Proof of Evolution

Of all the false notions that permeate our collective conscience, the most prevalent one is probably the least recognized one. That would be the notion of Platonic ideals. To the philosopher Plato, the objects and numbers in our universe were reflections of a perfect ideal. That is to say that somewhere, there is a perfect triangle, and every triangle found in nature is a shadow of that perfect ideal. Likewise, there exists a perfect golden retriever dog and every golden retriever that we see is a shadow of that perfect one. Ultimately, this notion is applied to man, where we idealize a perfect person and everybody we see throughout our day is just a shadow of them. The cynic in me can see that a lot of our twisted morals come from the image of our ideal person and the pressure we have to live up to its perfection.

Thankfully, the more we learn about reality, the less use we have for Platonic ideals. There exists no perfect circles in nature (so much for the perfection of pi), nor any perfect Gaussian distribution curves. Indeed, the models we typically apply to our observations are vain attempts to describe the world through Platonic ideals, but the world simply doesn't work that way. The world, instead, works through gradual deviations and intricate complications that cannot be predicted. This is where evolution comes into play. There is no ideal golden retriever, just as there is no ideal iguana and no ideal giraffe. Every animal (and human) we see is essentially an intermediate stage of evolution. Every living thing is both a descendant and potential predecessor for different species and classifications. There is no ideal, only a current incarnation.

With all that said, I turn now to my best summary of a brilliant experiment that demonstrates evolution in action. I read about this experiment in Richard Dawkins' book The Greatest Show on Earth, in which he devotes many pages to the details of the study, which itself had volumes of data. My explanation will be much more brief, as it is meant only to address a specific point: evolution is real and fascinating. Not only is it real, it has been demonstrated, in all its complexity, within a matter of a few decades. The experiment is carried out by a team lead by the bacteriologist Richard Lenski and, should you take the opportunity to delve deeper into it, will blow your mind.

The experiment began with 12 "tribes" of E. coli bacteria, taken from a single strain. The tribes were divided in half, with 6 of the tribes made up of cells that contain the Ara+ gene and 6 that contain the Ara- gene. The implications of this division were for later testing, as Ara+ bacteria change color when a certain chemical dye is applied to them, allowing a comparative contrast when pitted in competition against a different population of bacteria. Another cool thing about bacteria is that they can be effectively frozen for any amount of time and later thawed out with no change in their behavior. This, too, will be used to track the progress and effectiveness of the bacteria as they are allowed to evolve, as well as check the accuracy of the experiment. Each tribe was housed in a flask that contained a specific amount of glucose, the primary E. coli food source, among other substances.

The daily procedures of this experiment were simple: each day (many times a day), the bacteria was allowed to reproduce until it has exhausted its food source, then exactly 1/10th of the fluid in each flask was taken and transferred to a new flask that had the exact contents as the one before it. There, the bacteria reproduced again to its maximum potential. Every day for years and years this was repeated, to the following results: from generation to generation, the bacteria in each tribe gradually "learned" how to take advantage of their glucose food source with more efficiency. This means that at the end of each run, given the same amount of food, the population of each tribe increased. Not only that, the size of each E. coli cell also increased. Now, the changes were not uniform across the board; each tribe advanced at a different rate, using its own unique methods of adapting to the limited supply. Now, when I say "learned," I don't mean to apply the notion of shared intelligence. Obviously, bacteria are only single-celled organisms with no brain, so the improvement that we are observing is in that of their combined improvement to collectively take advantage of a limited food source.

One thing about evolution that is worth pointing out at this stage in the reveal is that certain features usually coincide with other features. With the bacteria, we saw that increased efficiency also lead to increased body size. Logically, one might assume that a small body would be more efficient in increasing population with a limited food source, but we're not discussing Intelligent Design here, obviously.

As thousands of generations passed through this experiment, it was possible to pit the current generations of bacteria against the older generations. Simply, an old generation was thawed out and placed in the same flask as a current generation. Through the use of dye, it was possible to see one generation overtaking the other by reproducing to a greater extent within the same area and the same food source. As might be expected, given a limited supply of food, the bacteria could only become so efficient to a point where it was no longer necessary to improve. While never achieving a true plateau, by generation 20,000, the population growth of each tribe had tamed considerably. At this point, a casual observer would probably turn around and say, "Good show," but we're not finished yet.

So far, what this experiment has done is demonstrate intraspecies improvements. These may be acceptable for the common evolution-doubter, as they are amusing findings but ultimately tame. What one really wants to see, when speaking in terms of impressive evolution, is evidence that one organism can somehow become something else. Obviously, we're not looking for fishes to be swimming in the broth (and if you are, you don't understand evolution), but we are looking for something that shows us what domesticated dog breeding cannot.

Enter generation 33,000 (or so). When measuring the population of one particular tribe, one of Lenksi's students found something peculiar. The population of bacteria had shot up - skyrocketed - quickly over the course of just a (relatively) few generations. Now, having mentioned that the populations in each of the tribes had all but evened out, you would think that there was a possible error or miscalculation. This is where the frozen specimen came in handy for fact checking. The findings were valid, though, and all that was left to do was find an explanation. As mentioned previously, glucose was not the only substance in each flask, but it was the only one that E. coli considered as a food source. Well, thanks to evolution, not anymore.

Through constant reproduction, evolution had granted the bacteria of that tribe the ability to take advantage of a previously untapped food source that had existed all along. This is evidence of a species of organism suddenly developing a brand new, unique ability. But, it's not as sudden as you think. We have to ask, first, why only one tribe out of 12 advanced to this point. Recall, if you will, my statement about certain mutations bringing about multiple changes. Let's think about it the other way around, with the changes all complimenting each other to allow new abilities. Every tribe eventually, at its own pace, learned to take advantage of its limited glucose food source, likely through simple mutations. However, in order to metabolize an entirely different food source, a bacteria must undergo several other mutations. Not only "several" mutations, but the right mutations at that. It is then understandable that only one out of 12 tribes obtained this ability.

So much for "irreducible complexity." While several mutations rely on each other, it is possible to catch them acting together within the same organism if you give it enough time to evolve. And, this is not to say that metabolizing a different substance than glucose is a bacteria's only hope for survival. The randomness of evolution allows an organism to take whatever direction that luck and survival allow it. Given enough generations, we would no doubt be impressed by the 12 different ways in which each tribe adapted and improved.

The coolest thing about this experiment is that it only started in 1988. Here we are, 22 years later, with evolution happening right before our eyes. Imagine this process playing out on a scale of 4.6 billion years. This, along with all the other evidence we have, speaks quite loudly. To bring it back to my original point, it is clear, now, that there is no perfect ideal... there is only an ongoing transition. That is really what everything in life is; an intermediate between where we were and where we are going. Let's keep evolving. Never stay the same.

More Logical Atheism

All rational debate about religion whittles down to one question: does god exist? The burden of proof lies with the party making the positive claim. So, who is making the positive claim? Is it the side that says there is a god or the side that says there is none? From my perspective, there are no such things as "self-evident" truths, so if something exists, it must be backed up by scientific observation. Now, the debate should end there, pending a response that actually means something from the other side. To those who believe in god, the argument starts from the point of god existing, so the debate has a much different flow to it. To believers, the existence of god is self-evident, which is a circular argument, a logical fallacy necessary to uphold the notion that a claim of no god is the logical leap.

What is a self-evident truth, anyhow? By definition, it is something that is understood without necessity of proof. I think we can say, then, that very few philosophical assertions are self-evident.

This self-evident nonsense feeds into the idea that being agnostic is somehow more logical than being hard atheist. Granted, agnosticism is far more logical than believing, but there is something that irks me about it. To put it bluntly, there would be no agnostics if the silly idea of god hadn't been made up in the first place. Now, I do realize the circular overtones of that statement, so let me put it another way. If an agnostic says there could be a god, then they also have to define what kind of god it is. Otherwise this makes the argument no better than saying that there could be a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It is still substantiating a notion that has no evidence. It is easier, simpler and cleaner to note that there is no evidence for god and thus no reason to believe that he exists.

A common argument that a believer usually beings with is the following: is a video game character aware of its programmer? Is a picture aware of its taker? Et cetera... The answer is always no, because none of the things they cite have consciences. The parallels are worse than the metaphors you see in the annual awards for terrible writing. As if obfuscating the argument by suggesting we're in The Matrix makes it more coherent.

Here's one argument that will draw a laugh: so-and-so used to be a prominent atheist and made all the pro-atheist arguments, but they have since converted and now denounce them. The counter to this argument is not in understanding its intention (which is to shake your confidence in your stance) but in understanding its weakness. Indeed, unless you can identify that so-called prominent atheist amongst your own influences (and also confirm the truth that they have converted), then no confidence should be lost. Furthermore, the use of a single convert as sway is desperation. It is not only a logical fallacy, but a losing proposition if taken seriously to begin with. What is one convert against the rapidly growing population that considers themselves as non-believers? Try to appeal to population and you'll find your ground falling away beneath you.

Alas, just because millions of people are doing it doesn't mean it is the right thing. Luckily, we have independently verifiable logic on our side.

Dear Sister, I love you. Come back.

I've mentioned my born-again sister before on my blog. I've spent the last few years lightly probing her for clues to the extent to which she has ingested the Kool-aid. The other day, I got a very definitive answer. This isn't to say that her previous clues didn't speak very loudly. A couple weeks ago:

Sister: Jesus is my provider! He WILL provide.
Me: Does he send you invoices?

Since her conversion, my family's response has been mixed. On one hand, we're happy that she's happy. I mean, if brainwashed counts as happy, then so be it. As Dan Gilbert says, artificial happiness is no less effective or real than natural happiness. I should be happy that my sister has found a community that loves and supports her. I should be happy that my sister has found the motivation to cope with her various physical illnesses. I should be happy that my sister has found a way to be nice to the people in her life.

On the other hand, for all the positives my sister has found, she has subscribed to many negative ideas. I want to state, for posterity, that my sister was raised by two loving (if not completely affectionate) parents in an upper-middle class household. She was given every tool she needed to succeed in life, including multiple opportunities at college. She was given every benefit I had been given, and, if I may claim, even more by way of her heavy-handed approach to getting what she wants from parents who would rather not hear her complain. This is all to say that she had a foundation in life when she needed it and should have been only grateful when reflecting on her life with her new friends. Things did not play out the way they should.

A few years ago, I was told she had gone into therapy for "family abuse." No doubt, the first step in accepting Jesus is to denounce the loving family that has supported you for your entire life. That was only the beginning. Monitoring her Facebook statuses has revealed that she has really denounced her entire reality. Blind devotion to Jesus. Anti-gay marriage comments. Anti-abortion comments. Now, Creationism.

Me: I am busting out laughing every 5 minutes or so this morning, each time I think about what I read on my way to work: A Creationist justification for incremental fossil records in unique layers of sediment. Can you grasp that someone believes, with all their heart, that the fossil records appear incrementally because th...e "Great Flood" wiped out certain animals first, then other animals second... etc? Wow...

Sister: um yeah. I believe with all my heart that God created the heavens and the earth and all things in it including man and dinosours and then wiped every living thing out except what and who was in Noah's crazy boat. I'm giggling at you now :) I don't mind that you think I'm crazy

Me: But, sis, the explanation makes no sense to anyone who looks at it intelligently. If a great flood had wiped out all the animals, even if we assume the explanation that it killed certain animals before others, we would still see a statistical spread of SOME animals that were killed early (ie: mammals that were just not able to save themselves) but that is not the case. The fossil record shows that the fossils found in one layer of sedimentary rock (for argument's sake: jurassic) are unique to that layer and do not appear in any other layer found in any other part of the Earth. Mammal fossils, for example, are only found in the most recent layer. To assume that animals died from a flood in discreet waves is on the same level of intelligence as assuming computers work by magic.

The very fact that we are able to have this conversation while living across the country from each other is a testament to science, intelligence and critical thinking. Indeed, none of what we have today would be possible without first knowing the underlying principles of the physical universe. It is those principles that you are denying by claiming, as you have, that every living thing was killed by a flood. The Earth was not created in a week, either. We have radiometric dating to thank for this knowledge.

You're basically biting the hand that feeds you every time you turn the key to start your car's engine. The same science that propels you to 65mph in your hybrid Civic is the same science that disproves your biblical stories. If physics didn't work on the basic levels that we understand them to, we would not be able to develop any technology at all. The world WORKS because the scientific method has allowed us to make make machines that take advantage of physical laws that work the same EVERY SINGLE TIME. Why, then, would you ever claim that they DIDN'T work the way we know them to? To justify your little story.... See More

To claim that god put it all in place to play out this way is like constructing a 30 page report on why you didn't turn in your homework. Frankly, I'm very saddened by your abortion of the 30 years of knowledge you've gained throughout your life. You KNOW better, and it doesn't take a genius to see through the story. Too bad you've sipped the kool-aid and are just a mindless drone now.

(The conversation continues with my own friends getting into their own discussion...)

Meanwhile, on her own wall:

Sister: love my little conversations with my little bro. The latest was a very very interesting discussion about creationist views on fossil and sediment layers and the "great flood" but turned into what a biblical scholar is and a conclution that the bible is not insignificant. Not sure I caught all that went on. tee hee hee.

Sister's Friend: tell him to watch Ben steins movie EXPELLED

Me: Hi sister & sister's friends. I realize logic is not your strong suit, but if you ever want a lesson on how evolution works, I'll be glad to give you all the knowledge you need. Creationism and Intelligent Design are easily debunked using common sense and a little bit of basic science.

Sister, you SHOULD care that you sound crazy to me. I'm your brother, not some random asshole. Remember how you used to trust me? You used to go out to lunch with me and ask me for dating advice. I'm not an idiot; I'm the same smart, nerdy kid you used to make fun of. Listen to me when I say that you've bought into an idea that DEFIES intelligence. You're happy, and we're all glad for that, but I am so sad and disappointed that your happiness has come at the cost of common sense.

More than common sense. My sister has joined the ranks of the section of the population that makes life suck for so many people. They fight gay marriage, preventing two perfectly good humans from enjoying the same benefits that they do. They fight abortion, feeding overpopulation, setting women's rights back several decades, and putting stress on a straining foster care and adoption system. They fight for creationism to be taught in school, putting science education to shame.

Fuck my sister's happiness. I want her back.

Logical Atheism

To the believer who is questioning their faith, or to the devout who challenges atheism, the question usually comes up of what non-belief offers that religion doesn't. This is a challenge to atheism to sell itself, to appeal to the religious on the same plane that the idea of god, Mohammad or Jesus appeals to them. To me, this is a silly proposition, as the whole concept of atheism simply has no intrinsic appeal. It is a personal preference thing. Any decorative merchandising done to market it is, in my opinion, hijacking a perfectly good model of sanity. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a deity; there is no doctrine, no mission statement, no cause, no motivation. This is logical atheism. It is a state of being that comes about as the conclusion of several logical realizations. When someone asks, "Why atheism?" the response is, "There just is no evidence to the contrary."

Christopher Hitchens makes a compelling argument when posed with the question of what comfort atheism offers that religion cannot: there is no sadistic Big Brother surveillance watching over your every move and your every thought, checking you against an arbitrary list of rights and wrongs, judging you every step of the way. The point is missed, though, when one starts to further justify atheism along the same worry. Atheism alone will not give you courage when you are scared. Atheism alone will not keep you company when you are alone. Atheism does not lend itself to the unintelligent and unresourceful. If someone desires these comforts from an ideology, atheism is not for them. Instead, it is then necessary for them to concoct from their imagination a scenario in which they are loved by a watchful creator. Belief typically defies all scientific logic and certainly labels one who follows it as willfully involved in the fantastic.

Many intelligent religious folks acknowledge science and its complete separation from faith, but there are those whose faith relies on the supposed dysfunction of logic and science. It is, however, too easy to dismiss these arguments. The simplest logical conclusion for atheism has already been stated: there is no evidence to prove the existence of god. Until evidence is found, the only logical conclusion to reach is that there is none. Further conclusions can be made simply by deflecting the justifications for religion:

"The bible says..." - This is circular reasoning. One still needs proof of the worth of anything contained in any "holy" text.
"85% of the world believes..." - This is an appeal to popularity. Just because someone else believes (even someone really respected) doesn't mean it is true.
"God speaks to me..." - This is personal testimony, which I deconstructed in my previous post.
"It's a miracle that..." - The only thing that is miraculous is the blatant denial of all the instances in which an event didn't happen. Like in the case of the 1-month-under-the-rubble Haiti earthquake survivor; why doesn't god get credit for the 200,000 people he killed rather than the one he kept alive?
"You can't prove there is no god." - The beauty of atheism is that it has no burden of proof. Faith makes the positive claim of existence thus it should be the one to supply proof. I will expand later on the absurdity of this argument.
"You can't make something out of nothing..." - You can't assume that because something is too complicated to understand that it must have come from an intelligent creator. This fallacy is also known as god of the gaps.

The list goes on, but the argument always returns to the burden of proof that belief has yet to fulfill. What is brought instead is an appeal to necessity, a proposal of the worth of belief. When one states the benefits of religion, it is no better an argument than stating Scientology's track record for drug rehabilitation. (Impressive, but at what cost?) All this proves is the influence of religion and a demonstration of its use. Alas, I am not stating that atheism is "better" (at least not in this paragraph), this is an existential debate at the moment. To me, the judgment of better/best is irrelevant in the face of what is real and not real. Any attempt of religion to argue on the basis of reality usually disintegrates into bumbling hilarity. Even devout religious scientists and scholars are careful to keep their faith separate from their practice and those that don't end up with their unscientific findings easily disproved. Evidence and universal application, not sentiment, are the requirements for something to be determined as reality.

As a religious person may claim, god exists apart from the physical world. Admittedly, the argument for atheism is based largely on religion's inability to establish itself within apparent reality. This is not a weakness, but an intrinsic value of a bare-bones argument. Logically, there can be no "pro-atheism" arguments, only "anti-theism" ones, because you cannot prove that something doesn't exist. This is why the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn arguments exist; if theists would just acknowledge that the burden of proof rests with them, atheists would be able to make several other points to compound their argument:

1. The scope of the universe is so vast and complicated that to assume creation is a cop-out. Why not simply acknowledge that we don't know everything yet?
2. The gods of modern day are different than the gods of yesteryear, yet they are worshiped by their followers with the same conviction. This should, at the very least, cast some doubt.
3. The logical conclusion of the observation of multiple faiths is that either only one is correct or none of them are. This is one of the first realizations that I made early in life that pointed me to where I am now.
4. The very fact that a person may convert or switch faiths belies god's man-made origins. It is one thing to adjust your philosophy in life. It is quite another to hedge your bets on which way is more suitable for you.

Logical atheism is not usually the starting point that people find themselves at when they begin to question their faith, it is the conclusion that one finds after questioning the world around them enough to completely shake off the necessity to compensate for the supernatural. The crack forms as a little voice in one's head becomes louder. The voice starts to question the truth and applicability of the stories being told, the fears being held, and the facts unknown. Eventually, with enough searching and enough learning, the security of comfort and community that belief deliberately provides (read: sells) gives way to doubt and doubt gives way to truth. The only choice one must make at this point is either to keep believing in the fantasy or to restructure their approach to reality. My personal experience is slightly different, as my exposure to religion while growing up was light-handed and mostly observational. All it took was the failure of the supposed benefits of faith to manifest themselves for me to start on a path of questioning. I thankfully did not have to put up with the self-doubt created by the insistence of others that faith works if you believe harder.

This brings me to the frustration I feel towards the concept of belief. Being that atheism is what you get when you strip away all of the unsubstantiated items from your world view, it becomes apparent that religious belief is unabashedly unnecessary and artificial. It is baggage that is patched onto our psyches early in life with its adhesive reinforced with thumb tacks, staples and crazy glue administered throughout the course of our lives by delusional missionaries and mindless acolytes. Besides, receiving religious guidance from the church is a lot like asking the barber if you need a haircut. In the case of my sister, who became a born-again Christian, religion was crammed into the hole bored by hours of church-sponsored group therapy aimed at making her externalize her physical illness and attitude-induced familial ostracization. The fact that atheism, for many, can only be achieved through psychiatric deconstruction is a testament to the persuasiveness of the vast fiction that religious society unnecessarily introduces to our collective consciousness.

It cannot be said that atheism is better than belief, just as it cannot be said the other way around. This is a judgment call for an individual to make. Is atheism a more accurate representation of reality? Indeed. Now it is up to an individual to decide what is more important to them: reality or belief. Far be it from me to condemn one's choice to subsist on fantasy. However, it should be said that whatever benefits one seeks religion for have their parallels with non-belief. One can achieve all the same morals, bonds, possessions, comforts and passions with atheism as they can with belief, just in different (and, I argue, more genuine) fashions. If you want to learn how a non-believer can be a good person, look in the direction of humanism, whose virtues over religion shall be shared at a later date. One notable difference, though, is there is no letdown at the end of your life when your conscience blinks out like an old TV and no afterlife succeeds it. Then again, you won't be aware enough to be disappointed.

Seeing Is JUST Believing

Let's run a little experiment: I'm going to show you a very short video that consists of a few people tossing basketballs to each other. I want you to watch this video and I want you to count the number of times the ball is passed between the people with white shirts. Only watch the video once because your initial count is what is important.

WARNING: Do NOT press play on the video below until you have read and understood the instructions above.

CLICK HERE FOR THE VIDEO

To compare your result with the real number, highlight the following white area with your mouse: Did you see the gorilla?

If your results don't match, watch the video again to check.




Before I make my point, a brief story:

There was once an astronomer named Percival Lowell who pointed his telescope at Mars and saw what he believed to be canals running along the surface of the planet. He was so convinced about this phenomenon and its implications of life on Mars that he published three books about it. A hundred years later, we know this man was anything but correct, but what was he seeing if not canals? Would you believe that he was actually observing the blood vessels within his own eye as they appeared superimposed against the image of what he was viewing through his eyepiece. If you want to see your own blood vessels in your eye, all you have to do is stare up at the clear blue sky.

The video above is occasionally shown to juries as a reminder of the worth of eyewitness testimony. Indeed, with the advent of DNA testing, there have been many people found innocent who had been convicted on eyewitness testimony in a trial. The lesson here? Second-hand forensic evidence has been found to be more reliable than first-hand accounts. Why, then, do people dismiss real science and instead favor ideas with "apparent" truths? Belief in god, for example, is not supported by anything remotely substantial in the ways of evidence. On the other side of the coin, it has a great amount of personal testimony to back it up. It should be apparent, after my two examples, that personal testimony means very little.

When I say these things about personal testimony, I want to be clear that I mean even YOU and I can make mistakes with our visual and aural cognition. Here are some reasons for that:

We all see different interpretations of the same thing. Think of the old philosophical nugget that the color I see may not appear the same to you. What I think of as red could be a completely different concept with the eyes of someone else. The same can be said about the scenes we observe. I know, for example, that I am not a very good detector of physical clues. When I see someone, I am often oblivious to any weird actions they make, and it is often afterward when someone comments on the odd behavior that I realize I had missed it. Additionally, it has been noted in a study that "western" and "eastern" cultures interpret facial expressions differently. While differences in cultures may be easy to grasp for this, think of the fact that everyone simply has different personalities and thus has the potential to interpret anything different from the person beside them.

What you see is only a small part of the entire scene. The above video was a prime example of this. In addition to details that skip our attention, there are hidden details that contribute to what we are seeing without us knowing. Motivations, abnormalities, moods, history... all these things contribute to the scene, so even when we stand back and judge what we've seen, we're only working with a fraction of the information. A friend of mine figured his apartment was haunted because a couple of his many The Simpsons toys would occasionally make noise. Isn't it more plausible that the vibrations of an apartment floor and moving air currents caused by frequent movements by multiple guests resulted in hair-trigger toy mechanisms going off? Well, we can't see those factors, so we don't consider them.

Memories are modified each time they are recalled. This means that each time you summon a scene from your memory for the purpose of recollection, you actually change it to adapt to the message you're trying to communicate. This can make recollection-on-demand seem like you're answering a trick question. Imagine a lineup of suspects where none are the actual subject. When asked to identify the culprit, a witness is likely to choose one simply because they try to recall the scene with their choices planted within it. This is what makes a suggestion or a leading question so powerful; it is easier to choose from your options than to independently realize something.

Nobody is immune from the eyewitness fallacy. Though your memories are as real to you as mine are to me, if you apply a little honesty to your recollection process, you'll see that you have some post-production processes that you run them through. Then, when you recall the same memory again, it retains the signature of the changes you last added to it. The story changes through time. If you're like me, it changes into one that is easier to tell, with an emphasis on the interesting or funny parts, with tiny details changed for dramatic or comedic effect. Some stories get this treatment consciously while others are simply recalled because people ask.

---

Now that we've torn apart the worth of witness, let's talk about arguments that employ it. A common argument against evolution is that it cannot be observed. Well, as we can see, observation means very little. Conversely, forensic evidence, like a DNA test of blood at a crime scene, is far more conclusive than whatever story we can concoct with our two eyes. The same goes for the existence of god, for which there is no forensic evidence to consider. A story of god revealing himself is of no value when nobody can prove, after the fact, that it happened.

Seeing is believing, but belief is hardly a means to see the truth.

On Open-Mindedness and Gullibility

Open-mindedness and gullibility: one is a virtue while the other is a weakness. The real differences are subtle. Now, I usually don't respond to personal attacks, but I feel like this is a good opportunity to make a point. In my previous post regarding my reading of The Road to Serfdom, I noted two times in which my mind was swayed by admittedly polarizing works; the aforementioned book and a Michael Moore film. The article became popular on reddit.com and a flood of comments ensued. Among those comments were remarks indicating my gullibility, my frailty of mind, my "fail"-ure as a thinker. This, all because I heard an argument and agreed with it. My question is: regardless of the argument's validity, how am I supposed to react? I can cite a million arguments at which I've scoffed, but to highlight the two that actually incited self-reflection makes me feeble in the brain.

As a blogger and a discussion forum administrator, I am well familiar with the average internet denizen's contrarian mindset. "You may be correct, but I am more correct." Still, this does not explain the vitriol I attract when simply admitting to be human. What does everyone expect of an author? Are we to come up with our entire political, economic and existential philosophies on our own and then spend our lives deflecting arguments like jackasses? One should note that the influential authors of our times are the ones who amalgamate the ideas of their predecessors into coherent arguments. Calling upon influences should be celebrated, not scorned. Where does open-mindedness cross over into gullibility? Does it happen when we swallow only half of what we're told? A quarter? Could a person ever be too curious? Too considerate?

The standard of proof is not the same for every field of knowledge. When it comes to science, we have experiments and measurements. In math, we have theorems and proofs. However, in economics, politics, and philosophy, we have constantly moving targets that nobody ever seems to hit with much consistency. So, while I would be a fool to convince myself that the Pythagorean theorem is false, there is not a soul on Earth that can prove the superiority of socialism over liberalism beyond a doubt. Why, then, am I such a fool for re-evaluating my stance on such a subjective issue? While I am nowhere among the great thinkers of the world, when it comes to pass that one of them "switches sides" to opposing ideologies, the reception is usually a celebrated one. Nobody from the benefiting side is disappointed to have a weak-minded flip-flopper in their midst. Rather, it is a symbol of validation. I suppose that anyone who falls on the losing side will think otherwise, but those, my friends, are sour grapes.

Academics aren't the only ones with valid changes of heart. In the atheism community of reddit, members congratulate others who shirk off the burden of faith, considering their de-conversion a sign of mental strength, not weakness. Conversely, when it comes to losing a compatriot to a different ideology, we're always quite resentful. I felt that way when my sister became a born-again Christian and I'm sure everyone has a similar story. I know her friends at the church were quite elated, though.

Maybe I'm not addressing the real issue. Maybe it is the particular material that swayed me that makes me look like a goon. Let's talk about Michael Moore first. I was incensed by his film "Capitalism: A Love Story," but to get some perspective on his validity as a polemic filmmaker, I would like to point to his previous film, "SiCKO." The healthcare battle that many of the people who bashed me have stakes in was incited in small part by that fat, ugly sensationalist. He's not a complete hack, and, while I in no way feel he is infallible, he has made two very eye-opening arguments with his latest releases. Is my mind really so flimsy that I let him affect me, or did he simply say something that I knew was true and simply never thought too hard about it before?

In the case of Friedrich von Hayek, the author of The Road to Serfdom, we have an author whose ideals are just as relevant 66 years after they've been published. In fact, Hayek was cited by the previous author I had read, Nassim Nicholas Taleb, as being the one guy who "got it right" where others had missed the point. NNT, as he calls himself, is no fool to be dismissed, either. His economic philosophy is more profound and real, based more on actuality, than any other theory I've heard to date. So, after reading Hayek's book and finding that it both reminded me of my principles and introduced consequential logic to the thought process, I don't feel much like a willow branch in the wind. Even my own admission of his "slippery slope" arguments was more to hang a lampshade than anything else.

Alas, if not educational, I do try to make my articles persuasive. It could be that my own persuasion is a bad argument for the idea I am promoting. If this is the case, then this is what should be nitpicked by the detractor. I've always given, as advice to the would-be internet debater, that one should attack the argument, not the person. Affronts to my reasoning I can accept, but dismissing my argument because I haven't held it for too long is like taking 3 years to recognize that we have a new President. When a new one comes into office, it is assumed that the proper vetting has been done and it is determined that they are the winner by a call of voting. I go through a similarly thorough vetting process with the ideals I subscribe to and I hope my readers trust me on this.

Guest Blog at Dry As Toast

I've always been a fairly open about certain parts of my sexuality... too open at times. I've often found myself talking about really raunchy and dirty things in the same manner most would recall their breakfast. Sometimes I have to assure the girls I date that they're not vanilla compared to me, they just haven't found their sick perversions yet. I also must mention that I've been running an online discussion forum for the last 8 years, and this forum prominently features topics on sexuality. It is with this perspective that I've been asked to share some tips on how to handle that vital bonding experience of sharing your sexual fantasies with your lover.

Check out the article over at Dry As Toast.

Reading Report: The Road to Serfdom

When I told my libertarian co-worker that I liked the idea of socialism, he didn't even try to argue with me. The next day, he just handed me this book: The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich von Hayek. Though I do appreciate the perspective of this co-worker, it did feel a bit like proselytizing. Still, I could not deny that I was actually excited to read this book. I always tell myself that I should read books of opposing viewpoints to understand the minds of others, but it takes me so long to read that I often wither from my heroics when choosing my next project. Here was a book of historical import, thrust into my hands at a very opportune time, as I was just finishing up The Black Swan. Staring at the cover, I tried to predict the contents, imagining myself with a smirk as I flipped each page, acknowledging and disagreeing with every point. By the time I finished reading the second chapter, this was no longer the case.

Hayek's method is unabashed dismantling of all things collectivist and it is sharply convincing. Though the book was written in 1944 and centers around Germany and Russia as examples of states that started out socialist and crossed a tipping point into totalitarianism, the themes of what is bad about socialism are universal. If I were to sum up the book in a sentence, it would be this: Once you take a single step towards collectivism, each subsequent step begets another until you've given up all your personal freedom to the state. There was a voice in my head the whole time, downplaying the author's alarmist slippery slope logic, but I could not get myself to deny its truth. Sprinkled between the shredded ruins of socialist ideology, Hayek reinforces his points with solid liberal principles that claim to do nothing but protect a few precious things: life, liberty and individual sovereignty.

Collectivism is the result of a society that is not content to put up with the petty inconveniences of individualism. They say, "Competition has taken us this far, but we can only become a higher society if we organize toward a common good." I admit that I was at this specific state of mind when I wrote my diatribe against capitalism last year (that nobody read because it was 3500 words). I had just watched Michael Moore's "Capitalism: A Love Story" and was seething with hatred toward corporations and banks who seemed to have hijacked our state and economy. What I did not realize at the time was that these monopolistic entities had come to power with the help of anti-competitive measures, un-liberal loopholes bored into the legislature. I feel now that my reaction should not have been to embrace socialism, but to point out the flaws in our capitalist system that go against liberal principles.

The main point that Hayek tries to get through is that individual freedom is more important than any other cause. When I came to understand this, I felt like I had just betrayed an old friend. I have always identified myself as a liberal, holding individual freedom above all other virtues, but I had been seduced by my own idealized selflessness. I had felt that, through socialism, I could share the benefits to which I am privy with those who need them and cannot afford it. I had seen socialism as a group effort to get our future headed in the right direction, but Hayek sees it much, much differently.

First, we observe, collectivism is a march toward a common goal, but we cannot be convinced that this goal will satisfy everyone who is obligated to carry the burden. It is one thing to be screwed by fortune, it is quite another to be screwed by the state. Second, a greater equality requires arbitrary treatment of all individuals, which is a flagrant offense to the Rule of Law. In a liberal society, the Rule of Law (rule, in the sense that a king rules a kingdom) is a state in which laws and their implications are known beforehand so that an individual can make a judgment on whether to obey them or not. In a society where the Rule of Law is ineffective, individuals are subject to arbitrary charges, with arbitrary consequences, for arbitrary causes. Third, financial planning (from the government perspective) is necessary to escape the "inconveniences" of liberal capitalism. That is, in order to ensure stability, we must take a measured approach to market entry, wages and regulations. The reality of this is that there is no way to plan just a little; it eventually becomes a total conversion, with measures being taken in every area to batten down the hatches. Planning leads to complete financial oversight by the state, which is no more stable than capitalism and far less fun. Finally, factoring that socialism takes power away from the individual and gives it to the state, and that socialism is a reaction against slow-moving democracy, a typical socialist leader will be one who claims to be able to plain get things done. Beware this man, as the ends always justify the means to a government that subsists on collective groupthink.

During the reading of this book, I picked a few fights with this viewpoint to get some arguments on the record. Many responses centered around the success of small "democratic" socialist societies scattered throughout the world, but nobody could point to a current socialist country of any consequence that wasn't currently corrupt. While Wikipedia lists only a few countries as socialist, there are socialist policies that exist in many democratic governments. Some, like Iran, appear from the outside as republics, but are run internally by too-powerful governments. As I examined each of Hayek's points on socialism, I recalled some stirring similarities in the methods invoked by George W. Bush's administration of the USA. Recently, when the Supreme Court ruled that corporations have the same rights as individuals, my alarm was so great that I couldn't even piece together a blog post without sounding like a crazed conspiracy theorist. When I take a look at the free world imagined under classical liberalism, I start to regret ever hoping for the government to protect me from the evil corporations. They are becoming one and the same.

When I asked my co-worker about the Supreme Court ruling and what it means for lobbyists and their influence on government, his response surprised me. I was expecting him to be as livid as I was about the ruling, but his focus was really where it should be. He gave a good example of what all liberals should be focused on: the basics, the big picture, the principles. He said, "It isn't the ruling that worries me. It wouldn't mean anything if the politicians didn't have so much power in the first place." And so I realized my initial error of reacting to the issue instead of referring to the lesson of the ideology. As a course of action, we should not be trying to counter the law. We should be fighting for our voice to be heard, to re-establish this country as a democratic republic with representatives of the people, not the power.

This is me climbing.

There's no real intellectual content to this post, but sometimes you just need to take a break. Here are two videos taken of me climbing. I wrote earlier about my new-found passion for the activity, so I had my "girl" (official title) take some videos of me. Pay no attention to the audio; there was a child's birthday party going on in the gymnasium.

Route 1: Cherry Bomb
Rating: 5.9
Only red holds, up the left face of the wall.


Route 2: Dapple
Rating: 5.9-
Holds marked with teal and black X's, up the chimney

On Morals and Human Rights

It seems to me that there are two ways to live. You can either live a "moral" life, or you can support human rights. These two don't seem to be compatible and I'll try to explain why:

One of the best compliments that has ever been paid to me was when a friend of mine described me as one of the most open-minded people he knew. Coming from this particular friend, it was extremely flattering because his entire life and the people he surrounds himself with can only be described by that same term. This compliment got me thinking about how open-minded I really was and to what I could attribute that open-mindedness. These thoughts brought me to a simple conclusion: every bit of knowledge I gain about the world helps me understand it better and makes me less afraid of the things I find within it. Those words don't actually begin to describe all of the facets to my reasoning though. Like a series of lines broken up by gradual angles, it is a very detailed surface that looks smooth from a distance. Let's take a closer look.

In my state of having an open mind, it is my belief that a blanket policy of human rights (For a definition of human rights, refer to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.) is absolutely necessary in order to assure the best opportunity for all people to live the best life possible. While that statement should coax a resounding, "DUH!" from my readers, it is important to identify the opponents of human rights. Who would ever oppose human rights? It isn't like there are people who sit around and think, "Human rights can suck it." The opposition usually comes about through realizing that total freedom gets in the way of a higher calling. Basically, anyone who puts ends ahead of means is bound to overlook the rights of their neighbors in order to achieve their goal. Examples include religions that hold the desires of a god above the desires of individual men (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) and political states that impose collectivist or exclusionary measures on their populations (socialism, communism, corporatism). The fact of the matter is that human rights get in the way of most "big pictures." One man's utopia is borne of the restrictions he must impose on others from disrupting his plans.

Human rights are admittedly a very humanistic construct. They sprout up when people embrace their independence and bloom when they realize that everyone else is just as good as they are and that we all deserve the same basic freedoms in life. Any belief that we must sacrifice some amount of freedom in order to fulfill a "greater" good is decidedly limiting because of this simple fact: not everyone is going to agree on the worth of that ultimate conclusion. Common manifestations of "greater" goods are: morals, nationalism, and equality. We can see these manifestations at work in Israel, where Palestinians are being evicted from homes they've lived in for generations simply because the Jewish state claims they own the land (despite the area being classified under international law as a conflict zone). Sudan, Rwanda, Uganda, North Korea, Iran, China... on it goes where we see collectivist or religious states oppressing the rights of its people. On it goes that to embrace human rights is to embrace individual sovereignty.

And so, a word about morality: submitting your own individual freedom to what are believed to be higher morals is in fact not very moral at all. There is nothing moral about entrenching yourself in a culture of behavior, as your actions are expected, forced, guilt-driven and ultimately par for the course. I would argue that it is far more moral to act as an individual under no imperative. Morals can really only exist when an individual is free to choose to do good and they are under no penalty if they decide not to. Additionally, associating actions with a higher power relieves one of responsibility, which is unfortunate for someone seeking to be moral, yet convenient for one who cannot resist their negative impulses.

If morals are not compatible with human rights, what can we use to figure right from wrong? Science is amoral, which is what makes it such a good guide. When you listen to science, you understand that everything is natural. Perversion, retardation, addiction, homosexuality, depression, skin color, disorders and fetishes; they're all natural. They happen through understood processes in reproduction, development, stress or trauma. Understanding this means, foremost, that it makes no sense to hold such traits against anyone. Human rights and science go hand in hand.

Throughout history, we've seen the advancement of human rights progress from the abolishing of slavery, to women's suffrage, to the first legal gay marriages, and throughout the time line, through every milestone, science has been working in parallel to enlighten our dark prejudices with knowledge. Those pushing back against these advancements are the religious and the tyrannical, determined to have the world work within their ideals. As the reliance on old wisdom gives way to new discoveries, we find ourselves understanding each other better, our sense of compassion growing. Kinsey made it OK to be sexual. The Pill gave women more control. Evolution puts us all on an even playing field. There is no quarrel that science cannot diffuse with the reassurance that our petty differences are minuscule to the grandeur for the universe we live in. You can either hate your enemy of two millennia or you can accept your place on a time line of 14 billion years.

"Morals" are no longer necessary in a world where knowledge provides more comfort than mythology. It is time to embrace the rights of every human to exist, live, work and love.

We're Not Alone, We're Just Lonely

Are there other forms of life in the universe?

This is not a question of faith, a hunch or a conspiracy theory for me. No, this is nothing but a math problem. To me and the thought processes I subscribe to, life is not so much a mystery as it is a consequence of many factors. When these factors come together at the right time, we get life. One of those factors is matter; atoms, the building blocks of physical existence. Looking at the elemental composition of our human bodies and comparing it to that of the universe, we start to see some similarities. Some of the most abundant elements in the universe make up 95% of our own forms: oxygen, hydrogen, carbon, among others. With this information, it is safe to say that the necessary elements upon which life can sustain are prevalent everywhere in the universe.

The wrench that many doubters like to throw in the cogs is the question of how life can come from non-life. How can inanimate elements turn into living, breathing beings? The process is called abiogenesis and it really isn't that miraculous. Of course, we didn't just materialize out of random elements just fusing together into complex living organisms. Even life here on Earth had to start simple; most likely from a simple protein, existing in just the right conditions, perhaps on the warm, geologically active ocean floor of early Earth. That protein, surrounded by elements of its own sustenance, thrived and changed over time, eventually taking on the characteristics of complex life.

The two questions to arise from that are: what are the conditions for life and do they exist elsewhere? I won't pretend to know the answer to the first one, specifically because there is no exact definition of the requirements of life. We may have evolved to be what we are because of the geological makeup of the Earth, but that doesn't mean that life can't exist on a different planet of different elemental proportions. There may be a planet with more gravity, less oxygen, or colder temperatures, but all that says to me is that if life were to exist on that planet, it would be a much different type of life than we have on Earth. When we look for life out in space, we're not looking for anything familiar.

Still, what are the chances that the conditions for any type of life are met? Using our own planet as a prime example, we know it can be done in the first place. The next step is to calculate the chances. A conservative estimation for the number of planets in the universe is around "a million trillion" planets. I'm not making this up either. When you consider the number of stars we have acknowledged in the known universe, 10^21, (also understanding that there are plenty in the unknown universe), then consider that each star has the potential to be at the center of its own solar system with planet satellites, you can imagine an average of 3 planets per star. Let's also not forget about moons for each planet, which each have the potential for life. The number of potential environments in the universe is astoundingly high; so high that the possibility of an almost earthlike twin planet existing somewhere out there is numerically certain. This certainty brings into question the next factor.

Our universe is about 14 billion years old, and I don't need to tell you that is a long time. The Earth itself is measured to have existed for only a third of that age. Thinking about this, there are many other planetary lifetimes that fit into the universal timeline. This is to say that if we're wondering if life exists, we should also ask if life has ever existed in the past or will exist in the future on other planets. At this point we are multiplying our possibilities by infinity, or at least by 3. Now that we've considered all of the factors that go into life existing elsewhere in the universe, we can see that as we examined the factors, the theoretical probability actually got higher. The more we consider, the more chances we have to say, "Yeah, life probably exists elsewhere in the universe." There is one more question remaining though, and it is perhaps the most important question to ask.

Will we ever encounter these other life forms?

My answer is two-fold. There is a small chance that we will discover some basic forms of life on the satellites in our solar system. If we manage to get onto the surface of another planet and really probe around, there is a possibility we can perhaps find a microbe or two. I am not crossing my fingers. As far as finding other intelligent life in the universe, I am sad to say that I don't believe the human race will survive to experience actual contact. When you consider the methods used to detect the universe around us, it is improbable that any advanced life form, no matter how technologically advanced either of us is, is in sustainable traveling distance. The nearest star to our solar system is over 4 light years away. When you consider that Mars is about 40 million miles from the Earth and it took the Rover 7 months to get there, if we traveled at the same rate to that star, it would take us around 360,000 years to get there. So yeah... contact? Not happening.

We're not alone, but we're definitely lonely.

(As a disclaimer, I would like to point out that this is not some crackpot theory. Neil deGrasse Tyson, a popular astrophysicist and Director of the Hayden Planetarium at the American Museum of Natural History, holds an identical view.)

Guest Blog at The Solitary Panda

My guest blog post has been published over at The Solitary Panda. The author of that blog, Floreta, has been a friend of mine for many years. I actually started this blog after seeing her success as a blogger and wanting to get some of my ideas out into cyberspace.

Sorry for not posting much lately. I have been quite busy and a bit mentally drained. I do, however, have a few topics in my head that are now itching to come out. I am finishing up reading that anti-socialism book and I have a book on evolutionary biology, as well as a general sciences book lined up to read and regurgitate. I'll also be posting some more about my personal life, if anyone cares to read.