Page 6 |
BetterHuman.org Weblog |
Welcome to the BetterHuman.org Weblog. Please read this very important excerpt from my book, Meme, as it also applies to the contents of this weblog. If you'd like to be notified of weblog updates, or wish to contact us directly with compliments, criticisms, or especially corrections, please visit our Contact Us page, where you'll also see a list of frequently-asked questions. If you are looking for specific keywords in this weblog, be sure to use your browser's 'find' function. Also, I'll apologize in advance if some weblog entries seem abrupt, but in the interest of conciseness I've often been forced to remove large portions of submitter's emails, and this will occasionally make my response appear inordinately potent.
© BetterHuman.org.
No part of this writing may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system, or transmitted by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the express written
permission of BetterHuman.org. All submitted emails become the sole property of BetterHuman.org. All submitter names are altered in order to protect identities.
Topics on this page:
#74 - When an unstoppable force hits an immovable object - Nov 05, 2005, 05:20 PM
#75 - Common misperceptions about the mechanism of evolution - Nov 13, 2005, 09:40 AM
#76 - The abusive tenacity of the ethereally-empowered ego - Nov 13, 2005, 10:15 AM
#77 - What exactly do religions teach their followers these days? - Nov 13, 2005, 10:23 AM
#78 - Religion is the roadblock to peace - Nov 13, 2005, 10:32 AM
#79 - Waking the sleeping giant - Nov 13, 2005, 10:37 AM
#80 - The withdrawal symptoms of the 'faith' narcotic - Nov 13, 2005, 10:50 AM
#81 - A detailed explanation of evolution - Nov 13, 2005, 11:02 AM
#82 - Candle-blowing - Nov 13, 2005, 11:06 AM
#83 - 'Species' continued - Nov 26, 2005, 09:55 AM
#84 - How to best deal with religion and loved ones - Nov 26, 2005, 10:09 AM
#85 - Little bit of everything - Nov 26, 2005, 10:17 AM
Click here to see next weblog page...
#72 - Mythbusting - October 29, 2005, 01:43 PM |
Mr. Siderain wrote back:
> I remembering somone mentioning the shroud of turin as being an article of proof that god and what not is real, Jesus is the son of god yadda yadda. Well anyway my reading mentioned that the shorud was carbon-14 dated to test its age (And for all you out there who dont know better, C-14 dating is perfectly accurate) and they found that it only dated back to the Medieval period, and that it was merely a forgery to increase piety. Just a little interesting something I think people should see.
Thank you for this mythbuster. To supplement, I've said it before, there is one sure-fire way to determine the validity of evidence that supports the existence of ethereal beings...the evidence is 'always' either mistakenly or purposely misinterpreted, or manufactured by humans. There simply are no ethereal beings.
> Good work Mr. Sinjin
Thanks for your support,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 3.34, 3.42, 5.66, 6.72, 6.79, 7.93, 8.113, 14.177}
#73 - Is BetterHuman.org 'qualified' to dismiss the notion of ethereal beings? - October 29, 2005, 01:47 PM
Mr. Loophost wrote:
> I came by your site by accident and wonder how you can deny Gods existences? simply because you cant see God or except another higher intelligence beside man.
This, and most of your other questions, has been extensively answered in this weblog. Please give it a read.
> You simply dismiss any spiritual event, either from God or from any other source. After ridiculing an event which happened in a church service.
If you are referring to the ridiculous event of 'speaking in tongues', I believe I was quite fair in exposing it for the fraud it was. Please be very skeptical of people that claim ethereal abilities that are inherently non-verifiable.
> I wonder what qualifications you have to judge that God doesn't exist and His inability to relate to people as He chooses? Or is the notion of accepting God, take away from mans ability to be in control of his own destiny.
My friend, these questions don't make sense from my perspective. I sincerely do not mean to ridicule you but let me rephrase these questions for you into the same form that I perceive them, and see if you can give me an intelligible answer:
"What qualifications do you have to judge that the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist, and her inability to relate to people as she chooses? Or does the notion of accepting the Tooth Fairy take away from our ability to control our own destiny?"
The above questions have exactly the same meaning to me as your questions. You see, there's no way for me to give a meaningful answer to questions that make assumptions I do not share with you. Do you have qualifications to dismiss the existence of the Tooth Fairy? Do you believe the Tooth Fairy controls your destiny? None of these questions make any sense no matter which mythological creature you stick in the equation.
Ask yourself, you've outgrown the Easter Bunny, you've outgrown Santa Claus, you've outgrown the Tooth Fairy, and yet you still believe in magical creatures in the sky that will give you eternal life? My friend, try to see the real reason why religions continuously foster this 'God' fear mechanism, it's to control you and take your resources of time, energy, and money. You don't need religion to be a moral and caring person, that's already built in by mother nature. My book, Meme, and the entire BetterHuman.org weblog can answer a great number of the questions that you may have.
Much respect,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 6.73, 6.80, 7.86, 7.94, 8.103, 8.116, 9.124, 9.129, 10.139, 11.148, 11.157, 12.168, 13.172, 14.188, 15.192, 20.288}
#74 - When an unstoppable force hits an immovable object - November 05, 2005, 05:20 PM
Mr. Limbhour wrote back:
> I could sit here and go on the defensive about everything I've said. I know that's what you want me to do.
Absolutely, I do not. My friend, I have no value whatsoever in our engaging one another, simply because you refuse to accept anything I have to offer. I do not even wish to continue engaging, but out of respect for you, I keep entertaining the possibility at least one of us will benefit. So far I have not, and I feel you have not either. Does it make sense to continue?
> Honestly, I find myself more personally insulted when you state that my experiences and memories are more likely not my own. However, I know you speak with ignorance of my integrity, therefore I forgive you of that.
My friend, I appreciate your generosity, but my statements were meant to be helpful, not an insult to your integrity, and as such I have no need to ask for your forgiveness because no offence was intended. Your choosing to feel insulted is entirely your decision.
> You also said, "...your desire to 'reach out' to people like me is driven by your need to vindicate your perspective by increasing the number of advocates of it, ..." My friend, this is the very basis for BetterHuman.org and your book, is it not?
It truly is not. I do not need a single advocate of my philosophies to justify or strengthen my perspective. I have stood alone for a very long time and only lately have I found the motivation to try to help others. To explain the difference: your motives for recruitment are doubly selfish (reinforcement of your fantasy world, and gaining favor with your god), whereas my motivations are to selflessly help people break free of ethereal addictions, such as yours. And even if I cannot affect any difference in the world, well, I will still die forever, you will still die forever, and every other person on the planet, irregardless of their beliefs or desires, will also still die forever. BetterHuman.org's success will have no bearing upon this fulfillment of reality.
Also, BetterHuman.org does not 'recruit', we educate. No membership is required nor desired in order to fulfill the philosophies held within our perspective. And to even further separate us from comparison to the tyrannical power structure of religions, never will money from advocates of BetterHuman.org be demanded, or implied as such, under the guise of 'membership'. Reality is free for all.
> My God is perfect and just. He demands perfect justice, because he is perfectly just. This is the God that I know. Tell me, how can one man's vicarious torture and death pay the price for well more than a trillion people's sins (I'm talking everyone that has ever lived here in this equation, so do the math), and be deemed an acceptable payment? Logically, no it is not, "For the wages of sin is death," and the price is a "life for a life,..." One man's death is only worth another man's life, according to the Bible. You can easily agree with this logic, no?
The logic is sound only if the root assumption is true, and that always boils down to whether your mythological entity really exists or not; and since it does 'not' exist, then every single thing you have stated is false, just like a tree cannot exist without a trunk.
> The Bible also says salvation comes from God, and quite often, only from God. Just one of many examples:
This, and the rest of your extremely long letter, makes frequent references to the Bible as a source of 'logic', demonstrating a phenomenal dependency upon it to define your reality. The unfortunate part of this is that the Bible is nothing more than a man-made collection of fantasy, gross exaggerations of history, and creative agenda-driven license. An extremely poor resource for learning. To shackle yourself to this limited fantasy perspective out of the sheer need for its promise of immortality, is no less destructive than a heroin junkie's single driving need to perpetuate the abuse of their narcotic.
> Psalm 62:1 - "My soul waits in silence for God only; from Him is my salvation."
You've just taken a hit.
> ...claim to be Christians, yet openly and continually practice the abomination of homosexuality.
I think any reasonable definition of 'bullying' would encapsulate your above statement.
> most people whom receive their eternal salvation have no intentions of giving up that free gift, for it is the greatest gift they have ever received, hands down.
Heroin addicts rarely have the strength to face reality either.
> year, my belief in God consisted of one simple statement: "I believe there is a God." That was the entire core system of my beliefs.
Incorrect, your 'true' core is, "I want to live forever", and your god is nothing more than a tool that you manipulate with offerings of servitude in order to accomplish your desired immortality. You offer it your 'love' in exchange for that gift. Would you 'love' it if it condemned you to your hell? Of course not, simply because your love for it is based upon the receipt of your cherished immortality. Sorry to be so blunt, but you're just using your god for your own selfish needs.
> The answers I concluded were: evolution is mathematically impossible when you calculate the odds of probability for it to happen...Evolution isn't truth, and there is no evidence to show that it has become nothing more than the theory it has ever been.
I believe the Vatican itself has said otherwise. Please read the article entitled, "Vatican: Faithful Should Listen to Science" from my collection of news clippings.
> You think that I'm crazy, dellusional, perverted, destructive.
I don't see how 'perverted' was warranted, but I definitely would describe you as 'insane', not due to genetic pretense, but because of the environmental fouling that religion has imposed upon you. You are a very unfortunate victim of an ancient religious meme-virus; I have much pity for you because of how much you unwittingly suffer.
> Am I evil?
Most certainly not my friend; just terrified of life.
With respect,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 5.62, 5.67, 5.68, 6.74, 6.76, 7.102}
#75 - Common misperceptions about the mechanism of evolution - November 13, 2005, 09:40 AM
Mr. Movebrace wrote:
> Let's look at mutations for a moment. Nearly all mutations are known for the defects or negative impacts they have on organisms. Even if a "good" mutation came about by random chance and time, the reality is that it is would be drowned out in a sea of harmful mutations (statisticians and geneticists say the odds are something like 1 good mutuation (or at least neutral mutation) to 1,000 harmful ones).
This is probably the most prevalent misperception of evolution theory. I'll explain: let's imagine we have a collection of 10 million cells in a dish, and let's say these cells divide (reproduce) every 12 hours. Now, there's only so much raw material (food) that we provide for this culture, just enough to sustain a maximum of 10 million cells; meaning that as they reproduce and try to add more to the population, the less efficient cells die of starvation. What we have created is an environment very similar to the Earth, in that the population's ability to multiply is limited by resources.
Now let's start adding evolution into the mix: let's give one of the cells a bad mutation, say an inability to absorb enough water and so it is shriveled up and has a hard time accumulating resources (food) to reproduce. This cell eventually dies, and the rest of the cells go on about their business.
Let's give another cell a bad mutation; this time say an inability to create a certain protein that assists in splitting (reproduction). This cell seems to work fine but the time comes when it needs to reproduce and it is unable to split itself in two. It continues to grow inside but because it can't split, it eventually bursts its cell wall and dies.
Now let's try something different, let try giving just one cell an extremely rare 'positive' mutation, say the ability to absorb nutrients faster than its predecessors. What happens now is that this cell can quickly 'eat' enough nutrients, much faster than the other cells, and effectively steals the food away from neighboring cells. Our new cell then reproduces (splits) and now these two new cells continue the cycle and grab all the food away from their neighbors, forcing them to starve. It may not seem like a big deal having 2 little cells in the middle of 10 million, but it's a sure bet that these newer cells are not going to starve because of their special mutation. What happens next? They continue reproducing and 2 become 4, 4 become 8, 16 32 64 128 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 30000 60000 100000 200000 400000 800000 1.6 million, 3 million, 6 million, and finally 10 million. Assuming a 12 hour reproduction cycle, that would be less than 12 days for this single mutation to propagate itself to the point where every single cell now has it, and any cell that doesn't dies of starvation.
If we were then to extend this mechanism to a scale the size of Earth, we'd get 20 million, 40 million, 80 million, 150 million, 300 million, 600 million, a billion, 2 billion, 4 8 16 32 64 120 240 480 900, 1.5 trillion, 3 trillion, 6 12 24 48 90 150 300 600, 1 quadrillion...after another 14 days. It's quite easy to see that within a single 'month' that a single solitary positive mutation, is beginning to represent itself in unimaginable numbers on a global scale, and it will eventually take over the whole planet, easily within the next month. This is the power of evolutionary mathematics. Eventually every single living cell will contain that positive mutation, and the stage is set to start the whole cycle over again with the next positive mutation.
There are a couple of important things to understand here, the first being that mutations within a given cell are rare, mostly negative, and are nothing more than a modification of the DNA of a living thing, and second, negative mutations kill just the one cell, while positive mutations multiply and eventually dominate. That is the difference. Even though there are an inordinate number of negative mutations compared to positive ones, the negative ones disappear quickly, and 'all' the positive ones eventually dominate. Multiply this process over billions of years and an incomprehensible number of cells all over the world (not just the millions in our little experiment) and it is quite easy to see that within such a large population, positive mutations happen pretty frequently and then spread around the world in a very short timespan. Evolution happens very quickly.
> punctuated equilibrium (PE). There would be no need for PE if Darwin was correct in theorizing about finding numerous transitional forms in the fossil record which "gradually evolved". PE scientists acknowledge this weakness in classical Darwinism. A significant problem with PE is that it is based on a significant jump in organism complexity, which is based on "very short-lived, small populations" which we don't find or observe in the fossil record.
This is another very common misperception that evolution can happen in leaps and bounds, such as a land-animal suddenly sprouting wings. The reason we have gaps in the fossil records is simply due to the fact that it is very difficult to find intact fossils that have survived 'millions' of years. Many people often mistakenly interpret this lack of data as indicative of evolutionary jumps, but this isn't the case, it just simply means we haven't found fossils to fill in the gap, but those fossils are out there and maybe we'll eventually find them. Evolution happens one tweak at a time (slightly bigger beak, little better vision, stronger teeth, etc.) and never radically from one form to the next.
It is very difficult for our feeble human minds to grasp the colossal amount of time that has passed in order to produce the results in evolution that we witness today, and this makes it difficult to digest the number of generations that were required. Even more difficult to digest is that all living creatures on the planet have a common ancestor, some more recent (like humans and chimpanzees) or much more distant (like humans and trees, both are formed from Eukaryote cells), but the difference between any two species is always formed from a gradual divergence, over a great deal of time. Species don't just 'appear'.
> technology has grown in leaps and bounds...especially in the last half-century, but there is no real evidence of man's nature or behavior changing at all throughout the centuries.
You are correct, evolution of humanity within recorded history will probably be very minimal. Again, it takes a phenomenal amount of time over many generations to produce a perceptible difference in our genome, but that's not to say that evolution isn't happening at all times.
> for those who love the Lord, there is a very real hope that in 100 years, we will be with Him (and our loved ones who have gone before us) in Heaven, and that will last for eternity.
I'm sorry you miss your loved ones, but their time has passed and the only place they exist now is in your memories. Over the many years that you may have spent with them, you have picked up a considerable amount of their 'essence', which is a fancy way of saying that you can 'imagine' their personality. It's perfectly normal and healthy to 'interact' with them in your mind. Talk to them, and they'll talk back in a way that only they could.
Thanks for writing,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 6.75, 7.96}
#76 - The abusive tenacity of the ethereally-empowered ego - November 13, 2005, 10:15 AM
Mr. Limbhour wrote back:
Very sorry to cut your incredibly long letter down to almost nothing, but despite the length of your email, you still haven't introduced any new content, and a great deal of it was sadly only meant to be abusive, which unfortunately I will not reward with a reply.
> If I am wrong, I lose nothing, and people just look at me throughout my life with the general attitude, "don't worry about him. He's just a kooky Christian."
Imagine if you met someone from the Earians, and they told you the same type of statement as yours above. How would you feel towards them? Would you perceive them as losing nothing?
> You said, "I do not even wish to continue engaging..." I take it this is your way of conceding? Because this discussion is far from the stalemate, my friend, and you know it.
Whatever battle you imagine us partaking in, absolutely I am conceding, and you definitely have surfaced on top in this exchange. I have gained nothing.
> I, however, see a way our conversation can still bear fruit - I share with you proper Christian doctrine, so that you are better educated for any future discussions with Christians, even if it is to debate against them.
I honestly believe that the full gamut of abusive, insulting, derogatory, repetitive, insane, self-serving, and misguided content that you have offered me has fallen far short of 'educating' me in any useful fashion. My friend, all I've taken from this is a renewed distaste for the evil of religion. If that inspiration alone can help propel BetterHuman.org, then perhaps this isn't a complete loss.
> If you do not like this idea, I see no reason why I should continue answering any of your questions that make feeble attempts to undermine my faith, such as your question about my views towards God, were He to condemn me to Hell.
I must say I'm disappointed that you dodged this very challenging question. I can only assume that you agree with me then that your love for your god hinges upon the reward of immortality.
> If not, I accept your concession of defeat in our discussion, and wish you peace and prosperity, however fleeting, in your endeavors.
I submit, and concede utter and complete defeat in your imagined ideological battle. You have accomplished your mission of berating me and have fully demonstrated the strength of your conviction (meme-virus infection).
I liken our scenario to you visiting my home, screaming at me for days because you don't like the color of my curtains, and then patting yourself on the back as you walk out the door again. Once you leave, however, the curtains will remain. So what exactly have you accomplished? What defeat do you perceive? Do you often walk into other people's houses and scream at them for their decorative choices?
You see, all you've really accomplished is the 'giving yourself a pat on the back' part, and that alone is what people are going to see if you go into their homes and do to them what you're doing to me.
With sincere respect,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 5.62, 5.67, 5.68, 6.74, 6.76, 7.102}
#77 - What exactly do religions teach their followers these days? - November 13, 2005, 10:23 AM
Mr. Undersalt wrote:
> so, let's see if i got this right... You came from nowhere, your life has no real meaning and you're heading nowhere.
Unfortunately my friend, you are completely wrong in all of these assumptions. My book, Meme, elaborates on the above in very great detail, please give it a read.
> You're a quack. Christ rules.
Do you think your Christ would be impressed by the above? Does your religion teach you to insult and ridicule those that do not subscribe to imaginary creatures in the sky? I'm not sure why anybody would want to subscribe to these values unless they enjoy bullying others.
I understand that BetterHuman.org represents a seriously challenging, perhaps terrifying, perspective that can literally destroy the fabric of a mythological perspective, rendering a religious person quite handicapped and disoriented for some time. But, please trust me, reality is a wonderful place, with just as many rewards as your ethereal perspective, different rewards, but just as fulfilling if not more so.
Don't shut out opportunity to learn.
Kind regards,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 6.77, 7.91}
#78 - Religion is the roadblock to peace - November 13, 2005, 10:32 AM
Mr. Wayrule wrote:
> I have been dreaming about the concept of U.S.E. which stands for the United States of the Earth. Unfortunately, religions have been and are a big obstacle to achieve this concept which aims at unity of man on the earth. In this sense you are doing a good job.
Thank you for the kind words. And to follow your point, yes, religions are the thousand-pound gorilla that prevents global peace. Sound a bit dramatic? I don't believe it can be overstated. Religions foster so many ignorant prejudices and ulterior agenda-driven policies (the 'abomination' of homosexuality, oppression of women, no condom policy, etc. etc. etc.) that it is impossible for all humans to be treated with respect, and that is the biggest underlying failure of any and all religions. Without ubiquitous and sincere respect for all, peace will always remain elusive.
Thanks for writing,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 6.78, 12.161}
#79 - Waking the sleeping giant - November 13, 2005, 10:37 AM
Mr. Siderain wrote back:
> I would just like to shout out to religious people to stop trying to convert Mr. Sinjin (And other strong atheists such as my self) because it is just a waste of your time. Go ahead and explain why you are religious, because everyone has their own beliefs, no matter how farfetched they may be. if you strongly feel you are right (which you arent), more power to you. let it shelter you from the true universe. But stop trying to save us from "burning in hell" and such because it doesnt work. You cant save an atheists soul because there is nothing to be saved
My friend, thank you for your very potent support, I really appreciate it, and there will be a time in the future for that conviction to have a role, so please be patient while BetterHuman.org necessarily continues its reconnaissance phase. I hope you believe that I absolutely do not suffer in any way from even the most vicious feedback, of which there is plenty.
However, I don't want to discourage religious people from writing me, even if their tone is vacant of respect. Their contributions to the weblog are an invaluable resource in helping to educate others. For every 10 religious zealots that bare their teeth at me, 10000 other people are going to bear witness to their cruelty and anger (fear), and perhaps the very zealots themselves will be responsible for turning people against the insanity of religion.
Take care,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 3.34, 3.42, 5.66, 6.72, 6.79, 7.93, 8.113, 14.177}
#80 - The withdrawal symptoms of the 'faith' narcotic - November 13, 2005, 10:50 AM
Mr. Loophost wrote back:
> If self pleasure is then the only goal, then life is a mere chemical accident.
I wouldn't use the word 'accident' because despite the apparent randomness of evolution, it is quite a directed process. Also, self-pleasure is the goal of everyone, no matter which perspective one subscribes to.
> What value then is there to continue life? but for self gratitude. life becomes cheap.
Religion is a drug, and much like a heroin addiction, one of the withdrawal symptoms is the recognition that reality cannot compete with the narcotic high. Being stoned on religion 'feels' much better than being immersed in reality (with all its pains and unknowns). I went though this phenomenal transition myself when I left mythology behind, and it was very difficult to define 'purpose' because purpose had previously always been defined for me by my religion. It soon became clear to me that choosing a purpose was 'my' responsibility. Once I accepted that responsibility, my life took off in fantastic directions and I assure you that I have much more value in life now than I ever did as a drone ethereal addict.
Life is hard, but the ultimate reward isn't your desired false afterlife, it's maximizing the quality of life that you have right here, on Earth, now. You only have one life to live, don't live it in a deception.
> With no higher force (God) then why have social consciousness, life has no constant rule. what decides what is right and what is not.
Please read the weblog for many articles addressing 'instinctual morality'.
> We see that through legalized abortion, same sex marriages ect. What you get is social decay.
Your religion has taught you many false prejudices my friend. Can you describe how someone having an abortion affects your life? Can you define the impact in your life of a gay couple getting married? I can't see why you need to oppress what other people can or cannot (harmlessly) do when it has absolutely nothing to do with you.
> I hope you don't become so blind and self assured by what you believe.
I am always amazed how equally reciprocal statements like that are.
Regards,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 6.73, 6.80, 7.86, 7.94, 8.103, 8.116, 9.124, 9.129, 10.139, 11.148, 11.157, 12.168, 13.172, 14.188, 15.192, 20.288}
#81 - A detailed explanation of evolution - November 13, 2005, 11:02 AM
Mr. Hopchurn wrote:
> i am not one to attack a persons views, and i will not attack you personally. I respect your thoughts and idea therefore i will approach it appropriately.
A welcome change, thank you. I sincerely appreciate that.
> from evolution. How would you explain no transitional animals ever found,
Try to understand that 'millions' of years are involved here and time has an incredible ability to destroy just about anything. One way to look at this is to imagine what happens when a creature dies in our world today. Let's say an old tiger finally kicks the bucket. Within hours the carcass will be discovered by other creatures, small and large, and it will be entirely consumed, yes, even the bones that are calcium rich and contain protein-rich marrow. This is a very typical scenario that has played itself out countless times all throughout history. It is 'very' unlikely that a carcass will survive long enough to be covered in enough sediment to preserve it. This means that the chances of preservation are virtually none.
The unbelievably rare exceptions of animals falling into a tar pit, or being encased in ice, are 'so' rare that the few excavation sites around the world of this nature cannot possibly contain the full diversity of life representative of all given eras. Unfortunately, we don't have any other way to learn about these ancient creatures because our only snapshots of the past are through these extremely rare preservation coincidences. There may be thousands of species that have existed for which we will never find a single fossil, and they will never be known. This is an unfortunate but realistic shortcoming of archaeology that is impossible to surmount. Mother Nature wasn't the best librarian, but "absence of evidence is not evidence for absence"
> no where does he (Darwin) state a species can evolve to another species. He states that a species will evolve to better adapt for survival, but no animal will evolve into another species entirely.
New species do not just appear. Let me try to explain this with an extreme example: let's say we have a population of 'dingers' living on an island. One day a volcano erupts in the middle of the island and over several years it grows so massive that it effectively splits the island into two regions. Because this volcano is so large, no creatures can pass from one side to the other, and it actually influences the weather on this island causing one side to be constantly doused with rain, and turning the other side into a desert. The first thing the dingers have to deal with (assuming of course there were some left over after the volcano) is the fact that their individual environments have suddenly become much more extreme. This environmental 'stress' probably kills a great number of them, but some of the hardier ones do survive. The survivors on the wet side have subtle attributes that make them more tolerant to the excess rain, whereas the survivors on the dry side have subtle attributes that help them in drought conditions.
Fast forward a million years (thousands of generations later), we now can see much evolution has taken place in our dingers. The wet dingers are now larger because of the plethora of plants available for food, and they've developed longer clawed fingers and toes to help them climb the huge trees that grow on their side. The dry dingers, however, are much smaller than they used to be, very lean, in reaction to the limited supply of food due to the desert conditions. Their snouts are longer because this helps them to locate insects for food that they've evolved the ability to digest.
What I've just described is how two new species evolve from one; a single species spreads into different geographical regions (different environmental stresses) and these disparate groups then evolve individually to match those new environments until eventually their DNA is incompatible with their cousins, much like our dry dingers cannot reproduce with the much larger and different wet dingers, even though a million years ago, they were the same creature. This is the mechanism of evolution.
> if your findings are so great and breakthrough why haven't i heard about you or them.
I don't believe I ever claimed any of my ideas to be 'great'. Please understand that BetterHuman.org is very much in its infancy and it will take some time for some of the challenging concepts that it presents to be absorbed by the masses. Of course I have met with great resistance but slowly, person by person, BetterHuman.org is winning support.
> And why do you need to make money off it. If i found something proving creation then i would share without profit.
You assume too much my friend. I have spent thousands of dollars in the manifestation of my book and website. At the time of this writing, after advertising costs, I lose $27 on every book I sell. Despite this constant drain on my finances, and the ceaseless barrage of resistance from the religious right, I'm still here.
I assure you that my sole motivation is to educate.
Regards,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 6.81, 6.83}
#82 - Candle-blowing - November 13, 2005, 11:06 AM
Mr. Batchnail wrote:
> And now? Now you want to wipe religion from the face of the Earth. Now you want to MAKE everyone think the way you do. You think its ok to do this because you are "saving" them from themselves. Well buddy, there's a couple of things you should know. The world does not want to be "saved". People are quite happy doing just what they're doing and believing just what they're believing. They aren't really interested in having Sean's vision of the world put upon them. And if you ever had any success in your endevour, the world would would not thank you for it. Instead they would come down on you like a ton of bricks. Why? Because people like to choose what to believe. I'm sorry Sean, but you cannot stop them.
My friend, I simply hold out the truth for all to see. Feel free to reject it.
Despite your hostile and fatally pessimistic diatribe, it will have no effect on my commitment, if only because I have already accomplished that which you claim I cannot. One person at a time, I am freeing people from ethereal addiction, and they 'are' thanking me for it. Please review the weblog for examples of this.
> Belief A: The belief that Sean's intentions in saving the world from religion are based on empathy and concern for the good of the world.
> Beleif B: An alternative belief is that Sean is angry and is yet to accept the world for what it is and wants to change it to fit his ideals.
I would have to choose A.
> Do you enjoy having the freedom to decide your beliefs for your self? Yes, I thought you did. Well guess what? So does everyone else!
Unfortunately, your point is moot because it assumes that all perspectives have equal validity (not to mention that it also neglects considering the ramifications of a lifetime wasted pursuing an incorrect perspective). Your statement makes no more sense than suggesting that we should all be able to decide how long we should live. You may 'believe' you can live X number of years, but whether you do or not is absolutely out of your control. Likewise with reality, many people 'believe' that ethereal creatures exist in the sky, but that doesn't change the fact that they do not. I find it difficult to believe, nay, impossible that people would 'choose' to believe in mythology if they truly understood reality. People want to know the truth. Nobody wants to waste their lives in a deception.
Thanks for writing,
Sean Sinjin
#83 - 'Species' continued - November 26, 2005, 09:55 AM
Mr. Hopchurn wrote back:
> When you were describing your "dingers" you attempted to make a new species out of one. What you actually did was just make two different versions of one species. Just because they have different attribute such as a longer snout or something of that sort does not make them a different species.
I don't believe you've understood the degree of independent evolution that my example was implying. What I was trying to demonstrate is that there is a point in the divergence of a dispersed species at which their DNA no longer remains compatible (too many distinct mutations that are unique to each divergence) and it is at this point that, by definition, they become two different species. In fact, divergence from an existing species is the 'only' way that any new species can 'appear'. New species don't just pop out of thin air.
This separation is what happened between us humans and the chimpanzees so long ago. We used to be the same species, but geographical separation of our same common ancestor species presented different portions of that population with different environmental challenges, and as time went on, chimpanzees evolved to match their environment, and humans to match ours. Human DNA is no longer compatible with chimpanzee DNA, despite there being a 97% match in nucleotide base-pairs, so you see, it takes very little evolution to make a substantial difference in physical attributes, and hence a new species is born due to the inability to crossbreed.
> Take for instance frogs. Some live entirely in water and never surface in fact i have one in my fish tank, but on the other hand some frogs live almost entirely on land. Obviously this makes them different with different attributes but we do not entirely dub them a two different species.
Correct. There are different genus's within a given species (e.g. the human genus's are called 'races'), meaning that there may be subtle physical or behavioral attributes that vary between members of that species (such as your land and water frogs), but ultimately crossbreeding them will produce viable offspring, and this is why they are still considered a single species. However, there is a point in their evolution where a genus evolves too far from the rest of the species and can no longer be successfully crossbred. It is at this point that, technically, a new species has appeared. This new species will continue to evolve in its independent direction until its attributes are as radically different from its cousin species, as we are from chimpanzees.
> Also the dingers can actually procrete, the size does not matter.
Somewhat true; there are many species, such as dogs, where size does not preclude DNA compatibility, but after enough independent evolution, size eventually matters. For example, a bear and raccoon are relatively close cousins but yet the dimorphic size ratio between the two creatures makes size a clear factor in their DNA incongruency.
> As to your money issues with your book I apologize for assuming to much please forgive me.
Absolutely not a problem. I'm glad you brought it up because I wasn't aware that this perception of BetterHuman.org existed. That being said however, it is unrealistic to expect to be able to maintain these efforts without some form of fund-raising strategy to fuel the process. I will try to avoid the ulterior tactics that religion's employ, that being the recruitment of membership and the proverbial 'collection plate' that does nothing more than drain the resources of their ethereal addicts. However, discrete corporate donations and book/merchandise sales via our marketing strategy, will allow us to permeate the ideals of BetterHuman.org into public awareness.
Please let me know if I've been able to your questions,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 6.81, 6.83}
{All letters from this contributor: 6.73, 6.80, 7.86, 7.94, 8.103, 8.116, 9.124, 9.129, 10.139, 11.148, 11.157, 12.168, 13.172, 14.188, 15.192, 20.288}
{All letters from this contributor: 5.62, 5.67, 5.68, 6.74, 6.76, 7.102}
{All letters from this contributor: 6.75, 7.96}
{All letters from this contributor: 5.62, 5.67, 5.68, 6.74, 6.76, 7.102}
{All letters from this contributor: 6.77, 7.91}
{All letters from this contributor: 6.78, 12.161}
{All letters from this contributor: 3.34, 3.42, 5.66, 6.72, 6.79, 7.93, 8.113, 14.177}
{All letters from this contributor: 6.73, 6.80, 7.86, 7.94, 8.103, 8.116, 9.124, 9.129, 10.139, 11.148, 11.157, 12.168, 13.172, 14.188, 15.192, 20.288}
{All letters from this contributor: 6.81, 6.83}
{All letters from this contributor: 6.81, 6.83}