22 comments to “DNA and brains”

1. catherine:
   12 March 2007, on 2:43 pm

   Off topic, but comic Richard Jeni took his own life over the weekend and the quote below is from one of his riffs. It’s truly one of the funniest anti-religion comment I’ve ever heard. Have you noticed how so many of the wrong people are dying? You can read Elayne Boosler’s tribute to her friend and fellow comic at
   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elayne-boosler/remembering-comedian-rich_b_43155.html

   Richard Jeni on religious wars, “You’re basically killing each other to see who’s got the better imaginary friend.”

   Damn and damn again.

2. Stardust:
   12 March 2007, on 3:49 pm

   catherine, I did see that. My son was telling me that Jeni often joked about suicide in his stand-up act. Who would have known that he was thinking about it inside. We always assume that funny guys are all happy all the time, when in fact it could be totally opposite. I don’t know how they can go out there and perform, when in their mind they are so sad.

3. W. Joel Brooks:
   12 March 2007, on 4:33 pm

   Evolution and progress don’t ever have to occurr together; “progress” is merely a concept we apply to experience in order to understand how change affects us. Evolution produces change–not progress.

   Nietzsche’s famous critique of teleology is especially pertinent here. Many (even educated and intelligent evolutionists) fall into the trap of statements such as, “We developed opposable thumbs in order to hold things.” Nietzsche claims that such thinking is backward. In fact, he suggested, the only claim we can really make is that we developed the ability to hold things becuase we developed opposable thumbs.

   There’s a huge difference in those two claims.

4. Naomi:
   12 March 2007, on 6:41 pm

   W. Joel Brooks, thank you for making that distinction.

   It seems we conflate the two. And I think our culture is more “goal-oriented” than “process-oriented”. As in, “getting that big house that announces to the world who we are”, rather than the steps we take to get there and how much it costs us in mental, physical, psychological and ethical terms. We’re more “quantity over quality”…

   “We developed opposable thumbs in order to hold things.” Nietzsche claims that such thinking is backward. In fact, he suggested, the only claim we can really make is that we developed the ability to hold things becuase we developed opposable thumbs.

   Very profound. I admit I haven’t read much from Nietzsche–my loss, it seems.

5. Revenant:
   12 March 2007, on 7:47 pm

   I see that profound distinction and I agree wholeheartedly with Neitzsche’s position.

   It’s like says we learned to walk upright so we could use our forlimbs for other things, but that’s fundamentally wrong. It implies some sort of consciousness with Evolution.

   It is more correct to say those hominids/primates who could walk upright more easily survived longer to pass along their genes, therefore traits which favored walking upright became dominant, therefore arms began developing differently from legs.

   At least that makes more sense to me than saying we evolved x in order to do y. That’s just silly.

6. Sobex:
   12 March 2007, on 11:34 pm

   Since we’re talking about evolution, here is a neat link you might be interested in. The link is to a speech made by Robert Sapolsky at the Freedom From Religion Foundation convention in 2003. It outlines a naturalistic hypothesis for the emergence of belief in deities (i.e. how man evolved to believe in sky daddies):

   http://ffrf.org/fttoday/2003/april/index.php?ft=sapolsky

   My apologies if this has been posted here already.

7. Krystalline Apostate:
   13 March 2007, on 3:41 am

   Good post. My favorite:

   New research also shows that “progress” and “human evolution” are only occasional partners.

   I wish we could tattoo that on the foreheads of those thick-headed creationists (backwards, so they can read it in a mirror) that blither on about the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

8. Krystalline Apostate:
   13 March 2007, on 3:42 am

   Oh, I’m curious if I could be linked to via the blogroll? Pretty please? (he said, batting his eyelashes)

9. Stardust:
   13 March 2007, on 9:54 am

   KA – It is done.

   (Thanks for bringing attention that our links needed to be updated…Sean always took care of that and we haven’t “cleaned house” or updated since he’s been gone.)

10. Krystalline Apostate:
    13 March 2007, on 12:40 pm

    Stardust – thanks doll.

11. Stardust:
    13 March 2007, on 1:08 pm

    KA – You’re very welcome

12. ivan:
    17 March 2007, on 8:30 pm

    PZ Myers has some good comments on the newsweek article:
    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/03/scott_adams_reads_newsweek_uho.php

13. big sucker:
    22 March 2007, on 6:02 pm

    atheists always make me laugh. can’t ever make up their mind about evolution. exactly which one of the myriad of thoeries is the right one. of course all along they’re missing the most fundamental problem. PROOVE life from non-life. oh yeah, i forgot, atheists don’t pay attention to REAL science (law of biogenesis), just conjecture with no PROOF. how about just PROVING that information can occur without intelligence. when atheists can do that then maybe i’ll begin to feel that i have to prove there’s a god. BTW, Nietzsche believed that blacks and jews were subhuman….great guy.

14. Stardust:
    22 March 2007, on 6:29 pm

    big sucker – which atheists can’t make up their mind about evolution? What are the myriad of theories are you talking about? Do you even know what these theories are? Judging from your comment, you obviously don’t even know the basics about evolution. You probably don’t know the basics about Nietzsche either. Just something you heard about him in passing or what your cult leader taught you?

    Here is a good site for learning about evolution: John Hawks Weblog :: paleoanthropology, genetics, and evolution

    And for a simpler explanation, here is another link Evolution Explained

    Evolution is the process through which animals change over time. However, this seems to sum the story up a little too much. Most people that do not believe in Evolution do not fully understand it. Those people believe that the theory says that humans came from monkeys. This is not true. Those people believe that if an animal evolves, there is no prerequisite to the present animal alive. This is not true either.

15. Krystalline Apostate:
    22 March 2007, on 7:13 pm

    big sucker:
    Define your terms, exactly.
    http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=evolution&gwp=16
    1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See synonyms at development.
    2.
    A. The process of developing.
    B. Gradual development.

    3. Biology.
    A. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
    B. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

    4. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.
    exactly which one of the myriad of theories is the right one.
    Exactly? Despite what you may’ve heard, there’s really no such thing as an ‘exact’ science, as all sciences are a work in progress.

16. Revenant:
    23 March 2007, on 9:13 am

    Nietzsche wasn’t perfect, no one is. I respect his views about religion, doesn’t mean I have to respect all of his views.

    Now gawd, on the other hand, there’s nothing about his representation that I can respect. An utter bastard.

17. big sucker:
    23 March 2007, on 12:52 pm

    I’ll give you guys credit for picking up on my sarcasm, but I’m not sure how smart you are. Of course I understand the general concept of evolution – I’ve been studying it for almost twenty years. The fact is there is little consensus about the details. Perhaps the most well known example of this is the debate over dinosaurs evolving into birds. But once again you’ve missed the fundamental problem. Let me try to make it simple. Science – things that can be tested and/or observed. Life from non-life – never tested, never observed, never proved (not to mention it violates scientific LAW). Evolution – requires belief in life from non-life. Religion – dogmatic belief in something that can’t be proven. Therefore evolution is a religion (or cult as you would put it). Now I don’t have a problem admitting that I believe in something I can’t prove (although I can deduce it logically), but the atheist/evolutionist is self-deluded if they can’t admit the same. Look, I know I’m not going to change your mind, but a lot of people on this blog have been brainwashed into thinking creationists are stupid. I beg to differ.
    My cult leaders:
    Dr. Raymond Damadian (inventor of the MRI, National Inventors Hall of Fame, many medals including the President’s Medal)
    Dr. John Baumgardner (developed TERRA, the 3D model of Earth’s crust and plate tectonics)
    Dr. Russell Humphreys (holds patents on laser-triggered high-voltage switch, has two awards from Sandia National Laboratories)
    Dr. Patrick Young (holds patents on the manufacturing process of Kevlar)
    Sir Isaac Newton (creationist)
    I could go on, but it would take all day.
    Your cult leaders:
    Charles Darwin – author of ‘On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of FAVOURED RACES in the Struggle for Life’. (racist theologian, yes his degree was in theology)
    And we’ve already discussed Nietzsche.
    Last note: your definition of biology is fine, but what you are missing is that when natural selection acts on genetic variation it always results in a LOSS of genetic information. This observable fact (science anyone?) is counter to your belief in molecules-to-man evolution.
    Thank you for your time.

18. Stardust:
    23 March 2007, on 4:21 pm

    big suck —

    With religion, there is no questioning, just a simple belief without any sort of evidence. People believe in so many different religions and superstitions simply because they want to believe and are not concerned in finding proof whether it is real or not. Where the atheist is open to evidence, most religious people will not even consider for a moment that they might be wrong.

    Evolution is definitely NOT a religion. Though it might make it easier for you to dismiss an area of science by calling it a religion, that does not make it so. If you can’t tell the difference, then you spend too much time in church.

    Good article by Austin Cline:
    Is Evolution a Religion? Is Evolution a Religious Belief System Based on Faith?

    Evolution & Religion:
    It has become common for critics of evolution to claim that it is a religion which is being improperly supported by the government when it is taught in schools. No other facet of science is singled out for this treatment, at least not yet, but it is part of a wider effort to undermine naturalistic science. An examination of the characteristics which best define religions, distinguishing them from other types of belief systems, reveals just how wrong such claims are: evolution is not a religion or a religious belief system because it does not possess the characteristics of religions.
    
    Belief in Supernatural Beings:
    Perhaps the most common and fundamental characteristic of religions is the belief in supernatural beings — usually, but not always, including gods. Very few religions lack this characteristic and most religions are founded upon it. Does evolution involve belief in supernatural beings like god? No. Evolutionary theory neither encourages nor discourages it. Evolution is accepted by theists and atheists, regardless of their position on the existence of the supernatural. The mere existence or nonexistence of supernatural beings is ultimately irrelevant to evolutionary theory.

    Sacred vs Profane Objects, Places, Times:
    Differentiating between sacred and profane objects, places, and times helps religious believers focus on transcendental values and/or the existence of the supernatural. Some atheists may have things, places, or times which they treat as “sacred” in that they venerate them in some way. Does evolution involve such a distinction? No — even a casual reading of explanations of evolutionary theory reveals that it involves no sacred places, times, or objects. Distinctions between the sacred and the profane play no role in and are as irrelevant to evolutionary theory as they are to every other aspect of science.

    Ritual Acts Focused on Sacred Objects, Places, Times:
    If people believe in something sacred, they probably have rituals which are associated with that which is considered sacred. As with the very existence of a category of “sacred” things, however, there is nothing about evolution which either mandates such a belief or prohibits it. Most important is the fact that there are no rituals which are part of evolutionary theory itself. Biologists involved with the study of evolution engage in no incantations or ritual acts of any sort in their research.

    Moral Code With Supernatural Origins:
    Most religions preach some sort of moral code and, typically, this code is based upon whatever transcendental and supernatural beliefs are fundamental to that religion. Thus, for example, theistic religions typically claim that morality is derived from the commands of their gods. Evolutionary theory does have something to say about the origins of morality, but only as a natural development. Evolution does not promote any particular moral code. Morality isn’t irrelevant to evolution, but it plays no fundamental or necessary role.

    Characteristically Religious Feelings:
    The vaguest characteristic of religion is the experience of “religious feelings” like awe, a sense of mystery, adoration, and even guilt. Religions encourage such feelings, especially in the presence of sacred objects and places, and the feelings are connected to the presence of the supernatural. The study of the natural world can promote feelings of awe in scientists, including evolutionary biologists, and some are led to their research by feelings of awe about nature. Evolutionary theory itself, however, does not explicitly endorse any sort of “religious” feelings or religious experiences.
    
    Prayer and Other Forms of Communication:
    Belief in supernatural beings like gods doesn’t get you very far if you can’t communicate with them, so religions which include such beliefs also teach how to talk to them — usually with some form of prayer or other ritual. Some who accept evolution believe in a god and therefore probably pray; others don’t. Because there is nothing about evolutionary theory which encourages or discourages belief in the supernatural, there is also nothing about it which deals with prayer. Whether a person prays or not is as irrelevant in evolution as it is in other fields of the natural sciences.

    A World View & Organization of One’s Life Based on the World View:
    Religions constitute entire worldviews and teach people how to structure their lives: how to relate to others, what to expect from social relationships, how to behave, etc. Evolution provides data people may use in a worldview, but it is not a worldview itself and doesn’t say anything about how to organize your life or incorporate knowledge of evolution into your life. It can be part of theistic or atheistic, conservative or liberal worldviews. The worldview a person has is ultimately irrelevant in the study of evolution, though one’s study won’t go far unless one uses a scientific and naturalistic methodology.

    A Social Group Bound Together by the Above:
    Few religious people follow their religion in isolated ways; most religions involve complex social organizations of believers who join each other for worship, rituals, prayer, etc. People who study evolution also belong to groups which are bound together by science generally or evolutionary biology in particular, but those groups are not bound together by all the above because none of the above is inherent in evolution or science. Scientists are bound together by their scientific and naturalistic methodology as well as their study of the natural world, but that alone cannot constitute a religion.

    Who Cares? Comparing and Contrasting Evolution & Religion:

    Does it matter whether evolutionary theory is a religion or not?

    It appears to matter a great deal to those who make the claim despite the fact that doing so misrepresents religion, evolution, and science generally.

    Are they simply unaware of the differences between religion and science? Perhaps some are,

    especially given how many people tend to use very simplistic definitions of both religion and science,

    but I suspect that many leaders of the Christian Right are not so ignorant.

    Instead, I think they are arguing in a deliberately disingenuous manner in order to blur the distinctions between religion and science.

    Godless, atheistic science is no respecter of tradition. Over the years, science has forced the revision or abandonment of many traditional religious beliefs. People think that there need be no conflict between religion and science, but so long as religion make empirical claims about the world we live in, conflict will be inevitable because that’s precisely what science does — and most of the time, science’s answers or explanations contradict those offered by supernatural religions. In a fair comparison, religion always loses because its claims are consistently wrong while science consistently expands our knowledge and our ability to live well.

    Religious believers who are unwilling to abandon making empirical claims and are unhappy with their ability to challenge science directly have sometimes opted for undermining people’s willingness to rely on science. If people believe that science generally or at least one part of science, like evolutionary biology, is just another religious faith, then perhaps Christians will be as unwilling to accept this as they are unwilling to adopt Islam or Hinduism. If science and evolution are just another religion, it may be easier to dismiss them.

    A more honest approach would be to acknowledge that while non-religious themselves, science generally and evolutionary biology in particular do make challenges on many religious beliefs. This forces people to confront those beliefs more directly and critically than they might otherwise have done. If those beliefs are sound, then believers shouldn’t be concerned about such challenges. Avoiding these difficult issues by pretending that science is religious does no one any good.

    I am certain that Sir Isaac Newton would not be one of your “cult leaders” if he was alive today. He lived in a time when people were far more ignorant and just learning about the ways of the world and universe.

19. Krystalline Apostate:
    23 March 2007, on 6:11 pm

    I’ll give you guys credit for picking up on my sarcasm, but I’m not sure how smart you are.

    & right out the gate, an ad hominem.

    Of course I understand the general concept of evolution – I’ve been studying it for almost twenty years.

    So what, you’ve only been studying the general concept? Perhaps I should return the favor: how smart are YOU?

    The fact is there is little consensus about the details.

    I guess that comment illustrates how ‘general’ your ‘study’ has been.

    Perhaps the most well known example of this is the debate over dinosaurs evolving into birds. But once again you’ve missed the fundamental problem. Let me try to make it simple.

    Oh, please DO condescend to us. That’s always a clincher. /sarcasm off.

    Science – things that can be tested and/or observed. Life from non-life – never tested, never observed, never proved (not to mention it violates scientific LAW).

    Okay, that’s ABIOGENESIS. Evolution is primarily about how man came about to his present state.

    Evolution – requires belief in life from non-life.

    Wrong.

    Religion – dogmatic belief in something that can’t be proven. Therefore evolution is a religion (or cult as you would put it).

    The good ole tu quoque fallacy. Geez, do you people work off the same vanilla boilerplate, or what? Evolution is a set of observational data. If you paid money for this tripe, I’d suggest you get a refund.

    Now I don’t have a problem admitting that I believe in something I can’t prove (although I can deduce it logically), but the atheist/evolutionist is self-deluded if they can’t admit the same. Look, I know I’m not going to change your mind, but a lot of people on this blog have been brainwashed into thinking creationists are stupid. I beg to differ.

    If you’re beggin’ sonny, you done came to the wrong place. Evolution is eminently provable. In fact, there’s about a million possible combos that would disprove evolution. Thus far? Zilch.

    My cult leaders:
    Dr. Raymond Damadian (inventor of the MRI, National Inventors Hall of Fame, many medals including the President’s Medal)
    Dr. John Baumgardner (developed TERRA, the 3D model of Earth’s crust and plate tectonics)
    Dr. Russell Humphreys (holds patents on laser-triggered high-voltage switch, has two awards from Sandia National Laboratories)
    Dr. Patrick Young (holds patents on the manufacturing process of Kevlar)
    Sir Isaac Newton (creationist)
    I could go on, but it would take all day.

    Tu quoque, ho-hum, usual idiocy.
    100% of the scientists pre-Darwin believed in creation. Today? %1. You realize of course, that it IS possible to be a genius as well as a loon? Oh, riiighhhtt…them nasty old scientists are all in on it, it’s a conspiracy. Yeesh.
    I raise you to the power of Steve.

    Your cult leaders:
    Charles Darwin – author of ‘On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of FAVOURED RACES in the Struggle for Life’. (racist theologian, yes his degree was in theology)

    Got it WRONG again. 1st, if anything, Darwin was more ‘liberal’ for his day than most of his colleagues (note that Agassiz, noted creationist, thought that being born other than white was a disease), 2nd, CD had a close black friend, 3rd, we don’t FOLLOW CD, we AGREE w/him, if you can’t make that essential difference, then I wonder how bright you really are, 4th, it matters not 1 jot nor tittle IF he was, it has no bearing on the scientific observations he brought to bear on the matter (he was a huge fan of Paley, didja know that?)
    Here, read this:
    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/03/was_darwin_a_racist.php

    Last note: your definition of biology is fine, but what you are missing is that when natural selection acts on genetic variation it always results in a LOSS of genetic information. This observable fact (science anyone?) is counter to your belief in molecules-to-man evolution.

    Last time: evolution’s NOT about particles-to-people. Different field altogether.

    Thank you for your time.

    Yeah, thanks for wasting it w/the usual drooling drivel.
    Evolution’s the backbone of biology. How on earth a ‘fake religion’ can be the lynch pin of a scientific field that impacts our lives on multiple levels goes to show that you ain’t as bright as you pretend to be.

20. Eve:
    23 March 2007, on 6:39 pm

    I would think a handle like “big sucker” says everything about our commenter; he’s a sucker, all right. Wait, I just committed an ad hom, didn’t I?

    Oh, he did it first; never mind, then. I guess he’s agreeing with us on “god is for suckers.”

21. God is for Suckers! - Commentary, news, and rants on the evils and stupidity of belief in the big invisible daddy in the sky. Illuminating and watchdogging the widespread attempts to institutionalize the theocratic rule of the US. Making fun of believers :
    23 March 2007, on 7:49 pm

    [...] Since it wasn’t proseltyzing, I let him in the door. You can read the rest of his comments, and the comments of those of us who responded here. [...]

22. karen:
    23 March 2007, on 10:02 pm

    KA
    I just love it when someone gets raaised to the power of Steve!
    Thanks!