Roy Williams Is at it Again

Hello… there,

That’s right, you guessed it, Roy Williams is at it again with his constant crusade of logical fallacies with yet another Seemingly intelligent argument, which, upon some investigation, turns out to be of no particular interest or value. In his most recent hashing of facts and evidence, Roy Williams has made the claim that humans’ ability to articulate the underlying laws of physics is proof of god. He says that there is no evolutionary advantage to us being able to understand, “The deep underlying reason why the apple fell to the ground” as opposed to, “Oh look, the apple fell towards the ground.” In today’s post, I am going to be showing how, 1. We aren’t actually very good with the understanding of the things, 2. We need a lot of help to try to understand the things, and 3. Evolution accounts for our apparent ability to understand the things.

First of all, the fact that we aren’t actually very good at maths. Here is a little thought experiment. Take a dozen or so coins, and ask somebody to be a volunteer for your experiment. Tell them that they are to tell you how many coins are in your hand, without using any sort of counting system. if they played by the rules, they will be clueless as to how many coins you are holding. This is because humans are not very good at counting, believe it or not, humans suck at math. Everything we know about maths, had to be learnt. Humans are good at the talking and the language and the problem solving, but not the math.

That brings me to my second point, If we never taught ourselves a number system to count things, we would be clueless. If you are counting things past about ten, then when you are counting it, you won’t be thinking about the actual amount of things, you are thinking about how many times you have counted one unit. We say, “I counted 43 sheep”, but really we are just adding one more to the clicker, we don’t actually know how much that 43 is.

On to my next and final point, Evolution accounts for our ability to discover the maths of black holes, and the big bang. We are humans, and humans, face it, are not very strong. We are very weak, and we are very slow, so we must have something to survive with, that is our humongous brains. So obviously, it benefits us to be able to problem solve, and communicate, and count things to a small degree. When we learnt how to count up to the number of appendages on the ends of our arms, we had to be able to describe it to people, so we gave all the appendages on our arms names, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. With this we had maths, from there, everything flowed, because our problem solving ability leads us to question things, and so we used math to figure out those questions. Then the human condition of curiosity took over, looking into the world around us. It is possible to explain our maths ability through evolution.

I will leave you with a quote from Richard Dawkins, “Bertrand Russell used a hypothetical teapot in orbit about Mars for the same didactic purpose. You have to be agnostic about the teapot, but that doesn’t mean you treat the likelihood of its existence as being on all fours with its non-existence.” Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist, writer and atheist of some note.


The simple nature of evolution

Hello to My New Zealand reader and the rest of you,

In today’s post I am going to try to explain the whole concept of evolution in a very short time period (which depends on your reading speed).

The whole idea of evolution is very simple, and once you get your head around it, is really a very intuitive system. All you need for evolution to take place is some object which can make crude copies of itself. You also need this replication process to be slightly flawed, so that when a copy gets churned out, it is a little bit different to the object it was copied from. This random change (mutation) is essential to evolution and is the driving force.

Now imagine this first, original object making two copies of itself,  one is blue, and one is red. Whichever colour is most successful, and able to survive long enough to make more replications of itself, will make more replications of itself. Say the red object is better able to reproduce than the blue object. Because the red object is a better replicator, it will reproduce more objects like it, so there will be more red objects. The Blue object will slowly fade into the darkness because it is not as quickly able to reproduce itself.

It is important to know that this whole thing is completely natural, the reason why the red object will be superior is because the red object is superior. It will have more off-spring because it is able to have more off-spring. This is just randomness being put to use.
This is the basis of evolution.

Now to clear up a few common misconceptions about evolution.
There is no intent in a species. a species does not decide to evolve pretty tail-feathers like a peacock or evolve the ability to swing through the trees well. It is just something which happens naturally. If the animal with the prettiest tail-feathers has the most children, then those pretty-tail feathers will be passed on to the next generation, whereas the animal with the not-so-pretty tail feathers will have fewer children, and the not-so-pretty tail feathers will not be passed on to the next generation quite as much as the pretty tail feathers.

Evolution takes a long time.
For most species which people can observe, like dogs, cats, birds or frogs, it is unlikely that you will observe any noticeable change in this species. This is why most people cannot comprehend evolution. It takes thousands of years for a species to evolve into something that is noticeably different, like a longer tail or a shinier coat, but with many years of patience over many generations, we can observe evolution. Just look at what we have done with dogs, cats and all the fruit and vegetable we eat. The wild things we decided to domesticate and cultivate thousands of years ago look nothing like what we pat or eat today. But you can see evolution in your lifetime, you just need an animal which reproduces very quickly, like E. Coli. Lab experiments have been done over 20-odd years that show evolution in these small animals, but people don’t like this evidence because they cannot look at the E. Coli without a microscope.

I will leave you with a quote from Judith Hayes, “If we are going to teach creation science as an alternative to evolution, then we should also teach the stork theory as an alternative to biological reproduction.” Judith Hayes, an Atheist of some note.