Umair Haque / Bubblegeneration
umair haque  

 
 


Design principles for 21st century companies, markets, and economies. Foreword by Gary Hamel. Coming January 4th. Pre-order at Amazon.


 
Friday, October 20, 2006

Politics of the Day (2)


"... I've studied some journals of genetics and found that some of the top tier geneticists have determined that there are 58 human alleles dating back several million years. I can't pretend to understand all the terminology, but what this apparently means is that at no point in the last several million years could there have been any less than 29 (58/2) ancestors of what are modern biological humans. The geneticists also said that several thousand ancestors would have been needed to pass those traits down for 100,000 years.

...Genesis 6:1-4 seems to make it pretty clear that men were breeding with something non-human. Could it be that Adam and Eve were specially created with human souls, sinned, gave birth to Cain, Abel, and Seth, and then, their children having been corrupted from the Fall and living before any sort of Mosaic law, began mating and breeding with unsouled hominid creatures? In this way, all living humans would trace genealogy to Adam and Eve, the only 2 human beings, but would also trace ancestry to unsouled hominids, who were not actually human beings.

...It would seem that there are three basic possibilities:

1) The diversity of the genes in our gene pool was present at the origin of the race, or

2) The diversity of genes has grown dramatically in the time since our race began, or

3) A combination of (1) and (2).

...Possibility (2) also subdivides into further options:

2a) The current genetic diversity was gained due to breeding with non-humans, or

2b) The current genetic diversity was gained through artificial natural manipulation of the human genome, or

2c) The current genetic diversity was gained through artificial supernatural manipulation of the human genome.

...you'd probably need ongoing miracles to explain the spreading out of the genetic material since there is no known natural process (at least, there is not one known to me) that would allow for the original massive genetic packages to spread out into the population (i.e., why Cain and Able and Seth wouldn't just inherit mom and dad's massively pumped-up chromosomes but instead inherit ones with less genetic material).

That's a bunch of miracles, and while it could have happened that way, my instincts about the miraculous say to seek a different explanation.

...(d) is also a logical possibility, though it would require you to either accept that there was a prior human civilization capable of genetic engineering or that there was a non-human civilization (terrestrial in origin or not) that messed with our gene pool."


I stand in unashamed awe.

If there was a more compelling demonstration that the first world is about to be the new third world, I have yet to find it.

These guys can't even be bothered to gain a Wikipedia level knowledge of genetics. Amazing.

More succinctly: if there's a single lesson we can take away from history, it;'s that societies invariably decay when v(religion) > v(reason).

-- umair // 6:31 PM // 2 comments


Comments:

You should check out "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. It's a book marketed specifically to convert religious believers to Atheists, and doesn’t lie about it. Mostly, it breaks down unscientific arguments (similar to this one you just presented) across the board, and counter-attacks them with science, and a whole lot of Darwinism.

In fact, the book preaches people to think on their own and come to their own logical conclusions rather than relying on vague assumptions made by other people. Most people inherit a religion because their parents practiced it, not because they sought out and chose it.

Religious fanatics will assume that their viewpoint is correct by default, and then seek scientific evidence to support their cause. All non-supporting facts are outcast immediately as untrue. It’s no different than a cigarette company funding a study that concludes that cigarettes are good for you. If you shine light on something just the right way, you can paint a pretty rosy picture. It’s not science, it’s propaganda.

I just found the book wildly entertaining, and it convinced me to call myself an Atheist now rather than Agnostic. Umair, you might find reading it as “yeah, I already knew that,” but it showed me a thing or two that I didn’t know about before, and solidified my non-beliefs.

And no, I’m not affiliated with the author, publisher, or anyone who had anything to do with this book at all. I genuinely just found it had an excellent discussion about religion and atheism. I haven’t read any other Dawkins books, but he makes references to them throughout, and if you’ve kept up with his readings from day one, this book might just come to you as a re-hash (I think).



Living in the North-Eastern U.S. myself, I can say that religion doesn’t have nearly the fanaticism as it does in the “heart” of the U.S. It’s still present and problematic IMHO (hell, I was raised Christian!), but lacks the extremist that you find in some of the red states. We vote for leaders based upon how well they thing they will lead, not on how they will interpret and follow the bible.

Another good point to observe is that the higher your education, the less likely you’re religious. That’s true in most of the blue states. The red states have an overabundance of under-educated individuals.

I find it disheartening how people/media/politicians always make the distinction between poor/rich people, rather than under-educated/educated people when they look at societal classes (there are few dumb people that are rich, and there are few smart people that are poor). Economists recognize this obviously, but I feel that many American’s don’t grasp this, or simply don’t want to.

This is worth mentioning because the bible-belt is heavily influenced by these classes in the economy (see: Flying Spaghetti Monster).
// Anonymous Anonymous // 9:16 PM
 

You should check out "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. It's a book marketed specifically to convert religious believers to Atheists, and doesn’t lie about it. Mostly, it breaks down unscientific arguments (similar to this one you just presented) across the board, and counter-attacks them with science, and a whole lot of Darwinism.

In fact, the book preaches people to think on their own and come to their own logical conclusions rather than relying on vague assumptions made by other people. Most people inherit a religion because their parents practiced it, not because they sought out and chose it.

Religious fanatics will assume that their viewpoint is correct by default, and then seek scientific evidence to support their cause. All non-supporting facts are outcast immediately as untrue. It’s no different than a cigarette company funding a study that concludes that cigarettes are good for you. If you shine light on something just the right way, you can paint a pretty rosy picture. It’s not science, it’s propaganda.

I just found the book wildly entertaining, and it convinced me to call myself an Atheist now rather than Agnostic. Umair, you might find reading it as “yeah, I already knew that,” but it showed me a thing or two that I didn’t know about before, and solidified my non-beliefs.

And no, I’m not affiliated with the author, publisher, or anyone who had anything to do with this book at all. I genuinely just found it had an excellent discussion about religion and atheism. I haven’t read any other Dawkins books, but he makes references to them throughout, and if you’ve kept up with his readings from day one, this book might just come to you as a re-hash (I think).



Living in the North-Eastern U.S. myself, I can say that religion doesn’t have nearly the fanaticism as it does in the “heart” of the U.S. It’s still present and problematic IMHO (hell, I was raised Christian!), but lacks the extremist that you find in some of the red states. We vote for leaders based upon how well they thing they will lead, not on how they will interpret and follow the bible.

Another good point to observe is that the higher your education, the less likely you’re religious. That’s true in most of the blue states. The red states have an overabundance of under-educated individuals.

I find it disheartening how people/media/politicians always make the distinction between poor/rich people, rather than under-educated/educated people when they look at societal classes (there are few dumb people that are rich, and there are few smart people that are poor). Economists recognize this obviously, but I feel that many American’s don’t grasp this, or simply don’t want to.

This is worth mentioning because the bible-belt is heavily influenced by these classes in the economy (see: Flying Spaghetti Monster).
// Anonymous Dave Gallagher // 9:17 PM
 
 

Recent Tweets







    input
    portfolio
    contact

    mail.
    uhaque (dot) mba2003 (at) london (dot) edu

    skype.
    umair.haque

    atom feed

    technorati profile

    blog archives