Correcting Further Misconceptions to do with Evolution

Evidence of macro-evolution in a feather (evolved from scale) in Sinosauropteryx- from China.

People who have never studied science, not even to the extent of taking a high school biology or physics course (or even finishing high school!), are the most likely to make grievous errors whenever they venture into deep scientific waters. Most often they do so to try to make a specious case to support a pet belief, or some biblical reference or book- but if they mess up on their scientific facts, they do themselves no service.

I want to look here at further errors commonly made by critics to do with evolution, and argue again, that before they wade into waylaying Darwinian natural selection they at least avail themselves of an online video course – if not attend or audit a real life course!

1) Micro-evolution:

The definition of micro-evolution from an actual text on it by an expert (Strickberger, on Evolution) is as follows:

Changes in the genetic makeup in a population that usually gives rise to differences between populations of a given species in the form of gene frequency changes or chromosomal variations.

Since the latter DO incorporate genetic changes, then these micro-evolutionary changes can ultimately accumulate and lead to taxonomic or macro-evolutionary changes.

Thus, it is incorrect to asset “there is no new genetic information” being produced.

As an example let’s focus in on the pesticide resistant bedbug population and show that their resistance is also a genetic change, not merely a genotype-less “adaptation”.

We will here consider a diploid population of 200 individuals, and 400 genes distributed amongst them. As we saw from the table given (previous blog on evolution) the ratio of gene frequencies between the homozygous dominant allele (B) and the homozygous recessive allele (b)is 3:2 or 0.60: 0.40 which could manifest for the case shown via:

B = 180 (in BB) + 60 (in Bb) = 240/400 = 0.60

b = 100 (in bb) + 60 (in Bb) = 160/400 = 0.40


For the 200 individual bedbugs we find the genotype frequencies distributed such that 90 are homozygous dominant (resistant to all known approved pesticides) = 90, and 50 are heterozygous Bb, while 50 are homozygous recessive (not resistant) = bb = 50, therefore for the dominant and recessive allele distributions using genotype frequencies:

B = 0.45 BB + ½(.30Bb) = 0.45 + 0.15 = 0.60

b = 0.25 BB + ½(.30Bb) = 0.25 + 0.15 = 0.40

The preceding would conform to the values for p, q in the top row of the table (see, http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/09/problems-with-evolution-hardly.html

And display the conservation of gene frequencies for that line of the table. Now, for a STABLE population, IF the gene pool (of a selected population, whether bedbugs, roaches or fruit flies) remains constant from one generation to the next then the Hardy -Weinberg theorem applies and genetic variation is retained from one generation to the next. We say the population is in “stasis” and there is NO micro-evolution occurring. (Note again, the letters p and q in the table denote the two alleles in the population, i.e. p = B, q = b, thus if B is found to enhance or increase over b then p will increase over q and we will have micro-evolution, which is exactly what we see as we go from the top down in the table)

The sum of the frequencies of all possible genotypes will, in any case, be:

p^2 + 2pq + q^2 =1

which can be verified from the table, for example:

when p = 0.73 and q = 0.27:

(0.73)^2 + 2(0.73)(0.27) + (0.27)^2 = 1

But the key point to glean from the table is that p is increasing all the time, and q is decreasing. In other words the frequency of the dominant allele is enhancing its fitness in relation to the recessive, and micro-evolution is not only vindicated, but the allele re-distributions show a genetic component IS present!

Is this micro-evolution also adaptation – which is defined as meaning that a character (e.g. eye color, resistance to toxins) has been modified and retained as a result of selection for increased fitness? Yes, indeed! But that doesn’t mean no new genetic information is through put! As we see from inspection of the table (and the gene frequency distribution changes) new genetic information is present in the altered quantitative frequency of p relative to q. “New information” being not merely qualitative but also quantitative in nature.

The creationist claim that “adaptation” (and with it micro-evolution) fits within its perspective misses the point that this can only be valid if the genotype frequencies remain stable (Refer to chart at top of page) But since they do not, as seen from the table, then micro-evolution cannot be the same as a simple one-off adaptation that enables no further changes in gene frequency.

Now what conditions are needed for there to be an “evolutionary” change? These include:

1) Variation must exist among the individuals of a population (e.g. if all bedbugs possess the same allele, e.g. b, then there is no variation)

2) Variation among individuals results in differences in number of offspring surviving in the next generation. As we see from inspection of the table this is born out. Thus, the first generation allows 60 of every 100 bedbugs to survive, while the second allows 73 of every hundred to survive, while the third allows 83 of every 100 to survive.

3) Variation must be genetically inherited. Thus, for natural selection to result in evolutionary change, the selected differences must have a genetic basis. Thus, a “lucky” b allele bedbug that simply somehow survives a battery of allowed pesticides isn’t enough. There must be a dominant genetic input, in this case a dominant allele – we call it B- which predisposes for resistance to pesticides.

Note here that one can have a population that is all phenotypically difference (e.g. by appearance) but does not display genetic variation, Then there is no evolution. By contrast, one can have a phenotypically similar population that does display genetic difference. For an evolutionary change to occur in the bedbug population as captured by the table, we must expect that the p favoritism is not merely temporary but passed on and established in all future bedbug populations.


Macroevolution:

As noted earlier, macroevolution, by contrast, entails a proportionately large change in the DNA underlying it that probably reflects ongoing natural selection, over significant time. For example, the change from a cold-blooded dinosaur to a warm-blooded dinosaur that’s a precursor of modern birds would be a case of macroevolution. Similarly, the change from an ape-human ancestor to Homo sapiens (by telomeric fusion of the 2p and 2q chromosomes to the ‘2’ chromosome in humans) would be a case of macroevolution, despite the fact the evidence is available at the chromosomal level.A claim often made by creationists is that macro-evolution “has never been proven or observed”, but this is false! The clear changes in reptilian scales to feathers which we have in hand as evidence from the most primitive feathered dinosaur (the recently reported discovery of fossilized tail feathers of a meat eating dinosaur, Sinosauropteryx found in China) belies this.

The image shown (top) captures the creature (superposed in the tail scale) and its russet-hue. In addition, this dinosaur appears to have russet rings. Most intriguing, the pigmentation of the 125-million year old dinosaur appears to exhibit the same internal cellular coloring agents as seen in the hair of red-headed humans.

The color itself did not show up on simple observation, but did once an electron microscope was applied, at which point the researchers (based at the University of Bristol, England) identified the specific cellular markers of color. Until this remarkable find, scientists have speculated on a wide range of colors for these prehistoric beasts - ranging from rich pastoral green, to ochre and brown. Not surprisingly, as the connection to birds came more and more to light, so did researchers' consciousness that color might be an evolutionary factor.

An important aspect of the macro-evolutionary linkage to descendant birds is that Sinosauropteryx co-existed with other scaled flying dinosaurs.

Another evidence for macro-evolution in terms of a common ancestor of apes and humans giving rise to both is the fact that the cytochrome –c protein sequence has been found to be exactly the same in both.

In the absence of common descent, the chance of this occurrence is conservatively less than ~10^-93 (1 out of 10^93 or 10 followed by 93 zeros). Thus, the high degree of similarity in these proteins is a spectacular corroboration of the theory of common descent. Furthermore, human and chimpanzee cytochrome- c proteins differ by ~10 amino acids from all other mammals. The chance of this occurring in the absence of a hereditary mechanism is less than 10^-29. The yeast Candida krusei is one of the most distantly related eukaryotic organisms from humans. Candida has 51 amino acid differences from the human sequence. A conservative estimate of this probability is less than 10^-25.

An odd fundie objection to common ancestry, is that it is only “circumstantial”. However, the fact of the exact same cytochrome-c sequence to both species (with vanishing probabilities this can happen any other way) plus the fact the 2p and 2q chromosomes fused telomerically to yield the 2 chromosome in humans yields prima facie evidence for not only macro-evolution but common ancestry – that is both chimps and humans descending from a common primate ancestor.

Some fundies also claim this can be explained by a common “creator” but that stretches credulity to profound dimensions! Why would a bona fide “creator” create two species with features (cytochrome-c protein sequence) that argue against a creator! Given that macro-evolution is a simpler hypothesis, and the protein sequence given is explainable via natural selection, one doesn’t require any creator, period! The fallacy committed is what we call “ignotum per ignotius” or using a more far fetched explanation to account for somewhat difficult phenomena.

Fundies also insist that the human mind (presumably of evolutionists) is simply looking at relationships and finding them where it wants to, but this doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. The exactness of the two protein sequences is a real relationship and not merely an ersatz one, as validated by the vanishing small probabilities we find by comparing the sequence with other organisms! As noted earlier, the yeast Candida krusei is one of the most distantly related eukaryotic organisms from humans. Candida has 51 amino acid differences from the human sequence. Thus, the cytochrome –c sequence is a marker for evolutionary commonality or relatedness. The fact that the 2p and 2q chromosomes in apes have also undergone telomeric fusion in humans to yield the ‘2’ further reinforces this and knocks out happenstance or coincidental patterns!

To make a howler comment like: “Lining up bacteria , fish , frogs , mammals , apes , and humans is no more evidence of common ancestry than lining up a bicycle , motorcycle , automobile , airplane , and space shuttle .” is pure silliness, as well as committing the logical fallacies of: non sequitur and false analogy- since mechanical contrivances lack the protein sequence being used to establish common ancestry in the first place! No one is arguing the mechanical contraptions listed derive from a common ancestry since every one with two brain cells to rub together knows that mechanical devices don’t reproduce! Nor do they possess genes!In addition, common ancestry is contingent on examination of protein sequences but mechanical devices lack protein! (No one to my knowledge, even a fundie, has ever eaten one!) In other words, this is purely a strawman argument.

We see from this that the most misinformed critics inevitably use the most simplistic arguments to try to bat down evolution, such as we are merely invoking “similarity” to make a case, say for common descent and evolution – as opposed to having actual genetic and other evidence (as in the case of the Sinosauropteryx fossil, to support it.

What this reveals, again, is that non-science folk are better off sticking to their bibles or cartoons, comics and not venturing into scientific domains, period. They will never know as much as scientists, or experts in the field – especially if they’ve never taken a course on the subject themselves – and base everything they know on Genesis, or Googling.

The Dangerous Disease of Belief

Why are so many human minds claimed by the pathogen of belief? By belief I mean accepting a claim or assertion without adequate supporting evidence. For example, someone believes that ghosts emerge on Halloween and roam the highways and biways. Or, another believes that the Earth is flat, despite photos taken of the Earth from space (which he believes are faked).

For sure, the consequences of belief can vary widely depending on the context. It may mean little or nothing to believe in ghosts, since there's no payback for doing so. However, when 975 people believed in Rev. Jim Jones and left their homes and families behind for Jonestown, Guyana - that carried serious repercussions. In the end nearly all were killed as part of a suicide pact ordered by Jones.

Believing then can have serious consequences, contingent on what exactly is believed in and the general surroundings in which it is rendered. In this regard, belief - absolute, untempered, literal or parsed belief in the Bible can have dangerous consequences indeed! One need only peruse Leviticus, Chapter 20, to see how an insane believer might justify a host of atrocities simply because "God said to do it! It's in the Bible!"

Consider just verse 8:


"For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. "

In Colorado, about seven years ago, a 10 -year old boy actually did curse his mom (according to court documents), and his grandmother took matters into her hands- biblically, referring to this verse in Leviticus. The 78 -year old grandma was a firm, literalist bible believer and immediately seized the boy, and dragged him into a bathroom while she ordered her daughter to fill the tub with boiling hot water. With the tub full, the boy was put into it and held down, acquiring second and third degree burns before a neighbor's 911 call to police spared him further harm.

Both women used the Bible as their defense, stating that the God of the Bible clearly mandated death for cursing a mother. The Judge seemed to accept this, delivering a guilty verdict on an attempted manslaughter instead of attempted murder charge. This shows how our courts can be fouled by religiosity which leniency would never be extended to an atheist.

Here we see how an uncompromising belief nearly led to the death of a child. Never mind the belief was based on a biblical passage, adopted as the absolute, inerrant truth. The point is that it was used as a justification to commit a potential murder. This alone discloses the serious danger of taking biblical passages literally, as opposed to re-configuring and adjusting them to the current era.

Just as the above Leviticus passage might sway a devout bible believer to kill, so might other verses, such as:

(10) "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."

(12)"And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them."

(13)"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them"

The last, especially taken literally, would give any fundie nutwhack a putative basis for going out and slaying homosexuals. "Hey man, the Bible God said to do it!"

Again, clearly, the Bible - KJV or any other, can't be taken literally. Further, the fact that fundies don't carry out these injunctions shows they don't take the verses literally. If they did take their bibles literally, they'd be out on the streets every night executing homosexuals instead of just blogging hate speech about them. But they know if they did attempt to carry out the Leviticus' injunctions, no judge or jury in the country would let them off. In the same way, the 78-yr. old Colorado granny wasn't let off, she had to spend six years in the slammer.

Another malignant injunction is Leviticus 20:27, which caused immense suffering in Salem, Massachusetts:

"A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them"

Because of literal biblical beliefs, the testimony of children was often used to inculpate an older woman has having a "familiar" - even if it was simply her pet cat! From there, a Salem witch trial was held, and she was led to the gallows.

From this we can see that since a fraction of biblical beliefs can't be literally taken, then it makes sense NONE of them can. That includes the ones referring to the need to "believe on Jesus Christ" or be damned or similar bullshit. They are ALL made up and the bible believers are caught out as hypocrites if they literally accept John 3:14-16 but not Leviticus 20: 27 or 13 or others.

The conclusion? All manner of beliefs are dangerous to hold!

In his book, The End of Faith, Sam Harris highlights one of the most dangerous and subversive passages from John 20:29: “Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed”. As Harris writes:

"so every child is instructed that it is at the very least – an option - if not a scared duty, to disregard the facts of the world out of deference to the God who lurks in his mother’s and father’s imaginations..

This is the very same faith that will not stoop to reason when it has no good reason to believe….This proves that these beliefs are not born of any examination of the world or the world of their experience. It appears that even the Holocaust did not lead Jews to doubt the existence of an omnipotent and benevolent God. If having half of your people delivered to the furnace does not count as evidence against the notion that an all-powerful God is looking after your interests, it seems reasonable to assume that nothing could"

If nothing else, the holocaust ought to have shown once and for all that no ‘super Being’ exists other than as a phantasm in the imaginations of the weak-minded – those unable to face the reality of a purposeless cosmos on their own. A cosmic “Santa” if you will. Sure, it's comforting to crack open the King James, turn to Psalms or some other book and mentally meander while delusionally believing one is suffused in righteousness. But in the end it's no more real than a coke addict's delusions.

As Harris points out, the fact we given any credence at all to such institutional madness, shows our civilization is headed for a new dark age wherein reason’s light will finally be dimmed. That some Xtians – like some Jews and Muslims- may do “good works” or perform charity is also no reason to extend any special benediction or respect toward them. As Harris observes (p. 106):

"The fact that people are sometimes inspired to acts of kindness by the teachings of Christ says nothing about the wisdom of believing that he – exclusively – was the ‘Son of God’. Indeed, we will find that we need not believe anything on insufficient evidence to feel compassion for the suffering of others.. Our common humanity is reason enough to protect our fellow human beings from coming to harm."

To the Materialist-atheist, the basis of protecting and cherishing human life devolves on no “god” or god-man or their “commands”, but rather the (apparent - until proven otherwise) uniqueness of life in the universe. The fact that, so far as we know, it abides only on this one world – and therefore bears treasuring in itself, as a cosmic rarity. Not because a fanciful “God” ordained it.

Why or how did the disease of unquestioning belief gain such prominence? I have a conjecture, but no absolute proof as yet. But a clue arrives via Julian Jaynes ('The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind', 1976 )who showed how true individuated consciousness didn't arrive until relatively recently in human history. The brain activity of ancient people lacked the sense of metaphor, irony and individual identity that characterizes a more advanced mind. It also lacked self-reference and introspection, a facility which enables modern man to not only think but think about his thinking.

A peculiar aspect of the fundamentalist mind is that it lacks these very characteristics - especially irony and self-reflection. It basically grabs and gloms onto assorted biblical passages that further its own preconceived biases and bigotry but not much more. Because contemplating the end of life on its own is too quirky and beset with complexity, the fundamentalist mentality makes it easy, simply reduce the debate of an afterlife to one of choice, or personal decision: Either believe in the Lord JC and get "saved", or disbelieve and be "unsaved" - your choice! Easy as 1-2-3! Black or white, no fuss no muss.

Alas, and just as wrong as Granny following Leviticus to burn her grandson for cursing his mommy. (Though the fundies will argue long and hard the two are different, but their argument collapses if they accord literal interpretation only to one and not the other. They end up as hypocrites, cherry picking what they want to literally interpret.)

In like manner to Jaynes' primitives, it is quite feasible that lacking individuation via self-reflection, the fundies' spontaneous need for a tyrant "God" arises. This tyrant is also beneficent to a point, as he gives orders, instructions and so on - to protect the tribe, or to avoid an enemy, or even conquer an enemy. (Or in the extreme, commit genocide on an enemy) Like the earliest agrarian primitives, we see the fundamentalist mind is a TRIBAL mind first and foremost. In Tribal minds, obedience reigns over all other values, including integrity, honesty, and intellectual pursuit and inquiry. The Tribal mind at base cares nothing for these, regarding them simply as excuses to avoid obedience to his Tribe leader, in this case his Demiurgos deity.

Tribal minds are also notorious for receiving special "instructions" which purportedly direct them to do this or that. In truth, the "instructions" probably emerged from some inner "voice" (we are all subject to internal dialogs from time to time) which - on account of absence of individuation - becomes a voice of "God" (The primitive was unable to differentiate the inner voice from an external one, attributed to "God" - just like modern day fundies do).

The danger of the Tribal mind is its absolute committment to absolute, unwavering belief. This is exactly why we must never EVER allow such a mind to get anywhere near the missile-releasing "football" - which means the presidency. Such a mind would, at the first excitation of a the primitive belief that "Yahweh calls for Armageddon" would release the missiles, or certainly try to ...to expedite the end of times. We cannot allow that, and must never permit our democracy to be subverted to such malignant belief. We cannot allow ourselves to morph into the part of the mother who tried to assist ''Grandma in carrying out the injunction of Leviticus 20:8 on her ten year old son!

We must not allow ourselves to revert to the Tribal mind even if most of the country falls under its sway.

A 'Culture of Dependency'? WHY and HOW?

A recent editorial in The Chicago Tribune squawked about a "culture of dependency" as exemplified in the words of one Wall Street Journal piece:

"Nearly half of all Americans live in a household in which someone receives government benefits, more than at any other time in history".

The Chicago Trib editor goes on to point out:

"This is a major change. A generation ago, less than a third of Americans lived in households getting government benefits. The expansion helps to explain why it has gotten harder than ever to restrain federal spending on entitlements : too many oxen would be gored"

Yes, it and may also what provoked the consummate asswipe, Alan B. Simpson, to make his crack about Social Security being a system with "310 million teats". Well, along that line of thought, how about I gore some corporate media oxen along with Simpson? It's well and good to pronounce and cite the increased proportion of Americans dependent on federal benefits, but to be honest one ought to cite ancillary statistics as well, which discloses WHY this may be necessary. For example;

- Wages of American workers, adjusted for inflation, have been essentially static since 1973.

- Home prices, averaging $48,000 in 1973 have increased to nearly an average of $220,000 today.

- Medical costs, expenses have increased nearly twenty-fold since 1974.

In addition, nowhere do either the WSJ or the Trib point out or say that nearly 12 million Americans are doing UNPAID LABOR in caring for ill family or relatives, who otherwise would be on the government's dole. These include millions of Alzheimer -affected relatives and others with serious disablities. So stop the whining about "entitlements" already!

In addition, no where do either of the above editorials mention that currently 11% of all Americans are doubling up with family, relatives. And the only thing supporting such doubling may be one VA, SS or other paycheck that might permit up to 12 people to live under one roof. 12 people who otherwise would be added to the 3 million homeless.

How did things get so bad? By betrayal! Both the government's betrayal in privatizing and de-regulating to shlep risk onto the population, as well as having lawmakers in the pay of corporate lobbyists and corporations (for campaign cash) and also private companies' betrayal - in shipping millions of jobs to Bangalore and China, while hanging shingles in Antigua or the Caymans to write off taxes! Not to mention:

-Eliminating nearly all permanent jobs which carry health and pension benefits, in favor of using 'temping', 'outsourcing' or some other device not requiring benefits

-Identifying older (over 50) workers as 'surplus' so that they can be replaced with younger workers for whom half the wages (or less) can be paid, with fewer benefits.

- Firing - downsizing workers after mergers dictated by Wall Street interests, in order to enhance a company' profits through higher Wall Street share prices

- Re-engineering the workplace to increase its automation factor in order to dump workers, so increase profit margins by not having to pay benefits,

- Cutting employee benefits, i.e. health plans - even after employees have retired with them.

In other words, friends, it doesn't take a genius IQ to perceive why so many Americans are now receiving federal benefits, and why this is likely going to have to increase- because so many have been betrayed by those they counted on. Of course, the wolves in the political and corporate system-alliance want no one to see through the screen of their manipulations!

BUT... a sharp-eyed and unapologetic cynic will always understand that when a culture promotes false optimism, pseudo-happiness and illusionary confidence it is inevitably to try and hoodwink the population. (See: Bright-sided: How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America - by Barbara Ehrenreich) In particular, hoodwinking seems to work best on that segment that hasn't been able to sustain the standard of American economic advancement do often hyped on television, in the magazines and by the pundits in their 24/7 news cycle. As a result they blame themselves for not achieving the levels of success originally envisaged, rather than the political-economic system that undermines them.

The message is invariably: "Hey! If you're not doing well it's YOUR fault!"

And so we again find the imperative of the "Order paradigm" (promoted by political elites and the corporate media) trying to suck the wind from the sails of the Conflict paradigm. In the latter, people are not encumbered by false consciousness permeating their environment and see that the system (in the U.S. - the tandem political-corporate system yielding a corporatocracy) is responsible for keeping them back via an array of means including: i) its tax system, which favors the wealthy and re-distributes income to them, ii) an insurance system which cuts and hedges on protections rather than supports them, iii) a legal system, which more often confers benefits on the wealthiest clients than the poor, and iv) a public education system, which is designed not for critical thought but to manufacture drones for the corporate state. (In Conflict and Order : by D. Stanley Eitzen and Maxine Baca-Zinn, Allyn & Bacon, 1991. )

In the Order Paradigm, meanwhile, the System controls the message and its purpose is the same as when Edward Bernays first enunciated it ('Propaganda’, 1928):

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government, which is the true ruling power of our country.”

The major role of the system sponsors is to engender and reinforce the myth of personal blame (the so-called fundamental attribution error in psychology). This is defined:

"The tendency to blame individuals for their level of failure or success without considering the aspects of the social structure that impel or impede their progress. Thus, it results in praise of the system and condemnation of individuals who are defined as losers. "

Thus the subtext of all the main media messages focus not merely on the failure of individuals but ignoring the system's culpability in the whole. Jacob S. Hacker, author of The Great Risk Shift: The New Economic Insecurity and the Decline of the American Dream (Oxford University Press, 2006) writes (p. 58):

"Adherents of the Personal Responsibility Crusade have largely adopted strategies of stealth, seeking to transform existing arrangements beneath the radar screen of public awareness. Rather than tear existing arrangements out by the roots, advocates of personal responsibility have mostly worked to chip away at America's public -private framework of economic security, all the while blocking efforts to deal with the growing economic risks that American families face. To see their success thus requires looking for more than dramatic policy upheavals"


Of course, there are dozens, even hundreds of examples, but let's look at a few. One of the major risk shifts occurred in the 1980s with the 401k, under the law by that title. This allowed companies to cease having to provide pensions to workers to life, but rather let workers themselves be responsible for their own retirement security. Now, over 30 years later, barely 35% of corporate workers have defined pension plans - nearly all have morphed to defined benefit plans. Not surprisingly, the greatest proportion of workers that now will have to work years longer to afford retirement are those who had 401ks largely parked in the stock market. (Though it was a well -known fact since its inception, that the 401k was originally designated to be a pure saving vehicle, not an investment vehicle! See: 'The Great 401k Hoax', by Anne Colamosca and William Wolman)

Less well known is the erosion of insurance benefits across the board. What insurance companies have been allowed to do (via the System's process of "de-regulatory fixes") is write in small print to assorted policies under which they no longer have to cover the costs. Or, they can immensely jack up premiums if a policy holder has suffered a major misfortune. In the case of my own parents, following Hurricane Charlie striking Port Charlotte, Florida a few years ago, their insurance premiums spiked nearly 150%. The fact they sustained any damage at all from this Category 4 storm, meant their policy was altered to embed much higher premiums. Their only choice was to put their home on the market, since they could no longer afford the higher premiums on fixed incomes. (They moved into a retirement complex).

In the case of other home insurance, one major calamity may even be enough for a company to drop coverage altogether. Other damage claims, in the form of stachybotrys or black mold, are now no longer even considered. If you have it, you could as well abandon your home since they won't pay you a red cent.

In terms of health insurance, the fixes are so numerous they make the mind boggle, for example, canceling insurance if a certain maximum amount if reached. Or, rejecting a person for coverage if one of hundreds of pre-existing conditions is found. (In the film 'SICKO' one woman's mild childhood illness was enough to have her breast cancer treatments pulled because the insurance company deemed it a "pre-existing" condition she didn't report)

Currently, many tens of thousands of trusting Americans are also paying through the hand, nose and mouth for "Long term care insurance" in the hope that if and when they get Alzheimer's and need to enter a nursing home, it'll be paid for. Well, good luck on that! It's now fashionable for long term care insurers to write so many qualifiers and conditions, sub-conditions into the fine print that a person will be damned lucky to actually partake of what he or she's paid for when they need it!

In terms of the tax system, I already noted how according to a New York Times piece cited by Barbara Ehrenreich('This Land is THEIR Land', p. 23): "It's as if every household in the bottom 80% is writing a check for $7,000 every year and sending it to the top 1 percent".

Thus, redistribution of wealth to the upper crust is built right into the tax code. And now these miscreants are squealing like stuck pigs over the prospect (if the Bush tax cuts expire) they may have to pay 3.5% or so more per year in taxes!

Given how the rich predators have picked the pockets of the poor and middle class for the past ten years, the tune of nearly $7,000 a year - the least that can be done to correct it is to ensure every pocket of those picked is remunerated back in federal benefits! Or, at least it works out that way for those who need the benefits! 44.4% of the U.S. population now depending on federal benefits? Hmmm.....seems to jibe with the 49% who've had their pockets picked by the wealthy since the Bush tax cuts first emerged in 2001. I say...fair is fair.... and fuggedabout changing that!

You want to halt "entitlements" - make sure no Bush tax cuts for them go forward!

Problems with Evolution? Hardly!

People who know next to zippo about Darwinian evolution (they haven’t even read Darwin’s Origin of Species) constantly complain about perceived “problems with evolution” but most of these are McGuffins, red herrings, straw men or false issues. Let’s consider first the claimed contradiction between gradualism, the hypothesis that speciation occurs only slowly via natural selection vs. Punctuated equilibrium which essentially has implied the converse (sudden and dramatic speciation). More technically, the latter actually refers to a differential rate of selection as opposed to what was believed a 'constant rate' of selection for the former- despite the fact no actual "gradualist" holds that a single steady constant rate is do-able or necessary!

So in many ways this is a false dichotomy and false argument. The term “punctuated equilibria” was originally coined by paleontologists Eldredge and (Stephen J.) Gould to denote a long-term fossil uniformity of populations punctuated by geologically short period of rapid speciation. However, none of the critics of the alleged “face off” between “gradualism” and “punctualism” seem to be remotely aware that 99.9% of evolutionists agree that BOTH gradual and rapid changes can occur in the course of evolution! (Again a case of false either-or logic getting the better of critics, leading them to falsely conclude the two aspects are “mutually exclusive” when they are not)

As Biologist Richard Dawkins puts it (‘The Blind Watchmaker’, p. 248):

“Punctuationists then, are just as gradualist as Darwin or any other Darwinian. They just insert long periods of stasis between spurts of gradual evolution.”

Dawkins then goes on to clarify why the discussion has become so muddied, mainly because of a misuse of the term ‘gradualism’- which was first coined to distinguish Darwinian natural selection from saltationism (which as he points out is actually a glorified creationism). The latter can best be framed by the description “all at once evolution” in which a species suddenly – over maybe one generation or two – becomes a whole new species. But neither punctuationists nor gradualists make any such claim! (Which is why Dawkins also calls it “747 evolution” because it would be like seventy thousand pounds of nuts, bolts, panels, diodes, electric wires and junk suddenly coalescing as a Boeing 747 without the slow process of manufacture!)

The other unfortunate overtone in all this, was the fact that Gould et al deliberately used the phrase “punctuated evolution” as if their version was somehow distinct in kind from gradualism, never reminding non-scientific Americans that the term ‘gradualism’ preceded their own use – by virtue of Darwin’s invocation of it to distinguish it from saltationism. In this way, “punctuated equilibrium” arose more out of media stardom and the endless media need for controversy than any abiding reality. In a genuine sense, then, the controversy of punctuated evolution v. gradualism is a strawman confected by the media, much as they recently confected the “climategate crisis” out of hacked emails, when three panels and independent commissions found that no real crisis ever existed! Moral of the story? Never ever trust the media to get it right!

What about alleged fossil problems associated with evolution, or as some critics aver, “gradualism” (given we now use this word only casually and not formally!) Well, as Dawkins observes we do know that most of the major invertebrate groups seem to suddenly appear in the Cambrian rock strata of 600 million years ago as if “planted” (Op. cit., p. 229) Evolutionists concede this leaves a large hole or gap in the fossil record, but one which is not without logical explanation! Consider the backward time trajectory within which we see fossils by older layers (dated using radioactive decay – as I showed in a prior blog) accumulating the further back we go. We see a bunch of invertebrates at 600 my ago but virtually nothing before. Why? A logical explanation is that even more primitive forms pre-existed these and their soft exo-skeleta or body parts would simply not have survived. In other words there were no shells or bones to fossilize! Think of just a large primitive jellyfish, would we find fossil evidence for it? Hardly! The creature is 100% soft tissue none of which would have been preserved,. Same with most other more primitive denizens.

Again, this explanation is accepted by BOTH punctualists and gradualists so to try to split them off from each other, as if the fossil record gaps fail gradualism but not punctualism is a false choice and shows the critic doesn’t know what he’s writing about.

Another reason for apparent “jerks” in the fossil record is offered by Prof. Dawkins (p. 240)

“The reason that the transition from ancestral species to descendant species appears to be jerky is simply that, when we look at a series of fossils from any one place, we are probably not looking at an evolutionary event at all, but a migrational event. The arrival of a new species from another geographical area”

I mean, after all, there’s no law that commands all species remain fixed in one place! Even today, as water holes dry up or food reserves dip, African animals like Wildebeest, antelope and others will migrate to new areas in search of resources to support them.

Not mentioned by Dawkins is how many other ‘holes” or gaps may have been created by virtue of tectonic plates (which make up the Earth’s crust) slipping or crushing key fossils in distinct layers. Obviously, if such tectonic traversal displaced a fossil layer, then it likely won’t be found when it may well have harbored intermediate forms.

What about alleged conflicts between micro-evolution and macro-evolution? Once again, these are more based on inflated hot air (especially from brash creationists and bible pounders) than substance.

By “micro-evolution” we mean minute evolutionary change, involving a small proportion of DNA. For example, the emergence of an orange-eyed fruit fly (drosophilia melanogaster) after 20 generations would demonstrate microevolution. Of course, microevolution can also appear at the microscopic level, for example in changes in haemoglobins, histo-compatability antigens, and biochemical environmental adaptations (e.g. formation of blood chemicals which confer some form of restance to environmental toxins or agents).

For example, right now a hardy form of bedbug has arisen, impervious to nearly all forms of insecticide and the reason why these annoying creatures are now dominating the news cycle- and driving millions to distraction. This change occurred somewhat suddenly, as one examines the statistics for infestation, with barely 50 cases in New York City in 2006 vs. more than 3,000 this year. The evidence then suggest clearly a punctuated equilibrium in terms of micro-evolution in the bedbugs species leading to a resistance to nearly all insecticides.

In terms of the concept of fitness let B refer to a favored allele for a bedbug with total resistance, let b refer to a deleterious allele ( one with zero resistance) Recall the measures for success of natural selection are the fitness (w) and the selective value (s): These can be measured on either absolute or relative scales, but are related algebraically on the latter by:

w = 1 – s, or s = 1 – w


Let’s say at a particular time a gene frequency ‘snapshot’ of the bedbug population under study yields: p(B) = 0.60, q(b) = 0.40, i.e. the favored allele B is reproducing at the ratio 3:2 relative to the disadvantaged one, b. As before, the selective value s = 0.50. A simple table showing the declining gene frequency of b relative to B is shown appended to this blog

On average over time let each bb and Bb individual produce one offspring, and each BB produce two. These average numbers can be used to indicate the genotype’s absolute fitness and to project the changes in gene frequency over succeeding generations. The relative fitness (w) is meanwhile given by:

w = 1 for BB

w = 0.5 for Bb

w = 0.5 for bb

The selection values, relative measures of the reduction of fitness for each genotype, are given respectively by:

s = 1 – 1 = 0 for BB

s = 1 – 0.5 = 0.5 for Bb

s = 1 – 0.5 = 0.5 for bb

As we expect, the pesticide-resistant bedbug genotype displays zero reduction in fitness, and hence maximum survival rate. Thus, the table provides a brief “snapshot” of how micro-evolution has been working in the bedbug population to generate billions of these pests that can’t be exterminated by ordinary pesticides – necessitating the use of varieties currently prohibited for safety and health reasons.

Macroevolution, by contrast, entails a proportionately large change in the DNA underlying it that probably reflects ongoing natural selection, over significant time. For example, the change from a cold-blooded dinosaur to a warm-blooded dinosaur that’s a precursor of modern birds would be a case of macroevolution. Similarly, the change from an ape-human ancestor to Homo sapiens (by telomeric fusion of the 2p and 2q chromosomes to the ‘2’ chromosome in humans) would be a case of macroevolution, despite the fact the evidence is available at the chromosomal level.

As another point to note in this discussion, punctuated evolutionists don’t see any sharp divergence between the micro-evolutionary foundation and macro-evolution in their formulation. Thus, they see the fossil record as long intervals of micro-evolutionary stasis or equilibrium – during which there is relatively little change, punctuated by rapid macro-evolutionary emergence. (Which again, is not to be confused with saltationism, thus in this case what is going on micro-evolutionarily in an apparent equilibrium – may simply not be visible at the macro-scale, but which ultimately incepts macro-scale features. E.g. scales suddenly converted to feathers for raptors).

What does all this show? That most of the alleged "problems of evolution" are confections or fabrications which exist only in the minds of those who insist on seeing problems - perhaps beause "problems" with evolution assuage some doubts that their good Book gives them the whole truth. What is somewhat puzzling, and I've never been able to process is: Why, if their good Book provides them with all the truth needed, they feel compelled to venture into scientific arenas they know nothing about? Is it to try and pretend they know some science to confer an imagined gravitas on their beliefs? (Or to use big words like "punctuated evolution" and "gradualism" - to show off for their followers?) WHY? Why not then just have "faith" that their nonsense is true and leave evolution to the evolutionists? That's a question only these zealots can answer! But we can be sure they never will, at least honestly!

The Building Blocks of Evolution

Before one can understand the basis of evolution, it’s necessary to become acquainted with its building blocks. These include the two nucleic acids, DNA and RNA, and the proteins synthesized by their mutual interplay. In terms of what we know in modern genetics, it’s the information encoded in DNA – specifically in terms of instructions for protein biosynthesis – that enables differentiation between a man, a mouse, a maggot and a mold. In other words, the information transmitted from one species’ generation to the next is primarily in its capacity to synthesize its own particular proteins.

DNA or deoxyribonucleic acid consists of two strands of what we call polynucleotides. In the case of DNA there are four bases: A (adenine), C (cytosine), G (guanine), and T (thymine) that are paired in two mutually exclusive ways[1]. That is, A always goes with T, while G always pairs with C.

One possible explanation for the preferential pairing arrangement is the presence of multiple hydrogen bonds between bases. The arrangement itself is evidently crucial to the encoding of information. In this sense, the way the bases are arranged in DNA forming various ‘messages’ is precisely analogous to the way this sentence encodes structured written information. Change the order of the letters in the words, the order of the words themselves – or both, and noise emerges.

On this basis DNA can be said to be an informational molecule. Also on this basis, as we shall see, if the information content alters – and can be replicated in its alteration, there is the possibility of molecular evolution. This is in fact the phase at which evolution commences, since it directly affects the instructions for protein synthesis.

RNA

Like DNA, RNA is a polymer, but much simpler. This is because the latter’s ribose sugar molecules are smaller than DNA’s deoxyribose sugar molecules. So there are fewer monomer units in all to make polymer chains. At the same time, while there is only one type of DNA, there are three types of RNA:

- Messenger RNA or mRNA: really a complementary copy of a DNA segment that conveys information from cell nucleus to cytoplasm. Once there it acts as a template for synthesis of a protein molecule.

- Transfer RNA or tRNA: as the name implies, it couples information in the nucleic acid base sequence to the amino acid base sequence in synthesized proteins.

- Ribosomal RNA or rRNA: forms the ribosomes of cells, from which proteins are made.

As we can see from the preceding, proteins are synthesized in living cells by a transcription (coding) process from RNA molecules, themselves transcribed from DNA. A simple diagram is appended to help to illuminate the process.

What are proteins? They are complex molecules composed mainly of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen. That is, four elements generated within the innards of massive stars. Like the nucleic acids they’re polymers but of amino acids rather than nucleotides, ribose, deoxyribose sugars. Further, they’re linked by peptide linkages, rather than hydrogen bonds.

Some of the twenty or so amino acids found in proteins, with their abbreviations, include: valine (Val); leucine (Leu); threonine (Thr); alanine (Ala); and glycine (Gly). On the surface, given what we know about polymers – as long chains of molecules, one might expect proteins to be similar long chains. In fact, proteins undergo at least a threefold coiling-folding process. In the first one, the polypeptides are coiled to a long spiral called the alpha-helix. The structure resulting resembles a long cylinder. Another folding yields a spherical form.

Molecular evolution at the level of DNA, RNA, and proteins is precipitated by one or more of the following:

- Base substitution, whereby one amino acid (nitrogenous base) is replaced by another. This is called point mutation.

- Deletion of a group of bases.

- Addition of a group of bases, e.g. if there are multiples of three, one or more amino acids may be deleted from the protein.

- Inversion, or removal of a segment of DNA accompanied by reinsertion elsewhere but in inverted order. Related to inversion in a way is translocation, wherein a portion of DNA is attached to a homologous chromosome.

In each of the molecular cases above, the alteration results in subtle changes in the coding of information, or the transfer of information. These molecular changes therefore act as sources of genetic variation, and ultimately evolution if the change is reinforced by natural selection .

And, if this is true, it should also be feasible to trace back species lineages using comparisons at the molecular level, viz. different segments of chromosomes for suspected related species.

Yunis and Prakash, in their groundbreaking work for example, have shown a remarkable homology between chimp and human chromosomes, when heterochromatin is excluded. This includes no less than thirteen ‘presumably identical chromosome pairs’.[2] They also show that for the common ape-human ancestor, from which both chimps and modern humans arose, eighteen chromosome pairs were similar to Homo sapiens, and fifteen to the chimpanzee. They also found that chromosome 17 in the chimp differs by a ‘pericentric inversion’ from that of man.


[1] RNA has the same bases except for T (thymine) now replaced by U (uracil).

[2] Yunis, J. and Prakash, O: 1982, The Origin of Man: A Chromosomal Pictorial Legacy, in Science, Vol. 215, p. 1525. The chromosomes are: 3, 6 to 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 19 to 22 and XY.

How Dumb is Dumb? Comparing Atheists to Pharaoh!

Image from a halfwit fundagelical's blog -comparing atheists to Pharaoh.

The turgid stupidity of fundies never ceases to amaze and astound. It's bad enough that they lack even basic reasoning power and logic (as demonstrated by one of them on a recent logic test I posted) but they continue to repeat the same exact gross errors of thought and logic even after being corrected umpteen times! Are they retarded, or just deliberately determined to be the biggest imbeciles on the planet come hell or high water?

A new tack on one eponymous fundie's blog is to compare atheists to the ancient Egyptian Pharaoh, described in Exodus, who kept the Hebrews in bondage! (See attached image from his blog) Has this lunatic lost all sense of proportion, all degrees of sanity? Or does he genuinely wish to be exposed as the colossal idiot and fool he's craving to emulate?

This moron writes:

"God had given Pharaoh numerous opportunities to repent and do what was right , but in his stubbornness , he , like the atheists , thought he was above God . Even after ten plagues that God put on Egypt - he STILL rebelled against God ! Can you spell S-T-U-P-I-D ! "


No, ahh... stupid is comparing a large group of current, rational American unbelievers (in your hard-hearted, vengeful and hateful god) to an ancient Egyptian sovereign who held tens of thousands of Hebrews in slavery. The fact that any person could do this at all is proof of: a) their need for instant seizure as a psychotic, and b) the need to strap them down 24/7 and administer thorazine with ECT every hour.

In other words, blockhead, there is NO comparison!

Do atheists think they are "above God"? No, why would they, if they see no evidence for any god, and certainly none that this loudmouthed, brash cretin has proffered? If we don't accept any evidence for a god then clearly and logically we'd no more think we were "above" this confection than we were above the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, or Santa Claus! But this is what passes for argument in dimwit fundie blogs these days.

But it's interesting that the chosen citation basis issues from Exodus - part of the Hebrew Old Testament - because this sheds light on the savage, dictatorial nature of the deity this fruitcake embraces. As Bart D. Ehrman observes (God's Problem : How the Bible Fails to answer Our Most Important Questions, p. 33), the Hebrew OT embodies the whole basis of a tyrant deity, always angry and "determined to see his people behave properly, and if they did not..he would punish them as he punished them before".

In other words, we have the deity as "Headmaster" of the cosmos! Dare to insult this looney tune and he will take you to his "woodshed" for six of the best, administered with whatever implement is around. He brooks no disobedience, no rudeness, no lip and by god...if he beholds you doing anything he doesn't fancy ...watch out! He'll collar you in a nanosecond and whup you! Dear readers, this is the god of a mental infant, a spiritual rugrat. He admits by his belief in such that he's unable to guide, direct or control his own life and hence he needs a big Headmaster or Daddy god to stand behind him ever at the ready with his whuppin' stick! Do we want such infants anywhere near political power? I think not! It's bad enough they have access to computers! (Which ought to be labeled dangerous instruments in their hands!)

And this is also what we expect of a petulant little imp who has an ego problem. As Ehrman goes on to note (ibid.):

"The God who destroyed the Egyptian armies when he delivered his people out of slavery would destroy them if they did not behave as his people"

Exactly! This sourpuss tyrant would have eliminated the Egyptians even if they had complied! He wouldn't have been satisfied until they'd converted into Jews themselves, and even then he'd have spanked their asses whenever he saw them doing something he didn't fancy - like making a golden calf or ,....not adhering to whatever ritual (e.g. males getting too close to a female during her menses, as prohibited in Leviticus) disallowed by the Hebrew moral coda.

But here's the kicker question as Ehrman asks it. IF the Jews were so obsessively monitored (ostensibly for protection and guidance) by this despot, why didn't he step forward and protect them when they needed it MOST? To quote Ehrman (op. cit.):

"Putting aside for the moment the 5 million non-Jews who were killed, how can we fathom the heartless extermination of six million Jews? The Jews were to be God's chosen people, elected by God to enjoy his special favor in exchange for their devotion to him. Were the Jews chosen for this??

Indeed, and this is a question the hardcore fundies need to address before they put their febrile pens to paper again, or blog another aspersion about atheists! WHY would God, this over-protective Hebrew Headmaster, be so protective of some 50,000 Jews vs. Pharaoh - but NOT at ALL against Hitler and the Nazis? Certainly not when the Jews needed him to effect rescue from the gas chambers! Was Hitler too big for God....errrr....Mr. Headmaster of the cosmos? Or was it that 6 million were too many to protect - and 50,000 were more within its capabilities (making more sense if it was a demigod or demiurgos, as Gnostics believed).

Inquiring minds want to know.

Until we do, the fundie who posted this gibberish can now understand why we treat his deity fables as the dreck they are, and he and his ilk as a clan of halfwits, dummies - 52 cards short of a full deck to boot.

Basic Insights into Radioactive Decay

While teaching evolutionary biology in Barbados, I found that in more than one place of the syllabus there was provision to introduce physics concepts. One of these is the use of radio-isotope dating, with which every budding evoutionist needs to be familiar. At the very least, this allows the more accurate placing of fossil finds in relation to others, after they have been subject to geological disturbances or long term processes.

In this blog I want to give some basic background on radio-nuclide dating. For reference, the fundamental law of radioactive decay, based on some original number of N(o) atoms decaying with an activity a over time t to a number N atoms, is:

N = N(o) exp (-at)

The ‘half-life’ is the time for half of the original (N(o)) atoms to disintegrate, or for

N(o) -> N(o)/2

Thus:

N(o)/ 2 = N(o) exp(-a T ½)

where the half-life: T ½, has been inserted into the exponent for the time t.

After canceling N(o) from both sides of the above equation, and taking natural logarithms (base e)[1]:

a T ½ = ln 2 = 0.693


or T ½ = 0.693/ a

Using this basis, any sample or fossil, with even a minuscule amount of radioactive element can be dated. All we need to know is that over the period T ½, half of the number of remaining atoms decay and the current activity in Becquerels. Thus, if T ½ = 15,000 yrs. for a = 200 Bq, then if a = 50 Bq now, we may deduce the sample is ~ 45,000 yrs. old. (E.g. three half-lives decaying)

A graphical depiction of a generic radio-nuclide decay is shown in the accompanying diagram. Here, the left side of the graph shows a relative scale for amounts (masses) of an unnamed, decaying radioactive isotope which starts at some specified value (1 gram) then decreases to half the original amount each half life. The time axis is given in millions of years (mY). It’s easy to see here that the half life for this hypothetical isotope is about 1 million years.[2]

The problem of dating ancient fossils or other specimens is really a problem of finding the radioactive isotope with half-life long enough to provide a reasonably accurate measure of the age. For fossils one would look first for isotopes that have half-lives in the millions, or at least hundreds of thousands of years. Failing that, one would wish to have available some kind of correction method, say to correct for extraneous effects like the atmosphere might impose on samples.

For many applications, potassium-argon dating methods are important. These are based on the relative compositions of Potassium –40 to Argon-40, a gas. Typically when rocks or other items are tested, the sample obtained is split between the potassium content on the one hand, and the argon on the other. The instrument of choice to assess the ratio of K-40 content/mass to Ar-40 (or other combinations in the relevant radioactive series) is the mass spectrometer.

Exotic isotopes of carbon can also be used if the measurement technique is sufficiently refined. In a recent use of the isotope delta 13C, evidence has been found for the existence of life on Earth at least 3, 850 million (or 3.85 billion) years ago.[3] Quartz (zircon, zirconium) crystals have often found to be of use, since they may harbor small amounts of uranium or thorium at the level of ‘parts per billion’.[4] For dating in the millions of years – particularly for igneous rocks and fossils embedded within, isotopes of lead and strontium are ideal, being the ‘daughters’ from millions of years of radioactive decay.

Despite some drawbacks to the use of fossils and the fossil record, we see that radioactive isotope dating is an excellent means of enhancing their quality assurance. The use of such methods (e.g. using delta 13C) to show that life existed on Earth nearly four billion years ago, for example, controverts the thesis claimed by most creationists: that life arose barely 6 millenia ago. The fact it ties to a primitive bacterium discloses humans didn't appear first but rather bacteria, which makes sense given the human genetic associations to assorted bacteria.

Even if creationists dispute the underlying explanation for what the delta 13C dating reveals, they are left to account for it on their own. That the ancient organisms were likely methanotrophs – living on methane gas, a toxin to humans - makes their challenge even more interesting and their solutions less probable. Beyond this, the many differing layers of the fossil record revealed show that any special creationist explanation either approaches nonsense, infringes credulity or both. For instance, multiple layers disclose multiple ‘creations’ in the creationists’ framework. And it certainly begs both reason and credulity that any deity requiring so many ‘creations’ can possibly command our attention. At the very least, it ought to be ‘fired’ for gross inefficiency!





[1] Of course I am leaving out a large amount of mathematics here, especially the calculus aspects related to rate of decay, e.g. dN/dt and how various forms are obtained, also equations linking up the daughter nuclei produced from the original nuclei. I am hoping readers will avail themselves of many fine resources to broaden their perspectives on this, and reinforce what I’ve given here.

[2] The real life isotope that most closely matches is Zirconium 93.

[3] Holland, H.D.: Evidence for Life on Earth More Than 3850 Million Years Ago, in Science, Vol. 275, 3 January, 1997, p. 38.

[4] The Dating Game, Research in Review, Summer/Fall 1990, p. 5.