Heaving Dead Cats » Science

God Thinks Like You and He Personally Cares For You, Plus a Video To Cheer You Up

Neece — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:40:19 +0000

I have 2 studies to share with you then a video to cheer you up afterwards.

The first paper is titled ‘Believers’ estimates of God’s beliefs are more egocentric than estimates of other people’s beliefs’. It found through a series of 7 studies and surveys that people believe that god has the same beliefs that they have. Here is what they concluded:

The researchers noted that people often set their moral compasses according to what they presume to be God’s standards. ”The central feature of a compass, however, is that it points north no matter what direction a person is facing,” they conclude. “This research suggests that, unlike an actual compass, inferences about God’s beliefs may instead point people further in whatever direction they are already facing.”

Isn’t that convenient? It certainly explains how god can hate all the same people they hate, and basically agree with them about everything. It’s like knowing your dad will let you do whatever you want because he thinks just like you. It’s a license to act any way you like, with your god’s blessing.

Also, are you sure people set their compass according to god’s standards? Maybe instead they set god’s compass to theirs. That would be interesting to find out, although I don’t know how you’d do it.

The second paper is titled ‘Socioeconomic Status and Beliefs about God’s Influence in Everyday Life.’ It used data from two recent national surveys of Americans to examine people’s beliefs about god’s involvement and influence in their lives. Here are some of the findings:

Overall, most people believe that God is highly influential in the events and outcomes in their lives. Specifically:

82 per cent say they depend on God for help and guidance in making decisions;
71 per cent believe that when good or bad things happen, these occurrences are simply part of God’s plan for them;
61 per cent believe that God has determined the direction and course of their lives;
32 per cent agree with the statement: “There is no sense in planning a lot because ultimately my fate is in God’s hands.”
Overall, people who have more education and higher income are less likely to report beliefs in divine intervention.
However, among the well-educated and higher earners, those who are more involved in religious rituals share similar levels of beliefs about divine intervention as their less-educated and less financially well-off peers.

According to Schieman: “Many of us might assume that people of higher social class standing tend to reject beliefs about divine intervention. However, my findings indicate that while this is true among those less committed to religious life, it is not the case for people who are more committed to religious participation and rituals.”

82% depend on god to help them make decisions! That is incredibly disturbing to me. It’s one thing to ask your friend for advice in helping you decide something important. That person is REAL. It’s another thing to ask an invisible fantasy man for help. But according to the previous study, you’re just doing whatever you like because god thinks like you. Right?

Doesn’t this get a person off the hook, decrease their need for personal responsibility, if they can just say it’s all god’s doing? And isn’t it all incredibly delusional? Religious people who think god is personally involved in their daily lives must be the most adept people at cherry-picking information. They are great at seeing only the hits where chance makes it look like the sky daddy is helping them, and ignoring the millions of misses where their furtive pleas to god go unanswered.

So here is a video which might give you a bit of hope.

The internet: where religions come to die (almost 11 minutes). Some of it is exceedingly creepy and depressing, but it has a happy ending.

Some Recent Scientific Studies

Neece — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 01:59:01 +0000

As you may have guessed, I love science. I thought I’d share some studies that have been recently published that seem interesting.

First, we’ll start with Norway. They took a novel approach to dealing with staph infections. They drastically reduced their use of antibiotics. Some time ago I talked a bit about refraining from using antibacterial soaps which are harmful to you and those you love. Anyway, Norway is now the most infection-free country in the world. And they did it by reducing their use of antibiotics.

Midday Naps boost your learning capacity! Good news for those of us able to catch a few ZZZ’s during the day. New research from the University of California, Berkeley, shows that an hour’s nap can dramatically boost and restore your brain power. Indeed, the findings suggest that a biphasic sleep schedule not only refreshes the mind, but can make you smarter.

Few professionals keep current with what’s going on in their field. This is disturbing but not surprising.

Nanotechnology creates a way to cheaply and efficiently make lightweight paper and fabric batteries, store energy, and still be stretchable! (I love me some nanotech) These are known as eTextiles. Imagine energy-storing wallpaper, charging your portables on the go by plugging them into your shirt. How about moving display clothing, high performance sportswear and wearable power for soldiers? Groovy!

Biogas may be even better than previously thought. Biogas from refuse produces 95 per cent less greenhouse gas emissions than gasoline, according to a new research report. With a few simple improvements to the biogas plants, the figure can rise to 120 per cent — i.e. biogas becomes more than climate neutral. This can be compared with the standard figures used today, which indicate that biogas produces 80 per cent lower emissions than gasoline.

An inexpensive, fast, accurate DNA test that reveals a person’s risk of developing certain diseases is expected to become a reality. Scientists have developed a method of pinpointing variations in a person’s genetic code at critical points along the DNA chain. The technique could be used to analyze DNA in a drop of saliva.

While research over the past couple of years is showing that taking vitamins may be more harmful than beneficial (get your nutrients in your food!), a large survey study finds that middle aged and elderly people with high levels of vitamin D could reduce their chances of developing heart disease or diabetes by 43%. Vitamin D is a fat-soluble vitamin that is naturally present in some foods and is also produced when ultraviolet rays from sunlight strike the skin and trigger vitamin D synthesis. Fish such as salmon, tuna and mackerel are good sources of vitamin D.

More about Vitamin D:Vitamin D is quickly becoming the “it” nutrient with health benefits for diseases, including cancer, osteoporosis, heart disease and now diabetes.

How about this? Scorpion venom could be an alternative to morphine, with no side effects!

Routine Driving, even for experienced drivers, increases the chances of accidents. The findings of the study show that the brain is more active and reacts more along unfamiliar routes. When the test persons became familiar with the routes, the activity of their brains became less; this was the case for both the experienced and inexperienced drivers. This means that drivers drive on familiar routes without consciously orientating themselves.

A Brain-controlled cursor doubles as a neural network. Scientists have found that watching a cursor respond to one’s thoughts prompts brain signals to become stronger than those generated in day-to-day life. The finding holds promise for rehabilitating patients after stroke or other neurological damage. It also suggests that a human brain could quickly become adept at manipulating an external device such as a computer interface or a prosthetic limb.

So there you go, some recent random studies from the scientific world.

I’m Curious!

Neece — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 02:56:59 +0000

The other day I shared my favorite podcasts, one of which was the SGU. Well, I just found a new one! From Skepchick.org with Rebecca Watson comes a new podcast called Curiosity Aroused. There’s one episode up now which is about calorie restriction for long life. The episode is about 20 minutes long and you can subscribe through iTunes.

In the first episode, they talk to Monica Reinagel who is pretty neat in her own right. She’s a nutrition expert and through her short podcast and blog she helps weed through the hype and nonsense of nutrition. As a person who wonders what is fact and what is bullshit when it comes to food, diet and the like, it’s very cool to find a resource for good information.

Here are her sites:

www.nutritiondata.com: her blog is on here along with a wealth of information.

http://nutritiondiva.quickanddirtytips.com/: Her podcasts are on here. If you go to listen or read and episode, you can then find the link to iTunes to subscribe and get them all. They are each about 5 minutes long.

Do you have any great resources for good nutrition and diet that are based in science and research? Please feel free to share!

Podcasts and Internet Radio Stations You May Enjoy

Neece — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 14:02:18 +0000

Want to expand your mind and be entertained at the same time? Here are a list of podcasts and radio shows you can listen to online or on your iPod through iTunes. Most of these are scientific/ skeptical in nature, but I’ve thrown in 2 religious ones because they are both excellent.

My Favorites:

SGU: The Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe and a 5 minute weekly podcast at the same place; SGU 5×5: a weekly Science podcast produced by the New England Skeptical Society (NESS) in association with the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) : discussing the latest news and topics from the world of the paranormal, fringe science, and controversial claims from a scientific point of view.
Scientific American’s Science Talk (they have other podcasts here): Join host Steve Mirsky each week as he explores the latest developments in science & technology through interviews.
Reasonable Doubts (Your Skeptical Guide to Religion): A special focus on counter-apologetics. They provide detailed counter-points to the fallacious logic and blatant misinformation used by religious apologists when attempting to discredit skepticism and provide rational arguments for their dogmas. They also defend the sufficiency of reason, science and naturalistic philosophies to provide a satisfactory and morally compelling understanding of the cosmos, human nature, art and culture. They try to do this all with fair-mindedness and humor. Winner of the Peoples Choice Podcast Award for best religious/inspirational podcast of 2009
The Naked Scientists and another podcast, Ask the Naked Scientists: The Naked Scientists are a group of physicians and researchers from Cambridge University who use radio, live lectures, and the Internet to strip science down to its bare essentials, and promote it to the general public. Each week, listeners of all ages and backgrounds tune in on a Sunday evening to hear creator Dr. Chris Smith, together with his entertaining scientist sidekicks, interview renowned scientists and researchers from all over the world and take science questions on any subject live from the listening public.
StarTalk with Neil DeGrasse Tyson: a radio show devoted to all things space and is hosted by renowned astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson.
Mr. Deity (video, not podcast, but you can subscribe through iTunes): a webshow that looks at the every-day life of the creator and everything he must endure as he attempts to manage his creation.

My friend and fellow science lover Brent sent me a list of his favorites as well, which is actually what sparked this post:

The Center for Inquiry’s Point of Inquiry: Point of Inquiry explores CFI’s three research areas:
- Pseudoscience and the paranormal (Bigfoot, UFOs, psychics, communication with the dead, cryptozoology, etc.)
- Alternative medicine (faith healing, homeopathy, “healing touch,” the efficacy of prayer, etc.)
- Religion, humanism, and secularism (church-state separation, the effects and proper role of religion in society, the future of secularism and nonbelief, etc.)
  Rotating hosts Chris Mooney, Karen Stollznow, and Robert Price bring engaging and thought-provoking interviews and commentary on a broad range of topics to each episode of Point of Inquiry.
NPR’s Science Friday: A weekly radio talk show on NPR from 2-4pm on Fridays. Each week, they focus on science topics that are in the news and try to bring an educated, balanced discussion to bear on the scientific issues at hand. Panels of expert guests join Science Friday’s host, Ira Flatow, a veteran science journalist, to discuss science – and to take questions from listeners during the call-in portion of the program.
Groks Science Radio Show and Podcast: a weekly science radio program and podcast produced in Chicago, USA and Tokyo, Japan. The show broadcasts on radio stations across the country and can also be heard as a podcast. Each week, the hosts, Dr. Charles Lee and Dr. Frank Ling, take an in-depth look at recent events in the world of science and technology, and examine the effects of recent discoveries on our daily lives.
Each episode features an interview with a leading scientist, researcher, or industrialist discussing stimulating work in their field. The show often includes a humorous and entertaining segment; plus the world famous question of the week!
IEET: Changesurfer Radio: a weekly, syndicated public affairs radio show transmitting a sexy, high-tech vision of a radically democratic future
Fast Forward Radio: A convergence of emerging technologies and emerging possibilities is at the heart of this, the greatest period of transformation in human history. Our world is changing in ways that are hard to predict…sometimes even hard to imagine. FastForward Radio is your guide to an astounding future that lies ahead — and that will be here sooner than you think!

Feel free to contribute your favorites!

Liquid Glass Is Groovy!

Neece — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:03:13 +0000

Happy Darwin Day everyone! Today is Darwin’s birthday and in honor of him, I thought I’d post this article about Liquid Glass, which could possibly be the coolest nanotech material I’ve seen in some time. I think it’s so cool mainly because of its versatility and the fact that it’s already in use in Germany, the UK and Turkey.

Why am I talking about nanotech on Darwin’s birthday? If you think about it, without evolution, we wouldn’t be able to manipulate our world so deftly and with such finesse. About 195,000 years ago homo sapiens first appeared in the fossil record. We started leaving Africa about 70,000 years ago, and migrated as far as the Americas 14,500 years ago.

A mere 10,000 years ago, we were mostly hunter-gatherers in nomadic groups. The first proto-states were developed only 6,000 years ago. Think of that! Look how far we’ve come in such a short time!

Think of how we lived just 100 years ago in 1910.

By 1910 many suburban homes were wired up with power and new electronic gadgets.
Vacuum cleaners and washing machines had just become commercially available, though still expensive for middle class folks
The telephone was new, and millions of American homes were connected by manual switchboard
People relied on the paper for their news, but radio technology was in its infancy
The age of the airship was in full swing. Only 7 years previously, the Wright brothers had flown at Kitty Hawk
Henry Ford introduced the Model T 2 years before and sold about 10,000 of them this year
Advances in the use of gases meant the first electric refrigerators and air conditioning units.
Neon lighting was debuted in Paris
Inventions included: escalators, teabags, cellophane, instant coffee and disposable razor blades
Women still had another 3 years of corsets

Things they didn’t have in 1910:

stainless steel
zippers
the modern bra
the modern band-aid
the pop-up toaster
sliced bread

But let’s get back to Liquid Glass. You spray it on. It’s transparent, non-toxic and can protect virtually any surface against almost any damage from hazards such as water, UV radiation, dirt, heat and bacterial infections. It’s flexible and breathable, which means it can be used on all kinds of products.

The liquid glass spray (technically termed “SiO2 ultra-thin layering”) consists of almost pure silicon dioxide (silica, the normal compound in glass) extracted from quartz sand. Water or ethanol is added, depending on the type of surface to be coated. There are no additives, and the nano-scale glass coating bonds to the surface because of the quantum forces involved. According to the manufacturers, liquid glass has a long-lasting antibacterial effect because microbes landing on the surface cannot divide or replicate easily.

Liquid glass was invented in Turkey and the patent is held by Nanopool, a family-owned German company. Research on the product was carried out at the Saarbrücken Institute for New Materials. Nanopool is already in negotiations in the UK with a number of companies and with the National Health Service, with a view to its widespread adoption.

The liquid glass spray produces a water-resistant coating only around 100 nanometers (15-30 molecules) thick. On this nanoscale the glass is highly flexible and breathable. The coating is environmentally harmless and non-toxic, and easy to clean using only water or a simple wipe with a damp cloth. It repels bacteria, water and dirt, and resists heat, UV light and even acids. UK project manager with Nanopool, Neil McClelland, said soon almost every product you purchase will be coated with liquid glass.

Food processing companies in Germany have already carried out trials of the spray, and found sterile surfaces that usually needed to be cleaned with strong bleach to keep them sterile needed only a hot water rinse if they were coated with liquid glass. The levels of sterility were higher for the glass-coated surfaces, and the surfaces remained sterile for months.

Other organizations, such as a train company and a hotel chain in the UK, and a hamburger chain in Germany, are also testing liquid glass for a wide range of uses. A year-long trial of the spray in a Lancashire hospital also produced “very promising” results for a range of applications including coatings for equipment, medical implants, catheters, sutures and bandages. The war graves association in the UK is investigating using the spray to treat stone monuments and grave stones, since trials have shown the coating protects against weathering and graffiti. Trials in Turkey are testing the product on monuments such as the Ataturk Mausoleum in Ankara.

The liquid glass coating is breathable, which means it can be used on plants and seeds. Trials in vineyards have found spraying vines increases their resistance to fungal diseases, while other tests have shown sprayed seeds germinate and grow faster than untreated seeds, and coated wood is not attacked by termites. Other vineyard applications include coating corks with liquid glass to prevent “corking” and contamination of wine. The spray cannot be seen by the naked eye, which means it could also be used to treat clothing and other materials to make them stain-resistant. McClelland said you can “pour a bottle of wine over an expensive silk shirt and it will come right off”.

In the home, spray-on glass would eliminate the need for scrubbing and make most cleaning products obsolete. Since it is available in both water-based and alcohol-based solutions, it can be used in the oven, in bathrooms, tiles, sinks, and almost every other surface in the home, and one spray is said to last a year.

Liquid glass spray is perhaps the most important nanotechnology product to emerge to date. It will be available in DIY stores in Britain soon, with prices starting at around £5 ($8 US). Other outlets, such as many supermarkets, may be unwilling to stock the products because they make enormous profits from cleaning products that need to be replaced regularly, and liquid glass would make virtually all of them obsolete.

Thanks, PhysOrg

A bit more info on it:

The flexible and breathable glass coating is approximately 100 nanometres thick (500 times thinner than a human hair), and so it is completely undetectable. It is food safe, environmentally friendly (winner of the Green Apple Award) and it can be applied to almost any surface within seconds . When coated, all surfaces become easy to clean and anti-microbially protected (Winner of the NHS Smart Solutions Award ). Houses, cars, ovens, wedding dress or any other protected surface become stain resistant and can be easily cleaned with water ; no cleaning chemicals are required. Amazingly a 30 second DIY application to a sink unit will last for a year or years, depending on how often it is used. But it does not stop there – the coatings are now also recognised as being suitable for agricultural and in-vivo application. Vines coated with SiO2 don’t suffer from mildew, and coated seeds grow more rapidly without the need for anti-fungal chemicals. This will result in farmers in enjoying massively increased yields.

…The really clever part is that there are no added nano-particles , resins or additives- the coatings form and bond due to quantum forces. Our research informs us that in all probability, we offer the most versatile coating in the world. This technology is now available for domestic use in Germany. Full scale retail availability in the UK will commence in early 2010.

Nanopool

Evolution Before Darwin

Neece — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:42:24 +0000

Contrary to many assumptions, evolutionary theory did not begin in 1859 with Charles Darwin and The Origin Of Species" target="_blank">The Origin of Species. Rather, evolution-like ideas had existed since the times of the Greeks, and had been in and out of favor in the periods between ancient Greece and Victorian England. Indeed, by Darwin’s time the idea of evolution – called “descent with modification” – was not especially controversial, and several other evolutionary theories had already been proposed. Darwin may stand at the beginning of a modern tradition, but he is also the final culmination of an ancient speculation.

Evolution in Greece

While the Greeks did not specifically refer to their concepts as “evolution”, they did have a philosophical notion of descent with modification. Several different Greek philosophers subscribed to a concept of origination, arguing that all things originated from water or air. Another common concept was the idea that all things descended from one central, guiding principle.

Thales ( 624 – 546 BCE): asserted that all things originated from water.
Anaximander (610 – 546 BCE): With his assertion that physical forces, rather than supernatural means, create order in the universe, Anaximander can be considered the first scientist. He is known to have conducted the earliest recorded scientific experiment. He suggested that living beings gradually developed from moisture with warmth. He also thought that the first humans were born, fully formed, from the wombs of fish, since they needed care for a long time.
Anaximenes (585 – 528 BCE): Thought air was the principle of all things, and regarded the process as a thinning or thickening.
Empedocles (490 – 430 BCE): Thought that the first creatures were not fully formed but consisted of unconnected limbs. He established the concept of everything in the universe being made up of four elements: fire, air, water and earth, which was the standard for the next two thousand years.
Aristotle (384 – 322 BCE): The Great Chain of Being: He thought there was a transition between the living and the nonliving, and theorized that in all things there is a constant desire to move from the lower to the higher, finally becoming the divine.
Lucretius (99 – 55 BCE): He was the first to suggest extinctions and that the survivors survived by “cunning or speed”.

Medieval Theories

During medieval times, the idea of evolution was quite out of fashion, since the time was dominated by the christian theory of special creation. This idea, which argued that all living things came into existence in unchanging forms due to divine will, was notably in opposition to the concept of evolution.

Medieval thinking was also, oddly enough, confused by the idea of spontaneous generation, which stated that living things can appear fully formed from inorganic matter. In this view, maggots came from rotting meat, frogs came from slime, etc. This sort of a concept prevented both genetic thinking and speculation about evolution or descent with modification. Nevertheless, a few philosophers theorized about some sort of teleological principle by which species might derive from a divine form.

James Ussher – 1581-1656

The traditional Judeo-Christian version of creationism was strongly reinforced by James Ussher, a 17th century Anglican archbishop of Armagh in Northern Ireland. By counting the generations of the Bible and adding them to modern history, he fixed the date of creation at October 23, 4004 B.C. During Ussher’s lifetime, debate focused only on the details of his calculations rather than on the approach. Dr. Charles Lightfoot of Cambridge University in England had the last word. He proclaimed that the time of creation was 9:00 A.M. on October 23, 4004 B.C.

This belief that the earth and life on it are only about 6000 years old fit neatly with the then prevalent theory of the “Great Chain of Being.” This held that God created an infinite and continuous series of life forms, each one grading into the next, from simplest to most complex, and that all organisms, including humans, were created in their present form relatively recently and that they have remained unchanged since then. Given these strongly held beliefs, it is not surprising that 17th and 18th century European biology consisted mainly of the description of plants and animals as they are with virtually no attempt to explain how they got to be that way.

Immanuel Kant – 1724-1804

The German philosopher Immanuel Kant developed a concept of descent that is relatively close to modern thinking; he did in a way anticipate Darwinian thinking. Based on similarities between organisms, Kant speculated that they may have come from a single ancestral source. In a thoroughly modern speculation, he mused that “an orang-outang or a chimpanzee may develop the organs which serve for walking, grasping objects, and speaking-in short, that lie may evolve the structure of man, with an organ for the use of reason, which shall gradually develop itself by social culture”.

Biological Conceptions of Evolution

The preceding discussion has focused on the philosophical components of evolutionary theory, but precursors exist for its biological aspects as well. Indeed, as mentioned above, by Darwin’s time the concept of descent with modification was hardly controversial – it was only the mechanism, the rate of modification, and the ultimate origin of life that were being debated. Darwin’s major breakthrough consisted in providing a plausible mechanism to drive change in organisms.

Carolus Linnaeus – 1707-1778

Carolus Linnaeus, or Carl Linné, is considered the father of modern taxonomy for his work in hierarchical classification of various organisms. At first, he believed in the fixed nature of species, but he was later swayed by hybridization experiments in plants, which could produce new species. However, he maintained his belief in special creation in the Garden of Eden, consistent with the Christian doctrine to which he was quite devoted. He still saw the new species created by plant hybridization to have been part of God’s plan, and never considered the idea of open-ended, undirected evolution not mediated by the divine.

The concept of genus and species was actually developed in the late 1600’s by John Ray, 1627-1705, an English naturalist and ordained minister. However, it was Linnaeus who used this system to name us Homo sapiens (literally, “wise men”). He also placed us in the order Primates (a larger, more inclusive category than our genus) along with all of the apes, monkeys, and prosimians. This was very controversial at the time since it implied that people were part of nature, along with other animals and plants. In addition, it meant that we were biologically closer to the other primates than to all other animals.

Late in the 18th century, a small number of European scientists began to quietly suggest that life forms are not fixed. The French mathematician and naturalist, George Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon, 1707-1788, actually said that living things do change through time. He speculated that this was somehow a result of influences from the environment or even chance. He believed that the earth must be much older than 6000 years. In 1774, in fact, he speculated that the earth must be at least 75,000 years old. He also suggested that humans and apes are related. Buffon was careful to hide his radical views in a limited edition 44 volume natural history book series called Histoire Naturelle (1749-1804). By doing this, he avoided broad public criticism.

Buffon was an early advocate of the Linnaean classification system. He was also a quiet pioneer in asserting that species can change over generations. However, he publicly rejected the idea that species could evolve into other species. One of his most significant contributions to the biological sciences was his insistence that natural phenomena must be explained by natural laws rather than theological doctrine.

Erasmus Darwin – 1731-1802

Charles Darwin’s grandfather Erasmus Darwin was also a distinguished naturalist with his own intriguing ideas about evolution. While he never thought of natural selection, he did argue that all life could a have a single common ancestor, though he struggled with the concepts of a mechanism for this descent. He also discussed the effects of competition and sexual selection on possible changes in species. Like Lamarck, Erasmus Darwin subscribed to a theory stating that the use or disuse of parts could in itself make them grow or shrink, and that unconscious striving by the organism was responsible for adaptation.

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck – 1744-1829

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck’s theory of evolution was a good try for his time, but has now been discredited by experimental evidence and the much more plausible mechanism of modification proposed by Darwin. Lamarck saw species as not being fixed and immutable, but rather in a constantly changing state. He presented a multitude of different theories that he believed combined to explain descent with modification of these changing species.

Lamarck subscribed to a number of what we now know to be false beliefs about inheritance. First, like Erasmus Darwin, he argued for strong effects of the use and disuse of parts, which he thought would make the relevant parts change size or shape in accordance with their use. Second, Lamarck believed that all organisms fundamentally wanted to adapt themselves to their environment, and so they strove to become better adapted. The belief most commonly associated with Lamarck today is his idea of the inheritance of acquired characteristics. This theory stated that an organism could pass on to its offspring any characteristics it had acquired in its lifetime. For example, if a man exercised and thus developed strong muscles, his offspring would then have strong muscles at birth.

George Cuvier - 1769-1832

Lamarck did not invent the idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics but stated it clearly and publicly in an 1809 publication entitled Philosophie Zoologique. It was relatively easy for the French scientist, George Cuvier, and other critics of Lamarck to discredit his theory. If it was correct, the children of cowboys who have developed bowed legs as a result of a lifetime of riding horses would be born with bowed legs as well. That, of course, does not occur. Likewise, the children of professional weight lifters are not born with enlarged muscles.

While Lamarck’s explanation of evolution was incorrect, it is unfair to label him a bad scientist. In fact, he was at the cutting edge of biological research for his time. He and George Cuvier were largely responsible for making biology a distinct branch of science.

Despite his criticism of Lamarck, Cuvier did not reject the idea that there had been earlier life forms. In fact, he was the first scientist to document extinctions of ancient animals and was an internationally respected expert on dinosaurs. However, he rejected the idea that their existence implied that evolution had occurred — he dogmatically maintained the “fixity” of species.

Cuvier advocated the theory of catastrophism, as did most other leading scientists of his day. This held that there have been violent and sudden natural catastrophes such as great floods and the rapid formation of major mountain chains. Plants and animals living in those parts of the world where such events occurred were often killed off according to Cuvier. Then new life forms moved in from other areas. As a result, the fossil record for a region shows abrupt changes in species. Cuvier’s explanation relied solely on scientific evidence rather than biblical interpretation.

A careful examination of European geological deposits in the early 19th century led the English lawyer and geologist, Charles Lyell, 1797-1875, to conclude that Cuvier’s catastrophism theory was wrong. He believed that there primarily have been slower, progressive changes. In his three volume Principles of Geology (1830-1833), Lyell documented the fact that the earth must be very old and that it has been subject to the same sort of natural processes in the past that operate today in shaping the land. These forces include erosion, earthquakes, glacial movements, volcanoes, and even the decomposition of plants and animals.

Lyell provided conclusive evidence for the theory of uniformitarianism, which had been developed originally by the late 18th century Scottish geologist, James Hutton - 1726-1797. This held that the natural forces now changing the shape of the earth’s surface have been operating in the past much the same way. In other words, the present is the key to understanding the past.

This revolutionary idea was instrumental in leading Charles Darwin to his understanding of biological evolution in the 1830’s. However, it was not until the late 19th century that most educated people in the Western world finally rejected the theory of catastrophism in favor of uniformitarianism.

Today, we know that our planet has been shaped by occasional catastrophic events, such as bombardment of large meteors, in addition to the comparatively slower natural processes suggested by uniformitarianism. All of these events have potentially affected the rate and direction of biological evolution.

Thomas Malthus – 1766-1834

Thomas Malthus’ theory of population growth was in the end what inspired Darwin to develop the theory of natural selection. According to Malthus, populations produce many more offspring than can possibly survive on the limited resources generally available. According to Malthus, poverty, famine, and disease were natural outcomes that resulted from overpopulation. However, Malthus believed that divine forces were ultimately responsible for such outcomes, which, though natural, were designed by God.

Robert Grant – 1793-1874

He wrote Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. It argued not only for biological evolution, but chemical and cosmological as well. It was largely scorned and was more of a philosophical work than a scientific one. But it was still very influential on Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace.

Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace

Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace both independently developed the idea of the mechanism of natural selection after reading Thomas Malthus’ Essay on the Principle of Population (1798). However, Darwin had been turning the problem over in his mind for some twenty years before he first published The Origin of Species. Moreover, Darwin was much more willing to explore the implications of natural selection, particularly in relation to humans, than Wallace was. In addition, Wallace was a champion of rather radical social causes and later openly embraced spiritualism – all elements that resulted in the downplay of his role in the discovery of natural selection.

While George Cuvier and Charles Lyell strongly disagreed about how the earth got to be the way it is today, they both rejected the idea of biological evolution. However, neither man accepted a traditional biblical account of creation and a young earth. Cuvier did not live long enough to learn about Charles Darwin’s proof of evolution, but Lyell did. He came to accept this proof in the early 1860’s along with most leading scientists of that time. Lyell also became a friend of Charles Darwin.

Darwin’s Early Ideas

Darwin proposed a few ideas before he came up with natural selection. One was called the Pangenetic hypothesis. It attempted to explain how acquired characteristics worked. This hypothesis proposed that cells produce small particles called pangenes or gemmules which end up in sex cells. When passed on to the offspring, the pangenes are able to exactly reproduce the organ in which they originated.

Another hypothesis by Darwin was the evolution of monads. This hypothesis stated that species adapt and old species are replaced by new ones, so the overall number of species remains the same. Monads arose by spontaneous generation and would evolve to become an ancestral species.

A modification of the monad hypothesis was that if a monad stopped producing new species it would die out.

Sources:

Some Books:

The Origin Of Species by Charles Darwin
Descent of Man by Charles Darwin
Darwiniana – Essays by Thomas Huxley
An Essay on the Principle of Population by Thomas Malthus
The Song of the Dodo: Island Biogeography in an Age of Extinction by David Quammen

Websites:

Timeline of Modern Evolutionary Thought
A History of Evolutionary Thought
The Victorian Web: Evolution
The Complete Works of Charles Darwin Online

A Wild Ride With Robert Sapolsky

Neece — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 11:50:18 +0000

My friend Brent sent me a link to a page on the web. It’s a conversation with Robert Sapolsky, a quiet, funny, apparently brilliant professor of biological sciences at Stanford University and of neurology at Stanford’s School of Medicine. Professor Sapolsky has written several books such as:

The link Brent sent me was called TOXO and he suggested it to me because our book club is reading The God Virus: How religion infects our lives and culture, by Daniel W Ray. Now the video on that page was Robert Sapolsky talking about a most interesting parasite called Toxoplasma. This is what pregnant women need to worry about, and why they avoid cats and cat feces. It can wreak havoc on their unborn baby’s nervous system.

If you read The God Virus, which talks about parasites and viruses as an analogy for religion, I highly recommend watching this video. If you aren’t going to read the book I still recommend the video. The transcript is underneath it too, which will make it even more accessible for you. But the video is longer than the transcript. So take 25 minutes and enjoy it. Here’s another link to the video. I’m telling you, it’s fascinating. As I mentioned, the video is longer than the transcript. He goes into telemeres and molecular age, which I heard a study about recently confirming what he is explaining.

What he’s talking about touches on evolution, common ancestors, parasites and how they go about getting where they need to be, motorcyclists and speed freaks, and schizophrenics, as well as the government’s interest in this parasite. A wild ride indeed!

Of course, as a skeptic, I thought I’d just look around a bit and see who this Sapolsky guy is, since I’d never heard of him. I found his books (linked to above), his Wikipedia page, and a very cool speech he gave to Stanford students about to graduate. It’s about the uniqueness of humans. Here is the Stanford speech:

TED likes him too. Here’s his bio page .

“If a rat is a good model for your emotional life, you’re in big trouble.” Robert Sapolsky

I guess it’s no surprise that he’s an “unbudgeable atheist“. Did I mention he was awarded a MacArthur Genius Grant? But if you watch the videos, you’ll find that he’s fairly easy to understand, so he’s able to teach what he knows, which is awesome.

Oh, and the connection between toxoplasma and schizophrenia? Science Daily has a few studies that I could find:

Cross-posted from Morgantown Atheists

Heaving Dead Cats » Science

God Thinks Like You and He Personally Cares For You, Plus a Video To Cheer You Up

Related posts

Some Recent Scientific Studies

Related posts

I’m Curious!

Related posts

Podcasts and Internet Radio Stations You May Enjoy

Related posts

Liquid Glass Is Groovy!

Related posts

Evolution Before Darwin

Related posts

A Wild Ride With Robert Sapolsky

Related posts