find it!
Showing posts with label evolution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label evolution. Show all posts
Saturday, 9 April 2011
Thursday, 30 April 2009
uno familias
a friend (clue: superstar dj) mentioned recently that he'd just met someone he was fairly closely related to. i observed that he was just as related to his dog (ok, maybe not 'just as') if he thought about it.
funny no? it would be if we ever treated each other as such...
funny no? it would be if we ever treated each other as such...
Monday, 15 December 2008
update: ego vs love
you remember i said that our egos developed over the rather harsher climes of our early life 'pon plains of africa? well, i may have been a teeny, weeny bit mistaken. interestingly, the place i got the original idea also lends itself to this further bit of revision. i know, i know if i got the original idea from the book that also has this bit in it why didn't i just write it right in the first place? and to be honest i have absolutely no idea. it's probably got something to do with the fact that i'm a complete imbecile.
in steve taylor's book the fall he discusses how (and why) the human ego came about. it wasn't so much that it came about as a result of the harsh conditions of our early life at all. in fact, research has suggested that our primitive lives were a whole bunch easier than they are for most of us now (we apparently only spent about 1/5 of our time collecting food, the rest was our own, so much for advanced western civilisation!). it was only with the invention of agriculture and the resulting excesses of calories, which quickly became profits, which turned into armies. that ego really came into its own. think about it, what good is an ego if you have to share everything? i put my hands up, if steve is right (and he usually is) then i was wrong.
in steve taylor's book the fall he discusses how (and why) the human ego came about. it wasn't so much that it came about as a result of the harsh conditions of our early life at all. in fact, research has suggested that our primitive lives were a whole bunch easier than they are for most of us now (we apparently only spent about 1/5 of our time collecting food, the rest was our own, so much for advanced western civilisation!). it was only with the invention of agriculture and the resulting excesses of calories, which quickly became profits, which turned into armies. that ego really came into its own. think about it, what good is an ego if you have to share everything? i put my hands up, if steve is right (and he usually is) then i was wrong.
evolutin high-falutin'
new proof of evolution has been discovered! it's your mum! (or your dad if you're male) yup, this one's pretty rock-solid, all you need do is grab ahold of the parent that is the same sex as you, stand together in front of a mirror and viola! do you look exactly the same? no? thought not. do you know why? it's because you are a mix of your mummy and daddy (and a couple of mixtakes thrown in for good measure) and, as such, you have evolved from them! this is just one example of the very fact of evolution in action! proof if ever proof were needed!
-thanks to Brandon Creasy.
the other major proof i can think of off the top of my head are dogs. yup our furry best friends are one of the strongest proofs of evolution available. there is the fact that their mitochondrial DNA has been traced back to 3 east asian wolves. all the doggies in the world, rotties, chihuahuas, jack russels, the lot- all go back to three turkish bitches! if evolution was a fairy tale we'd be sharing our homes with some very fearsome characters indeed!
-thanks to Brandon Creasy.
the other major proof i can think of off the top of my head are dogs. yup our furry best friends are one of the strongest proofs of evolution available. there is the fact that their mitochondrial DNA has been traced back to 3 east asian wolves. all the doggies in the world, rotties, chihuahuas, jack russels, the lot- all go back to three turkish bitches! if evolution was a fairy tale we'd be sharing our homes with some very fearsome characters indeed!
Friday, 24 October 2008
More fun @ FSTDT
Reports from across the pond reveal the latest turn in the evolution debate (debacle?):
Moderator: We're here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution versus Intelligent Des---
(Scientist pulls out baseball bat.)
Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?
(Scientist breaks Intelligent Design advocate's kneecap.)
Intelligent Design advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU BROKE MY KNEECAP!
Scientist: Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly, all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I am holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a mere preponderance of evidence doesn't mean anything. Perhaps your kneecap was designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current situation that are inexplicable according to the "naturalistic" explanation you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating pain that you are experiencing right now.
Intelligent Design advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN!
Scientist: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this hypothesis implausible --- it just is. Your knee must have been designed that way!
Intelligent Design advocate: YOU BASTARD! YOU KNOW YOU DID IT!
Scientist: I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain? Frankly, I think we should expose people to all points of view. Furthermore, you should really re-examine whether your hypothesis is scientific at all: the breaking of your kneecap happened in the past, so we can't rewind and run it over again, like a laboratory experiment. Even if we could, it wouldn't prove that I broke your kneecap the previous time. Plus, let's not even get into the fact that the entire universe might have just popped into existence right before I said this sentence, with all the evidence of my alleged kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.
Intelligent Design advocate: That's a load of bullshit sophistry! Get me a doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we'll see how that plays in court!
Scientist (turning to audience): And so we see, ladies and gentlemen, when push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe. When it comes to matters that hit home, they prefer evidence, the scientific method, testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations. In fact, they strongly privilege naturalistic explanations over supernatural hocus-pocus or metaphysical wankery. It is only within the reality-distortion field of their ideological crusade that they give credence to the flimsy, ridiculous arguments which we so commonly see on display. I must confess, it kind of felt good, for once, to be the one spouting free-form bullshit; it's so terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by empirical evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue, then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid you adieu.
Thanx to Martin @ FSTDT.com
Moderator: We're here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution versus Intelligent Des---
(Scientist pulls out baseball bat.)
Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?
(Scientist breaks Intelligent Design advocate's kneecap.)
Intelligent Design advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU BROKE MY KNEECAP!
Scientist: Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly, all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I am holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a mere preponderance of evidence doesn't mean anything. Perhaps your kneecap was designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current situation that are inexplicable according to the "naturalistic" explanation you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating pain that you are experiencing right now.
Intelligent Design advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN!
Scientist: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this hypothesis implausible --- it just is. Your knee must have been designed that way!
Intelligent Design advocate: YOU BASTARD! YOU KNOW YOU DID IT!
Scientist: I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain? Frankly, I think we should expose people to all points of view. Furthermore, you should really re-examine whether your hypothesis is scientific at all: the breaking of your kneecap happened in the past, so we can't rewind and run it over again, like a laboratory experiment. Even if we could, it wouldn't prove that I broke your kneecap the previous time. Plus, let's not even get into the fact that the entire universe might have just popped into existence right before I said this sentence, with all the evidence of my alleged kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.
Intelligent Design advocate: That's a load of bullshit sophistry! Get me a doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we'll see how that plays in court!
Scientist (turning to audience): And so we see, ladies and gentlemen, when push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe. When it comes to matters that hit home, they prefer evidence, the scientific method, testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations. In fact, they strongly privilege naturalistic explanations over supernatural hocus-pocus or metaphysical wankery. It is only within the reality-distortion field of their ideological crusade that they give credence to the flimsy, ridiculous arguments which we so commonly see on display. I must confess, it kind of felt good, for once, to be the one spouting free-form bullshit; it's so terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by empirical evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue, then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid you adieu.
Thanx to Martin @ FSTDT.com
Thursday, 2 October 2008
Wha's guan?
having read both The Making of the Fittest and Your Inner Fish i now finally understand the whys and various wherefores of evolutionary theory (even such prickly pears as why it stands to bloody reason and is beeldin obvious). more later.
as to what to what the holy nutfuck is going on with the markets (and I'm sure I'm not the only Radio 4 listener to wonder what all the fuss is about) i recommend this post from distributor-cap-ny (my hyphens). a bit like having your eyes opened...and realising the lights don't work.
as to what to what the holy nutfuck is going on with the markets (and I'm sure I'm not the only Radio 4 listener to wonder what all the fuss is about) i recommend this post from distributor-cap-ny (my hyphens). a bit like having your eyes opened...and realising the lights don't work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)