions like separateness, one thing from another, and only events, disconnected, acausal. Time gradually emerged as a sense of events in sequence: first the hands, then the cellular Die-back, then the separating fingers, one after another. Space came after that, as the body itself grew in extent and emerged from formlessness into a tool that he could, in a limited fashion, use to explore the space around him. It was a passive exploration at first, not much more than a dim realization that the universe had to be at least big enough to encompass his body. But then he had fingers to stretch out, legs to kick with. Soon he could feel the sac that contained him, could kick against its walls, and he began to get the sense that even beyond this sac was a wider universe, perhaps including beings more or less like himself.

That sense deepened when sight arrived. He could make out a dim ruddy glow, that waxed and waned. Sometimes, when the light was at its brightest, he could even make out the pale fish-like shape that was his own body, the rope that anchored him to the walls around him.

But the light would dim and return, dim and return, and a new sense of time imposed itself on him: not a time dictated by the events of his own body, but a cycle that came from a wider world outside him. There were processes that went on independently of him, then; he was not the whole universe - even though it still felt like it.

Then there were sharper sensations, brought to him in a rich stream of blood. The nourishment he received could be rich or thin, familiar or strange. Sometimes it was even intoxicating, mildly, so that he trashed uncomfortably in his tank of flesh. This came from the mother, he knew on some deep level.

For the child in the womb, here was still another lesson to learn. Not only was there a universe outside this womb of his, but there were creatures out there who imposed their will on him: even his mother, who lived her own life, while cradling his. It was a gathering awareness of separateness that presaged the child's ultimate ejection from this crimson comfort into the harsher, much less sympathetic world beyond the walls of the womb.

But now came the pain.

It was extraordinary. It flooded the child's still-developing nervous system as if hot mercury had been injected into it. The walls of the womb flexed, pressing at the helpless body, over whelming his struggles. There was a new taste on his soft pink tongue, a taste he could not recognize, was not supposed to know, not yet. But Alia recognized its iron tang. It was blood.

Something was badly wrong.

The pain passed. The child relaxed, exhausted. Groping in the dark he pushed one tiny thumb into his mouth and sucked. Alia, floating with him, longed to comfort him. But the memory of the pain clung deep, and nothing was quite as it had been before, or ever could be.

Now there was another intrusion into his amniotic refuge. It was something sharp, and it was cold, unbelievably so in this little universe of soft, cushioning flesh. A probe, Alia thought, pushed in from outside. Was it possible somebody out there was trying to help this damaged child? But if so, how crude a way to do it! The child thrashed, distressed down to the core of his being. The probe sucked away some of the child's flesh and withdrew. The child folded over on itself, scrabbling at its small face with its hands. Again peace returned, like an echo of the endless tranquility from which the child had been separated at its conception. But it did not last long.

And when the pain came back, Alia knew that there would no respite. Again the child shrieked silently, but there was nobody to hear him; again the womb walls flexed helplessly, as if trying to crush the child out of existence.

There was another sharp intrusion from outside. But this was much more drastic than the earlier probing. A blade slashed uncompromisingly through the wall of the womb, and light poured in. The child thrashed and grasped; it was as shocking as if the sky itself had cracked open. Huge forms descended and something smooth and cold closed around his torso - hands, gloved perhaps? And now, the ultimate horror, he was lifted up, pulled away from the womb into a sharp coldness, a new realm of bitter light. But he could feel the cord in his belly tugging him back to the womb...

I'll end the copy from the book there. The baby was obviously born by c-section. It had problems and so the doctors had to get it out early. Another remarkable line shortly after that has Alia, the passenger witness to all this, thinking to herself (paraphrased by me), "I had seen the baby's entire life so far, from the very moment of its conception to it's harsh and shocking birth..."

Amazing right!? Like I said, I have never read such an obviously pro-life set of pages in a fiction novel before, and this from a writer who prides himself on being very scientifically accurate and knowledgeable. I've often times found myself disagreeing with some of his ideas and perspectives on things, such as sexuality, religion, evolution, etc. That's partly why seeing this in one of his books so surprised me.

Occasionally I've had other surprises reading his books too. For instance, the last book of his I read (which I thought was just ok, maybe a 5 or 6 out of 10) was all about a sudden global flood drowning the entire planet in a matter of years. This kind of amazed me because it actually gives some scientific credibility to the concept of a global flood that drowns all the land, even using some of the scientific ideas that modern Bible apologetics has put forth as explanations for the Biblical flood (ie. Fountains of the deep and plate tectonics).

All in all, if you're really into hard science mixed with skilled writing, creative concepts and an impressive merging of science fiction and science fact, Stephen Baxter is usually a pretty good read. He has degrees in mathematics and engineering (which comes out in his writing a lot).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Baxter

And if you like Stephen Baxter, you'd probably also like Ben Bova who's writing is quite similar. I've mostly read his novels that focus around our solar system's planets (titles based off of the planets and moons that are the focal points of the stories, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Mars, etc.).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Bova




Wednesday 29 August 2012

Martial Law Coming To America?

We got guns!

I'm not a conspiracy nut, but there's something very strange going on with the US government these days, and its got the conservative news websites and blogosphere talking.

Various departments of the United States have been rapidly buying up massive caches of ammunition in recent months (the past year?), and everyone's starting to wonder why. The Department of Homeland Security recently bought 450 million rounds of ammunition. To put that into perspective, the US army used up 70 million rounds a year during the Iraq war. In otherwords, the Department of Homeland Security has amassed enough bullets in recent months to run another Iraq war for another 6 and a half years... Homeland Security. This ammo is being purchased by the arm of US security that now considers domestic terrorism to be its top priority, NOT foreign terrorism. But it get's so much better/worse and stranger...

The National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has ordered 46,000 rounds for semi-automatic pistols.
The Social Security Administration placed an order for 174,000 rounds.
The Customs and Immigration Enforcement Agency has also reportedly ordered a huge quantity of ammo in recent months.

Earlier this year, the Department of Homeland Security bought an additional 1.5 billion rounds of ammunition, half of which were hollow point bullets, which International Law says are absolutely illegal to use, even in war! The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan did not use hollow point bullets because it's illegal to do so, even against terrorists. So what the heck is the Department of Homeland Security doing purchasing and ordering hundreds of millions of rounds of this stuff!?

Hollow Point bullets basically expand and explode on impact, shooting out tons of shrapnel into the body of its victim and tearing there insides to shreds. It's why they're illegal. They're brutal and absolutely lethal. However they ARE used on US soil by some law enforcement like police and special agents (FBI, etc.).

And the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration? Who knew weather analysis was so dangerous that it has to buy tens of thousands of rounds of semi-automatic ammunition to do its job? And the Social Security Administration? Customs and Immigration? No doubt they need and use bullets, but THAT many?


Expecting Civil War?

All of this and much more (like practice runs of martial law done across numerous American cities in the past couple of years) have some people very worried that the US government is expecting something very big and bad on its own soil. Are they expecting a massive civil revolt? Are they expecting a new American Revolution? Mass riots in the street? But you buy rubber bullets for riots, not hollow points!

This is some very freaky stuff. Is the government preparing for or expecting that it'll need to go to war with its own people? It's almost unthinkable. Others wonder if maybe the government is buying all this stuff up so that no one else can get their hands on it. But then why place special orders for it in the first place? It wouldn't get made unless it was ordered, and the quantities we're talking about here eclipse and exceed what's needed or used in modern wars today.

It's all VERY strange and doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Excuses have been slowly coming out of the government like, "Oh, it's a clerical error." and "They're going to be used for target practice and training."... Hollow points, for target practice? That's like buying nukes for your potato launcher.

Whatever it is, it's got conspiracy nuts and big government complainers both very bemused and concerned. It's possible that this really is just all normal routine every day stuff that just happened to all come together right at the same time. But it's certainly got a lot of people talking.


Website Links to more detail:



And for some of the much more extreme conspiracy theory types "It's for use against Americans! Martial Law is coming!"...






What's My Opinion?

Well, I'm not an American. So I don't have nearly the same investment in American politics and everything else that an actual American has. I find it extremely unlikely that any of this is really an attempt to prepare for martial law or gear up for some sort of domestic civil war on US soil. Or if it is, it's absolutely worst case scenario preparation that is almost impossible to ever come about. Basically, I'll believe it's all about government take overs and martial law when I see it, but not until it actually happens. It just sounds way too far out there to be real. It's like the people that believe that the 9/11 terror attacks were an inside job by the US government to create the Department of Homeland Security and take everyone's freedoms away. I don't buy it. But it IS a little weird.

Of course the US government isn't a toothless bear cub by any means. It has a lot of authority and control when it wants to. Just look at what happened to the MegaUploads website used to host and download all kinds of files (sort of like Person to Person sharing, Torrenting, and that kind of thing).

Wednesday 22 August 2012

Evolution - The Assumptions Dominate

Assume Everything

As I've been debating some atheists online and reading up on a lot of the evolutionary studies and data supposedly promoting a number of Neo-Darwinisms core beliefs, I've come to a frustrating realization. The assumptions or beliefs dominate the interpretation of the data. This is something I've known for a long time, but now I'm really seeing it clearly. I'll show you what I mean.


Similarity And Common Ancestry

The idea of common ancestry is based upon the belief/assumption that similarity equals common ancestry except when it's extremely obvious that it doesn't. This means that whenever a characteristic of a living organism is similar to another organism, the immediate assumption is that this similarity exists because both organisms descended from the same ancestral "parent" somewhere in the distant past. But similarity does NOT automatically mean common descent!

Trying to point this out to an evolutionist is almost impossible, however, because they are so heavily bound by this belief that they can't even consider that it isn't absolutely true. The assumption or belief dominates their interpretation of the data so that all similarities immediately mean common ancestry, except in the cases where it's extremely obvious that it can't possibly be explained by that (this is called convergence, when two greatly separated organisms come up with the same characteristics independently).

Similarity, at it's core, just means that the characteristics are similar. That's it! They're SIMILAR! It's the extrapolation and the assumption that interprets and converts this hard data into the story of common ancestry. This belief often completely ignores what has been proven to be naturally possible by physics, chemistry, and genetic mutation, because they believe it so strongly that it overrides the evidences that say, "This can't actually be the best explanation for this."

The assumption dominates the interpretation of the data. Similarity almost always equals common ancestry, no matter what the natural processes of biology say about this being a valid hypothesis or belief.


Gene Duplication

Gene duplication is another prime example of the assumption dominating the interpretation.

Gene duplication is currently the "best" explanation for how new genetic data and functions arise in living organisms over time. You see, scientists for a long time have seriously struggled with the realization that there is far too much complex genetic instructions in living organisms to have simply arisen by small point mutations. Point mutations (single "letter" mutations in a gene) simply cannot create such large scale changes and sets of new novel data without being considered harmful garbage and culled by natural selection. So evolutionists have latched onto "Gene Duplication" as the explanation for the huge size of the genetic library in organisms, and use it as the explanation for how new functionality can arise over time. It basically saves Evolutionism from the obvious limitations of nature "coming up" with new genes and genetic data.

But since this idea has taken off, now EVERYTHING is considered a duplication event! That gene looks a lot like that gene. That means that one of them was accidentally duplicated, mutated, and became imbedded in the genome adding new unique functionality... This means that now similarity ALSO means (assumed) its a result of gene duplication. But this doesn't just stop at highly similar whole genes. This is also taken on the miniscule level of segments of genes. These two pieces of a gene are similar, and so they're a "partial gene duplication". So up and down the analysis of entire genomes, scientists are matching similar chunks of genetic code and declaring them to be examples of gene duplication. Why? Because they're similar, and they have to have an explanation for how all this additional genetic data came about.

However, just like with the argument of similarity equaling common ancestry, this is entirely an interpretation based upon an assumption, that similarity in the genetic code represents an instance of gene duplication. But it only works that way so long as you believe it to be the reality, because once again similarity is assumed to mean something that it doesn't have to mean. These people must build an evolutionary structure to all of life and so these two fundamental beliefs (one old and one new) dominate the entire interpretation of the existing data. The believed "story" explanation takes precedence over all else.


Final Thoughts

Similarity does not automatically mean common ancestry or gene duplication. There are many equally plausible explanations for similarity, none of which point to Evolutionism.

For example, the letter A is similar to the letter H in a number of ways. The shape of the letter, the fact that it uses straight lines, the fact that both are letters in the English alphabet, etc. However this does not automatically mean that we must assume that A beget (is the parent or grandparent of) H. The similarity between them does not mean common ancestry from A to H.  It's simply similarity and that's all.

The same can be pointed to with regards to computer programming code. Computer code uses the exact same core functions and systems to accomplish everything from your web browser to the latest high tech 3D computer/console game. It's all using the exact same kinds of computer code. But because the code is similar (using the same things like variables, IF...THEN statements, and LOOPS), it doesn't mean that your web browser automatically and naturally (without any intelligent involvement at all) gave birth to the game Call of Duty. Or that simple duplication of code from your web browser is the prime explanation for the fact that the code between both programs is essentially quite similar when all is said and done. Similarity does NOT mean common ancestry and does NOT mean a duplication event.

Now obviously these two examples cannot reproduce on their own like a living organism can, however the points still stand. The only time the assumptions listed above stand is when they are used upon living organisms because it's assumed (again, another assumption) that reproduction and time can solve anything. It can't. All of this is a dramatic example of very creative reaching for explanations that circumvent the plausible reality.

They are so bound and determined to explain all of this by way of materialistic reproduction that they completely reject and ignore the possibility of common design (common programming) by an intelligent designer. The more in depth you go into all of this, the more you see that nature has some extreme limitations and barriers that simply can't be ignored, yet they are, by way of these two dominant assumptions (common ancestry and gene duplication). Intelligent Design as an explanation, however, is NOT handicapped by the need for these assumptions and interpreted explanations because it isn't required that all life accidentally just happened. Intelligent Design says that this is all intelligently designed, at least from the start, that the programming is similar not because of common ancestry or gene duplication but because of a common programming language being used and a common "programmer" having written all the code.

Monday 20 August 2012

Worldview, It's Personal

As i mentioned in my previous post about the "evolutionary tree of life", I've been debating a few atheists again this past week or so and come to pretty much the same realizations and road blocks I came across in previous months when I was more actively involved in the back and forth discussions.

One of the big "road blocks" is the strong desire to believe something even when the evidence says otherwise, or suggests otherwise. This of course is the exact same thing as what an atheist or evolutionists would probably say about a Christian who rejects Evolutionism. "You're blinded by your faith." Maybe, but these atheists (these ones at least) are equally blinded by theirs. They often attribute divine-like qualities to nature, imagining it leaping great hurdles and restrictions that they know full well are absolutely natural and proven scientifically and mathematically. But they insist that SOMEHOW nature overcame those apparent absolutes because it JUST HAS TO have happened that way no matter that we can't prove it. An example of that is how they so strongly believe that life had to have originated from non-living material and molecules despite the massively proven law of biogenesis (life only comes from life). They know this law better than most, but they believe in their heart of hearts that somehow this law was circumvented at some time in the past. This same kind of strong belief despite the evidences permeates much of their thinking (just like such kinds of thinking can often permeate a religious person's thought processes and rationality).

This is a very human mental handicap that most of us have. Really, it's an issue of pride and belief. We're certain that we're right and really hate to hear that we're not, or that we might not be. This is why things like religion and politics are such hugely heated and dangerous discussions. It's the EXACT same factors at play. Pride, belief, perspective, philosophical outlook, etc. Pretty much the very heart of who we are and what we believe is at stake in the debates so we take it all VERY personal. It's our foundational worldview that's being criticized and put to the test. Atheists are as guilty of being blinded by their faith as any religious person is, though they'll adamantly deny and reject this every time, as if this idea itself undermines their entire worldview (since they often seem themselves and intellectually superior to all others who do not share their worldview).

So even just saying, "Dude, you've got a worldview, a belief system," can often infuriate them even as they're powerfully representing EXACTLY how much of a worldview they really have. "I believe in nothing!..." Sorry, that's not true Mr Atheist. If you believed in nothing you would KNOW nothing and be entirely non-intellectual in the extreme. It's kind of like the argument over absolutes. "There is no such thing as an absolute!" Really? Are you absolutely certain about that?... See the logical flaw there?

ALL people have a worldview, glasses through which they see the world, the universe, themselves, mankind, and everything else. It permeates and dominates every thought they have. It's literally the core or heart of a person's self, a person's mind, a person's knowledge and experience. In many ways, the worldview is the foundation of who we are as people, and it exists in all of us. Everything we know and perceive is filtered through that worldview. The trick is trying our best to not let ourselves be blinded by it.

Who's more likely to be blinded by their worldview? Someone who knows they have one and knows what their own worldview is based upon, or a person who rejects that they have one at all? Food for thought. ;-)

Saturday 18 August 2012

The Crumbling "Tree Of Life"



I've been debating another atheist online the past few days about the topic of the "evolutionary tree of life" (or "phylgenic trees"). Evolutionism assumes that all life evolved from common ancestors and that most similarity between organisms is because of this common ancestry. However the classic "tree of life" is falling apart as science has descended into analyzing genes and DNA. The stories they thought they had figured out, with a tidy tree of branching organisms from the beginning of life until now, is looking vastly different when you study the genes rather than the physical (morphological) structures and features. This really isn't that surprising to people who believe that everything did NOT evolve from common ancestors. However it's seriously shaking up the Neo-Darwin community as it sets fire to one of the core tenets/beliefs. The following is one of my responses to the atheist I've been debating. The topic is about how the "tree of life" is having some very serious problems recently. The other point I've been making is that the reason for these problems is that the "tree of life" is based on an assumption first with the data and information then placed upon that tree by scientists in order to make it all fit their presumptions. It's a case of, "This is how we believe it is, so this is how we'll make it look."


EvolutionNews.org (May 12 2009):  A Primer on the Tree of Life (by Casey Luskin)
http://www.discovery.org/a/10651
"“Ever since Darwin the tree has been the unifying principle for understanding the history of life on Earth,” but because “different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories,” the notion of a tree of life is now quickly becoming a vision of the past — as the article stated “today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded,” and as scientists quoted in the article said, “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality” or the tree is being “annihilated.”"


ScienceDaily (Sep. 23, 2011): Evolutionary Tree of Life for Mammals Greatly Improved
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110922141907.htm

This article does not discuss the major contradictions between molecular genetic analysis and morphological versions of the "tree of life" (which is one area where a great amount of conflict is arising), however it does give a good example of one of my other points, the fact that all these "trees" are generated with a substantial amount of human direction. The algorithms and systems are purposefully programmed and organized in such a way as to include, exclude, connect and disconnect things based on a set of pre-input criteria and adjustments. Essentially it's a case of telling the program, "This is how you must handle all this data and these are the bounds within which you will work and connect the dots." When you get down to it, the program is told what the scientists already believe, and must simply figure out the little in-betweens and unknowns based on the greater whole that's already assumed.

To quote from the article...

"To date divergence times on their phylogeny of mammalian families, Springer and colleagues used a "relaxed molecular clock." This kind of molecular clock allows for the use of multiple rates of evolution instead of using one rate of evolution that governs all branches of the Tree of Life. They also used age estimates for numerous fossil mammals to calibrate their time tree.

"We need to have calibrations to input into the analysis so that we know, for example, that elephants and their nearest relatives have been separate from each other since at least the end of the Paleocene -- more than 55 million years ago," Springer said. "We were able to put together a diverse assemblage of fossil calibrations from different parts of the mammalian tree, and we used it in conjunction with molecular information to assemble the most robust time tree based on sequenced data that has been developed to date.""

 There's a massive amount of calibration done on these "trees" in order to make them "turn out right". Otherwise they'd turn out VERY wrong. Garbage in, garbage out. In this instance, the scientists included a lot of known fossils and dates, "relaxed" the molecular clocks (mutation rates, etc.) to allow a vast amount of variability in mutation rates so that the mutation analysis and predictions would NOT end up outside the KNOWN bounds. This is basically building the tree themselves and telling the program to fill in the gaps based on the pre-constructed tree, and allow the program to use whatever mutation rate it needs to in order to achieve the results the scientists/programmers want. Wow.


Nature (27 June 2012): Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution
http://www.nature.com/news/phylogeny-rewriting-evolution-1.10885

"Yet, says Peterson, the tree is all wrong."

""I've looked at thousands of microRNA genes, and I can't find a single example that would support the traditional tree," he says. The technique "just changes everything about our understanding of mammal evolution"."
This is a very recent example of how analyzing different parts of genomes and DNA return drastically different results in evolutionary relationships, something that should NOT be so all over the map for progressive step-wise evolution if it were true. Trying to extrapolate a gene backwards or forwards along the same kinds of understanding and lines as a "tree of life" results in dramatically different outcomes depending on the gene or genes included or analyzed, as if each gene has a completely different evolutionary history from the other, yet all these genes are supposed to be interconnected along ancestral reproductive lines and mutation.


Trends In Ecology And Evolution (June 2009): Gene tree discordance, phylogenetic inference and the multispecies coalescent
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534709000846

"Many of the first studies to examine the conflicting signal of different genes have found considerable discordance across gene trees: studies of hominids, pines, cichlids, finches, grasshoppers and fruit flies have all detected genealogical discordance so widespread that no single tree topology predominates."

 Telegraph.co.uk (January 2009): Charles Darwin's tree of life is 'wrong and misleading', claim scientists
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/4312355/Charles-Darwins-tree-of-life-is-wrong-and-misleading-claim-scientists.html 
"Dr Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, said: "For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life. We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality."

"" More fundamentally recent research suggests the evolution of animals and plants isn't exactly tree-like either.Dr Dupré said: "There are problems even in that little corner." Having uprooted the tree of unicellular life biologists are now taking their axes to the remaining branches.Dr Bapteste said: "If you don't have a tree of life what does it mean for evolutionary biology. At first it's very scary -- but in the past couple of years people have begun to free their minds."

 Both he and co-researcher Dr Ford Doolittle stressed that downgrading the tree of life doesn't mean the theory of evolution is wrong just that evolution is not as tidy as we would like to believe."

 EvolutionNews.org (January 2011): Common Design in Bat and Whale Echolocation Genes?
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/01/common_design_in_bat_and_whale042291.html



On top of all this is the very serious issue of convergence, especially genetic convergence where identical or near identical genes appear in very disconnected lineages and have arisen entirely independent, yet are so shockingly similar even at the molecular level. As more and more genomes are being sequenced, species very distantly separated on the typical "tree of life" are showing some shocking genetic similarities in the convergent features they have independently evolved. These things cannot be explained adequately by common ancestry because of the rarity and sudden appearance of them, however there they are, as if entire chunks of functional DNA from one distant species were copied and pasted into a completely different organism separated by many millions of years of evolution. This is NOT what Neo-Darwinism expects to find or can explain. Neo-Darwinism requires slow gradual mutation (changes) of existing genes over large quantities of time in a generally stepwise fashion. But whole systems and structures of function are appearing out of nowhere and they just don't line up along a neat evolutionary path. This is not at all a problem for the Intelligent Design community as we don't assume first that all life is traceable back to common ancestors from beginning to end. However this is catastrophic for Neo-Darwinism because it relies so heavily on this belief that all things evolved from common ancestors way way back.

Tuesday 14 August 2012

Offensive, Sexist, "Girl-friend Mode"


One of the developers of the new open-sandbox shooter RPG game "Borderlands 2" has unintentionally created a bit of an uproar in the gaming news industry by referring to a "new player" friendly female character class in the game as "Girlfriend-mode". Some game news websites erupted into "That's so sexist!" tirades while others, in response to the eruption, told readers to chill out and not get so caught up in hyper sensitive political correctness.

The "that's so sexist" group says that the comment is sexist because it suggests that girls aren't gamers and that they need an "easy" mode in order to play a shooter game while boys do not. But when you look at the context of the original comment, this wasn't really the point. The point was to try and help a more casual gamer get into the game and play along side a more hard-core gamer without being completely confused or trampled by the game's difficulty. It really had little to do with gender, and a lot to do with casual gamers vs non-casual gamers.

Yes, maybe there is a bit of an underlying sexism in the idea or comment, but it's also entirely based in reality. Guys are by far the hardcore gamer demographic. Girls are much more often casual gamers who like simpler less intense game experiences. This is head and shoulders above the way it used to be a decade ago when most women hardly played ANY computer or console games at all. More and more in recent years game developers are realizing that there ARE a lot of women and girls out there who really do like to play games, and that to cater to this demographic is a great way to tap into a very large population group that has sadly often been ignored.

But to then jump all over someone for pointing out the differences between girls and boys when it comes to what they enjoy in video games and call it sexism is political correctness gone haywire. Folks, girls and boys are different!!! Our bodies and brains are different. And that's OK! It's not sexist, otherwise you have to call nature itself sexist for using two genders in the first place. Each gender is different on purpose, in order to present and use differences of physical and mental traits for the betterment of both. It's a combination act of "better together" because the differences between the two genders allows them to be especially good in different areas automatically and to greatly benefit each other because of this. It has nothing to do with who's stronger, who's smarter, or who plays more hardcore games. It's ridiculous to blow up whenever someone points out any sort of differences between the genders, because these differences are entirely natural AND beneficial!

When it comes to games, it's very true that guys dominate the hardcore gaming scene while women dominate that casual gaming scene. It's a simple fact of statistics, demographics, and style. Don't act like it's sexism to the extreme if someone points this out. It's not. It's the reality. Women are perfectly capable of being "hardcore" gamers as well (some are), but both groups by and large have different tastes and preferences for the games they find entertaining. To merge these two somewhat divergent gaming cultures and interests together is not at all an easy task but when it's done right it's a great win for both gamers and the game developers.

"Girlfriend mode" is an attempt by the Borderlands 2 developers to get a guy's more casual gamer girlfriend into a more hardcore guy-focused game. The game has absolutely no problem attracting guys, because of what the game is. But it also wants to bring in girl gamers so that both guys and girls can play the game together and both have a great time doing it. If you're a hardcore gamer and a girl, then play one of the other character classes that aren't intended for "newbies" to the game style. But don't get all hot and bothered because there's an easy mode made with the intend of attracting more casual girl gamers. That's political correctness gone WAY too far. Are we not even allowed to attempt mixed gender gaming? Are we not allowed to mentioned "boys" or "girls" in gaming anymore? Give me a break! We ARE different. Get over it and stop being offended that you weren't born with both sets of genitals instead of just one. Sheesh.

News Article that inspired this blog post: Opinion: Borderlands 2's 'Girlfriend Mode' and casual sexism  (Gamasutra, game development news and article website)