Commonwealth Games II

I suppose I could carry on posting about this event until it finishes. I may do just that, I am sure I won't be alone if I so choose. I discovered today that Melbourne was the only city to bid for the games, which makes the honour of hosting them somewhat dubious. Interesting also that the ruling monarch, Queen Elizabeth the second chose to leave the country as soon as her formal duties were complete. Equally as interesting is that the representative of the US Royal family, Dr. Condoleeza Rice, is sticking around to watch something in which (gasp) her own country are not even participating!

The exclusion from competition of two thirds of the world's population on the basis that they were not invaded by the same monarchy at some point in their history seems to make the outcome of competition somewhat meaningless in itself. Are they the best athletes in the world? Some of them, but we're not going to be able to judge that from the results of any events here over the next week or so.

Another thing which has been bothering me is the sheer cost of the circus. The opening ceremony alone cost $50 million Australian. If, as I have heard, it is true that homeless people in the city are being housed for the duration of the event at the expense of the taxpayer, this figure could surely have provided permanent accomodation for them in perpetuity.

Best not to think too hard about it. It is a Friday afternoon, and the byproducts of Saccharomyces cerevisiae metabolism are calling me from my local watering hole.

The Commonwealth Games

Games. Idle amusements we usually reserve for those times after all our necessary work is done.

Commonwealth. A suggestion that all the goodies get shared among all the people.

Both seem to be particularly out of place in describing this expensive circus which has invaded my chosen city for the next ten days.

In all honesty, I have to declare my personal distaste of the idolatry directed toward athletes in this country. Yes, people are born with differing abilities, some of them with particular body shapes and muscle arrangements which make them suitable for particular sporting events. Some of those people may even be born into situations where those particular traits are recognised, and nurtured. Of this lucky group, some may become better at their individual pursuits than those against whom they compete. A few of this ever diminishing group may have the contacts and good fortune to be able to devote a great deal of their time toward being the fastest, strongest, or most able to whack a little ball with a stick into a net.

I am still surprised that people can become so excited by people being good at something they spend their entire life practising for. They are born with the right body, they are given the best training, they spend hours of their day, days of their week, and most weeks of their year honing their ability. And then they compete. Sometimes they win. Sometimes they don't. When they do, should we be surprised? When they don't, should we be surprised? There is always someone with a slightly better build, a slightly more effective metabolism, a slightly more constructive training schedule, or style.

I have no problem with people enjoying sport, "healthy competition". But I don't idolise those people who become so obsessed with what should be a hobby that it consumes their entire lives at the expense of balance.

There is a name for disorders of this nature. We usually refer to it as addiction.

Evolution before life

I was reading today that life on earth was probably an inevitable consequence of an abundance of organic chemicals, forming either around geothermal vents deep in the ocean, or in shallow pools at the ocean's edge. Either way, it's an interesting prospect. It seems that these chemicals were subject to evolutionary pressure before the first self replicating molecules even came into existence. That the most unstable molecules in this soup were selected against, in favour of the more stable, such as citric acid. This in turn paved the way for other molecules to use the stable molecules as foundations on which to attach themselves, until complex, self replicating molecules such as RNA became possible.

Evidence for this hypothesis is not hard to find. It forms the metabolic backbone of every living cell in existence. Fossils in our very own bodies. Cool, huh?

Low fat? So what!

Recently an extensive study by the Women's Health Initiative, financed by the National Institutes of Health, which compared randomly assigned, low-fat diets to regular eating habits among 49,000 women in the United States, was completed. Analysis of the results of the eight year study showed that women who ate a reduced fat diet suffered the same rates of colon and breast cancers, as well as similar rates of diabetes. This was a surprise, as conventional wisdom has long been telling people that reducing the amount of fat in their diets will result in better health.

This wisdom is simply not supported by data from this study. While some critics of the study point to the fact that no distinction was made between saturated fats and unsaturated, the study was undertaken based on previous findings suggesting a link with total fats and certain cancers. Also under scrutiny is the level of fats the tested women consumed, some arguing that the 20% total fat intake was still too high, and that more significant figures may be revealed if the total fat intake went down to 10%, however, this conveniently ignores human nature. As only 31% of those studied managed to reduce their fat intake to this level. This suggests a major problem with the idea of reducing fat intake, as the majority of women could not cut that much fat out of their diet, the idea of suggesting people halve that amount again is just unfeasible.

What this study does show, is that much of people's behaviour is based on belief, and that if we hear something enough, we assume it to be good advice. Ask a chemist about the old saying "where there's smoke there's fire" and he will no doubt explain the reality of the situation to you. People's health is as much based on superstition and personal belief as on good testable scientific practice. Much like everything else in life.

Howard gags boffins

So, it transpires that the Howard government has been preventing Australia's top research organisation, the CSIRO, from revealing findings which indicate that the global climate is changing. This has been going on for about the last ten years, which it seems may have been the most crucial time for definitive findings about atmospheric warming to influence governmental policy.

What is the point in spending tax dollars to do research on a phenomenon which will affect not only Australians, but the whole world's population, if the results of the investigation are kept a secret? To keep something like this quiet because it may affect foreign investment or trade deals appears to be shortsighted, to say the least. Downright irresponsible would be far more appropriate terminology.

Humanism

We humans often set ourselves apart from animals, for many reasons. Historically, it has been because some scriptural doctrine or another informed us that we were either made from scratch to be their superior, or chosen by some deity for special enlightenment. As an atheist and evolutionary biologist, I can't accept these reasons.

Less doctrinally challenged ideals for human superiority based on our intelligence and character have been more recently used as justification for our behaviour. An objective view of our behaviour reveals a less than intelligent, territorial, jealous, violent, and greedy species. Actually, looking solely at our actions and their outcomes, not their motivation (or worse, after the fact justification of them) , we behave as any other reasonably social creature does. We support our own herd, and fight off all others to secure territory, which protects the resources our herd needs to survive.

There is a fine example of how this kind of behaviour works in the animal kingdom, involving beetles. It is often used in explaining population dynamics in undergraduate science courses. A certain species of beetle requires a particular food source for it's larvae. The food source is the seed of a particular tree, and each larva requires half a seed in order to reach maturity. If two beetles lay an egg on the same seed, both larva have enough food to become beetles. If three beetles lay their egg on the same seed, all three larvae die as a result of the competition for food.

If we were truly more intelligent than animals, we would be able to figure out a way that everybody got all they needed, no matter where they were born in the world. Some continents are heavy with mineral wealth, some have rich arable soil to farm, some have plentiful fresh clean water, some have all of these things in the same place, and their citizens are wealthy and healthy, for the most part. Some land masses have none of these resources, and their citizens are poor, unhealthy, uneducated and die very young.

If none of us are chosen by an external force as superior, then we are all equal. If we are all equal, then the world's resources belong to all of us, especially those materials that are limited. And not just those living in the present, but the future generations should have a claim in the wealth of the world. If everyone had equal access to all resources, would there be any need for standing armies to defend them?

If we evolved from animal ancestors, as I think it is safe to assume we did, then our future rests firmly on the concept of humanity, in taking the final step in shedding our animal past, and becoming superior to them in the only way we possibly can. By achieving some real intelligence.

Evolutionary blink of an eye

So, the current rate of species exctinction is almost one hundred thousand times more rapid than the natural rate, according to this article. What does that mean? Probably not a lot. Considering science has only identified a fraction of all organisms on earth, and most of those we can see with the naked eye are ecologically unimportant. We could kill every green plant on the planet, for example, and still have enough oxygen for a hundred years or so.

Does it mean we should be worried? Possibly, but worrying about it is not going to solve the problem.

Does it mean we should do something about it? Probably, but when it comes down to it, we are the only species with any kind of values system, so if we wipe ourselves out, there won't be anyone left to whom it will matter.

And the whole thing will start all over again.

Quite reasonably, the best all around solution.

Before we arrived, there were no problems, because there was no one around to couch a situation in such terms, nor even consider the world around them in such systematic theoretical framework. Things ate other things, they lived, they procreated, they died. The measure of success was the number of viable offspring any individual contributed genes to. If evolution is a kind of never ending experiment, then it may just be that this course of investigation has reached it's ultimate potential.

Time to return to basic principles, perhaps. It has happened before.

Lies by Omission

It seems to be a common feature in material written by people with "radical" or "unconventional" views that they apparently have reasonable, well thought out arguments to back up their case. They often have well developed websites, which apparently offer unbiased "information" to interested readers, like this one for example.

Such "evidence" is easily checked, and usually is refuted by many conventional and web authors, while supported by single or few "researchers", often with either hidden or obvious agendas. The exclusion of data which does not support an argument is both misleading and dishonest. An explanation should attempt to describe all known phenomena, not just single cited cases fitting a certain a priori argument.

A piece of factual writing is only as reliable as it's sources, and these days, such sources are easily checked. If they canot be verified, one must immediately ask why? What benefit to the author for not including sources, and indeed, what benefit ultimately to not including information which challenges their contention. Such omission may easily have the opposite effect to that which the author intended.

Stardust Memories

For those not familiar with NASA's Stardust Project, in 1999, a probe was launched to pass through the tail of a passing comet. It returned it's cargo, a canister comtaining dust collected in the comet's tail, to earth in January.

There is evidence of complex "organic" type molecules in the dust, which leads scientists to believe the possibility that comets crashing into a young earth may have planted the seeds of life here. So, are we all aliens? Even if this origin of terrestrial life is true, I don't follow this interpretation. If emigres can be considered citizens in their own lifetime, I suppose that 3.5 billion years of shared evolution should qualify us to call this planet home. Even if we were refugees originally.

Or should we just "go back where we came from"?

The Inaugural Blog Entry

I guess it was inevitable, in order to curtail my posting elsewhere, I ultimately had to find another outlet for my ranting and general disagreeableness.

Here it is.

What have I got to rant about today?

Hmm, how about a list of things I don't believe, just to get the ball rolling. Here goes.

Abracadabra Acupuncture Adam and Eve Ad Hoc Hypothesis Alchemy Alien Abductions Aliens Alternative Medicine Allopathy Amityville Horror Amway Ancient Astronauts Angels Anti-Gravity Machine Antichrist Apparitions Anti-Immunisation Area 51 Aromatherapy Astrology Astral Travel Atlantis Auras Automatic Writing Ayur-Vedic Medicine Backward Masking Barcodes (Evil) Bass Strait Triangle Bed of Nails Bee Venom Therapy Bermuda Triangle Bible Numerics Biblical Literalism Bigfoot Biofeedback Biorhythyms Blasphemy Bogus Qualifications Bone Pointing Bridey Murphy Bunyips Cattle Mutilations Chain Letters Channeling Charlatans Charles Berlitz Chiropractic Christian Science Clairvoyance Closed-Minded Attitudes Coincidences Cold Fusion Conspiracies Cosmobiology Creationism Cricket Scores (Unlucky) Crop Circles Cryonics Cryptozoology Crystal Power Cults Curses Debunking Demons Dental Amalgam Devils Dianetics Dihydrogen Monoxide Divining Dowsing Dragon's Triangle Dreams Of The Future Drum Healing Earth Rays Easter Bunny Eckankar Ectoplasm Edgar Cayce Elves Elvis Presley (Survival of) End-Of-The-World-Predictions Energies Unknown To Science Entities Erich Von Daniken Eugenics Evangelists (Corrupt) Evil Eye Exorcism Extra Sensory Perception Extra-Terrestrials Face On Mars Facilitated Communication Fairies Faith Healing Fasting

Fatalism Feng Shui Firewalking Flat Earth Fluoridation (Adverse Effects of) Flying Saucers Fortune Telling Free Energy Machines Fuel Economizers Fundamentalism Gaia Gargoyles Geocentricity Ghosts Ghouls Global Warming Goblins Gods Graphology Gurus Hanger 18 Heaven Hell Hoaxes Holistic Health Hollow Earth Holocaust Denials Homeopathy Horoscopes Human Cloning Hypnosis Icons (Weeping, Perspiring, Milk-Slurping etc) I Ching I.Q. Tests Immanuel Velikovsky Immortality Incubus Internet Iridology James Lakes Jehovah's Witnesses Jeanne Dixon Jesus Jim Morrison (Survival of) Kinesiology Kirlian Photography Lake Monsters Lemuria Leprechauns Levitation Life After Death Living Forever Loch Ness Monster Lottery Schemes Lucifer Lucky Charms Lunar Effects Lunar Real Estate Magic Magnetic Fuel Savers Magnetic Healing Devices Mars Effect Mars Landing Faked Martian Real Estate Media Men In Black Mermaids And Mermen Mesmerism Messiah Messiah Cults Miracles Monuments On Mars Monuments of the Moon Moon Landing Faked Mormonism Multi Level Marketing Mysteries Mythology Myths Natural Law Party Natural Vision Naturopathy Nazca Lines Near Death Experiences Neurolinguistic Programming New Age Noah's Ark Nostradamus Numerology Occult Omens Original Sin Ouija Boards Out Of Body Experiences Ozone Therapy

Palmistry Paranormal Parapsychology Past Lives Pendulum Power Perpetual Motion Machines Phantoms Philadelphia Experiment Phrenology Piltdown Man Poltergeists Prayer Predictions Prophecies Pseudo-Science Pseudo-Technology Psychic Archaeology Psychic Dentistry Psychic Detective Psychic Pets Psychic Powers Psychic Surgery Psychomotor Patterning Purgatory Pyramid Powers Qi Gong Racism And Racial Theories Raindance Radiesthesia Reincarnation Reiki Religions Remote Viewing Resurrection of Christ Reverse Speech Roswell Runes Sasquatch Satan Satanic Ritual Abuse Scams Science (As Dogma) Scientology Sea Monsters Seances Secret Organisations Sects Seers And Prophets Shiatsu Shrines Shroud Of Turin Skepticism Sorcery Speaking In Tongues Spiritualism Spontaneous Human Combustion Spoon Bending Star of Bethlehem Stigmata Subluxations Subliminal Tapes Succubus Superstition Tarot Cards Tasseography Tea-Leaf Readings Telekinesis Telepathy Theosophy Therapeutic Touch Thought Field Therapy Tooth Fairy Transcendental Meditation Transubstantiation Tutankhamen's Curse Ufos UFO Cover Up Conspiricies Unicorn Urantia Urban Legend Urban Myth Uri Geller Urine Therapy Vampires Virgin Births Visions Vitamin Supplements Voodoo Werewolves Witchcraft Yetis Yowies Zero Point Energy Zombies

Okay, so some of those are not thing I outright don't believe in, just things about which I am skeptical, lifted from the Australian skeptics website.

But you get the idea.