Found this graph on showing the difference in the processes of science and denialism:
Pretty accurate
Who would have thought we would really find out what happened to Tutankhamun!!!!!!!
The actual cause of death was not a matter of conspiracy or murder, but simply malaria and weak immune system due to royal inbreeding (my brothers are a great catch...but no thanks).
Although reality turns out to be not as dramatic as the previous speculations, the findings are nonetheless really interesting.
I feel like a piece of a puzzle is in place, very contempt :)
warning: image might represent him as hotter than he actually is/was.
Yesterday I went with Buddah to Umbeluzi, near Boane to check out the site for the Agricultural Technology Centre that is being built by the Chinese.
Buddah told me that he had travelled through in the beginning of Jan and at that time there was no sign of anything being built.
but lo and behold:
Okay, so it is far from operating date, but hey it is actually being built!
The Mozambican and Chinese flags in the distance
There is hardly anything more frustrating than reoccurring misunderstandings of the theory of evolution.
An article was published today in a Norwegian newspaper proclaiming that recent discoveries put into question some aspects of Darwin's theory. The article is not anti-evolution in anyway, but nonetheless it completely misunderstands the process of evolution.
In short the article writes that the theory of evolution means that the "best" will survive, however humans use medicine to keep "weak" and sick people alive who otherwise would have died through the natural process of evolution, thus humans are working against nature. However, the article states, it has now been discovered that other animals also use cures to recover from sickness (such as eating certain plants etc), thereby evolution is saved, healing the sick is natural after all! The day is saved.
This author (and editor?) of the article fails to understand the basics of evolution. When we talk about only the "best" surviving it means the best at adapting, not the strongest (the antonym of weak).
The author makes the mistake of thinking of evolution as progressing towards some goal, towards some super-species. Evolution does not have an aim of creating even stronger and "better" (in the authors opinion: stronger) creatures, rather it is a random process, given the conditions some creatures will have better chance than others to reproduce.
Thus if humans know how to treat their ailments then we create conditions in which more people can reproduce. Our society has adapted to several diseases enabling humans to survive long enough to reproduce (and beyond).
In fact humans ability to heal diseases represents one of the biggest adaptability features of any creature on earth, hence the success of humans to spread and increase in numbers.
What the author of the article is really talking about is a theory called social darwinism, not evolution. Social darwinism was used to justify Nazism and racism, but actuality social darwinism is a total misapprehension of the theory of evolution (for the reasons explained above).
Besides...I don't see why more animals "working against nature" (adapting to find ways to heal illnesses thereby increasing their chance to live long enough to reproduce) would make it natural if one believes in social darwinism.
The worst thing of it all though must be that the author has a phd in biology... and he still does not understand the very basics of evolution.
Its a joke. If I find out what university he went to I want those awarding him an agree to answer us how on earth that was possible.
From Scandinavia, grew up in Africa, study economics in Shanghai and love to Pole Dance
Recent Comments