Friday, 18 March 2016

NOT Designed for Life

Mankind conquering nature in Pompeii
Part 3:  Dominion over all the Earth...

In the first and second parts of this critique of the teleologial / intelligent design (ID) argument; that the Earth was designed for life, and mankind was designed for Earth, I looked at the arguments, the universe, the formation of the Earth, and the rise of life up to Homo Sapiens Sapiens. In this article, I shall address the Earth itself, human biology, and our very place upon the planet.

Still the ID proponent will maintain that Earth is perfectly designed for human life. So, we have homo sapiens sapiens, “thinking man” (HA!), inhabiting this world which is allegedly “perfectly” designed for him, and we are allegedly perfectly designed to inhabit. Except that is for the 72% of it which is covered in water, 97% of which is salty ocean, another 2% of which is polar ice caps, far too cold for human survival. So that leaves us 28% landmass. But hold on, of that area, 33% - a whole third - is uninhabitable desert. We cannot survive permanently at altitudes of over 5500 metres and at over 8000 metres, it may be a great environment for yetis, but impossible for humans to survive in, so that's mountainous areas out. Neither can we live for long periods in rainforest, due to the many dangers which lurk therein.

Have a look at a world map sometime and see just how much of the planet is occupied by humans, and you will find that the inhabited areas make up less than 1% of the landmass. This is no mistake; like any other species, humankind will only concentrate in environments suitable to their survival – see points above about evolution and natural selection. Consider Australia alone, and go have a look at a map of it; the population lives mostly around the coast, while the inland area, the Outback, is almost completely uninhabited. Why is the Outback mostly uninhabited? Because it's bloody uninhabitable, that's why. Better still, look at Egypt; the oldest continuous civilization on the face of the planet, where that civilization has thrived for over 7000 years (someone must have forgot to tell them about Bishop Usher's calculations making the Earth 6000 years old) on the edge of the Sahara Desert – wholly due to a ruddy great river, the Nile, running through it to the Mediterranean coast.

So, let's stay away from all the dangerous areas and stay in largely temperate zones and we should be okay, yes? Hmm. Make sure you are careful about anything you pick off bushes and eat. Likewise, be careful of any meat you should eat, and make sure you cook it first, which of course means learning how to create (and control) fire – also essential for survival. And of course, you will need to wear clothes – the only animal to do so (with the possible exception of hermit crabs) – not only to protect yourself from the elements, but some plants which you may brush up against, which can kill, as well as bites and stings from other creatures, which can be equally lethal. And while we're about that, our prototype human needs to be on the ever careful watch out for predators, of which there are a great many. Of course, the best way our human can protect himself from predators, the elements and many other dangers is to house himself. Early man decided that caves would suffice as housing. Ermm, bears like caves. As do poisonous spiders, snakes, and many other predatory and dangerous creatures. And they offer scant protection from the elements, so mankind had to build his own domiciles to survive.  This perfect environment's looking too good so far, is it?  And we're just coming to the end of the fourth paragraph.

So our guy (let's assume it's a man, because he's so haphazard to the point that a woman would be covering her eyes and shaking her head by now) has to build his own dwelling, instead of relying on his god giving him a perfect environment. He should be safe now, right? Wrong. If he has built in a seismic area, he runs the ever-present risk of earthquakes, sinkholes, landslides, and even volcanic eruptions. Indeed, in volcanic regions, he could be killed by pyroclastic flow, ash, mudslide, or even silently by deadly gasses being released. This is precisely what happened to around 1700 people who perished around Lake Nyos, Cameroon, in 1986, when an underwater landslide released a pocket of carbon dioxide which rendered them unconscious before killing through oxygen starvation. Similarly the dead of the Pompeii eruption of 79 CE were so perfectly preserved because they had been rendered unconscious before being covered in a thick layer of volcanic ash.

Perhaps our chap could live in a coastal region? Then there would be the dangers of flooding and in some areas, tsunami. Of course, flooding does also occur in inland areas, and kill many every year. But even if sufficiently high or protected, our man would still be at the mercy of the winds, which kill thousands worldwide every year. And then of course, there is always the chance of being struck by lightning.

So, perhaps our friend could take all possible precautions, staying out of adverse weather, building a strong enough environment to withstand the elements, high enough to avoid flooding, in a non-seismic area, and stays indoors whenever inclement weather shows. He is already living a completely unnatural life, but whoops, he has to go out sometime, and interact with other people. And because of that, he now runs the risk of contracting a myriad of diseases, many of which, can be easily contracted merely by touching an area an infected person has touched, and can indeed kill. The end of the First World War saw people again beginning to move across Europe, including from Spain into France. Unwittingly, some of these Spanish carried the H1N1 influenza virus with them, leading to the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic, which killed up to 50 million people. Consider that by comparison the First World War, one of the bloodiest conflicts in human history, killed 38 million. Mother Nature can be much more cruel than humanity. But our friend need not even come into contact with other humans or the diseases they carry. Malaria, spread by mosquito bites, is one of the biggest killers of humanity every year, with 438,000 deaths in 2015 alone.

But then our friend is not even in the modern era, and so is prone to every disease going, including not just the myriad of tropical ones, but anything as common as tetanus. It will be thousands of years until his descendants develop vaccines and cures against even the simplest of diseases or infections. Right now, his life is vulnerable to anything as simple as an untreated scratch, and his lifespan is around 30 to 35 years. Why? Because bacteria which causes disease and infection are everywhere. Bacteria vastly outstrip humanity, or any other species on the face of this planet. They were here long before we arrived, they may well be here after our species is long gone. In fact, if anyone was to consider the Earth to be designed for life, then it could strongly be argued that it was not designed for us, but rather for the microbial life which abounds and thrives everywhere.

The God-botherers must be quite irate at me by now. Perhaps they should take a glass of water to calm down – secure in the fact that their treated water contains no disease-carrying bacteria, or for that matter parasites which kill slowly from the inside out.

However, meantime our friend has decided to get away from those deadly mosquitoes and thus has travelled north into Europe, built a house in a non-seismic area, away from coasts and flood plains, strong enough to withstand the elements and keep predators at bay. He's taking all the precautions he can, and he should be safe enough. Well, he will be. Unfortunately his descendants will end up with much lighter skin, will suffer a Vitamin D deficiency, and will be much more prone to skin cancers. The incidence melanoma in white caucasians is much, much higher than any other race. The US Center for Disease Control shows that in 2012 around 25 whites out of 100,000 developed skin cancers. For Native Americans / Inuit, and Hispanics, the incidence was around 5 our of 100,000, with the darkest-skinned peoples, African Americans and Pacific Islanders, way down at 1 out of 100,000. But even if our proto-human were African, living in the north of the planet, he may be safe, succeeding generations of his in the future would not be, for their skins too would lighten with every passing generation, and thereby greatly increase their likelihood of skin cancer. It has happened before, which is precisely why I am white (well, not really 'white' - I prefer to say “peach-flake”), it could only happen again in the same circumstances. That's the way evolution works.

White supremacists who claim they are the “master race” amuse me more than anger me, for if anything it is white people who are an aberration from the original human race; all of us come from black African ancestors (suck it up, KKK, BNP, EDL, etc, etc.). So am I saying that black people are more 'racially pure', or better adapted to life on the planet? Nope. Not for one moment, for African peoples also have their own problems. I mentioned malaria above as one of the biggest killers on the planet. As malaria is a parasite carried by mosquitoes, one would imagine that evolution would have developed a resistance to it, and you would be correct. However, nature can be cruel, and in some people who developed the resistance to malaria, it left a ticking time bomb in the nature of sickle cell anaemia.

Sickle cell anaemia occurs only in black people and is due to a purely evolutionary quirk. Sciencey bit coming. The DNA code tells the gene that tells the body how to make a form of haemoglobin (Hb), the oxygen-carrying molecule in our blood. In some people this gene has mutated through evolution for their red blood cells to carry abnormal amounts of haemoglobin. These form a sickle shape when attacked by the malaria parasite, and pass through the spleen, and being an aberration from normal blood cells, are culled, with the malaria parasite along with them. Clever, no? Those with these mutated genes, haemoglobin sickle (HbS), are sickle cell carriers, who are otherwise perfectly healthy, and who make up some 40% of the areas of Africa hardest hit by malaria. However, while these carriers suffer no ill effects, it takes two HbS genes to cause sickle cell anaemia. Therefore, if a child of two HbS carriers inherits mutated genes from both parents, then the abnormal form of the haemoglobin protein causes the red blood cells to lose oxygen and warp into a sickle shape during periods of high activity. These sickled cells become stuck in small blood vessels, the spleen unable to cope with them, causing a crisis of pain, fever, swelling, and tissue damage that can lead to death. This is sickle cell anaemia.

Sickle cell is what scientists would call “elegant”. The way it works in combating malaria is certainly fascinating, and what is more, it is yet one more proof of that evolutionary biology is factual. Sadly, the payoff is pain and suffering for millions of black people, hours of tiring and destructive chemotherapy treatment – for sufferers in developed countries, no real cure, and ultimately death for approximately 1.2 million black people every year. In 2012 one Chicago woman was successfully treated for sickle cell anaemia with stem cell transplants, but not only does such treatment, just like chemotherapy, remain out of the reach of the majority of sufferers in Africa, as long as stem cell treatment remains controversial with many theists, the deeply religious peoples of Africa – with prompting from the major churches of the world - would be highly unlikely to accept it.

And of course, as the huge prevalence of HIV, Ebola, and many other diseases and parasites in Africa are testimony to, malaria and sickle cell anaemia are not the only infections which many peoples in Africa have to cope with daily. And that's before we even get around to the lions, leopards, cheetahs, hyenas, crocodiles, the fucking scorpions (I HATE scorpions), snakes, elephants in must, and the hippopotami. Strange as it may seem, despite all the predatory animals and poisonous beasties in Africa, the humble herbivore hippopotamus is the biggest killer of humans in the continent. Male hippos are extremely territorial, while females will kill to protect their young. And of course, where Africa is concerned, all the above is before we even get round to crop failures, lack of clean water (another of the continent's biggest killers), and many other natural impacts, without even considering the great many manmade ones.

The overwhelming majority of people who claim that the Earth is designed to be perfect for human life tend to be white, male, Americans, living very comfortable lives in nice air-conditioned and centrally-heated homes, in modern cities - and thus could not be further from the natural life they maintain we and the planet were designed for. They also tend to be mid 50s to elderly, having spent an absolute fortune on healthcare which has kept them alive. Because they see the world through their privileged first world eyes, they fail to comprehend any other kind of world. Because children starving and dying of terrible diseases is so very far away from them, because other US citizens living in poverty and dying of terrible diseases is so very far from their lifestyle, they have a psychological disconnect from those realities, and those less fortunate than them may as well be on another planet. And while they may well live to a grand old age, they may wish to reflect that very few people, even in developed countries, die peacefully of old age; disease gets most of us, one way or another.

The ID brigade can think all they want that Earth is perfect for human habitation, but the fact is that nowhere on the planet is safe for our species. Even putting manmade dangers to one side, there is not one spot of landmass, anywhere on the planet, where humans are not at risk from adverse weather and environmental conditions, predators, poisons, infections and diseases, or natural disasters. If there is any miracle about human beings thriving on this planet, it is just that; that we have managed to survive at all.

Even our bodies are not suited for life on planet Earth. The way we lack hair offers us poor protection from the elements, poisonous and stinging plants, and UV rays from the sun, and we have to cover our bodies with clothes to compensate for this. Our immune systems are so poor that after 200,000 years on the face of the planet, we can still be felled by the common cold, and are prone to a myriad of other infections and diseases just waiting to attack, and we are an open target for just about every parasite going. Even if otherwise perfectly healthy, many of us carry genetic defects which may go back generations.

Our eyes, as complex and brilliant as they may indeed be, are in fact extremely poor in correcting aberration of light. The payoff for this is that our eyesight decreases intensely from the moment we first open our eyes, with the result that most of us need corrective lenses past the age of 40, and some will go blind with age. So much for “irreducible complexity” of the eye – a great favourite of ID proponents. German physicist Hermann Herholtz (1821-1894) wrote of the human eye; “Nature seems to have packed this organ with mistakes, as if for the avowed purpose of destroying any foundation for the theory that organs are adapted to their environment."

Our body temperature operates extremely poorly, and it's failure to keep the body within a few degrees of 98.6 Fahrenheit will lead to us feeling unwell, and in extreme cases, death. And note that there are few places on the face of the planet that will cope with an organism whose survival is assured by staying within that safe zone of body temperature.

As Homo Sapiens Sapiens evolved and became a hunter, the anatomy of the species underwent a profound distinction from the other simians. As our species had to stand upright to hunt and to be alert for predators, we developed an inward-curving spine, instead of the outward-curving spines all other simians (and most other mammals in fact) have. This is great for hunting, surveying the environment, swimming (Homo Sapiens Sapiens is the only simian who can swim), and running on two feet. It is not so great however when it comes to supporting the intestines, for supporting the womb and any foetus it may be carrying, or for that matter just carrying the weight of the human body. Everyone's spine deteriorates with age, from the mild to the extreme. Consider that even in less extreme cases, backache is one of the most common causes of workplace absence. While in the more extreme cases, with age many human beings can become wheelchair-bound or even bedridden for the remainder of their natural life.

If you stand anything upright, gravity will inevitably take it's toll, and mankind is no different from any other body on the planet in this respect. In other mammals, the weight of the internal organs is distributed evenly as they go on all fours. In bipedal creatures, such as our species, suddenly everything is being dragged downwards, and the pelvis suddenly becomes a 'basin' holding our internal organs up. This inevitably puts a strain upon these organs, including arteries, other blood vessels, and even the heart itself. Plus, being bipedal makes for another disadvantage on a planet which abounds with dangers; it leaves our chests and stomachs vulnerable to attack from predators or other humans. Look at how many other mammals under attack will instinctively curl into a ball to protect those very regions. It is not possible for humans to curl into a ball and defend themselves at the same time. We can protect or defend, we cannot do both at the same time.

And while we're about it, if we are perfectly designed, what the hell is it with the penis and testicles? In many other creatures the penis is sheathed within the body, but oh no, not in simians. And as for testicles, there's the poorest-defended part of the male human body, and the part which needs defending the most. So perfectly designed that if the sperm our testes create were in the human body, our body heat would kill them. Therefore the testes have to hang in a bag outside of the human body, where they can stay cooler. Okay, it's great the way we evolved, where one teste hangs lower than the other (no, no choruses of “Do Your Balls Hang Low”), but as a man who has at times caught his coin purse between his legs, even in my sleep, I have to ask if there is a God, why didn't he / she / it / they make the covering somewhat more robust? Some people commonly call testes “nuts”. I sometimes bloody well wish they had the same hard nutshell covering.

There is an old joke about Intelligent Design, that has many forms but generally goes you don't put the sewage plant next door to the amusement park. Amusing it may be, but it also happens to be true. Having the genitalia right beside the anus has all-too-obvious disadvantages for cleanliness and the dangers of spreading disease. And of course, in most male creatures, including those of our species, there is the double disadvantage of urine and semen passing through the same vessel. Okay, urine is mostly pure – it is not that pure, and if a man has a urine infection, then that's going to cause problems in any sexual partner they may have if that infection is untreated. But don't worry, these infections are easily treated with antibiotics. Oh wait, those are manmade – so much again for that perfect Earth perfect human body. In women of course, you have the womb cheek-by-jowl (if you'll pardon the terminology) with the bowels, and 'wrong hole' sexual incidents apart, that presents extreme dangers in pregnancy and childbirth.

In the genitalia of both genders a build up of matter can occur, which can result in infections, which is why genital cleanliness is of utmost importance. And as unlike many other mammals, we can't lick ourselves clean, we have to rely upon manmade cleaning methods. Judaism and Islam thought they got around the male problem by circumcising their sons, which of course remains popular in the USA, even among Christians and even atheists. But if our bodies are so 'perfectly' designed, why should we need to cut any part of it off at all? Is this one of God's (many) design faults? Circumcision does not guarantee cleanliness in any case. Bottom line (wash that too), everyone – male and female – should clean their genitalia every night and every morning. And I cannot emphasise this too much for sexually-active heterosexual men, because one of the biggest causes of cervical cancer is – a dirty penis. If you won't do it for yourself guys, at least do it for your sexual partners.

Another word on the genitalia and sex (yes, I am obsessed with sex – get over it), is that the way the vagina has been formed, one would be tempted to think that if there is a god, then that god must be a woman. For consider the clitoris (it's that little button-like thing, guys, right at the top of the labia minora); it's only purpose is to give sexual pleasure. Sorry to burst your little puritanical bubbles, God Squad, but if your god designed the human body, then the purpose of the clitoris could only have been deliberate. And while you are fuming at that, consider that men can be led to greater arousal by manipulating the prostate gland. And what's the easiest way of arousing the prostate gland? By inserting something up the anus, that's how.  And if you're not fuming enough by now, consider also that many other mammals have a more devloped clitoris - even spiders

On a side note, every man knows that God is a woman; we all know we've done something wrong, but don't know quite what, and when we try to ask God what we've done, She's not talking to us.

I could bang on continually about how poorly-designed the human body is for life on this planet, but I don't have the space, or the time, and you probably wouldn't have the time or the inclination to read it – and there's no more sex jokes. But our from the arches on our feet, to our thin ankles, our spindly legs, our 'basin' pelvis holding up our innards, our poor inward-curving spines, our vulnerable chests and abdomens, our scrawny necks way too weak to support our large heads, the body of Homo Sapiens Sapiens is in fact a terrible design for survival on planet Earth. If this organism was designed at all, just like most other species, the designer would not pass a High School Technical Drawing exam.

If you put these things to the creationist and / or ID proponent, many will immediately come back that Earth and mankind were created perfect before the Fall of Man when Eve, who had never been taught right from wrong, ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and tempted Adam to eat it as well, and that is why the world and mankind are like they are today. This is a complete cop-out.

Firstly, you'll find that the same people never put that caveat in when they first claim that perfectly-designed humans inhabit a perfectly-designed Earth. It is always a fall-back position when they find their arguments on the ropes.

Secondly, it is not supported by the Bible. The Bible certainly states that after the fall, Adam would have to toil for a living, and that Eve would suffer pain in childbirth, but says absolutely nothing the 'design' of the human body (and most other creatures for that matter), or the Earth environment being changed. Of course, some may claim the topography of the Earth changed after the flood at the time of Noah, but apart from that being another impossible nonsense, 1, there is nothing in the flood narrative that can explain most natural disasters, 2, it says little for their God's “bond of peace” with mankind, which he gave Noah after the flood, and 3, it still does not explain natural disasters or most changes in Earth environment.

Thirdly, anyone who uses the 'Fall of Man' argument, and this includes 'old earth' creationists (who accept evolution) and ID proponents', must believe that every word of the Bible is true and accurate. If they believe that, then they must, by definition, also have to believe that we live on a flat, stationary Earth, in a geocentric universe, which is so foolish, they are not even worth debating. And if they do not believe in such things, then they have to admit the Bible is not accurate, and therefore cannot fall back on the Fall of Man argument - nor creationism, nor intelligent design for that matter.

The fact is that no deity ever designed Homo Sapiens Sapiens, nor any other species for this planet. Natural selection adapted us for the Earth environment, to which we are in fact completely alien. Some theists ask if there is no god, then what purpose is there to life? Get ready for a stiff glass of perspective; life has no purpose, and especially not for our species. When you look at any ecosystem on the face of the Earth, you will find that nearly each and every species fulfils a function which works in harmony with nature, for the common good of all other species, and the planet as a whole. Where does mankind fit in with this holistic worldview? Absolutely nowhere at all. We take, take, take from the Earth, and give back nothing in return. We destroy as we go, and once we have destroyed one environment, move on to the next.

In the movie The Matrix, when Morpheus is captured and interrogated, Mr Smith gives a speech which sums up mankind and our place in this earth perfectly;

“I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.”

That's all we are; a virus with shoes. A sorry half-ape, who only arrived here a mere 200,000 years ago, in the 3.8 billion history of life, and in that time we have done more to destroy the Earth environment than every other species combined, taking all life to the very edge of the abyss. And we have the arrogance to think we are 'top' species, who has 'dominion' over all. Behave. As omnivores we are not even top of the food chain; that particular distinction goes to predatory carnivores – who will only kill as much as they need to eat. We are around the middle of the food chain, and food for many other creatures.  And make no mistake about it, I do indeed blame the God Squad for this.  Their 'holy' books taught that their god made man and gave him dominion over all the Earth and all creatures in it.  This has led to a haughty arrogance among mankind that has led our species to believe they can do whatever they want to the planet and the creatures on it, and bugger the consequences.  Doubt that?  I have actually encountered a Christian who claimed that his god gave him the animals to do what he wanted with, and he chose to hunt them for sport (I'm not anti-hunting, so long as you eat your kill.  Sport hunters however are lower than pond scum in my opinion).  Another whose views I was reading online once stated that mankind is "at war with nature".

I realise that all the above is a pretty dystopian view of mankind and our place in the planet. However, let's go back to our proto-human, and imagine he is living safely in a temperate zone, in a nice house, well away from predators and other dangers, keeping himself healthy by eating properly, getting plenty exercise, and having regular health check-ups, and all the while believing he was perfectly-designed for life on a perfectly-designed Earth. And as long as he keeps away from all the hazards, he should be perfectly safe.

Unless he goes out one day and is struck on the head by a meteorite, that is.

And in the fourth and final part of this critique, I shall examine such things, explaining why if this Earth was designed, then the very existence of all life, and the planet itself hangs by a thread, and why if there is one thing Earth does not have, it is a long-term future.

Wednesday, 16 March 2016

Spik Scots a' the time? D'ye wear a suit a' the time?

Freelance "journalist" (I use the term lightly) Stephen Daisley has cam unner attack for haeing the temerity tae post a Tweet, trying tae claim that contemporary Scots isnae a language in it's ain richt.  The man is at the wind-up, and ane only need gae tae his Twitter feed tae see it, whaur he is pitting doon replies wi' a haughty, high-faluting arrogance only a reactionary cur like him wad cam oot wi'.

I'll nae lower maseel tae respond Daisley oan Twitter, but aiblings there are things I will hae tae sae aboot his Tweet.  "Feel free to claim contemporary Scots is a language," quod the bold Stephen frae the safety o' his keyboard, "but put your principles into action; speak it at work, in job interviews, at the bank."

Eh, dearie me, Stephen.  Ye great daft gowk.  Sae happens that I hae warked in customer services in call centres for big finance hooses, an energy supply company, and a certain weel-kent online retailer, wha's name alludes tae a river in sooth America.  Like mony companies, these big names chose tae locate their customer services in Scotland.  Why?  Aiblings studies hae shown that fowk like the Scots accent, and sae mony complainit tae companies aboot haein tae deal wi' some manny in India or Pakistan, they decidit tae base their customer services here in bonny Scotland.

Whan ye wark in sic a field, aiblings ye hae tae mak yirseel clear tae the customer, grantit.  But that disnae necessarily mean haein tae spik Received Pronunciation (RP) English.  Maist fowk across the UK kin weel unnerstaund whit ye say in Scots, sae lang as ye annunciate yir wards clearly, wi'oot getting a' pan-loafy aboot it.  And it sae happens, whan ye wark in sic a field, ye deal daily wi' accents frae the length and breadth o' the British Isles.  I've seen maseel confoundit wi' a broad Tyneside accent I cudnae mak oot.

But afore ye e'en get thon sort o' job, ye hae the job interview first.  And I hae hud interviews whaur baith maseel and the interviewer hae spik broad Scots.  Happens I wis at ane just recent, whaur ane o' the interviewers wis a Buchan Quine, wha spieled broad Doric.  Jist as weel I hae expericence o' Doric spikkin freends or I wad hae been loast.  But aibings ye hae tae annunciate clearly at a job interview.  Aye, and if ye want tae mak a guid impression, ye'll wear yir best claithes as weel.  I wear a suit tae interviews.  Dae I wear that a' the time.  Indeed I do nocht.  And I hae ma doots neither dae the interviewers, or (and I may be wrang here), Stephen Daisley for that matter.  Sae, if I dinnae wear a suit a' the time, why wad I wear a language a' the time?  Fact is, I wadnae, and neither wad maist ithers.

If I gae tae the bank, I spik Scots tae them, as I dae tae a'body else in ma every day life.  Aiblings the tellers like it, for it means thae needna pit airs and graces oan wi' me, and they kin spik their ain tongue as weel; it relaxes them, and that lends itseel tae a better customer service experience.  I've nae time for some high-faluting, Miss Jean Brodie wi a ploom in her mooth, and ye tend tae find neither dae the majority o' the UK public.

I weel mind a story ma ain auld mither ance teelt.  She went intae a bakers in central Edinburgh, and asked the lassie ahint the counter, "How much are yir burnt rolls?"
"You mean 'well-fired'." replied the lass in a pan-loaf voice.
"Naw, hen," quod ma mither, "I mean BURNT."
Maw hud as much time for airs and graces as I hae, especially whan they're pit-oan.

Aibilngs Stephen Daisley cud be trying tae sae that contemporary Scots isnae a language, but auld Scots is.  Trouble wi' thon sort o' thinking is that language, ony language, is a living, evolving thing, and if Daisley has his doots aboot that, then I suggest he pick up a copy o' the Oxford English Dictionary (in his line o' wark, I'm assuming he's familiar wi' the buik - althae being Stephen Daisley, I cud be weel wrang), and hae a look through it whaur he wull find wards whit werena in the English tongue nae e'en ten years agae, but which are common noo.  Aiblings if language didnae evolve, then thae what spik RP English wad still be saying "Ye", "thee", "thou", and sic like.  Jist sae happens the modern English ward "doable" maks me cringe, and the spelling o' it immediately makes me think "joabbie".  It cud ayesay be said that "television", which has been wi' us for ower a hunnert years, shouldnae be in the English language, as it's a bastardised hybridisation o' twa Greek and Latin wards, "tele" and "visio".

I hae ma doots though that Daisley is jist trying tae claim that Scots isnae a language in it's ain richt, whan in fact it evolvit wi' different influences tae English, and cud e'en be aulder.  Whan the Anglo-Saxons wha were assimilating wi' the Gaelic Scots, Britons, Picts, Norse, brocht their tongue north, the English were spikkin Norman French.  Hae a look a map o' Northumbria, and ye'll find the village o' Pity Me.  This is naething tae dae wi' feeling pity, but is a corruption o' the original name Petite Mere, meaning "Little Sea".  By the end o' the twelfth century, the Bishop o' Dunkeld penned a letter, in which he statit "The kingdom of Alba is becoming known as Scotland" (it'll ne'er catch oan).

It jist sae happens that whit we considerit "standard" English in fact is nae mair aulder than the late 16th tae mid 17th centuries, and hud thrie catalysts; the English Wycliffe Bible, the warks o' William Shakespeare, and the King James English translation o' the Bible.  But e'en o' a' thrie, Shakespeare hud the greatest influence, wi' mony o' his wards and phrases remaining common parlance in English tae this day; a fact I'll assume that Stephen Daisley is aware o' (agin, I cud be wrang).  But if thon is the case, and given that afore thae days ayebody in England stuck tae their ain local dialects, it cud strongly be arguit that the entire English language is based upon the writings o' ane mon, wha like ayebody else, wad hae penned in his ain dialect.  And thon being said, that then begs the question, is English the language o' a people, or jist ane o' them?

Perhap Daisley thinks that it's slang, because it's nae "proper" talk like.  And I see oan Twitter that he tries tae tie the use o' the Scots tongue tae the cause for Scots independence. It wad interest Daisley tae learn that broad Scots wis ance talked by thae dangerous, rebellious, anarchists, ermm, the Scots judiciary.  The Advocates Library in Edinburgh aboonds wi' court cases gaein back hunners o' years, and I aye am wont tae remind fowk o' this wee quote frae ane case as recent as the 19th century, involving twa wha were accusit o' breakin' intae a hoose whan the owner wis in ('hamesucking');

"Cam awa, cam awa, Meester Magistrate.  Let us hingit thae twa demned scoondrils fir the henious crime o' hamesucking."

Use thon sort o' language in a Scots court today, and ye'd be bangit up for comtempt.

Happens tae that when John Joy Bell wrote his heartwarming tales o' a wee Glasgow boy, Wee MacGreegor, he wrote it in broad Scots.  But then, I cud show Daisley and a' thae wha think like him ma great-grandfaither's scrapbook, wi' clippings frae auld, 19th century, Scots newspapers (written by proper journalists) wi' mony a quote in broad Scots.

Sae if Scots wis sae prevalant in the 19th century, whit became o' it?  I believe there wis a concertit effort tae get rid o' Scots as "slang" by thae wha were as short-sightit as Stephen Daisley, and wan need look nae further than Paisley Close, oan the Royal Mile o' Edinburgh for the proof o' thon.  Oan 24 November 1861, the shoogly, ancient tenement o' 103 High Street collapsed intae the street, killing 35 fowk.  Rescuers clearing debris were jist aboot tae gae up whan they heard a voice crying oot "Heave awa lads, I'm no' deid yet."  Scrambling frantically, they uncoverit a wee laddie, 10-year-auld Joseph McIvor, what was a wee bit cut here and there, bruised, but nae banes broken, and itherwise unhairmed.  Whan the present Paisley Close wis built, a frieze o' wee Joseph wis pit abune the close entrance, wi' the somewhit Anglicised inscription o' his wards, "Heave awa chaps, I'm not dead yet".  Because of course, a Royal Mile tyke soundit jist like ane laddie frae a ploomb-in-the-mou schule like Watson's or Fettes, didn't he?  Aye, richt (actually, the frieze e'en maks him look like a public school boy).  

Likewise look tae the west o' the city oan auld maps and ye'll find the street jist aff Brunstfield Links o' Wrychtishousis. Noo, it sae happens that it's claimed that the street taks it's name frae wrights wha ance lived there.  I'm nae convincit o' thon.  "Wrychtis" in auld Scots kin mean wrights, but it kin alsae mean "righteous".  Sae, thon wad mak the name mean in the English, "home of the righteous", and jist tae support thon, there's a great muckle kirk at the fit o' the street, wi' ane o' the highest steeples in Edinburgh.  In ma ain area, the cooncil pulled doon the auld Moredun (Gaelic root; "Great Hill") Primary Schule and named a new hoosing development "Goodtrees".  Jist sae happens that thon o' us in the ken, are aware that while thae in their bocht hooses, surroondit by a cooncil estate, think themseels a cut abune us, the name Goodtrees is a corruption o' the original name - Gutteries.  Basically their boasting that they live in a stank.  Jist like in the 1920s the city faithers o' Edinburgh tried tae mak oot that the Burdiehouse district cam frae "Bordeaux", whan in reality, it dates back tae the "Burdie Hoose" opened by a madame there in the 16th century - a bordello.  The Anglicisation o' names in ma hame toun alane is sae prevalant, I wunner hoo the only remaining Gaelic-namit street, Croft an Righ, wisane renamit "The King's Farm".

Even whan we look at mony Scots touns and cities, we see thae commonly had narrow alleys ca'ed 'wynds' and 'closes'.  Thon comes frae method's o' crime prevention, whaur an alley wad hae a gated "closed entry" whit wad be lockit at nicht, frae whaur we define 'close', wherebyes wynds werena gated at a'.  There's mony mair examples o' sic Scots wards in common parlance, sae much sae that for Stephen Daisley or the likes o' them tae try tae claim Scots is naething but a slang dialect o' English is a wheen o' blethers.

I am fond o' saying there's room fir a' languages.  Sae happens I hae an unco guid command o' English and I luve the beauty o' it.  But jist because English is the maist common language in Scotland, or the hale o' the UK for that matter, disnae mak it the only language, or in ony wey superior tae ithers.  Yet, the common inference o' the RP brigade is that if ye spik Scots, ye maun be common, and o' course, stupit.  Tom Leonard maks thon point perfectly in his poem "Six O'Clock News";

this is thi six a clock news
thi man said
n thi reason a talk
wia BBC accent  
iz coz yi 
widny wahnt mi 
ti talk aboot thi trooth
wia voice lik
wanna yoo scruff.
if a toktaboot thi trooth 
lik wanna yoo scruff 
yi widny thingk it wuz troo. 
jist wanna yoo scruff tokn. 
thirza right way ti spell
ana right way to tok it.
this is me tokn 
yir right way a spellin.
this is ma trooth. 
yooz doant no thi trooth 
yirsellz cawz yi
canny talk right.
this is the six a clock nyooz.
belt up.

Noo, I'm nae saying that the urban Scots Tom Leonard uses is in ony wey the Scots leid but he maks the point that if ye speak Scots, ye are considerit ignorant, e'en a lesser human being.  There's the rub; for as lang as Scots hae their culture rin doon, then we wull aye be seen as nae as guid as thae wha spik RP English.  Tom Leonard wrote thon poem in 1976.  It wis a year later that I goat the tawse in schule for spikkin Scots by a teacher what said "Ah, good English."  I wadna hae mindit hud I deservit the tawse, but I happenit tae be reading frae Kidnapped.  Seems the RP English brigade think they ken better than Robert Louis Stevenson.

And whiles we are aboot authors, I couldnae help but notice that ane o' Daisley's followers, wha liked his Tweet wis nane ither than the creator o' Harry Potter, J K Rowling.  Thon wad be the same J K Rowling wha during the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum campaign donatit £1 million tae the unionist side, Better Together, then whan she cam under fire for that, made claims o' opponents being anti-English.  Whiles some were, which as a Yes campaigner and ambassador I roondly condemnit, jist as I dae tae this day, maist ne'er e'en mentioned her English roots.  Sae, it seems it is fine fir Rowling tae play the anti-English caird, yet here she is openly supporting a statement which is blatantly anti-Scottish.  Seems tae me some should practise whit they preach - which Daisley is trying tae accuse thae o' us wha spik Scots o' nae daeing, yet which Rowling obviously cannae see she's no' daeing either.  Wan wanders in fact jist why an author, wha claims tae be sic a great humanitarian, is daeing following and liking the wards o' a man wha's politics lean weel tae the richt, and e'en joked aboot the 1984 murther o' anti-nuclear activist Hilda Murrell; "Hilda Murrell. How the State silences dissent one elderly rose grower at a time." (Daisley later deleted the Tweet, but no' afore it hud been retweeted and kin still be foond oan the internet).  Jist a wee ward, Ms Rowling, if ye lay doon wi' dugs, dinnae be surprisit should ye wake up wi' fleas.

J K Rowling hus been kent tae threaten legal action agin thae wha criticise her.  Let her (or Stephen Daisley) gae aheed and sue me.  For there's naething abune whaur I hae said onything untrue, or cud e'en be remotely construit as anti-English, and asides, I've nae siller and as ane lawyer ance teelt me, "Ye cannae tak the breeks aff a hielander."

Oan a side note, a' I wull say is that as ane wha has ne'er bought ane Harry Potter book or movie, I'm mair than pleased that no' wan ha'penny o' ma siller went intae Rowling's donation tae the unionist cause.

Whan Robert Burns wis penning his wards in the 1780s, there were thae wha teelt him if he wrote in the Scots Leid, naebody wad read them or buy them.  Thrie hunnert years later, whan Charlie and Craig Reid, The Proclaimers, were writing and singing sangs in Scots, there were thae wha teelt them that if they producit their music in Scots, naebody wad listen tae it, or buy their records.  Oan baith occasions the critics couldnae hae been provit mair wrang; jist as in the intervening thrie hunnert years, they huv ayeweys been wrang, jist as critics o' Scots, including the likes o' Stephen Daisley, continue tae be wrang.  But then, in the wards o' The Proclaimers;

You say that if I waant tae get ahead
The language I use should be left for dead;
It disnae please yir ear.
And though ye tell it like a leg-pull,
It seems yir still fu' o' John Bull;
Ye jist refuse tae hear.
(The Proclaimers, "Throw the R Away")

There's an important lesson here; if ye treat onybody as inferior because o' their tongue, then ye are immediately saying that anither culture maun be superior tae theirs.  This wisnae loast oan the rulers o' the auld apartheid regime in South Africa, whaur ayebody wis forcit tae learn Afrikaans, much tae the detriment o' native tribal languages, and whan their languages went, their culture wisnae faur ahint.  Or aiblings as Scots, we kin see the dangers in oor ain land, which we hae naebody else tae blame for.  There are Pictish stones a' aroond oor country whit we cannae decipher, due tae Pictish culture and society being sae roondly destroyit.  Likewise, in the auld Jarldom o' Orkney, which stretchit frae Unst tae Sutherland, the language ande spikken wis Norn.  Today Norn is a deid language, and only wee bits o' the Norse culture o' Shetland, the Orcades and Sutherland remain.  Think aboot it; if ye cannae spik yir ain tongue, than whit culture wull ye be left wi'?

Sae it is whan the likes o' Stephen Daisley expect us tae changit oor tongue, they in fact ask us tae view oor ain culture as inferior, and tae reject it as sic.  It is a grand irony that Daisley whiles attacks some kinds o' bigotry in his columns; he has just recently penned (quite richtly) a blistering attack oan the Labour Party for their apparent ingrained anti-Semitism.  But while trying tae play the social justice warrior, sae lang as Stephen Daisley denitgrates Scots, then he himseel is a bigot; it's jist that his bigotry is selective.  And I'm nae sure o' it but I'm given tae unnerstaund that Daisley is himseel a Scot.  If thon be true, then that maks him the warst kind o' bigot, wha wad rin doon his ain tongue, his ain culture, and his ain fowk; the type whae I ca' an "Uncle Tam".
 
And should Stephen Daisley find and read this, then jist wan final ward.  He describes himseel as a "freelance journalist", and gaes oan tae attack the Scots leid.  It jist sae happens in the tumultuous history o' the Scottish borders, there were "swords for hire", wha wad offer their services tae the highest bidder.  Thae mercenaries were kent in Scotland as "free lancers",  frae whaur we tak the modern ward, "freelance".

Waant tae think agin, Stephen?


Friday, 11 March 2016

NOT Designed for Life

Part 2: Yours is the World and all things in it?

In Part 1 of this critique of the Creationist / ID agenda, I addressed the formation and expansion of the universe, the nature of the universe, and up to and including the formation of the Earth, and touched on the rise of mankind. In this part I shall elaborate on how we got here, and the immense time it took for Homo Sapiens Sapiens to be the (allegedly) dominant species.

I warn the reader now, this article is somewhat lengthy, due to a. a long explanation of evolution, and b. me banging on a bit.

Before we get to mankind ourselves, we have to ask the question of how we got here in the first place, that is how life began. There is only one honest, truthful, and informed answer to this question, and that answer simply is “I don't know.” Now, before any of you theists / creationists / ID proponents get too smug, let me add the caveat, that “I don't know.” is equally the only answer you can give, and if you try to say anything else, then you are being neither honest, truthful, or giving an informed answer. One of the most ignorant things I hear from evolution deniers is “Were you there?” No, I wasn't – and neither were you.

And please do not point me to your dusty old books of ancient campfire tales – whichever book that happens to be, the Bible, Qur'an, Talmud, or whatever – for that does not offer any proof either. Your 'holy' book is not the evidence; it is merely the claim. And strangely enough, few of the many religions in the world offer up the same narrative of life beginning on Earth. That strikes me as kinda strange for an allegedly omnipotent and omniscient deity. Unless you've lived under a rock all your life, then the chances are that all reading this will be more than well acquainted with the Judeo/Christian/Islamic creation narrative, of God creating man and woman “in our image, after our likeness” (who was he talking to?) on the Sixth Day – and then creating Eve from one of Adam's ribs afterwards. But hey, the Hindus believe that Brahma sprang from a lotus flower in Lord Vishnu's navel and made the Earth, the Heavens, and all living things. Chinese creation tells that the god Pan Gu cracked open the cosmic egg and created the Heavens from one half, and the Earth and all living things from the other. Wicca teaches of the Goddess placing women upon the Earth first to be the bringers of all life, gave them magick, and taught them to do what they wished, but harm none. In The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, Douglas Adams wrote “The Jatravartid People of Viltvodle Six firmly believe that the entire universe was sneezed out of the nose of a being called The Great Green Arkleseizure.” Think I'm being facetious now? Think these beliefs are plainly absurd? Do tell me about the rib-woman again, add in her conversation with a talking snake, don't forget the talking donkey, and you can even throw in every species on the face of the Earth being taken aboard a ruddy great boat. The fact is that unless you can offer proof for your assertions, then all creation myths, including the Great Green Arkleseizure, have equal merit.

Equally in science there is no standard model of just how life arose upon Earth, but competing theories of abiogenesis - the origins of life. Most of these hold that the chemical conditions of the early earth were just correct for amino acids, the very building blocks of life, to form and from them single-cell organisms developed, which were the origin of all living creatures on Earth, including me, you the reader, and the dog next door.  Others think that perhaps life, or the elements necessary for life thereof, were carried to earth on a meteorite. And if you think that sounds fantastic, or if it stretches your credulity to the limit, do tell me again about that incredible rib-woman. Again, all hypotheses are equal, and nothing is off the table. And surprising as some readers may find it, nope, not even God is off the table. Just bring your evidence (NOT that book) along and science will be more than happy to take it under serious consideration. It is also of interest that scientists tend not to speak of 'origin' singular, but rather 'origins' plural; the inference being that perhaps there have been many times life has arisen on Earth, only to fail, which would fit in with natural selection. As a very wise man once said, “It's life, Jim, but not as we know it.”

A great many creationists / ID proponents make the mistake of thinking that the Darwinian Theory of Evolution claims to explain the origins of life. Indeed it does not. Evolutionary biology merely explains the change and variation of lifeforms over vast period of time, nothing more. If you want a synonym for 'evolution', then 'change' is as good a one as any. Some creationists, rejecting evolution, all the evidence which proves it, and all the sciences which not only support but confirm it, often state that they don't see something like the infamous 'crocoduck', or say, a horse giving birth to a dog. Of course you don't. They are two different species, you daft bastard. But then, I've never seen a woman spring from a man's rib. These are the creationists who accept microevolution but not macroevolution. For a start microevolution and macroevolution are invented creationist terms, but even then, macroevolution is merely a great many of steps of microevolution over a vast period of time.

Creationists seem to have a real problem grasping the immense timescales involved in evolution. The original lifeforms from which we all sprang took several different paths. Those paths took several paths, as did those paths, leading eventually to billions of species. As these species split, eventually they became too distant genetically to interbreed, which is why you tend not to find horses giving birth to dogs, or any crocoducks going about (shame really, I want a pet crocoduck). This also explains that humans are not 'top' of the evolutionary table – there is no 'top' (another creationist misconception). As a (relatively) peaceful omnivore, we are not even top of the food chain, which is reserved for predatory carnivores. Tyrannosaurus Rex was top of the food chain. Alligators are top of the food chain. Homo Sapiens are in fact around the middle. Oh, and while I am about it, more ignorant creationists, no you never evolved from a monkey. No-one with even a rudimentary knowledge of evolution ever said humans evolved from monkeys. Homo Sapiens and other apes (for we are apes), monkeys, and all other simians all evolved from separate branches of common ape-like ancestors. Creationists, please show me the person who says humans evolved from monkeys, and you and I can take turns slapping the stupid out of them.

The keywords to the diversity of life are “natural selection”, a term first coined by Charles Darwin, but by no means first formulated by him. I'm not sorry to burst the creationist bubble perpetuated by the likes of Kent “Jailbird” Hovind, but there was plenty of evidence of evolution presented before Darwin, and I am proud to say that it was a Scot who got there first – as per usual. Patrick Matthew was a tree hybridiser who cultivated timber for sale to shipwrights, on his land in the Carse of Gowrie, between Perth and Dundee in Scotland. He observed how some species of tree would flourish in a given environment, whilst others would wither and die. Yet that latter species if placed in a more favourable environment, would flourish where the former tree may not. Matthew published his observations in On Naval Timber and Arboriculture in 1829, six years before Charles Darwin had even set foot on The Beagle, and 30 years before he published On the Origin of Species. When Patrick Matthew read On the Origin of Species, he was furious, and wrote to Darwin accusing him of plagiarism. Darwin had no idea what Matthew was talking about, managed to obtain a copy of his 1829 paper, was fascinated by it, and responded to Matthew, intimating these facts. This led to a correspondence between the two men in which they found that the scientific observations they shared were far more important than petty rivalries. Matthew's trees came, like all trees, from common ancestors (ferns being one of the oldest survivors – they was around with the dinosaurs), yet they were suited only to their own suitable environments, and that is how it is with all life, including mankind. This is an important distinction, for I shall be touching upon it later.

Oh, and creationists, did you notice anything about Patrick Matthew's observations? They were all made in nature. Sorry to burst another bubble, but evolution has long been observed in nature. If that were not true, you would be eating ordinary grass instead of wheat, barley, rice and maize corn, all of which have evolved from grasses.

Look out, here comes the long sciencey bit.

So, with life having kicked off, the ID proponent still maintains that the Earth was perfectly designed for human life. Well of course, our species had to arise first, which was going to take a while. The first life, single-celled “prokaryotic” organisms, such as bacteria appeared around 3.8 billion years ago. Of these, photosynthetic cyanobacteria created oxygen as a natural waste product, leading to the “great oxidation event” of 2.4 billion years ago. Around 2 billion years ago eukaryotic cells, the first with internal organs occurred when single-cell organisms absorbed each other and lived in harmony as one, leading to the mitochondria bacteria. Around 1.5 billion years ago eukaryotes split into three separate lines which would rise as plants, animals and fungi, but were still single-cell organisms. Multicellular life only formed around 900 million years ago. But before that could happen, organisms were still reliant upon asexual reproduction by division. Around 1.2 billion years ago, a whole new game hit town – organisms started reproducing by sexual congress (and life has never been the same ever since).

Sexual reproduction and the rise of multicellular life was what really kick-started the true explosion of the species across the planet. Nobody quite knows exactly why sexual reproduction started, but it has several advantages over asexual division, not least of which being that it allows for multiple births, and hence growth of population. So it was that as the simplest sexually-reproducing sea creatures led to the chordates (animals with vertebrae), fish, amphibians, and thence the animals, of which there were several lines. I am simplifying this to keep it brief, but the rise – and fall – of life is truly fascinating, and I highly recommend those interested study it further. However, notice I say the fall of life as well. This is important as mass extinction events allowed other species to rise.

Mammal-like lizards were just evolving when the first and greatest mass extinction event took place at the end of the Permian period, 251 million years ago. This almost wiped out all species, including the distinctive Dimetrodon (just to muddy the waters, Dimetrodon was not a dinosaur – different epoch), the giant predatory lizard with a sail on it's back, and the trilobites in the oceans. At first it was long believed that the cause of the Permian mass extinction event was an asteroid hitting earth, in the same way that the Chixculub Impactor later wiped out the dinosaurs. However, it has since been established that it was due to earthbound processes, mainly prolonged volcanic eruptions. Volcanoes raged in what was to become Siberia for around 500,000 years, not only erupting and sending vast clouds of ash into the atmosphere, but creating vast amounts of carbon dioxide, as well as releasing trapped pockets of the same, leading to mass deoxygenation. As well as soils being stripped and plant life destroyed on land, the oceans were particularly badly hit, as trapped gasses killed marine creatures, including algae, which vastly reduced the oxygen being produced. The evidence for this huge volcanic event is the accumulation of basalt lavas some 3 million cubic kilometres in volume and covering 3.9 million square kilometres of what is now eastern Russia. The Permian mass extinction event cannot be underestimated; it came close to wiping out all life on the face of the planet, almost destroyed the atmosphere, and could very well have ended up with the Earth being similar in environment to Venus. As it was, it took another 50 million years for the ecosystem to fully recover, as all life teetered on the brink of oblivion. In proper terms, the Permian mass extinction can be seen as a “starting over”. Out of the myriad of species before the event, at the end of it a mere 6% of all lifeforms survived.

As it recovered, small, furry, nocturnal creatures with canine teeth (any resemblance to the author here is purely coincidental) would eventually evolve into mammalia. Seeking refuge, some species of reptiles returned to the seas, and would grow to become the giant marine reptiles of the dinosaur era. The sauropsids were the dominant species, but just as the Earth had recovered the Permian extinction event, disaster again struck, in the form of the Triassic extinction event, 200 million years ago. The Triassic extinction may have been again caused by the release of vast amounts of carbon dioxide, this time caused not only by volcanic activity as the supercontinent Pangea rifted, increasing greenhouse gases and acidifying the oceans. Volcanic activity caused by the rift lasted some 620,000 years towards the end of the Triassic period, and was particularly intense in the first 40,000 years of the extinction. Another hypothesis is that the rising carbon dioxide could have released huge pockets of methane trapped in ice and undersea pockets. Methane is a much more effective greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and would have caused Earth temperature to rise considerably. The end of the Triassic era ushered in a new epoch, the Cretaceous era.

The end-Triassic extinction was nowhere near as extensive as the Primean event, but it did vastly reduce populations, saw entire species wiped out, and asserted the dominance of the sauropsids, one line of them rose to be the dinosaurs. Alongside this, the first proto-mammals were forming, and living underground to avoid predatory dinosaurs. In an important step, perhaps triggered by the Triassic extinction, they developed warm-bloodedness, which enabled them to maintain internal temperature, regardless of conditions. Then the first split occurred in early mammals, in which the monotremes – mammals which lay eggs – divided from those which give birth to their young. The wonderful duck-billed platypus is a rare surviving example of monotremes.

140 million years ago the next step in the road to “us” took place, when placental mammals separated from the marsupials. These mammals, like the modern kangaroo, that give birth when their young are still very small, but nourish them in a pouch for the first few weeks or months of their lives. 105 million to 85 million years ago, the placental mammals split into four major groups; laurasiatheres (a hugely diverse group including all the hoofed mammals, whales, bats, and dogs), Xenarthra (including anteaters and armadillos), afrotheres (elephants, aardvarks and others), and our ancestors, euarchontoglires (primates, rodents and others).

As this was going on, Cretaceous dinosaurs were to reach their apex around 100 million years ago, when Argentinosaurus, the largest sauropod ever to have existed, evolved. A long-necked herbivore, between 30–35 metres (98–115 ft) in length and with a weight of up to 80–100 tonnes (88–110 short tons), Argentinosaurus absolutely dwarfed the predatory carnivore, Tyrannosaurus Rex. But the Earth was in upheaval again. Around 93 million years ago, the oceans suddenly became starved of oxygen, possibly due to underwater volcanic activity, wiping out 27% of marine invertebrates. Whilst this would have resultant adverse effects on land, mammalia faired rather well. 75 million years ago the line which led to modern primates split from that which led to modern rodents and lagomorphs (rabbits, hares, pikas). Rodents would go on to be an extremely successful species, eventually making up 40% of mammals (primates did not bad either). In flora, an extremely important step took place 70 million years ago when grasses first appeared.

The dinosaurs were the dominant species on the planet for around 135 million years – and then very suddenly, it was all over for them when they were wiped out, along with a great deal of life, extremely quickly (but not instantly, as some claim).

The most widely-accepted hypothesis for the mass extinction of the dinosaurs is that an asteroid approximately 10 kilometres (6 miles) in diameter smashed into the earth around 66 million years ago. A crater of over 180 km (110 miles) near Chixculub in the Yucatan Peninsula, Central America, confirms this event. The blast covered the entire earth, and as it brought about the end of the Cretaceous era, the resulting scorching can be found all over the world today as a broad, dark line in geological features, known as the “K-Pg Boundary” (marking the geological timeline, where the Cretaceous – starting with a K in German – ended, and the Paleogene era began). The theory being that as well as thousands of species wiped out immediately, including a great deal of plant life, this was followed by a “nuclear winter”, when ash blotted out the sun, killing other plant life, leading to the starvation of the omnivorous dinosaurs, which in turn starved out the last of the omnivorous and carnivorous dinosaurs.

The life of mammalia during the Cretaceous era proved to be a complete fluke to it's survival. As mammals had largely stayed underground to avoid predators, so it was that a great many species of them, including our ancestors, managed to survive the effects of the Chixculub Impactor. Emerging into a dinosaur-free world, primates were able to thrive, and the rise to mankind was finally underway. 63 million years ago the primates split into the haplorrhines (dry-nosed primates) and the strepsirrhines (wet-nosed primates). The strepsirrhines eventually become the modern lemurs and aye-ayes, while the haplorrhines develop into monkeys and apes. The first primate with enormous eyes to help it see at night, the tarsier, split from the rest of the haplorrhines around 58 million years ago.

The next fluke was to take place in the form of the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), which took place 56 million years ago. The PETM was a period when mean Earth temperature raised by around 5%. The cause may have been vast amounts of methane being released from the ocean floors, or from rotting organic matter. Whatever the cause, approximately 2,000 gigatonnes of carbon are thought to have entered the atmosphere and oceans at the same time as the PETM. Temperatures rose rapidly over approximately 6,000 years, and then gradually cooled to near-background levels over the next 150,000–200,000 years.

Convoluted scientific stuff aside, the basics are that our atmosphere was changing into more or less what we know today as the Eocene era was ushered in, and while he PETM was another mass extinction event, it actually benefited many survivors. During the Paleocene–Eocene boundary, primates underwent significant changes and three distinct mammal groups arose; Artiodactyla, which includes deer, camels and cows; Perissodactyla, which includes horses and rhinoceroses; and, at last, enter Primates, which includes monkeys, apes and humans. Other older and less adaptable mammal species became extinct during this time, and mammals generally became smaller. Why should this be a benefit? Simply because a smaller stature means more adaptable metabolisms, which meant that our early ancestors were able to survive on the smaller amounts of food available. Small can indeed be beautiful, as this particular shortarse can attest to. One of the more interesting facts about these early mammals, including the primates, is that they arose in what would become Asia and our primate ancestors were yet to find their way into Africa.

45 million years ago, the first of the anthropoids, the line from which we came, called Eosimias evolved. 5 million years later, primates were on the move. One group split off, somehow found their way into South America (as crazy as it sounds, possibly on rafts of vegetation), and would eventually become New World Monkeys. The anthropoids meanwhile were heading east, and 38 million years ago Afrotarsius was alive and well in Africa. From this humble creature came all the simian species of Africa. Afrotarsius is the common ancestor of us, the apes and monkeys – despite what some of the God Squad claim about us being evolved “from monkeys”. It was around 25 million years ago that the lines of apes and Old World Monkeys diverged, leading to the ape superfamily, Hominoidea. Gibbons split from the apes around 18 million years ago. By 14 million years ago, the Orang-Utans must have had enough of Africa, for they buggered off back to Asia. 8 million years ago, the Gorillas branched from the other great apes, Hominini, which included Australopithicines, other extinct biped simians, and chimpanzees, while in turn Hominina (human and other biped ancestors) parted from Panina (chimpanzees, bobonoes) 7.5 million years ago.

The feature which defines hominids is that of bipedalism. The species Sahelanthropus or Orrorin were the earliest bipedal hominins, and closest to the divergence from chimpanzees and humans. By 2.8 million years ago, an ape-like creature was using tools, and eating meat. This was Homo Habilis, the first of the genus Homo, and the species to which the famous 'first female', Lucy, belonged to. It is thought that meat eating led to increased brain size and intelligence. It also led to these early humans becoming hunters, for which they had to stand upright, and by 1.9 million years ago, Homo Erectus had arrived. There were several branches of the Homo genus, but the dominant branch which survived led to Homo Sapiens, which arose about 350,000 years ago, then split into two species 230,000 years ago; Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis, and Homo Sapiens Sapiens – us; a mere whippersnapper in the terms of life on earth, who arrived as recently as 200,000 years ago. That may sound a long time, but it is nothing in the terms of evolution.

Exactly why we thrived where the Neanderthals failed is not fully known, as they were just like our ancestors, a sophisticated people who made and used tools, hunted, gathered, farmed, had rudimentary language, buried their dead, and had cultural rituals. It may even have been the Neanderthals who introduced the concept of religion to humankind (I knew they had a flaw somewhere). One hypothesis is why they became extinct is that Homo Sapiens Sapiens was far more aggressive and wiped them out.

So, what am I getting at by banging on about evolution? Because notice how I have thrown in the frequent mass extinction events and other chance happenings, which have continually been fortuitous in allowing the best-adapted species to survive and thrive. Mass extinctions and other chance events cannot be underestimated in the context of challenging the ID narrative, for the simple reason that they completely defy any assertion that the Earth is designed for life. If life has risen and fallen in many, many forms, constantly for 3.8 billion years, when our planet has changed constantly, leading to the said life to rise and fall and actually driving evolution, constantly for 4.6 billion years, then when the ID proponent maintains the Earth is perfectly designed for life, they are not merely mistaken; they are talking havers to the point that I would suggest they take more water with it.

The critics of evolution will maintain that it cannot be proven, as “you weren't there”, “(macro)evolution has never been observed”. No, I wasn't there. But then I wasn't there to see Adam being sprung from the dust either. Sorry, but evolution has been observed both in nature and under laboratory conditions, including “macro”evolution. As I stated above, Patrick Matthew hybridised trees, and by doing so effectively created new species of trees from others, and of course, I will reiterate that wheat, barley, maize and rice, and many other grain staples of life, are all evolved from the same common ancestors of grasses as that on your lawn, favourite golf course, or by the beach you visit. In Lake Victoria in East Africa, the species pool of cichlid fish have all diverged in the last 15,000 years. The lake formed 400,000 years ago, then dried, then refilled 15,000 years ago, when cichlids entered and flourished. Not enough? Experiments on flies in laboratory conditions have been carried out since the 1960s, which have created many divergent species. Way too far to itemise here, there are in fact numerous examples of the proof and observation of macroevolution, you only need to do a quick Google search and you will find countless articles, including peer-reviewed scientific papers, detailing it. And no, you will never get a dog from a horse, or a crocoduck, and if you are still expecting one after reading this far, then you are merely being wilfully ignorant of the way evolution works.

Another foolish argument is that there are gaps in the fossil record, which creationists and ID proponents will point to as if to smugly think their god wins by default. Right, there are gaps in the fossil record, because fossils are in fact incredibly hard to create, and of course the pure timescales involved mean that any evidence which may have been there has long since disappeared. But so what if there are gaps? The way science works is very much detective work; if evidence of an early species is found, then the evidence of a much later species is found, then it only makes sound logical sense that there must be transitional steps between the two, which palaeontologists can build a picture of based upon the evidence of the two species they have. This was not lost on the brilliant Swiss-American geologist and naturalist, Louis Agassiz, who found early and later fossils of the same species of fish. He knew there had to be a transitional phase, and he actually saw in a dream what the transitional species must look like. Shortly afterwards he split a rock, and hey presto, there was the transitional fossil exactly as he saw it in his dream. Nothing spooky about that. It's simple that Agassiz's observations built up in his mind the educated guesswork which was to prove correct.

The periodic table works in exactly the same way; by looking at the elements which are identified, we can work out and predict other elements which exist, and the periodic table has never let us down on this. Sorry creationists, but the elements have moved on a long time since Air, Fire, Earth and Water.

And by the way, young earth creationists, who maintain the Earth is only 6000 year old, how come whenever ancient fossils have been found, there has never, not once, ever been an instance of a modern species found alongside them? Doesn't that tell you a little something? It should.

If you want it in simpler terms, then let me put it this way; I have a jigsaw of a picture of the city of Edinburgh, which has a few gaps missing. Because not all the pieces are there, would the creationist argue that the city of Edinburgh does not exist? And if so, where the hell am I sitting as I write this? And while we are about Edinburgh (home to James Hutton, the chemist who realised the world must be very ancient, and thereby kick-started geological science), and that palaeontology is so very much based in detective work, let us consider what one of my city's more famous sons, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, had his most famous creation, Sherlock Holmes, once say; “First eliminate the impossible. Whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” In this instance creation and ID myths, wheresoever they may come from, have all been proven impossible. The Darwinian model of evolution, as improbable as it may seem to some, not only all fits together but is supported by other sciences, just as evolutionary biology in turn supports them, and thereby can only be the truth.

And were that not enough, the gaps are irrelevant, for the DNA evidence of evolution is proof enough. I had an online argument once with some fool trying to pour cold water on Patrick Matthew, and asking how I can equate plant life with human evolution and suggesting we have banana DNA. I never mentioned bananas of course, but did point out that if we go back far enough, then given that all life comes from the same origins, the principle remains the for both flora and fauna. Therefore dear reader, as bizarre as it may seem, we humans must indeed share a little banana DNA (with some of us being more bananas than others).

When we look at the immense timeline of the rise of life and gradual evolution over 3.8 billion years, including the extremely unlikely survival of devastating mass extinction events, chance happenings, and a catastrophic accident which unseated lizards as the dominant species, for any of our species, who just appeared in the evolutionary eye blink of 200,000 years ago, to claim that this planet was designed just for us is not just ignorant in the extreme, it is an incredible arrogance. It's like the new kid on the block throwing his weight around, trying to prove he's a big man, or the guy on the gate of the office car park, who in his mind thinks he is CEO of the corporation. It's a moot point that it is mankind's sapient mind that has made us so arrogant as to think we are not only 'top' species, but the world was made for us. Yet if cats ever evolved opposing thumbs, we all know it would be all over for our species.

I don't care what your creation myth or ID idea is. It is not only nonsense, it not only has been proven to be nonsense, it has been proven to be impossible. And if any of you care to argue with that, then given that so many creationists are so ready to demand evidence, then so can I, and if you wish to debate it with me, then first show me clearly observed peer-reviewed scientific evidence of a woman springing from a man's rib.

In part 3, I shall be looking at the Earth itself, why it is not perfectly designed for human life, at the human body and why equally we are ill-fitted for life on Earth, and why we are such a waste of space and really have no business being on Earth in the first place.

Sunday, 6 March 2016

Online Etiquette

Online culture today is can be a very strange thing. There are people who will expect you to respect them and their views, but who nonetheless are very ready to dish out insults and abuse when it suits them. People who have not learned that if you are willing to give it, be willing to take it, or that if you want respect and to be taken seriously, then give respect and take others seriously. At the other end of the scale, we have those who are all too willing to jump on the slightest thing someone else posts, even if it does not affect them personally, and accuse them of bigotry. The latter remind me of the 1980s, when I ran with an “alternative” crowd; every day was a verbal minefield, of watching every word you said, for fear of being accused of some bigotry or another.  At times I would purposely wind them up by saying things like "That sepearates the men from the boys." (considered sexist), or "I wouldn't want to be blackballed." (considered racist, but which in fact originates from Freemasonry)

Extremes are always odious, and help no-one. The answers, as ever, lie somewhere in-between. I don't for one moment pretend to have all the answers, but I do follow some sort of code of conduct for posting online, of which these are my thoughts upon.

Freedom of Speech and Expression

There is an increasing tendency today for some people, when called out on something they have posted which is clearly offensive and/or insulting to cry out “Freedom of speech”, or accuse their critic of attempting to suppress or censor them. Such people seem to think that insulting behaviour comes under freedom of speech and expression. It does not. Go to the rules on any online community and you will find there are rules and guidelines involving online behaviour, and these include restrictions upon insulting behaviour. In some cases, if severe enough, these can involve the law becoming involved, when online behaviour crosses over into hate speech, cyber bullying, and / or threatening behaviour.

If I come out with something you find offensive, unless I've directly insulted you, that does not give you carte blanche to respond with insults upon my person or character. What is more, when anyone responds to a point someone makes with insults, it merely makes the latter person look childish and foolish, and be extension, they have already lost the debate.

I will recount a prime example of this, and I am not afraid to name and shame the individual concerned either. A Polish woman settling in Rosemarkie, Grampian, once reported to a group I am in that her children had told her that in the non-denominational state school they attended, they had been forced to pray before school dinners; basically being forced to say grace. As the woman concerned is an atheist, she objected strongly to this. Into the Facebook debate waded the Reverend David A Robertson, now the Moderator of the Free Church of Scotland, who lambasted the woman and complained of “white settlers” coming into “his” Highland culture and trying to impose their ways upon others. The term “white settler” in this context is in fact a hate speech term for non-Highlanders settling in the Scottish Highlands, which Grampian Police have indeed charged people for in the past. As I say, I'm not afraid to name and shame, for despite me pointing out just how offensive the term is, DAR - as he is commonly known, refused to apologise for the term and remains unrepentant for it to this day.

Were this not enough, Rosemarkie is not even considered within the Highland Boundary, and DAR, who hails from the Isle of Lewis, was writing from Dundee, central Scotland, where he is more than happy to try and impose his parochial Free Kirk views on the whole of Scotland. But then, he is a prime example of one who reverts to insults in online posts, often referring to secularists as “militant” and / or “fundamentalist” atheists.

At the other end of the spectrum, if someone makes a post which is satirical, but which those affects may find offensive, then I would argue that is fair comment. The attack upon the offices of French magazine Charlie Hebdo for cartoons they had posted was a horrendous act of terror, for no more than cartoons. A few years ago Draw Mohammed Day used to be quite a big event, and while I never took part myself, considering it somewhat childish, I nonetheless respected the right to do so of those who did take part. What happened to Draw Mohammed Day? You never hear of it nowadays. Could it be that the cartoonists have brow-beaten into submission? If so, then freedom of speech and expression has indeed been curtailed. And why? Goodness knows there are plenty humorous depictions of the Judeo-Christian God and Jesus online, so why not Mohammed. Some cartoonists do indeed make satirical comments upon this odious censorship. The YouTube atheist, DarkMatter 2525 includes in his cartoons a figure covered in blacked-out boxes with the word “censored” on them, whom he calls “Not Mohammed”.

Satire, and in particular satirical cartoons, have long been a tool with which to comment upon injustice. Indeed, the popular UK magazine Private Eye has been using satire to attack all sorts of wrongs since the 1960s. If we lose the freedom to use satire online, then we lose something very valuable indeed. I would emphasise however that it needs to be satire for a cartoon – or a meme - on religious or political debates to be funny or even valid. Simply attacking someone's faith for the sake of attacking their faith is simply not on.

But mainly freedom of speech does not give you the right to insult others.  As Oliver Wendell Holmes said "My right to swing my fists ends where the other man's nose begins."

Godwin's Law

I get so very angry nowadays when at the least mention of Hitler and the Nazis online, there will be someone who will accuse you of Godwin's Law. Such people seem to think that Godwin's Law means you can never mention Hitler and the Nazis, the inference being that if you do so, you have just lost the argument. WRONG!

I wonder if those who shout loudest even know the true meaning of “Godwin's Law”?

The 'rule' is so called because it was first stated by US attorney and author, Mike Godwin, in 1990, that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches.”

Have you got that? The comparison with Hitler / Nazis merely becomes more probable the longer a debate continues. It does not say that anyone mentioning such is immediately guilty of Godwin's Law. I have in the past posted a pic of the UK Prime Minister alongside Adolf Hitler, comparing their policies, and have been accused of “Godwin's Law”. Utter rubbish.

The Nazis were one of the most brutal regimes, under one of the most insidious dictators this world has ever known. If one sees an apparent parallel between the policies of any political leader or organisation and those of Hitler and the Nazis, not only it is relevant for them to comment upon that parallel, given that those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it, I would suggest that it is wholly necessary that they do so.

Here is a very good example of how those crying “Godwin's Law” can affect politics adversely. In a meme going around on Facebook, Tom Moe, a US Air Force veteran and former Vietnam POW, allegedly said the following;

“You might not care if Donald Trump says Muslims must register with the government, because you're not one. And you might not care if Donald Trump says he's going to round up all the Hispanic immigrants, because you're not one. And you might not care if Donald Trump says it is okay to rough up Black protesters, because you're not one. And you might not care if Donald Trump wants to suppress journalists, because you're not one. But think about this. If he keeps going and actually becomes president, he might just get around to you, and you better hope that there's someone left to help you.”

Now, I don't know if Tom Moe even exists, or if he does, if he actually said that. The quote may well be apocryphal. However, whether he did or not, compare the above to this;

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Those were the words of Martin Niemöller, a German Lutheran pastor, who was a brave and outspoken critic of the Nazi regime, who spent the war in Sachsenhausen and Dachau concentration camps.

Could it be that Tom Moe, or whoever wrote his quote, was afraid to quote Niemöller in case they were accused of Godwin's Law? Not certain, but it is a possibility.

Playing the Person and not the Ball

It never ceases to amaze me how when someone has politics or other views which some may disagree with, instead of criticising that person, they will automatically attack the individual for some personal attribute.

One of the more depressing examples of this was quite recently, when it was reported that Caitlyn Jenner wanted to be Ted Cruz's spokesperson on transgender issues. For those who have been living under a rock, Caitlyn Jenner was formerly Olympic athlete Bruce Jenner, who in 2014 underwent gender reassignment surgery to transition to a woman. Whatever the truth of the Ted Cruz story, when this hit Facebook, there were despicable comments, referring to her as her 'dead name', calling her “he”, “s/he”, and even “it”, as well as 'jokes' about her gender and sexual preferences.

For my money Caitlyn Jenner is an arsehole. Too full of herself for me to ever like her, and I certainly do not agree with her politics. I do however respect her as a woman, and the extremely brave step that someone so much in the public eye had the courage to come out publicly as transgender, and to transition, knowing full well what the public backlash would be. You will notice the pronouns I am using; “she” and “her”. Caitlyn Jenner does not think she is a woman, she is a woman. If there are any have a problem with understanding that, then consider how offended you would be if you were misgendered.

Sometimes, just sometimes, however, people can be just fantastic. Here in Scotland, the leader of the Scottish Conservative Party, Ruth Davison, is openly lesbian. I intensely dislike the woman's politics, and I despise her uncaring, condescending, elitist arrogance. Obviously as I am a supporter of Scottish independence, and Ruth is a unionist, we are always going to disagree upon that. However, when some moron, claiming to be a fellow Scots Nat, attacked Ruth on Twitter, making deeply personal and insulting references to her sexuality, a whole bunch of Scots Nats, myself included, laid into the guy in question, deriding him for making personal homophobic attacks. He was absolutely bombarded with criticisms from people who whiles they wholly disagreed with Ruth Davison, disagreed even more with homophobic pond life. In the end, Ruth Davidson herself posted “I feel I have just been treated with chivalry.” Ruth, you are very welcome. Nobody deserves that.

Turning Common Terms into Insults

I hate the words retard and retarded. I hate them even more in the context of the internet. People, even those who tend to be socially and politically astute, have taken a word which describes a disability, and turned it into a common insult. Do those who use the term even realise just what they are doing?

The Oxford English Dictionary gives this definition for the noun, “retard”;

A person who has a mental disability (often used as a general term of abuse).

Again, it is playing the person and not the ball, and in doing so, the user abuses a term used to describe mental disability. You use it, the mentally disabled pay.

Is this important? Consider that the UK tabloid newspaper (I use the term loosely) once used the headline “You Spastics!”. The Spastics Society of Scotland responded by running an advertising campaign with a photograph of that very headline, and with the slogan “2 million newspapers sold at our expense”. That is precisely what the user does when they use the terms 'retard' or 'retarded'; they miscall someone at the expense of some of the most vulnerable in society. This became such an issue in the UK that the term 'spastic' is no longer used, because of the negative connotations it now carries.

But it need not be a disability to become a term of abuse. How often do you see comments online such as “Gay!” or “That is so gay!”? Users commonly use it to abuse others, and LGBT+ people suffer as a consequence, as “gay” becomes synonymous with “inferior”. So if they are inferior, then there can't be anything wrong in attacking the LGBT+ community, right? Would Ruth Davison have been abused by a homophobe if attacks on LGBT+ people were not seen as 'valid'? I doubt it. But then, Ruth can count herself lucky. She only suffered online abuse and was not subjected to a beating, as many LGBT+ people suffer on a daily basis, some even being killed, or driven to suicide.

Insulting Behaviour on others Timelines

I have at times been accused of not being willing to what others have to say. Poppycock. If I post things on my own personal Facebook timeline which others may object to, I will allow them their say, so long as it is valid and respectful.

The moment it crosses the line into abuse however, that is a no-no. If that abuse is directed towards me personally, then obviously that's a no-go. I don't do that to others, I likewise do not expect it to be done to me. If the abuse is directed at others, and is bigoted, then that likewise is a no-no. I intensely dislike bigotry in any way, shape, or form, and while others may like to voice that on their own timelines and public debates, they do not get to do so on my timeline.

In the end, if someone publicly abuses me, or shows bigotry towards others on my Facebook timeline, then I will remove them from friends, immediately and permanently.

My timeline is just that; MINE. It is not a public debating forum, and it is not a democracy. It is MY domain, and I am fucking GOD there.

Grammar Nazis

I have to admit to being guilty of this myself at times. I have an excellent command of English, to the point I utterly hate to see the language abused. I have been known to comment on poor spelling and grammar, and one day I paid the price for that.

In an atheist Facebook group, one of my arguments was refuted by someone with atrocious spelling and grammar, and I commented that he could argue with me once he had command of the English language. The said person commented back, informing me that he was in fact dyslexic. I tell you, I am only a little guy of 5' 2”, but that day I felt about 3 inches tall. I was very apologetic, and I have been wary of commenting upon the spelling and grammar ever since.

I'm not saying I no longer do so, but when I do, it will be with someone whom I know has a good command of English, and can do better. Even then, nine times out of ten, I shall only say it in jest. But when you do come across someone with a poor command of English, think that they may well be dyslexic, or dyspraxic, or merely does not have English as a first language.

Social Justice Warriors

Okay, I know I may sound like a Social Justice Warrior (SJW) myself by now, but I can promise you, I am far from it.

SJWs have a habit of thinking they are standing up for a cause or minority even if it does not directly affect them personally, and get all butthurt when others disagree with them, or say something they find offensive to their cause. Back in the 1980s people like this were standing on street corners selling the Socialist Worker, today they are all over the internet. But whichever the generation, they appear to have one thing in common; they tend to be middle-class poor little rich kids, looking out for this week's “cause” before moving onto another next week.

Frankly people like that are a pain in the butt. These are the ones who will jump on every little word you say, accusing you of being misogynist, misandric, sexist, racist, ableist, Islamophobic, homophobic, transphobic, or any other form of bigotry, real or imagined. I kid you not, I once accused of being “speciesist”. I replied “If you mean that I consider human life to be more important than animal life, then you're damned right I am speciesist. I don't give a fuck if one or one hundred monkeys die to save a human life. The human life must always take precedence.” Oh, and anyone who disagrees with that, suck it up, because I don't care about your opinions on the subject, or those of me, and I'm even less interested in hearing them.

SJWs also tend to be those people who will not only not listen to counter arguments but support those they stand up for to have a 'safe zone' where they and there supporters may speak. How is that a debate? It is not a debate – it is preaching.

There was a great deal of this on YouTube a few months back, where there were radical feminist SJWs, including men (aka “Pussy-Whipped” - yep, I went there) taking a stance against the “men's rights movement”. Now, I am not for a moment a supporter of the Men's Rights Movement; it soon attracted a bunch of misogynist insulting troglodytes. They do however make a few good points, such as in custody battles, mothers – even if unsuitable – tend to be given children more often than fathers, women in prisons tend to serve more lenient sentences for men who have committed the same crimes, and women graduates on average earn more than male graduates. Whenever anyone voiced these truths, they found themselves blocked by the SJWs, or worse still, had their YouTube channels restricted or even closed down by SJWs filing false DMCA notices.

For fuck's sake, how childish can you get. But then, SJWs have ever been the ones to close down debates by throwing insults, character assassination, speaking or even shouting over an opponent (one of George Galloway's favourite tactics), and even resorting to threats, and occasionally actual violence. Doubt the latter? I was once a steward on a rally for peace in London. On the way down there, a bunch of members of the Socialist Worker's Party beat the crap out of a guy in Carlisle Services, purely because he disagreed with their politics. Some socialists!

Conclusion

Social media is a hotbed of debate, and quite often can and does become extremely heated, causing people to sometimes lose the place. And trust me, I have my moments and am certainly no saint in that estimation. But I do at least try to consider others, which is what I reckon all of us should do.

Before you make that comment which may insult or offend, think on who you are offending, and just how much doing so will actually help you. It may make you feel good at the time, but really it is a pyrrhic victory. Do you honestly think that attacking others will change their mind? I don't know about you, the reader, but when anyone personally attacks me, it only causes me to be all the more determined and to dig my heels in. Reasoned debate alone can change minds. Being an ass just makes you and ass, and causes your opponent to be even more of an ass.

And think on when you comment upon others. You have not lived their lives nor had their experiences, just as they have not had your life experiences. None then is in any place to judge too harshly.

I personally prefer to live by my favourite maxim;

Before you judge anyone, try walking a mile in their shoes. That way when you do judge them, you'll be a mile away – and you'll have their shoes.