Wednesday, October 7, 2009

A Beautiful Letter from Einstein

Have you ever heard "Einstein believed in God!" I have, and I have even heard it used to argue for the existence of a God. Even though any thinking man would know that Einstein was not religious. Here are several excerpts from a letter written by Einstein a year before his passing to an author of a book titled 'Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt'.
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. ... For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong ... have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything “chosen” about them.
The letter was bought on auction for £170,000. That is about $100,000 USA more than a first edition Darwin.

Link to original post: Here

Monday, September 28, 2009

Correlation With Increased Teenage Birthrates and Religiosity



A recent paper was published in the Journal of Reproductive Health showing the correlation of religiosity and Teenage Birth rates. Religion 0 : Secular Society ∞

The Studies Abstract:

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The children of teen mothers have been reported to have higher rates of several unfavorable mental health outcomes. Past research suggests several possible mechanisms for an association between religiosity and teen birth rate in communities. METHODS: The present study compiled publicly accessible data on birth rates, conservative religious beliefs, income, and abortion rates in the U.S., aggregated at the state level. Data on teen birth rates and abortion originated from the Center for Disease Control; on income, from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, and on religious beliefs, from the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey carried out by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. We computed correlations and partial correlations. RESULTS: Increased religiosity in residents of states in the U.S. strongly predicted a higher teen birth rate, with r = 0.73 (p<0.0005). r =" -0.66," r =" -0.63." r="-0.45," p="0.002." correlation="0.68," correlation="0.54," p="0.001).">

Religiosity and teen birth rate in the United States.
Strayhorn JM, Strayhorn JC.
Reprod Health. 2009 Sep 17;6(1):14. [Epub ahead of print]

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Stairway to Heaven

The Stairway to Heaven (aka. Ha'ikū Stairs) shall henceforth be known as The Stairway to Science.

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

The Bible: Reality Version



Monday, August 31, 2009


Graph originally from here,
State IQ statistics from McDaniel Estimating State IQ
Religious importance statistics from Gallop - State of the States: Importance of Religion


A few outliers on there, Hawaii and California being the most prominent. Hawaii, California and Nevada are also on the top 5 list for the biggest homeless populations by state (here). Hawaii and California are also on the top 5 foreign born population list. (here)

Correlation does not equal causation without proper statistical significance, so just trowing those two facts out there for others to come to their own conclusions.

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Synaptotagmin


I will be working on identifying Synaptotagmin genes in Nematostella in my new lab with Mark Martindale at the Kewalo Marine Laboratory . I will be doing some in-situ's, phylogenetic trees, cell fate mapping, antibody staining, and DAPI. Also I will be working on pro-neural gene transcription factors.

I'll write something up on Synaptotagmin in the future.

On the Intellectual Stance of Atheists Before Darwin

Famously, in Richard Dawkins various books (The Blind Watchmaker...etc.) and various talks, Prof. Dawkins has eluded to the fact that before Darwin intellectuals were not fully justified in their disbelief. These various statements made by Prof. Dawkins have brought out a plethora of critics on the matter.

Darwin gave the answer to the apparent illusion of the irreducible complexities of life. From Darwin (and friends) we now know that the original self-replicating molecule/molecules gave rise to all the different complexities of life. Humankind was knocked down off of its high pedestal of self importance and ignorance and brought down to the level of all other living organisms. No longer were we justified to say that we were created in a Gods image, we were just like all of the other animals utterly unimportant in terms of the universe as a whole. And as we look up into the sky with our modern day telescopes we find that we are on a single planet in a sea of galaxies each containing estimates of ~100 billion stars, each with their various planets and moons and most likely life of their own.

I argue that Dawkins was completely justified in making the statement that "Darwinism allowed one to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." But, I would go one step further and say that every single scientific discovery fills a hole that was once left to the dead Gods of old. Darwins contribution while not sufficient to get rid of all of the different beliefs in a God, sure did well to justify the disbelief in the Judeo-Christian God.

"From so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."
the concluding passage from, The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin 1859.

Monday, August 24, 2009

The Disparity of the Intelligent and the Ignorant in the USA


Nature 453, 28-30 (1 May 2008) | doi:10.1038/453028a; Published online 30 April 2008

I have heard it said by Neil deGrasse Tyson that America produces the smartest people in the world, while at the same time producing the dumbest people in the world.

And Now for Something Completely Different.
Original graph from here, 2002 religiosity pew poll here, and IQ from IQ and the Wealth of Nations by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen.

Sunday, August 23, 2009

Darwin Was Right!

About natural selection and almost everything else he wrote about. Any questions?

Smith HF, Fisher RE, Everett ML, Thomas AD, Randal Bollinger R, Parker W (2009) Comparative anatomy and phylogenetic distribution of the mammalian cecal appendix. J Evol Biol. 2009 Aug 12. [Epub ahead of print]

On the Concept of Racism

The term "racism" is properly defined as the belief that "race" is the primary determinant of human traits and that those traits produce inherent superiorities between "races".

There is another term "racialism," defined as a theory that race determines human traits and capacities.

While contemplating the term races in a purely scientific matter, I have come to the conclusion that factually, "race" exists. The proper term "races" stands for the different sets of genetic variants that accumulate within a population. Neo-Darwinism can be defined as changes in gene frequencies within a gene pool.

It is not hard to come up with an example of differences between races. The most obvious difference being skin color, but an even more appropriate physical feature showing a physical advantage or disadvantage depending on a particular environment would be to compare pygmies average height with that of any other "race" (The average male height of pygmies being 150 cm and the average height of American males being 176cm.) But of course even skin color can defer an advantage or disadvantage in rates of tolerance towards sun exposure. Other genetic differences between races include Lactose tolerance, HIV resistance, Malaria Resistance, and a number of other genetic differences that have been shown to occur at different rates between the supposed races.

Now, back to the term racism. Racial differences exist, we as scientists should be honest with ourselves and stop fooling ourselves into thinking that they don't. Too many people forget that it is one thing to say that racial differences exist and it is a whole other matter when someone says that a particular race is superior to another therefore the other race should be discriminated against. But again the situation gets even more complicated, because couldn't a person make a case for the discrimination of pygmies within the NBA (National Basketball Association,) obviously, yes. Would an airport hire a blind air-traffic controller? But, this brings up a new problem, in that, are not all short people discriminated against in the NBA? I would like to call this concept justified discrimination as opposed to unjustified discrimination. An example of unjustified discrimination would be the practices of organizations which perpetuate inherent differences between races, not based upon any type of pragmatic concern, but would otherwise lay claim to and actively discriminate against others solely based upon birthrights (I'm sure the reader can think of one.)

Luckily if things continue the way they are, in a few hundred years the human race will be a semi-perfect mix of all the current races. I look forward to that future of a homogeneous society where only one race exists and justified racial discrimination can and will no longer exist on logical grounds. The only discrimination will be that of the luck of the genetic draw and the subsequent environmental effects that change a persons phenotypes.