My Comment on a 2016 Article shoved into My Feed

Comment to I Am A Transwoman. I Am In The Closet. I Am Not Coming Out.

I'm reading this article 8 years, or so after it was posted. Parts of the story had relatable elements, some evoked feelings of regret, and others I'm a little unsure of or even disagree with. 

I held off from transitioning until I was 48. There was certainly no shortage of excuses for me to use and say "not now." There were many times when I was baffled that cis women, heterosexual or otherwise, more often than not couldn't see me as a woman too. In all fairness, not only did I not present in the culturally accepted form of femininity, but I also would rarely claim to be a woman. And the few opportunities that occurred other fears came up, such as losing access to my children, prevailed and I backed down.

Three-plus years into my transition and I'm much happier than I have been in many ways. I do not doubt that I made the right decision for me and would encourage any trans person suffering from dysphoria to seek therapy and seriously consider transitioning, even if it's only socially transitioning. Because transitioning will not mean medical interventions by way of hormones or surgery for everyone. Any work to align your presentation with who you are inside will be sufficient given your individual goals. 

If I had to do things over again, would I transition when I was much younger? Ostensibly, yes. But my life experiences have shaped who I am today, and I hope that I have become, and continue to become, a good person. There is certainly no way to tell if that would hold true or not if things had been otherwise. Still, I wish I had made the move to act on following the truth I knew about myself since I was at least 5. Perhaps, if the Many-Worlds Interpretation is true, there are versions of me who did have the courage to transition young and are thriving and happy. I hope so. 

You haven't posted anything since 2016, so I have little faith that you'll read this. I hope that things are better for you now. I wonder if you decided to transition in some way after all or if you still try to repress it. And I wonder what the virtue in suffering was that I thought it was worth doing, as you did in your diary entry. I can't speak to your experience with cis feminists, all I know is that misandry, trans misandry, and trans misogyny all spring from misogyny; That some cis men aren't masculine enough, trans men are women wanting to have male privilege by aping masculinity and shrink the supply of "breeding stock," and that trans women aren't even human because they reject some or all of masculinity. Let's face it, the majority of misandry is men inflicting it on other men! But I don't agree that pointing out men's behaviour for being caught up in the patriarchy is an act of misandry. 

Those are just my $0.02 CDN.

Video Response to Trans Lesbian 2000's Blog 06/19/22

The Incompleteness of Story Telling

Opening Thoughts

Whenever we tell a story to someone, including ourselves, we pick and choose what details we share and which of those details we wish to emphasise. Consequently, even though we may be retelling the same story, and it's true everytime you tell it, it may sound completely different and invoke different emotional responses from the listener.

The above is NOT a new concept.

Telling Stories

As I tell my stories, such as my deconversion for instance, or my climb out of homophobia as another example, I realize that my stories vary depending on whom I'm telling them to, my current emotional state, and the media I'm presenting them on. When I look back I can see, if the media is text, audio or video, that every word I say is true but I might be telling the story in such a way that may generate more sympathy for myself.

Reasons for Embellishment - Trans-specific example

A recent example is my regaling my transistion story to a friend on Discord. Everything I said was true; a series of vignettes that retold a life story of suppression and self-censorship. But did I tell it in such a way that may have painted some others in my story in an overly bad light to elicit undue sympathy for myself? Certainly, there are people I know who suffered more than myself, such as those who chose to transition when they were young and were around my age at the time. I might be painting myself as brave, but how brave was I? I am a coward compared to those who made the decision to transition. I honestly envy them and their courage and I wish to be as courageous as they were. But my story makes me no braver than I actually was, or wasn't.

So I sit and judge myself asking, "Why didn't I have the courage to insist on transitioning?" To run away if needed and seek it out myself, if necessary, as many of the really braves ones had done. Maybe if I had been exposed to more LGBT+ people, knew more actually trans people, perhaps I would have. I would have seen through the lies of church leaders so much sooner. I might have developed my empathy for them as a child rather than have to wait until I already was an adult. But that didn't happen. I didn't meet any openly LGBT+ people, trans people are rare as it is, media presented LGBT+, trans people in particular, as freaks and the butts of jokes, and my parents chose to shelter their children as much as possible.

But my parents couldn't keep it entirely away. They raised a prolific reader and I kept finding references in popular scientific media to transexual and transgender people that presented them as simply people. I felt my own need to transistion everytime I read on of those articles. Science fiction is full of people who undergo gender transition, and I knew that this too was my future. If I knew where to go or whom to ask I might have tranisitioned as soon as high school, certainly university. As I didn't know whom I could approach about the topic, let alone what to ask, I remained in my assigned gender and I now tell myself comforting stories of why I did so.

I experimented a bit with makeup in University, and bought the odd female garment, but put that all away when my relationship with the woman who would become my wife, and later ex, began to deepen. She always said that "I saved you" but I never learned what it was that she saved me from. All I know is that I could never completely excise the feminine from my personality and the need to express it. The man my ex needed me to be could never develop because I was never that man! I don't entirely blame her for wanting someone more aligned with her expectations of manhood, but I believed the version I brought to the relationship was a lot less toxic than what most men bring because I tried to forge my own version of manhood from my broken sense of gender, or at least that is what I tell myself. Not perfect, or free from the effects of patriarchy, but just with less evil. Now that I've given up the very idea of being a man with any kind of manhood, I hope that I left a better model for my AFAB children, if indeed I ever did, should they seek a relationship with a hetero-cis male, than what society offers.

Conclusion

My point is that my stories that I tell people are entirely factual as far as my memory can recall or I can piece together from empirical data that I've left like tidbits around my home and the internet. However, the stories are not always the same and may not always be true to the spirit of keeping things factual as possible. I am often angry with myself but I know I can't change the past. When thinking about my past decisions I tell myself how I'd do things differently if I were to do them over, but this is such futile thinking that I don't know why I even play that silly game. To all my readers, if I've somehow mislead you by how I presented my facts in my personal stories, I apologize. It is not intentional as my stories are true as far I know in the moment when I tell them. All I know is that they are indeed factual, if nothing else.

Now, as always, I strive to be better than I was yesterday and hope to be better tomorrow than I am today.

Am I Homophobic?

Your dad was homophobic when we were together

TW/CW: topics of homophobia, transphobia, biphobia, lesphobia, classism, racism and sexual relations are mentioned.

That was a statement made by my ex-wife to my nonbinary child about myself regarding the fact that I'm currently transitioning. The short response is, No, I am not, but the more nuanced answer is, No, but I still struggle with internalized homophobia.

Each and every one of us probably struggles with internalized homophobia; myself, my ex-wife, my nonbinary kid and even the reader. And what my ex said is true, in part. When she met me I was much more homophobic than I am now, or have been for some time. What she fails to account for is that I didn't like myself when I was acting out of homophobia and had already been actively trying to change before I had even met her. But it's difficult to change a behaviour when it seems to normal. At least I had some good friends, coworkers and the odd instructor who wouldn't let me get away with my bullshit! So I changed and grew!

This is not to mention that homophobia felt like hating myself. I'm not homosexual but I am bisexual, and many of the things that bisexuals like are the same things. In addition I'm also trans. Being AMAB and bi or trans is automatically seen by heteronormative society as gay. An insult that got thrown at me quite a bit in junior high so by the time I went to university people using the epitaph gay on me had lost much of its effect. Though one girl I dated briefly did call me gay because I didn't attempt to have sex with her on the first date. That did hurt a bit but I honestly just felt really awkward trying to initiate anything with her parents just on the other side of the thin duplex wall. Ironically, hindsight informs me that if I had had sex with her that would probably have been gay in the lesbian sense.

Before my kids were born I had slain most of my demons regarding homophobia, transphobia, racism, sexism, classism, and etc…. This is not to say that I was perfect as I not only had internalized many of the above, I still had to, still do to this day, work on eliminating or overcoming my attitudes to people in all the listed groups. That said, I know that I'm getting better every day that I work on them. Somedays I trip and fall, backslide if you will, but the general trend is always tending towards improvement.

There's a lot more I could say about my attempts to come out to my ex-wife over the years of our marriage, issues where I was left of and more progressive than her, and her current choice in partners. But that would be bashing her and this is not the point of this post. Sometimes I was better than her, sometimes she was better than me. That's life, I'm trying to make my peace with her, my past self, and the future that I'm working towards. So, if my ex-wife ever reads this post: Honey, our sex was always as gay af!

Part of a Campaign

Started passing out pamphlets for the Communist Party of Canada - Alberta today. My firs task was posting copies of the pamphlets on the public bulletin boards around town. That's all for today. More updates to follow.

Political Evolution and Other Thoughts

Time to Start Again

It's been a while since I've posted on my blog. Even though I had been meaning to get back to it, there have been some significant changes in my life. At this moment, I'm finalizing a divorce with my ex-wife. While the break-up has been, by-and-large, friendly it has still been disruptive over the past several years.

Political Views

When I started this blog my political views had already been moving leftward for some time. In some strange way I probably still considered myself conservative, even though I never voted for Conservatives in my province or country, and only grudgingly voted for Liberals if there wasn't a viable NDP candidate available. But as left as I thought voting NDP made me, it actually didn't. In my mind at the time, that was as far left as anyone could go in our political system. Oh sure, the Green Party was left of the NDP on some issues, but the NDP was left of the Green Party on others. The truth is, both the Green Party and the NDP are quite liberal, albeit progressives

With the somewhat disappointing running of Canada's NDP in the 2015 election, where Tom Mulcair actually campaigned to the right of the Liberal Party of Canada's Justin Trudeau, I found myself questioning the political landscape in Canada. Rachel Notley and the Alberta NDP also won that year in my home province, but their promoting the pipelines and the oilsands while talking about fighting climate change and environmental disaster really bothered me. Since then, I've been looking for a means to fight back at the system that was dragging us all to the edge of disaster.

Exploring the Political Realm

So I began to look around. Centrism is selling itself as the only possible rational answer, but when you look closely at Centrism and centrists they are not actually in the centre as they claim to be. What centrists are in the "centre" of is what are perceived to be the right and left parties of the political establishment. As politics is shifted, and indeed shifting, to the right around the world that means the centrists are actually rightists. Not the rational and objective centred persons of discernment they promote themselves as. Plus many centrists love to push far right talking points, such as "Horsesh*t..." er, "Horseshoe Theory," which only moves the conversation, and the political spectrum further to the right.

Thanks galaxy-brained centrists!

Rejecting Centrism for the sham it was, and that all major parties were rightists promoting one or another form of austerity and imperialist actions, I found myself turning firmly now to the Left. This was frightening because "Commies" were to the left. In fact, if you took the word of conservatives, anything left of them are actually "Commies" including milquetoast liberals and social democrats. I rejected any accusations that I was a communist in an almost reflexive manner. It's not that I thought badly of Communists, but I didn't feel at the time that I was one, and I also understood the negative social implications of being accused of being such.

Yet, throughout my life I have been anti-capitalist in some way or another. Again, this was not born out of a deep-seated hatred for capitalism, but more a resignation that this was the only option available, as shitty as it was. I grew up being taught that. While I do recall various teachers and professors encouraging criticism of capitalism they were few and far in between. When the USSR was disbanded in 1991 I watched the televised tearing down of the Berlin Wall and my feelings were mixed. Part of me was cheering East Germany finally being free, and the end of the threat of impending nuclear war. But East Germany isn't really free, they just have a free market, and at this point in history the threat of nuclear war is higher than it has been in a long time, perhaps since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

It's two minutes till midnight. (The Doomsday Clock. Feb 14, 2019)

In my early twenties, a friend I knew in Victoria, BC mentioned that I'd make a good anarchist. I wasn't too sure what he meant by that and that's when I found out that he was a communist. At this point, I wasn't too interested in being any sort of communist, but his description of what anarchists and anarchism are stuck with me ever since. Since then I have had several friends that were communists of one sort or another, though I really thought they were wasting their time even if I agreed with much of what they said. So I set about trying to make my way in a capitalist world, playing by capitalism's rules. I had some successes and some failures, but despite all my efforts and training I never acquired the financial or social capital to "make it."

When I finally decided to abandon capitalism I remembered what my friend from Victoria had said. Still not convinced I took some political compass tests and found that my political traits put me in the Libertarian Communist side. It wasn't the first political test I had taken, but even when I was my most conservative my political inclinations were always left. I took a few more such tests and decided that there was a rough semblance of a consensus leaning towards Libertarian Communist so it might be worth my time checking out this political viewpoint. I read some anarchist literature, watched some videos by popular anarchist YouTubers, and even voluntarily cracked open some Noam Chomskey. Much of what I read struck a chord within me and I hungered for more.

At this point, I turned to reading Marx and the works of several Marxist thinkers, watching Marxist YouTubers, and found Michael Parenti's works. Suddenly, I wasn't sure that I might be an anarchist after all. As time wore on I've realized that I'm more of a Marxist-Leninist.

Conclusion

While I'm probably not a very good revolutionist, I do my bit to raise the class-consciousness of myself, my kids and my coworkers. Having been raised in a working-class family, class struggle is an obvious and readily apparent dynamic. I'm not entirely surprised that my kids have clued into it almost on their own as they've also grown up with working parents. My coworkers, at least those I've spoken too about it, seem to see it too albeit they may be resigned to their roles. Sometimes the UCP or the Conservative Party of Canada try to ferment the electorate over this or the other thing to stir up anger against the government in power. These are opportunities that I try to use to point out how the parties play off of each other, not for the benefit of the citizens, but for themselves, and those whose interest they're protecting. Perhaps, someday, we can get some real, well organized and thought out demonstrations going and everyday, working people might again feel their latent power.

The future is worth fighting for, don't you agree?

Evolutionary Rates - Kimura

Preamble

In his paper, "Evolutionary rate at the molecular level", Kimura (1968) discusses the rate of evolution as found in comparing various contemporary, at the time, studies with respect to nucleotide substitutions. Kimura began with the assumption that most mutations are neutral or nearly neutral, whereas the thinking at time was that most mutations were usually either harmful or helpful. It was Kimura's work that led to Neutral Theory becoming the Null Hypothesis in modern Molecular Evolution.

Kimura, according to my H-Index Calculator, has been cited over 39169 times, has an h-index >10 and a g-index >10.

Methodology

Kimura begins by looking at the paper by Zuckerkandl and Pauling (1965) who compared studies of hemoglobin molecules who found, among mammals, in a chain of about 140 amino-acids there was a change in one amino-acid in a 10⁷ year period. Then Kimura compares Buettner-Janusch and Hill's (1965) study on primate hemoglobin who found a substitution rate of 45x10⁶ years. The study by Kaplan (1965) between were also compared and found a rate of 2.7x10⁶ years.

Here, Kimura makes the assumption that nuclear DNA is similar among most mammals and that the GC content in mammalian DNA is uniform withing a value of 40-44%. Then Kimura assumes that 4x10⁹ of nucleotide pairs are haploid chromosome complements. From this Kimura estimates a substitution rate within the population of ~2 years.

Compared to the 300 generations rate predicted by Haldane's paper (1957), this is a huge contrast. Kimura concluded, Haldane's erroneous fitness factor aside, that this could be accounted for if most mutations were in fact neutral or at least nearly neutral.

Thus the very high rate of nucleotide substitution which I have calculated can only be reconciled with the limit set by the substitutional load by assuming that most mutations produced by nucleotide replacement are almost neutral in natural selection. (Kimura, 1968, p. 625)

The next paper Kimura looks at is the work by Lewontin and Hubby (1966) who studied genetic variation in the fruit fly species Drosophila psseudoobscura and estimated in each individual that 12% of each loci are heterozygous. Kimura assumes that the heterozygosity would be much higher in nucleotide sequences. Since it is evident that the mutation rate in Drosophila is ten times that of humans, Kimura calculates a mutation rate of 1.5x10^-5 and checks his calculation by looking at Drosophila neutral mutations, neucleotide pair mutation per generation the fact that the Drosophila genome is 1/20 the size of the human genome to get the same result.

Finally, Kimura looks at Kimura and Crow (1964) who found that for neutural mutations the probability that an individual in a population is heterozygous and if the individual is homozygous differ.

Looking at Watson's work (1965) Kimura finds that in gamete production substitution in base pairs could be 200-2000 and is reduced to ~2 by natural selection.

Conclusions

Firstly, as in my last post, it must be said that Kimura was in no way finding fault in evolution. In fact, Kimura was proposing a new idea to explain why organisms appear to change so quickly with low cost when calculations such as the one by Haldane say it would take a long time and be costly. In fact, Kimura has been proven correct with Neutral Theory being the Null Hypothesis, with Nearly Neutral Theory taking up much of the slack.

Secondly, Kimura has shown that evolution occurs at a even a faster rate than had previously been supposed. Once again, this supports not defeats evolution. This paper in no way shows that genomes are decaying.

Kimura sums up by stating that each generation is producing neutral or nearly neutral mutations that have been largely ignored and are occurring at a very high rate making random drift an important factor of evolution.

Questions to My Opponent

• Did you actually read the paper before posting it?
• If yes to the previous question; did you think neutral or nearly neutral mutations indicated that genomes are decaying?
• Do you think "random drift" indicated genomic decay?
• What on earth made you think that this paper demonstrated that the evolution of one species to another is impossible when it is a keystone to the modern understanding of evolution?

Bibliography

• Evolutionary rate at the molecular level (Kimura, 1969)

Genome Decay Claim

Prelude

Recently, a Creationist on Google+ presented a list of papers that he felt demonstrated that genomes are decaying and, therby, evolution of species from one form into another is impossible. The thread where this discussion occurred was a post titled Evolution: How it Works and How to Teach it. The articles cited by the Creationist are listed as follows:

• J.B.S. Haldane. 1957. The cost of natural selection. J. Genetics55: 511-524
• Kimura, M. 1968. Evolutionary rate at the molecular level. Nature 217:624-626
• Muller, H.J. 1950. Our load of mutations. Amer. J. Human Genetics 2:111-176
• Muller, H.J. 1964. The relation of recombination to mutational advance. Mutation Research 1:2-9
• J.V. Neel, et al. 1986. The rate with which spontaneous mutation alters the electrophoretic mobility of polypeptides. PNAS 83:389-393
• A.S. Kondrashov. 1995. Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: Why have we not died 100 times over? J. Theor. Biol. 175:583-594
• S. Kondrashov. 2002. Direct estimates of human per nucleotide mutation rates at 20 loci causing Mendelian diseases. Human Mutation 21:12-27
• M.W. Nachman and S.L. Crowell. 2000. Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans. Genetics 156: 297-304
• A. Eyre-Walker and P. Keightley. 1999. High genomic deleterious mutation rates in Hominids. Nature 397:344-347
• J.F. Crow. 1997. The high spontaneous mutation rate: is it a health risk? PNAS 94:8380-8386
• J.F. Crow. 1958. Genetic effects of radiation. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 14:19-20
• M. Lynch, J. Conery, and R. Burger. 1995. Mutation accumulation and the extinction of small populations. The American Naturalist 146:489-518
• K. Higgins and M. Lynch. 2001. Metapopulation extinction caused by mutation accumulation. PNAS 98: 2928-2933
• F. Hoyle. 1999. Mathematics of Evolution. Acorn Enterprises, LLC, Memphis, TN.
• Howell et al. 1996. Evolution of human mtDNA. How rapid does the human mitochondrial genome evolve? A. J. Hum. Genet. 59: 501-509
• Loewe, L. 2006. Quantifying the genomic decay paradox due to Muller’s ratchet in human mitochondrial DNA. Genet. Res., Camb 87:133-159

The conditions are that responses must be from credible, scientific journals. He cannot use apologist websites such as Answers in Genesis or Journal of Creations and the like. In turn I have agreed not to use sites like Talk Origins though I did correct him with his claim of Talk Origins being an "atheist apologist" website that rejects Creationist studies out-of-hand.

I don't see why you're arguing this point, I've agreed to only use scientific journals. To belabor the point; if you could show, scientifically, that Creationism is true, that the God of the Bible is the God of Creation and that the God of the Bible exists then most of the scientists on TO would be on the side of Creationist (though many would choose not to worship this God). AiG and the like, well they've stated on their webpage that they will not be swayed. Ken Ham said so quite bluntly in a recent debate that he wouldn't change his mind.

That's the difference.

Program

I shall address each article as they appear in the list. The rate at which I post will be subject to numerous variables such as my ability to acquire an article, how busy I am in my family and work life and how motivated I am when I do have the time. Any claim by my Creationist opponent that suggests I am answering in a particular order, or rate, just to avoid dealing with challenging papers will be treated in the same vein as Godwin's Law. I shall try to determine several things.

• If the author(s) is(are) actually challenging the validity of Evolutionary Theory, or disputing a detail of Evolutionary Theory.
• If the conclusion of the article means what the Creationist thinks it says.
• If the research is refuted, improved upon or verified by other research.

Haldane's Dilemma

Preamble

The paper by Haldane (1957) discusses and attempts to quantify the rate at which otherwise harmful genetic mutations become fixed within an animal population due to natural selection by way of environmental change which favours individuals possessing the mutation. Based on his calculations, Haldane determined that an animal population can only fix this mutation in the population at a rate of 300 generations, at best, and avoid the collapse of the species. The implication being, by my opponent, that there would not be enough time for certain species (ie. humans from the other great apes) to have successfully diverged in the time frame mainstream science says that they have.

The Haldane (1957) paper, according to my H-Index Calculator, has been cited 5613 times and has an h-index >10 and a g-index >10.

Methodology

Haldene first begins by looking at Haploid, Clonal or Self-Fertilizing organisms, or Maternally passed cytoplasmic traits. Stating that if A and a represent allalomorphic genes in these populations then for the representative nth population, prior to selection, we have the frequencies:

p_nA, q_na where p_n + q_n = 1.

The cost incurred to fix a gene in the population of such organisms is calculated to be:

The deaths over all generations for the species in question which Haldane calculated to be between 5-15 times the number of species members of a population each generation, 10 being typical.

Then Haldane looks at autosomal locus with pairs A and a in diploids giving their fitness as:

AA frequency: p_n² fitness: 1

Aa frequency: 2p_nq_n fitness: 1-k

aa frequency: q_n² fitness: 1-K

For the members of these species the total deaths over all generations was calculated to be between 10-100 times the number of members each generation with 30 being typical.

Haldane then examines autosomal locus in inbreeding diploids with the following frequency table:

AA frequency: p_n²+fp_nq_n

Aa frequency: 2(1-k)(1-f)p_nq_n

aa frequency: (1-K)(fp_nq_n+q_n²)

Here the deaths of heterozygotes can be ignored if the organisms employ full inbreeding and the cost is similar to that of in the first group of organisms. If there is partial inbreeding then the cost is slightly less than the first group and the breeding coefficient f is introduced where f>0. The cost is not significantly reduced unless A is recessive.

After this Haldane looks sex-linked characteristics in diploids. The frequency and fitness table produced is:

AA frequency: p_n² fitness: 1

Aa frequency: p_nq_n fitness: 1-k

aa frequency: q_n² fitness: 1-K

A frequency: p_n fitness: 1

a frequency: q_n fitness: 1-l

For this group Haldane calculates the death rate over all generations to carry a cost of 10-40 times the population of a generation where 20 is typical.

Lastly Haldane examines the cost to heterozygotes.According to Haldane's calculations the cost to heterozygotes is small and therefore little fixation can occur.

Discussion

Haldane then concludes that the rate of change, for adapting a previously harmful gene to survive, over 300 generations is reasonable because if change occurred over too few generations this would render the gene unstable and the population would languish and collapse.

Interestingly, Haldane makes the assertion that multiple mutations would take the same amount to fix simultaneously as if they were fixed in sequence. Literally, Haldane claims that three mutations being selected for will take three times as long.

Can this slowness be avoided by selecting several genes at a time? I doubt it, for the following reason. Consider clonally reproducing bacteria, in which a number of disadvantageous genes are present, kept in being by mutation, each with frequencies of the order of 10^-4. They become slightly advantageous through a change of environment or residual genotype. Among 10¹² bacteria there might be one which possessed three such mutants. But since the cost of selection is proportional to the negative logarithm of the initial frequency the mean cost of selecting its descendants would be the same as that of selection for the three mutants in series, though the process might be quicker. The same argument applies to mutants linked by an inversion. Once several favourable mutants are so linked the inversion may be quickly selected. But the rarity of inversions containing several rare and favourable mutants will leave the cost unaltered. (Haldane, 1957, p. 522)

However, aside from mentioning the negative logarithm Haldane offers no good reason why multiple mutations could not be fixed any faster than one mutation. In his example, Haldane cites bacteria that reproduce clonally. Organisms that utilize sexual reproduction multiple mutations can be selected simultaneously, via sexual recombination, and likely have those traits fixed in the population sooner.

Furthermore, there is a problem in Haldane's calculations. In his paper, Haldane uses 1-k to represent the fitness of gene a. If k = 0.01 then the fitness j of gene a works out to be, by Haldane's calculations, j = 1 + 0.01 = 1.01. Using Haldan's equation with this fitness value, if population N = 100 000, the frequency that A is passed to next generations is p = 1/N = 1e-5 and the frequency that a is passed to the next generations q = 1 - p = 0.99999 we get the following value for deaths.

(q^2/j)*N = ((0.99999)^2)/1.01)*100 000 = 9.90e4

So a bit over 99 000 individuals need to die to pass a to the next generations and eventually cause fixation, 99 009 with better precision. To put that into perspective; 99 009/100 000 * 100 =~ 99%! Haldane perpetuates this error throughout his paper. The point is, there is no reasonable expectation that individuals carrying A have to die, particularly at such rates, but Haldane kept doing so because he normalized his fitness factor incorrectly by counting the previously killed off carriers of A in the calculation for the next generation.

Fixing a gene in a population is not restricted to adopting a previously harmful mutation either. Here, again, the fixation could possibly occur at a higher rate without destabilizing the population as noted by Valen (1963).

Dodson (1962) seized on this estimate of 300 generations, applied it to evolution within the genus Homo, and needless to say for this case, found a poor fit with observed and inferred facts. The most probable interpretation of this difference is that much of the evolution of this genus has been such to present no dilemma to the populations. The most commonly noted difference between successive species, and one that is probably responsible for some of the other differences, is the increase in brain size and presumably intelligence. There is no reason to believe that the part of this increase that occurred in the transition from H. erectus to H. sapiens was a direct adaptation to middle Pliestocene environmental changes (that is, would not have been valuable to the environments of Homo erectus), although it is conceivable that environmental changes (such as possible changes in predators and food) increased the selective advantage for greater intelligence or lowered a threshold of disadvantage for the cocomitant structural disturbance of the skull. The other functional complex known to have changed importantly is posture (and presumably locomotion); it is very possible that the only difficulties in the change of this complex also, were the reorganizations of the anatomy and the genome and not a greater than previous loss of individuals with the ancestral genotype. (Valen, 1963, p. 186-187)

Conclusions

It must first be said that Haldane was not presenting any fault with evolution, nor was he in any way defending Creationism or its poorly disguised brother Intelligent Design. Haldane, in his paper, was trying to come up with a means to calculate how quickly a population evolves if survival meant adopting a previously harmful gene. Nor is there any discussion or other indication about genomes decaying.

Secondly, Haldane's estimate of 300 generations was falsified by Dodson when he compared changes in genus Homo. There is no empirical grounds to accept 300 generations as sacrosanct and suggests that there is no dilemma.

Thirdly, Haldane's calculations are erroneous because he did not properly normalize his fitness factor correctly. Why should individual carrying gene A need to die in such large numbers to fix gene a? Clearly, the empirical evidence suggests that this does not happen on the norm and yet evolution proceeds unabated.

Lastly, although much more can probably yet be said, Haldane was a scientist and admitted that his work probably was not without error. His efforts, nonetheless, helped scientists better understand the evolutionary process. This is how science works!

To conclude, I am quite aware that my conclusions will probably need drastic revision. But I am convinced that quantitative arguments of the kind here put forward should play a part in all future discussions of evolution. (Haldane, 1957, p. 523)

Questions to my Opponent

How did you reach the conclusion that this paper supported a decaying genome?

What is it about the 300 generations estimate that you find significant seeing that it is evidently incorrect?

Did you actually spend time reading the paper?

Bibliography

• The Cost of Natural Selection Haldane, 1957

Haldane's Dilemma, Evolutionary Rates, and Heterosis Valen, 1963

the nature of evidence or dafuq?

When having online arguments it is often customary to back up your claims with links to supporting evidence. Depending on the level of the argument this evidence may be a newspaper article, a digitized photograph or even a blog posting. For ordinary arguments this works very well and the issue of evidence is quick and easily obtainable.

When the argument involves topics of science then articles from reputable, peer reviewed scientific journals are typically used as evidence. Often, all parties involved in the argument will have access to the same article, or the one with access will read out the relevant portions so that all parties can analyze and judge for themselves what the authors were actually saying, the quality of the author's methodology and whether the author's conclusions were in line with the evidence discovered in the author's research and what the readers themselves actually know.

In addition to this going over the paper itself other papers that verify the findings of a paper's authors are searched for. The more papers in independent research that verify the findings of the originally disputed paper's conclusions the more weight is given to the original paper.

This is how grown up, scientifically minded people argue about science. They go to the source, the research of the scientists themselves.

Arguing with Creationists

Before I dive into this, there are some rational theists, none of whom are Creationists, out there and I wish to acknowledge them and not smear them with the same paintbrush as their more irrational peers.

When arguing with Creationists the nature of evidence often gets called into dispute. Now it's interesting because Creationists want to debate the science of evolution which they often feel is an evil plot, or at best misguided due to human frailties. Science always falls back onto what can be verified and is empirical and often when debating Creationists I insist upon such evidence, preferably from reliable scientific sources. However, it occurs to me that Creationists often do not know what I mean when I say "verfiable", "empirical" or "reliable scientific sources", or they do not wish to know and therein lies the problem.

So, as a service to my Creationist friends, I will provide the following the definitions so that the meanings of these words and phrase are clear to them.

Verifiable

: capable of being verified

Oopsie, it appears that we've run into a once of those problems of using a dictionary. We've been referred to another definition. Alright then.

Verified

: to establish the truth, accuracy, or reality of <verify the claim>

So, when I'm asking for verifiable evidence I'm not asking you to assert that your claim is true. I'm asking you to give me the evidence so that I can establish for myself if the claim is true, accurate or in keeping with what is known about reality. If you're asking me to believe that some sky Djinn "did it" but you can't point the Djinn out to me or show me where scientists have found it in their research then I can't verify it. If I can't verify your claim then your claim is unverifiable and, for lack of a better word, worthless. Sorry.

Empirical

1. : originating in or based on observation or experience
2. : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory>
3. : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>
4. : of or relating to empiricism

If your evidence comes from a book, well that's fine, but books by themselves aren't evidence. I'm sorry, but no matter how many time you tell me your book is correct because your sky Djinn says it is doesn't make your book any truer. Besides, then we're back to having to verify the existence of your sky Djinn and if you can't point it out to me or where scientists have discovered your sky Djinn then your book fails as empirical evidence.

Sadly, the same thing goes for prophetic predictions, or claims of scientific foreknowledge. Unless, for prophecy, you can show me where you holy book makes a prediction that is clear and testable and not actually a prophecy for the people living at that time in that holy book then your claims of prophetic evidence fail. Claims of scientific foreknowledge also have to be clear and testable. I mean, why did the bible, for example, only predict Hitler after he started persecuting Jews and Homosexuals? In the same vein, why did the bible only reveal dinosaurs (it doesn't, but that's another topic) only after scientists started digging up and classifying their fossilized remains?

Reliable Scientific Sources

Okay, I don't have a dictionary definition for this one so I'll have to do my best to carefully explain what I mean by this phrase. When I say "reliable scientific sources" I'm saying several things:

1. Articles from reputable, peer reviewed scientific journals
2. Reputable science magazines

So the first thing you need to do is try to find a supporting article in a reputable, peer reviewed scientific journal...oh dear. By the blank looks on my Creationist friend's faces I seem to have uttered more words that they don't seem to understand. Alright then, let's try some more definitions.

"Reputable

1. : enjoying good repute : held in esteem
2. : employed widely or sanctioned by good writers

If you have some claim that birds aren't related to dinosaurs and you pass me off an article from Answers in Genesis: Answers Research Journal, well that's just not a reputable journal. No scientist that has any value in their field publishes their work in Answers Research Journal. There are a couple of reasons for this 1) if you go to Answers about page the publishers quite clearly state that the bible is the ultimate authority and all scientific research must conform to the bible, 2) Answers rarely publishes any research, mostly just rebuttals of science research that they don't agree with, and the odd actual research they do publish is third rate.

Peer Reviewed

: a process by which something proposed (as for research or publication) is evaluated by a group of experts in the appropriate field

Again, if you hand me Creation Ministries International's Journal of Creation claiming I should read it because it's peer reviewed well I'm not. In a reputable journal peer review is carried out by experts that have been selected to perform the review of a particular paper that has been submitted. The more reputable the paper the more experts they have to draw on. In a journal of low repute, such as Journal of Creation, there are very few experts in any scientific field that are associated with them that they can draw on. Also, as in Answers Research Journal, Journal of Creation states on their about page that the bible is the ultimate authority and thereby limits, if not eliminates, the usefulness of any peer review except to perhaps grammar and spelling.

A good source to look for reputable, peer reviewed scientific journals is PAIS.

Carrying Onward

Now, where was I? Oh yes, I was saying the first thing you should do is try to find if there are any articles in any of the reputable, peer reviewed scientific journal that support your claim. Then read it, not just the abstract, but the whole paper, try to understand it, to absorb it. Try to get inside the heads of the scientists and try to see things the way they saw them. Look at their methodology, did they do things correctly? If you don't understand their methodology, ask for help. Try to get a feel for the equations they're using and the graphs they're displaying. Go over the conclusion, does it fit their premise and does it make sense in light of their research?

Do all of this and you might be able to win points against people who accept evolution, be they theist or atheist. In the process you might learn something new about the world around you too.

agnosticism and atheism

For some reason most theists and even some atheists seem to have trouble with the concepts of agnosticism versus atheism. In this article, I'm going to try to address the apparent confusion around these two terms. With any luck this will be a useful resource for theists and atheists alike.

Agnosticism

The root of agnosticism is gnosis. According to Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary gnosis is:

: esoteric knowledge of spiritual truth held by the ancient Gnostics to be essential to salvation

Therefore, to be agnostic is to be without this special knowledge. Again, according to Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary agnostic is:

: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

Atheism

The root of atheism is theos from which theism is derived. According to Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary theism is:

: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

Then an atheist is someone who does NOT believe in the existence of deities. From Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary atheism is:

: a disbelief in the existence of deity

Discussion

Most atheists will naturally fall into the agnostic camp. There being no verifiable, empirical evidence of deities means that one cannot know for certain about the actual existence of said deities. So while an atheist may not believe in the existence of any deities, without searching all space-time they cannot know for absolute certain that one does not exist. However, given the improbable likelihood of ever being able to perform such a search it is not necessary to do so in order to show that no deities exist. If there are deities in the Universe and they are not in anyway observable within the space we search then we can infer that they do not affect us and are as good as nonexistent. That said, given the complete lack of evidence of deities up to this point some atheists believe that such a lack of evidence is compelling enough evidence to positively conclude that there are no deities.

It is interesting to note that most theists are actually agnostics as well. They, much like atheists have no verifiable, empirical evidence of the existence of their particular or any other deities. While a theist may actually believe in the existence of a certain set of deities they cannot know for certain that any actually do exist. Theists that say they actually know that deities exist is either deluded or lying. Unfortunately for the theist making a positive claim, as no verifiable, empirical evidence of deities has yet been found, it falls on them to prove the existence of the deities they say exist.

Naturally, some theists object to this and claim that atheists that make a positive claim of the absence of deities also bear the burden of proof. However, this is not true. Given the fact that up to this date no deities have been found the Null Hypothesis is that there are no deities. As a result, the atheist making the positive claim is not really obligated to prove that deities don't exist because the view of these particular atheists are in line with the Null Hypothesis. Since the theist has, through making a positive claim, constructed an Alternative Hypothesis he or she now bears the burden of collecting the evidence and seeing which hypothesis is supported by this evidence.

Bear in mind that this does not get the atheists off "Scott Free". Should a theist actually find any verifiable, empirical evidence of the existence of deities and this evidence passes scrutiny then the Null Hypothesis may change and the atheists will now have to reevaluate their beliefs, or lack thereof as the case may be. However, until that happens atheists can rest assured that theists will spend a long time looking for the existence of their deities which started at the dawn of religion.

we're all cranks-in-waiting

So I read this article, linked to on this Slashdot article which prompted me to post this on my G+ account.

Easy to Crank

Earlier this morning it occurred to me that I was behaving in the manner of a crank. I was acting as if my inexpert opinion counted as much as the opinions of those who've studied and practiced computer programming much of, if not most, of their careers.

Additionally, it doesn't seem to take much to turn one into a crank.

Aside:

I still can't stop futzing with the code.

#include <stdio.h>

int fizz_buzz(int num)
{
        int m1 = 3, m2 = 5, f = 0;

        if (num % m1 == 0) {
                f = 1;
        }

        if (num % m2 == 0) {
                f = f + 2;
        }

        return(f);
}

int main() 
{
        int max = 100, n = 1;
        char s1[] = "fizz", s2[] = "buzz";

        while (n <= max) {
                switch (fizz_buzz(n)) {
                        case 1:
                                printf("%s", s1);
                                break;
                        case 2:
                                printf("%s", s2);
                                break;
                        case 3:
                                printf("%s%s", s1, s2);
                                break;
                        default:
                                printf("%d", n);
                                break;
                }
                
                printf("\n");
                n++;
        }
        return 0;
}

learning fortran

I've decided that a person with a science degree is probably lacking if s?he doesn't know a bit of Fortran, so I've taken the liberty of teaching myself by following the tutorial available a Fortran Tutorial. I ran into a bit of a snag on Exercise 6.3 on the Subroutines and Functions lesson. For some reason I couldn't get the subroutine to work the way I wanted. I knew the algorithm for the finite difference matrix itself was correct, but it kept crashing on me

I'm using gfortran on both my workstation and on my android device, but they both seem to work differently when it comes to arrays and fortran procedural programming and I think gcc on my android is broken. This only made things more frustrating for me, so I began to do a lot of reading on Fortran 95 and how it handles arrays, functions and the like while trying things out.

Happily, I was able to figure it out but it only works on my workstation. It's too bad the gcc android port I'm using is broken, I'll have to find a replacement. Anyhow, here is the code I was able to cobble together. Try not to be too critical.

program exercise6_3
    !print out a finite difference matrix using a function
    implicit none
    integer :: row, col, length
    integer, allocatable, dimension(:,:) :: matrix 
    print *, 'How big is your nxn matrix?'
    read *, length

    allocate(matrix(length, length))
    call d_matrix(length, matrix)

    do row = 1, length
          write(*, 10) (matrix(row, col), col = 1, length)
    end do

    10 format(100i2)

    deallocate(matrix)

    end program exercise6_3

    subroutine d_matrix(count, array)
    !finite difference matrix
        implicit none
        integer :: count, m
        integer, dimension(count,count) :: array
        !array dimensions must be specified

        array = 0
        do m = 1, count
              array(m, m) = 2
              if ( m /= count ) then
                    array(m, m + 1) = -1
                    array(m + 1, m) = -1
                end if
        end do

        end subroutine d_matrix

fun with a basic algorithm

On Twitter Ed announced that he was playing around with a BASIC program that ran on the venerable Commodore 64. I myself am not a professional programmer, but I've taken several programming courses and have played with code from time to time. I fondly remember programming instructions in BASIC or Pascal on the school computers and was always a bit saddened that my home didn't have one for our personal use.

Naturally, Ed posting about 10 PRINT made me curious. Since I run OpenBSD on my workstation I don't have a native version of BASIC, but I do have a C compiler in the form of GCC. So I set out to port "10 PRINT" in C.

10 PRINT

The Code

10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10

10 PRINT Output - Frodo C64 Emulator

My First Porting Attempts

The variant of UNIX that I doesn't have the PETSCII character set that the Commodore 64 uses in the 10 PRINT program. As a result my first attempts used the slash "/" and the backslash "\" characters from the standard ASCII library.

maze.c

/* auto maze generator */

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

/* print to screen the backslash or forward
 * slash depending if the value of i is
 * odd or even. */

int main (int argc, char *argv[])
{
        do {
                int i = random();

                if ( i%2 == 0 )
                        printf ("\\");
                else
                        printf ("/");

        } while ( 1 );

        return 0;
}

maze1.c

/* auto maze generator, mk1 */

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

/* determine if the number passed is
 * odd or even and return result. */

int odd_even (number)
        int number;
{
        if ( number % 2 == 0)
                return 0;
        else
                return 1;
}

/* print the forward slash or backslash
 * depending on returned result. */

int main (int argc, char *argv[])
{
        do {
                int i = random();

                if ( odd_even(i) == 0 )
                        printf ("\\");
                else
                        printf ("/");

        } while ( 1 );

        return 0;
}

maze2.c

/* auto maze generator, mk3 */

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

/* print to screen the backslash or forward
 * slash depending if the value of i is
 * odd or even. */

int main (int argc, char *argv[]){do {int i = random();if (i%2==0) printf("\\");else printf("/");}while(1);return 0;}

Output of First Attempts

My Following Attempts

I wasn't satisfied with the use of slash and back slash to build the output. While using slash and backslash approximated the output of 10 PRINT somewhat, it was obvious that the approximation was lacking. Fortunately, it turns out that Unicode has a solution that more approximates the diagonal lines used in PETSCII. The right leaning line has the Unicode symbol

0x2571

and the left leaning line has the symbol

0x2572

in C. So, using those symbols I modified my code accordingly. I also used an terminal emulator that was capable of rendering the Unicode symbols I was using to view my output, in this case Gnome Terminal.

maze4.c

/* auto maze generator, mk4 */

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <locale.h>
#include <wchar.h>

/* print the forward slash or backslash
 * depending on returned result. */

int main (int argc, char *argv[])
{
        char *locale;
        locale = setlocale (LC_CTYPE, "en_US.UTF-8");
        int i;

        while (1) {
                wprintf (L"%lc", (i = 2571.5 + arc4random_uniform(2), i == 2571) ? L'\x2571' : L'\x2572');
        }

        printf ("\n");

        return 0;
}

maze5.c

/* auto maze generator, mk5 */

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <locale.h>
#include <wchar.h>

/* Adds a value 0 < x < 1 to passed float
 * value and return an integer. */

int find_value (given)
        float given;
{
        given = given + arc4random_uniform(2);
        return (given);
}

/* print the forward slash or backslash
 * depending on returned result. */

int main (int argc, char *argv[])
{
        char *locale;
        locale = setlocale (LC_CTYPE, "en_US.UTF-8");
        int i;

        while (1) {
                wprintf (L"%lc", (i = find_value(2571.5), i == 2571) ? L'\x2571' : L'\x2572');
        }

        printf ("\n");

        return 0;
}

Output of Following Attempts

Thoughts

I find the original algorithm in C64 BASIC interesting for a couple of reasons.

1. The entire script is one line.
2. The script uses a 'goto' statement.
3. The script takes advantage of how characters are defined in PETSCII

If I were to do this properly in C I would either have to have a similar set of characters that I could call on, or I would have to call on C's graphical abilities and define line segments for various values in the algorithm.

The fact that there are two opposing slash characters in Unicode that are numerically adjacent to each other is fortuitous. I don't know if the spec for Unicode came before 10 PRINT and PETSCII or after, but I suspect that if it's the latter then perhaps the designers were influenced by 10 PRINT? This is something that I may have to look into a bit, just to satisfy my curiosity.

fossil fuel interests and funding of climate change denial groups

>Peter Sinclair of "Climate Denial Crock of the Week", 19 February 2013.

Mr Sinclair has posted a new blog about a recent peer reviewed study titled Study Links Tobacco, Tea Party, Climate Denial,… and Fox News. The verifiable, peer reviewed evidence against the fossil fuel interests continues to build.

Christmas Vacation 2012

Today we tore down the Christmas Tree (Holiday Tree?) The kids wanted the lights on and the activity rode into their bedtime. Now I'm left to finish the tear down on my own.

As I work on the tree, and indeed over the past several weeks, my thoughts were haunted by the realization that things were different this year. You see, my father passed away in August and this was the first year we were all celebrating without him.

Normally I find myself growing excited with anticipation as Christmas approaches, but this year I had a hard time finding that anticipation and excitement. I could see that my kids felt it but I could also see that my wife was struggling as much as myself.

Overall, we had a good vacation; we saw friends and family, some whom we haven't seen in years. My mom was holding up well though I'm sure it has been hardest on her. My sisters and their families did their best to make our visit with them memorable and happy.

What Christmas means to me has changed several times in my life and such a change occurred again this year. To me Christmas is another opportunity in a world of missed opportunities to spend time with your loved ones while they're still here and still exist. May you find opportunities throughout the year to have those you cherish near you.

more meanderings on atheism plus

I've been giving things a bit more thought and I think I have a more coherent take on Atheism Plus. Yesterday was the first time I ran across the term "Atheist Plus" and the turmoil it seemed to have caused some people.

Atheism Plus' Causes

First let's break down some of the causes listed by Atheism Plus, just so we are all talking about the same thing. I'm probably oversimplifying some of the causes here but please bear with me.

Atheism

A person is an atheist if they do not believe in a god. In strict terms this means a lack of belief in any god. That's it.

Care for Social Justice

Action to have a lack of justice in our society that disadvantages or harms others rectified.

Support Women's Rights

Action to have women treated as equals to men and to protect women from being harmed or disadvantaged simply for being female.

Protest Racism

Action to have people of all races treated as equal and protect any one race from being harmed or disadvantaged simply for being of that race.

Fight Homophobia and Transphobia

Action to have homosexuals and transexuals treated as equals to heterosexuals and to protect them from being harmed or disadvantaged simply for not being hetrosexual.

Use Critical Thinking and Skepticism

Actively using logic and evidence in order to make rational decisions about claims in order to protect oneself from accepting falsehoods.

Atheism WRT Causes

Some people contend that the above causes are natural outcomes of atheism. I'm not so inclined to agree. Lacking a belief in a god does not make one more likely to support these causes than would having a belief in said god.

If you support the above causes it's because you believe in supporting those causes for one reason or another. Certainly, most good people support one or more of the above be they theist or atheist.

Conversely, supporting one or more of these causes doesn't mean one is an atheist either. Possibly being involved with these causes may cause one to see things that will challenge one's faith, but it doesn't guarantee deconversion.

A Bit About Myself

I am a skeptic and critical thinker, I care about social justice, I support women's rights, I am against racism and I support Homosexuals and Transexuals in their cause for equality. I support the climate scientists and other environmental scientists in their fight against the forces of antiscience and corporate greed.

I'm also an atheist, none of the above causes increase or decrease my status as such. By Atheism Plus' Charter I could possibly be a member, but I don't know if I feel the need for another label.

Certainly, I think that any atheist involved in any of the above causes, where it's reasonably safe to do so*, should let the people they're working with know that they're atheist. Similarly, other atheists should support each other if they're working in these causes. Atheists should make it known when other atheists (again, when it's reasonably safe to do so*) are working in such causes so that the general public knows that many atheists are concerned about these things.

I think Atheism Plus is a good idea, but I don't know if it's necessary or even if it'll work. When Atheism Plus started there were some divisionary comments made, but to be fair they came from both sides. There have been atheists on both sides that haven't made things better and there are examples where atheists on both sides have been trying.

In the meantime, I'll keep reading, watching and listening. All the best whether you are an Atheist Plus member or not.

*Sometimes the atheist involved might have his or her safety compromised if the people they work with know they're atheists. Even if there aren't safety issues sometimes there are personal issues that could be complicated if one's atheism is exposed, especially if one isn't ready.

what the heck is atheism plus

(Please note that the following should be taken with a large helping of NaCl. I'm still researching Atheism + and lot of my ideas about it are still forming. I may have a totally new perspective on Atheism + come tomorrow.)

This is What Happens When You're Out of The Loop

c0nc0rdance posted the following video.

Apparently Atheism + (formally Atheism Plus) is causing some consternation among atheists. So, just what is Atheism +?

Declaration of Atheism+ on Ftb

The bloggers at FtB started the Atheism +. Richard Carrier posted an artcle Jen McCreight posted an article describing Atheism +.

In summary, Atheism + is:

We are…
Atheists plus we care about social justice,
Atheists plus we support women’s rights,
Atheists plus we protest racism,
Atheists plus we fight homophobia and transphobia,
Atheists plus we use critical thinking and skepticism.

Frankly, these are worthwhile goals. Personally, I'd put critical thinking and skepticism at the top as it was critical thinking and skepticism that lead me out of theism. When I think "atheist" I tend to think "naturalist" and "skeptic". I digress.

That said, let me examine these one-by-one from my own limited perspective on the whole Atheism + issue.

• Social Justice: I'm very concerned about issues like social justice. I see social issues around me all of the time and I do what I can when I can. However, someone not being concerned about social issues, or even denying social issues doesn't make one less an atheist. Uneducated perhaps, maybe ineducable in others, but not any less an atheist.
• Women's Rights: I consider myself a feminist. I have a wife that I love and who faces challenges in the working world simply for being female. I have three little girls and I worry about what kind of future they'll have. Women's issues weigh heavily in my life and it's important to me that the women in my life have equal opportunities and support. Again, even atheists that are misogynist pigs are still atheists. I agree that currently misogyny is the more pervasive and insidious of the two, but misandry exists and can't be ignored either.
• Racism: Again, an issue I see around me all of the time. Again, atheists that are racists are still atheists.
• Homophobia and Transphobia: Another prevalent issue. Same as above.
• Critical Thinking and Skepticism: Important skills to have, but many atheists aren't critical thinkers or skeptics. In fact, there exist superstitious and even religious atheists. They just don't believe in gods.

All of these issues are good, but what if one is an atheist and otherwise a very good person, except they fall short on one area? What if this atheist were a homophobe, or racist? Is every good thing they've done undone?

If these issues are important than one shouldn't be afraid to correct or admonish the individual in question. One could state how they think others should interact with this person if they don't change. From what I've seen so far, atheists who don't conform to Atheism +'s ideals seem to get quite strongly attacked (by the movement?).

Conclusion

Currently I have none. I'm still reading and trying to figure out what Atheism + means to me, if anything. Now you'll probably want some water from eating all of that salt. :-)

new blog

CvE's Chip

Chip, the admin from Facebook's Creation vs. Evolution - Who am I kidding?! has a new blog. Check it out, it's called There Are No Gods

Enjoy.

A Story of Angels and Heaven and Hell

I'm on my second day off of work for this week. My wife has gone to her job and my two youngest girls were probably at their school by now. My oldest, who's ten, was on the living room couch finishing her homework and I was in the kitchen fixing myself some coffee to start my day.

Yesterday I had noticed that my daughter had a story up on her computer that she was apparently working on. From what I glimpsed it was about a fallen angel working for hell. Seeing my daughter finish her assignment put me in mind of her story I had seen and I decided to talk with her about it.

"So that story you're working on, is that an assignment for school?" I asked from the kitchen as I measured out some coffee grounds.

"No, it's comprehension homework that I'm supposed to do with a parent," my daughter answered from the living room. It occurred to me that I hadn't been clear on what story I was referring too.

I paused a moment while I filled the reservoir of the coffee maker, turned it on and then continued, "Sorry muffin, I meant the story that you're writing on your laptop. Is that a homework assignment?"

As I walked over to the range to turn on one of the elements so I could fry myself an egg I saw my daughter shake her head, "No, it's just a story that I'm writing."

"What's it about?" I continued as I put the frying pan on the heating element. I heard my daughter get off the couch and walk over to my area of the kitchen. She stopped on the other side of the stove before she answered.

"It's about a guardian angel from heaven who went to hell and now tries to take people there," my daughter told me.

"Oh?" I replied as I scraped some coconut butter into the frying pan. (I don't know, my wife decided to get it and I have to admit it both smells nice and gives food a nice flavour.)

"Yeah, and there's these three other angels too that are trying to stop her. The snow angel, the wind angel and the water angel," my daughter said while grinning and watching me trying to scrape some coconut butter out of the jar. *

I looked up from my extraction efforts to peer at her curiously, "Really, snow, wind and water angels?"

My daughter nodded still smiling, "Yep, and the thing is," she continued excitedly, "If these three other angels stop her they might do something wrong!" She giggled at the cleverness of her story line. My wife and I have always agreed that this daughter had a gift for the dramatic.

I smiled back at my daughter, "Sounds like a very interesting story." I was done with the coconut butter so I put it away, "So what do you think of hell anyway?" I asked her.

"What do you mean?" my daughter asked with a puzzled expression on her face.

I chuckled, "What do you know about hell?"

My daughter scrunched her face in thought and shrugged, "I dunno, it's where bad people and people who don't love Jesus go."

"Hrm," I pondered, "So if you don't love Jesus you end up with the bad people in hell?"

My daughter shrugged again, "It's what the people at church say. It doesn't make much sense."

I smiled at her, "You're right, that doesn't make much sense," my kid was awesome. All this time I was worried that we were screwing our kids up in all the wrong ways, then my oldest produced this gem. We must be doing something right after all.

I reminded her that it's okay to question everything because it just means that you're using your brain. I told her that some people might get angry at her for asking questions, but never to let that discourage her. I let her know that she was a good, smart kid and that I was proud of her.

* I may have the elements associated with the angels wrong. If my daughter ever reads this post I hope she can forgive me for this error. back