Yeah I'm just C/Ping a forum post I made last night cause I'm lazy and need a new entry to this here blog.
I was raised as a very very soft "backwater" protestant, we soon realized that Sunday school wasn't a wise choice for someone as belligerent, authority testing and overall questioning as myself. So my parents started taking me to the Zoo. When I was around 10 or 12 or something, I realized I blamed God for a lot of things. I decided that it was a scapegoat, something I could be mad at when everything else was unavailable and it was at that point that I realized how juvenile faith was.
I then started on a road of apathy, I just didn't give a shit what anyone was...til I was with an "Atheist Zealot" roommate while dating a pastors daughter. That opened my eyes to a whole dichotomy, a whole world of retards doing interpretive dance for Jesus and loving him SO FUCKING MUCH they couldn't even stand it and were RUNNING AROUND FLAILING all while I was getting a barrage of logic from my old roommate.
If you know anything about me you know it wasn't a choice, really.
I find that people are hardwired to solve puzzles and to anthropomorphize things to rationalize and understand their existence. Let's use sun worshipers, as they are more common than random Jesus/Saturn/WHATEVER discrete gods as per number of upstart societies that randomly started worshiping shit. They see the sun, they know it has a profound effect on the day night cycle and their sleep patterns, their crops and the weather (based on position in the sky). The Aztecs, for example, had NO MEANS OF UNDERSTANDING IT BEYOND THAT. So what do they do? Give it superpowers, then give it emotions- anger, pleasure etc based on murder or gifts or whatever you feel like putting in there, they tried it all. After that, you don't actually have to add ANYTHING to start a religion...however, many of them did.
Once you have an 'answer', do you look for anything more? I doubt it. I rarely do myself. That's how religion works: 1 part being told how things work, 1 part accepting it, 1 part anthropomorphizing and 1 part supernatural...but you need TWO little more things: reverse engineering and coincidence.
So once you have a working model of what your deity/sun/whatever is, you can throw down a bit of reverse engineering:
Person 1: "Our crops are shit this year"
Person 2: 'yeah, it's because we did (or didn't) do X'
Person 1: "HOLY SHIT how can we make up for it?"
Person 2: *throws a dart at a spinning wheel while blindfoled* 'see how I hit that dartboard? It says to rape every single animal and child around us'
Person 1: "Imma get me a Tapir"
**SUN COMES OUT AND THE CROPS ARE AMAZING...OR THEY AREN'T**
Person 1: "well, looks like we did/didn't do the right thing, FUCK, our god is feeling SOMETHING AT US"
In the example, you see a problem that is reverse engineered to fit the mold of the problem at hand, thusly absolving the faithful thought and responsibility. You'll note that no matter what the outcome is, it can be attributed to the deity at hand. So either they did the right thing, pleasing the deity, and positive outcome or they did the wrong thing, displeasing the deity, and negative outcome. Either way, anthropomorphizing galore.
tl;dr:
Religion is:
1. Seeing a problem that needs solving and being profoundly lazy as a species (we all do this)
1. Being told how things work and accepting it (we all fucking do this)
2. Anthropomorphizing (if you have a cat or dog you understand)
3. Supernatural abilities (conveniently inaccessible to study)
4. Reverse Engineering (If a solution occurs, to ANYTHING, work it backwards til it's the deitys credit. In modern times we call it either a "test" or a "miracle")
5. Coincidence (any problem can be dumped on to the deity, positive or negative)
I also find we are limited by observers bias. I struggle to find my own humanity, knowing just how fucked up I really am VS what is normal. In some cases, I've written off shit like hallucinations as "normal" while thinking a certain normal feeling is "bizarre". I think this plays a GIANT role in determining a personal god. It's comforting, it's selfish and it's individual, which is why every single member of every single religion experiences things differently, from feigning speaking in tongues to crashing an airplane into a tower. I demand boundaries and standards in my existence, how can I deal with such a flimsy pile of non definable shit? Well, I can't.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Ghost Believers are Moronic
I think it's time that people who believe in ghosts just calm down for a second and realize that they are being idiots. I struggle to understand the correlation, but most of the people who I know that believe in astrology or ghosts (or both) are women. Perhaps I was even more right than usual when I suggested we fumigate vaginae in an earlier blog post.
The belief in ghosts or the supernatural is quite easily explained in todays population. When encountering a problem, as a species, we have a tendency to need it explained for our universe to work out nicely in our minds. A fine example would be the sun. Many, many cultures independently started worshiping the sun, realizing it was a keystone to their crops, day/night cycle and warmth. They couldn't explain what it was or how it had apparent movement across the sky. So, they did what we always do as a species: make some stupid shit up and then personify it.
People struggle with death and the concept of dying because we are narcissistic, anthropocentric and actually have some manner of issue with understanding that the world existed before we could perceive it and that there will be a day where the world moves beyond us. We find it troublesome to rationalize death of loved ones because we view people as objects, possessions that we have and hold. Our emotions get in the way, causing us to miss the person. When someone is grief stricken, it's a nice conciliatory pat on the back to tell them that their loved one went to heaven or is a ghost walking around in ether or some bullcrap like that. In essence we cheat death by living on in a different place that is undefinable, unmeasurable and therefore untouchable by rational thought. How convenient that we can circumvent one of the aspects of life that we struggle most with by relying on the supernatural. I'm observing a pattern here: when reality sucks, we make up something supernatural and then reverse engineer it to rationalize it belonging in a world with actual boundaries.
So when you have a hallucination or hear a sound, you may like to think it's something external like a ghost moving a chair or jesus giving a reacharound but infact you are stained by observers bias or preconceived notions. Not only do people stop looking once there is an 'answer' but they often go out looking for ways to apply that answer, such as ghost hunting. It's a sign of insecurity that these people try to cover the world in their own shitty idea, I take it as evidence that they understand on some level that they are childish morons but are too childish to think things through even on a basic level. It's why religion mandates spreading like a virus and why ghost hunters scour the globe for any shred of inexplicable event; if you get others to believe in your moronic ideas then it gives credibility to it, because it means someone other than you sees logic in it. Unfortunately, when people are suffering mass stupidity or hysteria, it's unreliable to say that they are logical at all. Then there's the topic of indoctrination, but that's in a different post.
Belief itself is intellectually irresponsible. Belief because an idea is old, or authority through antiquity, is among the greatest mental plagues mankind is currently enduring. It gives imagined legitimacy to such great fictional works as the bible, qur'an and of course the notion of ghosts. Just because people believed in it alongside such great brain children as alchemy 600 years ago doesn't mean it's a decent idea. It means that people have probably been wrong for longer than the onset of the idea, not that the idea has "stood the test of time". People love being told how something works, as it takes a genius to point out the obvious (see Darwin and Einstein), so if someone tells you it's your grandmothers ghost that is making the noises in the attic, you hit all the major aspects needed for ghost believing: Emotions, lost connection, death, being told by some jackass that it's a ghost and personifying a noise so you can identify with it. I wonder, in a world where a child is not told about ghosts, would they come up with the same silly conclusions? I suspect not, they'd likely make their own conclusions...hence why sun worshipers all played by different rules.
I'd encourage anyone reading this to provide some proof of the supernatural, especially ghosts, but we both know that you won't change how you think because that would require using your brain instead of being a stupid son of a bitch. Not only do two ghost believers never have identical experiences when experiencing them in the same place and time (so say goodbye to repeatability) but every single 'tool' used by ghost hunters is designed to measure something else! So electro-meters, thermometers and etc measure the thing they were designed to measure, not fucking ghosts. Further, there is no reason to believe that these things would be observable changes to the environment caused by a ghost.
Any photographed ghost is likely a fake, double exposure or some kind of dust (see: orbs). As I've said before, if ghosts exist and if they are trying to get in touch with or simply just fuck with us, WHAT BETTER TIME THAN WHEN WE ARE LOOKING? Either ghosts have some amazing union or something and have amazing plans with which to mess with people of low intelligence, succumbing to hysteria or living in CO rich places or, applying Occam's Razor, they don't exist.
The belief in ghosts or the supernatural is quite easily explained in todays population. When encountering a problem, as a species, we have a tendency to need it explained for our universe to work out nicely in our minds. A fine example would be the sun. Many, many cultures independently started worshiping the sun, realizing it was a keystone to their crops, day/night cycle and warmth. They couldn't explain what it was or how it had apparent movement across the sky. So, they did what we always do as a species: make some stupid shit up and then personify it.
People struggle with death and the concept of dying because we are narcissistic, anthropocentric and actually have some manner of issue with understanding that the world existed before we could perceive it and that there will be a day where the world moves beyond us. We find it troublesome to rationalize death of loved ones because we view people as objects, possessions that we have and hold. Our emotions get in the way, causing us to miss the person. When someone is grief stricken, it's a nice conciliatory pat on the back to tell them that their loved one went to heaven or is a ghost walking around in ether or some bullcrap like that. In essence we cheat death by living on in a different place that is undefinable, unmeasurable and therefore untouchable by rational thought. How convenient that we can circumvent one of the aspects of life that we struggle most with by relying on the supernatural. I'm observing a pattern here: when reality sucks, we make up something supernatural and then reverse engineer it to rationalize it belonging in a world with actual boundaries.
So when you have a hallucination or hear a sound, you may like to think it's something external like a ghost moving a chair or jesus giving a reacharound but infact you are stained by observers bias or preconceived notions. Not only do people stop looking once there is an 'answer' but they often go out looking for ways to apply that answer, such as ghost hunting. It's a sign of insecurity that these people try to cover the world in their own shitty idea, I take it as evidence that they understand on some level that they are childish morons but are too childish to think things through even on a basic level. It's why religion mandates spreading like a virus and why ghost hunters scour the globe for any shred of inexplicable event; if you get others to believe in your moronic ideas then it gives credibility to it, because it means someone other than you sees logic in it. Unfortunately, when people are suffering mass stupidity or hysteria, it's unreliable to say that they are logical at all. Then there's the topic of indoctrination, but that's in a different post.
Belief itself is intellectually irresponsible. Belief because an idea is old, or authority through antiquity, is among the greatest mental plagues mankind is currently enduring. It gives imagined legitimacy to such great fictional works as the bible, qur'an and of course the notion of ghosts. Just because people believed in it alongside such great brain children as alchemy 600 years ago doesn't mean it's a decent idea. It means that people have probably been wrong for longer than the onset of the idea, not that the idea has "stood the test of time". People love being told how something works, as it takes a genius to point out the obvious (see Darwin and Einstein), so if someone tells you it's your grandmothers ghost that is making the noises in the attic, you hit all the major aspects needed for ghost believing: Emotions, lost connection, death, being told by some jackass that it's a ghost and personifying a noise so you can identify with it. I wonder, in a world where a child is not told about ghosts, would they come up with the same silly conclusions? I suspect not, they'd likely make their own conclusions...hence why sun worshipers all played by different rules.
I'd encourage anyone reading this to provide some proof of the supernatural, especially ghosts, but we both know that you won't change how you think because that would require using your brain instead of being a stupid son of a bitch. Not only do two ghost believers never have identical experiences when experiencing them in the same place and time (so say goodbye to repeatability) but every single 'tool' used by ghost hunters is designed to measure something else! So electro-meters, thermometers and etc measure the thing they were designed to measure, not fucking ghosts. Further, there is no reason to believe that these things would be observable changes to the environment caused by a ghost.
Any photographed ghost is likely a fake, double exposure or some kind of dust (see: orbs). As I've said before, if ghosts exist and if they are trying to get in touch with or simply just fuck with us, WHAT BETTER TIME THAN WHEN WE ARE LOOKING? Either ghosts have some amazing union or something and have amazing plans with which to mess with people of low intelligence, succumbing to hysteria or living in CO rich places or, applying Occam's Razor, they don't exist.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
It's been a while
Firstly, I was right. I was completely and totally right- exoplanet searches are for morons. Seriously less than a month after Gliese 581 was declared to have a planet in the so called "Goldilocks Zone" there is already a dispute about the 11 years of data. Why? Because you can't make solid assertions from looking at the wobble and flickering of a star millions of light years away. It's basically a bunch of systematic hand waving leading to whatever interpretation you want, in stark contrast to making a direct observation and getting a nice data point. I will now classify this crap as pseudoscience.
For some more coolness, how about that sexual selection eh?
These two lovely treats along with Mojoceratops should be enough to show that sexual selection can drive things to be maladaptive and outright nutty in evolutionary terms.
Finally, and this is really damn cool, a salamander that appears to photosynthesize to get some of its food, especially in ovo. Kind of a head scratcher as vertebrate immune systems don't get along so well with symbiosis, but if any group could do it, of course it's the caudates. They are so flexible, after all.
For some more coolness, how about that sexual selection eh?
These two lovely treats along with Mojoceratops should be enough to show that sexual selection can drive things to be maladaptive and outright nutty in evolutionary terms.
Finally, and this is really damn cool, a salamander that appears to photosynthesize to get some of its food, especially in ovo. Kind of a head scratcher as vertebrate immune systems don't get along so well with symbiosis, but if any group could do it, of course it's the caudates. They are so flexible, after all.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Exo planets and things I don't understand
Here
Okay, so the drake equation.
Lets talk about why this, astrobiology and theoretical physics piss me off beyond all belief.
So the article I linked basically says that bully planets (see: jupiter/ shit ruining gravity wells on neighboring planets) as well as non circular orbits in many of the recognized exo planets means that the drake equation takes a smack to the balls once again. My opinion? Big freaking deal. The drake equation is overrated.
Firstly, exo planets are found by the light blinking from a star and they are only able to find certain ones at certain distances and blah blah, SOMEHOW they figure out orbits of these planets using 50 million year old light (no chance of distortion in there, right?) but the best pictures of Pluto are, to be honest, exceptionally shitty to date. Something doesn't add up in my mind- there HAS to be a huge margin of error, so to say things as definitively as I am reading them seems a bit extreme.
So lets discuss the impact on the Drake Equation. Yes, the Drake Equation gets kicked in the head. It basically calculates life = liquid water. Yep, that's pretty much it. I understand it's important, but what happens when/if they find life on Mars (which seems likely at this point) or, further to the point, life as we DON'T know it? I'm certain there's a reason we are carbon based and using DNA, but it's equally plausible to use the more volatile RNA and perhaps some other carbon-like base. Life would evolve faster, like viruses, which is always a bonus (but there are some other drawbacks from the less stable RNA).
So is the Drake Equation really reasonable to base all extraterrestrial life probability calculations on? I doubt it. Does it mean it's without use? It helps for liquid water, sure, and this discovery/assertion/whatever you wanna call it means that it's less likely liquid water is as pervasive as we'd hoped or thought.
So I guess an interesting article makes me pissed off because the science behind it is a little retarded. Much like theoretical physics- Einstein makes some assertions, right or wrong, and apparently it's taken at face value. Many hypothesis' have apparently found contradictory evidence to some of Einsteins ideas but had to ditch their hypothesis or alter it to dance around it. Well, suck on this, relativity. So basically theoretical physics makes assumptions on assumptions. GOOD WORK, jackasses. It's like a black hole of stupidity.
How about Astrobiology, the BEST field of science EVER. Basically they say "well, there could be life here but we can't check right now." From here, it's completely scientifically reasonable to make assumptions about how the life is, looks and survives. What a fantastic field, total real life applications and completely testable, if you have several billion dollars and like 20 years of space flight to kill. I can't believe people make a living with this crap, it's like people shitting right in the bed and then having sex with it.
Okay, so the drake equation.
Lets talk about why this, astrobiology and theoretical physics piss me off beyond all belief.
So the article I linked basically says that bully planets (see: jupiter/ shit ruining gravity wells on neighboring planets) as well as non circular orbits in many of the recognized exo planets means that the drake equation takes a smack to the balls once again. My opinion? Big freaking deal. The drake equation is overrated.
Firstly, exo planets are found by the light blinking from a star and they are only able to find certain ones at certain distances and blah blah, SOMEHOW they figure out orbits of these planets using 50 million year old light (no chance of distortion in there, right?) but the best pictures of Pluto are, to be honest, exceptionally shitty to date. Something doesn't add up in my mind- there HAS to be a huge margin of error, so to say things as definitively as I am reading them seems a bit extreme.
So lets discuss the impact on the Drake Equation. Yes, the Drake Equation gets kicked in the head. It basically calculates life = liquid water. Yep, that's pretty much it. I understand it's important, but what happens when/if they find life on Mars (which seems likely at this point) or, further to the point, life as we DON'T know it? I'm certain there's a reason we are carbon based and using DNA, but it's equally plausible to use the more volatile RNA and perhaps some other carbon-like base. Life would evolve faster, like viruses, which is always a bonus (but there are some other drawbacks from the less stable RNA).
So is the Drake Equation really reasonable to base all extraterrestrial life probability calculations on? I doubt it. Does it mean it's without use? It helps for liquid water, sure, and this discovery/assertion/whatever you wanna call it means that it's less likely liquid water is as pervasive as we'd hoped or thought.
So I guess an interesting article makes me pissed off because the science behind it is a little retarded. Much like theoretical physics- Einstein makes some assertions, right or wrong, and apparently it's taken at face value. Many hypothesis' have apparently found contradictory evidence to some of Einsteins ideas but had to ditch their hypothesis or alter it to dance around it. Well, suck on this, relativity. So basically theoretical physics makes assumptions on assumptions. GOOD WORK, jackasses. It's like a black hole of stupidity.
How about Astrobiology, the BEST field of science EVER. Basically they say "well, there could be life here but we can't check right now." From here, it's completely scientifically reasonable to make assumptions about how the life is, looks and survives. What a fantastic field, total real life applications and completely testable, if you have several billion dollars and like 20 years of space flight to kill. I can't believe people make a living with this crap, it's like people shitting right in the bed and then having sex with it.
Monday, May 24, 2010
The cell's synth band
I think more hype was needed for the synthetic DNA in the bacterium reproducing to make another one of itself. It's a big deal and you can find info about it, but what SHOULD have been said was that it provides a great push forward on the front line in eradicating anyone who subscribes to "God of the Gaps" mentality. Yes, I am aware it's not creation from nothing, yet. It's part of the process, a stepwise march towards creating life from non life. It means there isn't one less refuge for GotG's, but certainly one of their larger ones has had the century long entrenchment stormed and then raped: after all, this is the production of the first fully synthetic life form, even if we did hijack a non synthetic to do it.
It's not something that astonishing or surprising to me. The species, Mycoplasma genitalium, only has about 480 genes. Things are explained nicely in this short essay. I mean, yes it was expensive and took a shitload of effort and time, but it's not as if it was done with a more complex organism (infact, it was done with the least complex bacterium). The only thing it really shows is that it's possible to synthesize a functional genome, most likely made up primarily of genes that were ripped off from other places. To me, it's like an infant taking its first step and then looking confusedly at the reaction. Still, if I were a creationist, I'd be terrified. It means the ignorance is in its twilight, unless people are truly this horrible. Wait, what am I saying, I know this is exactly the case- indoctrination can be so extreme you can SHOW them evolution and they'll still disbelieve.
okay, other exciting news in Paleo!
Narrowing down the scope and cause of the Devonian extinction.
Kind of important, considering the observed bottleneck of vertebrate evolution at this time. I've heard something similar for the end Cretaceous extinction, lower species diversification means you're basically up shit creek with a phobia of shit.
Early birds couldn't fly.
Not surprisingly, the feathers preserved in Archaeopteryx and Confuiciousornis aren't just impressions. Hell, this here should tidy things up in your mind. Anyways, it shows that they weren't strong enough for flight. This gives more evidence, in my mind, that it was for display purposes. Keep in mind this doesn't do anything for the ancestry of birds, just honing in a little more on where/when they flew first.
Humans and Neanderthals interbred.
If you still disagree with this, all I can suggest is that you stop being a fucking idiot. The neanderthal genome was cracked a while back, the writing is in the genes (and on the wall).
Burgess Shale in morocco
This is important as it shows that many of the lineages made it into the Ordovician and should highlight to everyone that there is still a strong bias in the fossil record (as if the Coelacanth didn't already do that).
No fucking kidding.
To test the fundamental ideas, or at least reconsider them, basic to the most pervasive theory in biological sciences. Yep, that's science at work! Pretty much uses parsimony, occam's razor and a computer to point out rather convincingly that, statistically and speaking in terms of probability, creationists are and always will be completely retarded.
More evidence for microevolution, this time in gods perfect creation!
BUT GOD MADE THEM THAT WAY
Yeah mudskippers too, but science PREDICTS these things (as well as the age and location of Tiktaalik roseae) whereas creation goes "well they are here, lets just say god did it." A PERFECT example of using observation and prediction to accurately make a hypothesis/theory where something like this doesn't gum up the works versus knowing the answer to everything ever before the question is even asked.
phew, exhaustive and bitter, that's how I like my science.
It's not something that astonishing or surprising to me. The species, Mycoplasma genitalium, only has about 480 genes. Things are explained nicely in this short essay. I mean, yes it was expensive and took a shitload of effort and time, but it's not as if it was done with a more complex organism (infact, it was done with the least complex bacterium). The only thing it really shows is that it's possible to synthesize a functional genome, most likely made up primarily of genes that were ripped off from other places. To me, it's like an infant taking its first step and then looking confusedly at the reaction. Still, if I were a creationist, I'd be terrified. It means the ignorance is in its twilight, unless people are truly this horrible. Wait, what am I saying, I know this is exactly the case- indoctrination can be so extreme you can SHOW them evolution and they'll still disbelieve.
okay, other exciting news in Paleo!
Narrowing down the scope and cause of the Devonian extinction.
Kind of important, considering the observed bottleneck of vertebrate evolution at this time. I've heard something similar for the end Cretaceous extinction, lower species diversification means you're basically up shit creek with a phobia of shit.
Early birds couldn't fly.
Not surprisingly, the feathers preserved in Archaeopteryx and Confuiciousornis aren't just impressions. Hell, this here should tidy things up in your mind. Anyways, it shows that they weren't strong enough for flight. This gives more evidence, in my mind, that it was for display purposes. Keep in mind this doesn't do anything for the ancestry of birds, just honing in a little more on where/when they flew first.
Humans and Neanderthals interbred.
If you still disagree with this, all I can suggest is that you stop being a fucking idiot. The neanderthal genome was cracked a while back, the writing is in the genes (and on the wall).
Burgess Shale in morocco
This is important as it shows that many of the lineages made it into the Ordovician and should highlight to everyone that there is still a strong bias in the fossil record (as if the Coelacanth didn't already do that).
No fucking kidding.
To test the fundamental ideas, or at least reconsider them, basic to the most pervasive theory in biological sciences. Yep, that's science at work! Pretty much uses parsimony, occam's razor and a computer to point out rather convincingly that, statistically and speaking in terms of probability, creationists are and always will be completely retarded.
More evidence for microevolution, this time in gods perfect creation!
BUT GOD MADE THEM THAT WAY
Yeah mudskippers too, but science PREDICTS these things (as well as the age and location of Tiktaalik roseae) whereas creation goes "well they are here, lets just say god did it." A PERFECT example of using observation and prediction to accurately make a hypothesis/theory where something like this doesn't gum up the works versus knowing the answer to everything ever before the question is even asked.
phew, exhaustive and bitter, that's how I like my science.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
the coffin made of nails
Lets talk for a moment about creationism. Now, you can call this and that a nail in the coffin, but at one point the theory with more pieces of evidence than any other theory (if you are a retard, there is a difference between hypothesis and theory) becomes a coffin made of nails, stuffed to the gills, so to speak, with evidence. Just as an aside: As we SHOULD recall, a theory holds a ton more water than a hypothesis. An example of a hypothesis is creationism- no real evidence (yet) backing an idea that has been proposed.
One thing harped on by creation over and over is a missing link. Tiktaalik, Eusthenopteron, Archaeopteryx and Australopithecus are all missing links that have fallen prey to Scientific naming. What I mean by this is quite simple. Once you give a proper name to a species in the fossil record it creates two more gaps. The fossil record cannot record every single animal ever. So, a time to strike comes, burying the opposition and forever ruining that argument once and for all. My proposal is the following: Australopithecus sediba, a smoking gun that is exactly where it needs to be morphologically and chronologically to be a perfect missing link between ape-like hominoids and hominids, should not be named. It should be called a missing link and not assigned a proper specific epithet. Of course, it already has, but that should be rescinded and stripped. This animal should be called THE human missing link. In one fell swoop you would demolish a pivotal creationist crutch of "show me a missing link" (which we do, but they are babies in need of spoon feeding) and basically sucker punch them with their highly touted soul-bearing original-sin garabge Humanity.
It's a sad day when this has to be suggested. You know, with a seamless fossil record, you would actually have to call things transitional. In a cascading series of skeletons from point A to B, the 50% mark on the line between them must be called transitional- you cannot assign a species name to that if you are not a douche bag. A perfect 50/50 split, like our nice hominid based on 2 complete skeletons (not fragmentary shit), would have to be transitional. You could even have put these two in the genus Homo
...that's how close it is.
Count on arky/anthro to FUCK things up again.
One thing harped on by creation over and over is a missing link. Tiktaalik, Eusthenopteron, Archaeopteryx and Australopithecus are all missing links that have fallen prey to Scientific naming. What I mean by this is quite simple. Once you give a proper name to a species in the fossil record it creates two more gaps. The fossil record cannot record every single animal ever. So, a time to strike comes, burying the opposition and forever ruining that argument once and for all. My proposal is the following: Australopithecus sediba, a smoking gun that is exactly where it needs to be morphologically and chronologically to be a perfect missing link between ape-like hominoids and hominids, should not be named. It should be called a missing link and not assigned a proper specific epithet. Of course, it already has, but that should be rescinded and stripped. This animal should be called THE human missing link. In one fell swoop you would demolish a pivotal creationist crutch of "show me a missing link" (which we do, but they are babies in need of spoon feeding) and basically sucker punch them with their highly touted soul-bearing original-sin garabge Humanity.
It's a sad day when this has to be suggested. You know, with a seamless fossil record, you would actually have to call things transitional. In a cascading series of skeletons from point A to B, the 50% mark on the line between them must be called transitional- you cannot assign a species name to that if you are not a douche bag. A perfect 50/50 split, like our nice hominid based on 2 complete skeletons (not fragmentary shit), would have to be transitional. You could even have put these two in the genus Homo
...that's how close it is.
Count on arky/anthro to FUCK things up again.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Science shocks again.
Everyone seems to be loving this
Wow, big shock, small predators in the cretaceous were scavengers too! Honestly, the fact this this is even news is beyond me. The amount of tooth-marked bone I've seen in my short career is quite enough to make this not an issue. OH WOW, some broken teeth were found associated that match some teeth marks! Mundane, expected, who cares. Predators do as predators are.
Racism: Turns out I'm right to call differences. As if my two readers didn't already know it.
Anyways, this isn't impressive because once again I'm correct, but it's impressive because of the implications. I know I'm waaaay behind the ball on this, and that's my fault, for not giving a shit about bacteria or genetics. However, the fact that gene swapping can apparently happen between unrelated and un-mating bacteria is pretty impressive.
Holy shit science fucked up, again, this proves jesus
Don't flip out cause a 2 meter varanid was found in a populated area. It hardly comes to the ground and apparently sticks to the trees. What I find most impressive about this is that it is a frugivore. All the other varanids, including its close relative the komodo, had better be calling it fruity.
You'd think this is the coolest of news this month, but it's not.
Yet another nail in the coffin. By now, the creationist coffin has to be MADE of nails. Does a 'missing link' get any better? Half the experts want it in the genus Homo, half in Australopithecus, yet it has to land somewhere. The traits support it as a total transition form, at a predicted time for it (2MYA) which is a time only known from fragments til now and sought after as the time that ape turned into man, so to speak.
No matter what happens, this fellow and his equally complete mommy from near Johannesburg, South Africa, will need a genus, thusly conveniently creating yet another gap instead of rightfully filling one.
Now for the BIG BIG news
Metazoans: Turns out, Oxygen isn't our crutch after all.
Okay, so it's a crutch for all but like 1 or 2 species so far. Either way, the fact that anoxic real estate is inhabited metazoans and not just bacteria is MASSIVE. Imagine the implications for the history of the Earth!!!!!!
Okay, I know it's a lame post but get off my jock, I'm sure the 2 readers can deal with it.
Wow, big shock, small predators in the cretaceous were scavengers too! Honestly, the fact this this is even news is beyond me. The amount of tooth-marked bone I've seen in my short career is quite enough to make this not an issue. OH WOW, some broken teeth were found associated that match some teeth marks! Mundane, expected, who cares. Predators do as predators are.
Racism: Turns out I'm right to call differences. As if my two readers didn't already know it.
Anyways, this isn't impressive because once again I'm correct, but it's impressive because of the implications. I know I'm waaaay behind the ball on this, and that's my fault, for not giving a shit about bacteria or genetics. However, the fact that gene swapping can apparently happen between unrelated and un-mating bacteria is pretty impressive.
Holy shit science fucked up, again, this proves jesus
Don't flip out cause a 2 meter varanid was found in a populated area. It hardly comes to the ground and apparently sticks to the trees. What I find most impressive about this is that it is a frugivore. All the other varanids, including its close relative the komodo, had better be calling it fruity.
You'd think this is the coolest of news this month, but it's not.
Yet another nail in the coffin. By now, the creationist coffin has to be MADE of nails. Does a 'missing link' get any better? Half the experts want it in the genus Homo, half in Australopithecus, yet it has to land somewhere. The traits support it as a total transition form, at a predicted time for it (2MYA) which is a time only known from fragments til now and sought after as the time that ape turned into man, so to speak.
No matter what happens, this fellow and his equally complete mommy from near Johannesburg, South Africa, will need a genus, thusly conveniently creating yet another gap instead of rightfully filling one.
Now for the BIG BIG news
Metazoans: Turns out, Oxygen isn't our crutch after all.
Okay, so it's a crutch for all but like 1 or 2 species so far. Either way, the fact that anoxic real estate is inhabited metazoans and not just bacteria is MASSIVE. Imagine the implications for the history of the Earth!!!!!!
Okay, I know it's a lame post but get off my jock, I'm sure the 2 readers can deal with it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)