51. Researchers devise way to calculate rates of evolution

Comment #75853 by eric.malitz on October 3, 2007 at 9:54 pm

what I dont understand is why would mutation and chance alone build adaptation and survival and of certain traits over others? Despite the rate of mutation, shouldn't selection determine what traits we see or don't see over time?
Can someone clarify this for me, am I missing something or are they making conclusions that don't mesh?
Maybe I'm just a brainwashed darwinian

52. A New Debate

Comment #75529 by eric.malitz on October 3, 2007 at 12:09 am

Something like this will never happen. Science is too foreign to most people in this country to enter into the main issues. And politics is mainly to blame. Politics is a buisness- politians are salesmen with lots of apprentice salesmen helping out. We live in a world where science is essential to the well-being of the world- without proper science understanding and funding from this point, many more species are soon going to die out along with major natural habitat destruction. This should be a turning point in the world where the leaders shouldnt be politicians but scientists with real understanding of the world we live in and of peoples' needs and wants. But it wont happen. Keeping this planet from becoming a barren wasteland seems to be the most important thing right now-because thats where we are headed.
I certainly don't believe in destiny but the closest thing to it kin my mind seems the inevitable fact that humans are now in the process of destroying the natural world and, in my opinion, will most certainly carry out this major feat to the greatest extent in a couple life times (I dont have specifics except extinction of every large mammal, except captives).
I often imagine politicians at home, in bed, at night, about to go to sleep, with a smile on their face and the thought in their head "well, this will all be gone soon, as long as I have my big house, and obedient wife..as long as we can keep these suckers in line just a few more years..none of this nature crap matters, its all for me.."

53. Root and Branch

Comment #73351 by eric.malitz on September 24, 2007 at 8:17 pm

cartomancer-same here.

At the beginning is the author the one calling natural selection "the doctrine that we came to be through chance" or is he attributing that 'doctrine' to religious' misunderstanding of ns?

54. Is 'Do Unto Others' Written Into Our Genes?

Comment #72233 by eric.malitz on September 20, 2007 at 2:53 pm

There are certainly much more important factors in the transition from "small roving bands" to settled groups than religion.

Can someone elaborate on deWaal's objection??? I'm not sure if I understand his view. I find his writings often illuminating (though he has misrepresented my favorite scientist RD more than once).

55. Fossils Reveal Clues on Human Ancestor

Comment #72214 by eric.malitz on September 20, 2007 at 2:32 pm

The first paragraph was unfortunate I thought, at least in educating the general reader who immediately gets the picture of evolution working towards modern humans.

56. VOTE on the 'Faith smackdown': Richard Dawkins vs Francis Collins

Comment #71877 by eric.malitz on September 19, 2007 at 8:26 pm

of course, in the end, there could be a god (that we cant see, touch, etc.; seems like a waste of time to ponder), but the odds are equal to there being a unicorn or pegasus (less so i would guess, if the proper genetic variation was available for horses to be selected into these new species)

57. VOTE on the 'Faith smackdown': Richard Dawkins vs Francis Collins

Comment #71876 by eric.malitz on September 19, 2007 at 8:23 pm

roland32-
'militant' atheists are equivalent to 'militant' anti-unicornists. There is not a single shred of evidence in favor of any of the proclaimed gods- yahweh, allah, vishnu, zeus, etc. In fact all the evidence put forward is faulty and contradictory. Hence, in the end, we say 'there is no god' the way we say 'there is no unicorn'. If you want to redefine god to be a deist god (non-christian, non-jewish, just your own definition) you are putting forth a god with even less evidence than these other gods. At its most rational can we say that we can't prove the existence of an ultimate designer, deist or not, christian god or not? not really; there is no evidence, in fact there is much evidence against a designer. Hence we say, with as much certainty as we say about unicorns or fairies, "there is no god; there is not a shred of evidence, infact quite the contrary if you look at the universe"

58. Atheists for Jesus

Comment #71492 by eric.malitz on September 18, 2007 at 11:02 pm

"Borrowing a poetic myth from the worlds of mathematics and cosmology, he described humanity as a 'singularity' in evolution. He meant exactly what I have been talking about in this essay, although he expressed it differently. The advent of human super niceness is something unprecedented in four billion years of evolutionary history. It seems likely that, after the Homo sapiens singularity, evolution may never be the same again."

Yes, humans are a singularity. They have the sole ability to wipe out species at a thousand times the natural rate of extinction whilst sitting back watching the latest news on paris hilton.

Jesus not only didn't exist, but he is certainly not a good modern (key word-modern) ethical role model, as others here have pointed out. In fact, this article was a waste of time. Its not 'clever' or 'funny' and would certainly be misconstrued endlessly in t-shirt or bumper sticker form by redneck morons; "so the atheists are coming over to our side eh? amen to that!".
People need to seriously examine religious claims, not give any ground to them when virtually all religious claims, well examined,= garbage.

We might as well support an 'atheists for aristotle' or 'atheists for george washington' movement or any other "lets support a well recognized figure whos ethics are based on obsolete ethical reasoning just so stupid people can relate" movement.

59. Airline sacrifices goats to appease sky god

Comment #70803 by eric.malitz on September 17, 2007 at 12:41 am

stuff like this really makes me angry; a modern airline, sacrificing animals??? Why not humans?

Of course you could use a story like this to make a case against religion in general, and anyone who counters "but.." would only be adding biased, racist, or just hypocritical views about what religion is and whos is better or right.

60. How the Public Resolves Conflicts Between Faith and Science

Comment #70534 by eric.malitz on September 15, 2007 at 11:30 pm

I hope Gould is turning in his grave for that comment. It makes me furious every time I hear it.

"These poll results also show that more than four-fifths of respondents (81%) say that "recent discoveries and advances" in science have not significantly impacted their religious views."

Can you imagine going back in time and educating someone from the 12th century? I wonder if it would threaten their beliefs then, when they hadn't had 900 years to slowly perfect their tip-toeing around the coming scientific advancements, redefining their tennets the whole way with each new discovery.
EVERYTHING that is the foundation of their religion is contradicted by scientific discourse-particularly biology, physics, geology, and including serious study of history and ethics.

When someone redefines their god to the modern wishy washy moderate left wing version, yelling "straw man!" every time someone(dawkins, harris et al) addresses 'yahweh', just ask them where they got the idea of god at all. From the bible, or someone who got it from the bible, or someone who got it from someone who got it from...

Non-overlapping magisteria indeed...science answers real world questions, religion answers biblically (koranically, tribally, etc.) determined questions- and the questions science cant right now answer.
"Oh I dont know evolutionary biology so I will just be parsimonious and plug my god in there. Variation-smaration, god works in mysterious ways."

61. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68849 by eric.malitz on September 8, 2007 at 11:45 pm

could someone tell me who the faces are on the 'village atheist' book besides darwin and harris?

62. Christopher Hitchens on BookTV

Comment #68065 by eric.malitz on September 6, 2007 at 1:01 am

Should we make this into an official post on the forum? I haven't checked the politics section (or other appropiate sections?) in awhile. But someone feel free to or I will myself (if its not already being discussed).

63. Christopher Hitchens on BookTV

Comment #68064 by eric.malitz on September 6, 2007 at 12:59 am

Scooter:
Alternative energy sources or any behavior that leads to a positive effect in what is right now a very dreary future, absolutely SHOULD be mandated.
I am not an expert on global warming but I was under the impression that there really is no dispute among the majority of environmental scientists that it is happening and that human actions are causing it; could this POSSIBLY be suprising, that humans could cause this?? What suprises me is the amount of species that are STILL in existence.

64. Christopher Hitchens on BookTV

Comment #67792 by eric.malitz on September 4, 2007 at 8:29 pm

world hunger and saving millions more humans via medical advances are more important than the obvious destruction humans have waged on the environment? How about having no place to live and no environment at all? How about seeing every large mammal go extinct; its fine as long we save a million humans, right?
The environment should be top priority, it is the most general thing holding all life together on this planet. And how can anyone argue with the massive amount of species extinction that is happening under our feet? This is fine as long as we save some more humans?
Whether global warming is happening or not, we absolutely should be "playing it safe"..there are many, many things that need to implemented very soon to keep the environment from rolling, very fast as it is, downhill. This is not a personal bias or some looney green talk, this is the world we live in; humans are not the only animals on this planet.

65. This human's life, decoded

Comment #67784 by eric.malitz on September 4, 2007 at 7:01 pm

bonzai- read some actual evolutionary psych work before making such an overarching statement.

66. The New Atheists

Comment #67571 by eric.malitz on September 3, 2007 at 8:38 pm

phil rimmer-

ask your friend how we can be a catholic, subscribe to catholic doctrine (he must, otherwise hes not a catholic I guess) and yet find it offsensive to see these beliefs enter the state level. If they are correct, as they are inherently thought to be, then why shouldn't they? is he just acknowledging that his beliefs are totally superficial then? Thats what I don't understand about religious people who defend the seperation, its just flat out hypocrisy.

67. Psychiatrists are the least religious of all physicians

Comment #67567 by eric.malitz on September 3, 2007 at 8:31 pm

I am beginning as a psychology grad student (for a PsyD) and I'm an atheist. In fact, I am interested in dealing with people who may be 'burdened' by irrational beliefs, including religious. Certainly it seems the potential of psychological damage via religion is very high right now.

68. What do these atheists understand of religion?

Comment #67294 by eric.malitz on September 3, 2007 at 2:58 am

Who cares if certain structures were religious-built..just like it doesnt matter that Martin Luther King was a believing christian, it lends no creedence to religious faith as a virtue to be held above reason. Pagans built lots of amazing things, so did 'divinely inspired' abrahamic followers. Led Zeppelin wrote songs about battles, wizards and drug busts but it certainly has no bearing on our appreciation of the music outside of aesthetic value. Some of the most amazing modern structures I've seen personally are of Hindu extraction..but so what?

69. Al Sharpton and Christopher Hitchens

Comment #67251 by eric.malitz on September 3, 2007 at 1:10 am

this debate was a backwards step for this overall battle between reason and religion. Hitchens could have destroyed sharpton and he seemed to take the whole thing quite carelessly.

70. Fruit fly parasite's gene invasion raises questions over evolution

Comment #66868 by eric.malitz on August 31, 2007 at 10:01 pm

'darwin's blind spot' is a good book on this stuff (co-evolution, and inter-species genes). however, ignore his swipes at dawkins' selfish gene; he apparantly hasn't read it or read it so long ago he forgot that dawkins himself described this process pretty similarly.

71. Good luck, Dawkins!

Comment #63791 by eric.malitz on August 15, 2007 at 11:40 pm

There should be a law that makes all these people have some statement/disclaimer or permit upon entering or somewhere near simply stating; entertainment only.
churches should have the same thing.