EVOLUTION AND MARRIAGE

THE NATURAL STATE

Opposition to same sex marriage seems a natural position when biology is considered.  Male to female unions is a fact of evolution of sex in humans, the pinnacle of social species.  It is not denial of a right any more than denying that the man is the mother and the woman is the father in a heterosexual marriage.  But there are rights that all should have, and they should not be denied those rights because they hold views other than the views of the majority or the powerful.

CIVIL UNIONS

Parental rights and contractual rights are among those rights.  Family rights do not end if one spouse dies.  Civil unions should be available to provide such rights without specification of sexual relationships.  The obligations that go with family responsibilities should be part of the package.  Care of minor children should be part of the responsibility of any becoming part of a civil union.

ALL IMPERFECT BUT ALL HAVE RIGHTS

No one born in the last two thousand years is perfect.  Yet Jesus tells us that God loves each of us and that we should do likewise.  Whether one’s sexuality departs from the norm because of a genetic factor or a social imprinting inflicted on them early in development is immaterial to the rights of the individual.

WHAT’S NATURAL?

The nuclear family seems to be an ideal that society should encourage without unduly restricting the behavior of those not conforming to that norm.  Failures of responsible behavior in nuclear families do not justify stopping social endorsement of traditional families. Clearly some great individuals have come from non-traditional families.  Some people smoke without getting lung cancer, but it still is socially warranted to discourage smoking.

SEEK SENSIBLE LAWS

Society is justified in prohibiting public displays of both heterosexual and homosexual behavior.  Likewise inflicting such behavior on minors as well as non-consenting adults is properly restricted.  Christian societies seem to be making great progress is establishing freedom and equality for all as we emerge from our puritanical past.  Whether the past demise of societies from social excesses since the decline of Sodom and Gomorrah is fact or story does not seem essential to knowing how to make our society the best possible.

NATURAL CONSEQUENCES

Sexually transmitted diseases have been with us before AIDS seemed to target homosexual behavior in males early in its establishment in this country.  It is amazing that STD’s are not more prevalent with the emphasis the advertising and entertainment industries put on sexual behavioral freedom.  It is extremely difficult to see how a democratic society can reach a fair agreement on a position somewhere between the extremes of Puritanism and Sexual Libertarianism.

SEEKING A SOLUTION

Same sex marriage is an oxymoron by whatever name you call it.  The proper rights its advocates are seeking can best be legally accommodated by a contractual arrangement called a civil union.  Contesting the validity of marriage as exclusively a female-male union defies history, religious tradition, and social norms.  Civil unions could also be useful for others united for practical reason apart from sexual considerations.

HOW HAVE THEY SOLVED THE PROBLEM ON OTHER PLANETS?

To me, Gay Marriage also defies the process of evolution.  I fully expect the process of evolution occurred in much the same way on millions of other planets in the universe.  In the hereafter I expect to meet others from those planets created by the same God through the process of evolution and having many attributes in common with us.  Perhaps some have different numbers of digits and other minor differences.  I don’t expect the language to be the English but I already know God loves them as well as us.

I don’t expect many people will agree with me.  The somewhat intermediate position exposes me to criticism from those on both sides.

Joseph G. Engemann     April 5, 2014

Evolution Insights: Preface

The following is the first page of the Preface, page ix-xi, in Evolution Insights, a manuscript by Joseph G. Engemann, in prepublication draft six, dated February 5, 2010.

                              Preface

     God created the world and all that is in it, including humans.  God is not in conflict with God.  All God-loving people should agree those two statements are true.  With free will, a gift of our loving God, we have the ability to introduce error and conflict in ideas and actions.  Both believers and scientists have been at odds in the past over conflicts we have introduced.

     Some believers want to use scripture for truths not meant to be conveyed by scripture.  Some scientists want to use science to falsify religious truths.  A true understanding of both scripture and science would produce no conflict for a true believer.  Both believers and scientists have entered the fray with the intention of presenting the truth.  Although we may regret the problems we have caused, there is no need to harbor guilt over mistakes done with good intentions.

     The basic premise that enables us to eliminate the creation/evolution conflict is the fact that the evidence of evolution is as much the word of God as is the religious truth of scripture.  Both nature and scripture may be misinterpreted.  We may not know the correct path evolution has taken because all the needed evidence may not be available.  We may not recognize God's message in scripture when we lack adequate understanding of the context of the original texts.  Knowing what is parable, what is only common understanding of the day, and what is opinion of the writer, could clarify the message.

     If we understand God used evolution in creation, the creation/evolution conflict disappears.  It is my hope that future generations of biologists may find answers here to avoid the stumbling block to belief faced by our generation.  Many biology teachers seem to be resolving the conflict on their own.  For them, I reassure them they are not alone.  It is my hope that Creation Scientists may also see that evolution is not a theological problem that requires refutation.  In their laudable efforts to serve God, they have placed roadblocks in the road to belief for many.  Consequently, moral decisions about scientific projects are given less chance of acceptance.  Adversarial aspects in the relationship of science and religion are unnecessary.

[the remaining page+ is omitted]

Joseph G. Engemann, Kalamazoo, Michigan     March 12, 2014

SCIENCE: EXTINCTIONS AND EVOLUTION

EXTINCTIONS

The Sixth Extinction by Elizabeth Kolbert was the subject of an interview with her by Brad Plumer of the The Washington Post published in our local paper on March 2, 2014.  I have not read the book, but the interview was quite informative.  The increasing rates of extinction caused by various impacts human populations are having on the survival of other species may be leading to the sixth major extinction event.

Previous major extinction events presumably were caused by major volcanic eruption episodes, asteroid impact, and possibly widespread glaciation events; all likely associated with climatic changes.  Her discussion of the concept of "catastrophism" suggested by Cuvier was dismissed over a hundred years before the 1980's suggested in her interview.  Catastrophism was just one of several theories for the cause of evolution and/or change in the fossil record already known at the time.  Darwin's documentation of the theory of natural selection was rapidly accepted by many scientists, even before the role of the genes was clarified, as an explanation for the cause of evolution.

From the interview I suspect she does a good job of discussing the causes of increased extinction rates thought to be a harbinger of a presumed coming sixth extinction.  The fact that there have probably been many more major extinction events than the five indicated does not detract from the main thesis of her book of a possible coming sixth extinction.

In chapter eight, extinction's role in evolution, of an unpublished 2010 manuscript (Evolution Insights) I note that, after discussing the end of the dinosaurs, "Other mass extinction events have been documented marking the end of the Devonian, Permian, and other periods.  The transitions from the end of one unit of geological time to another usually show an unconformity of rocks, perhaps caused by the physical disruption due to a major collision.  The demise of species may be more severe after a prolonged period having no disruption.  The interlude may enable many to become so specialized to constant conditions that they cannot survive major disruption of those conditions."

"After the extinction event, the survivors again specialize into additional new species that fill the vacant jobs of top predators and many smaller special niches  The survivors that provided the ancestral material for new species were likely to have been generalists or specialized in some way that may have contributed to their survival.  As food supplies become diminished, small animals may be favored over large animals in finding adequate food to survive."

NUMBERS OF SPECIES

Once the terrestrial flora and fauna was well established in the Paleozoic, the numbers of species are thought to have peaked at somewhat comparable levels prior to major extinction events.  Once the approximate maximum was reached following an extinction event, the numbers of species may have hovered near the maximum as old species die off in competition with new and better adapted species.  Others have speculated, on limited available data, that the average species survives for about a million years, with great variability of extremes in both directions.  The fossil record would seem to support the idea that there have been hundreds of time more species that have lived on earth than the maximum at any one time.


THE ORIGIN OF SEX

A time of more frequent asteroid bombardment during Precambrian times played a crucial role in evolution.  The role the evolution of the Pogonophora from early annelid stock has been discussed earlier in this blog site.  The possible role of the same type of rigors had an even earlier role in evolution of major aspects of the origin of sex. Found in the manuscript mentioned above, are the following quotations from the chapter eight section titled, "The early roots of sex, fusion for survival".

"The starvation of protists during the early life extinction events meant degrowth to eventual fatal levels if they could not eat another protist or, better yet, fuse with another to make a viable mass.  Perhaps the reductions during degrowth resulted in a reduced genome lacking essential genes.  Or continued reduction after fusion made the survival of only the normal single gene genome an outcome that over time developed the needed stable genetic controls."

"The things that chance genetic changes did to help the process occur over millennia may have been rapidly selected as those not fusing died or were eaten before the resumption of hospitable conditions.  Eventually the process was fine tuned as it became the gamete union restoring the appropriate number of pairs of chromosomes as we see in sexual reproduction today.  The reduction division of meiosis may have been selected for maintaining the proper gene numbers in fusion of ancestors over a billion years ago."

Supporting evidence from simple organisms included fusion of amoeboid stages in cellular slime molds, suctorian ciliate's abilities to directly incorporate the protoplasm of prey species of ciliates into their own protoplasm without formation of food vacuoles, and a presumed lack of immune rejection in simple organisms, evidenced by the symbiotic origin of mitochondria and cilia.

Extinctions events may also have caused release of abundant nutrients from dead and decaying organisms.  The nutrients could be in solution as absorbable compounds most organisms could utilize, or as particulate matter available to filter-feeders.  Species able to utilize those mechanisms effectively may not have been the ones fusing in the early development of sex, the stage of the process discussed occurred a billion or more years ago.

EXTINCTION PEAKS

The most outstanding research I am familiar with about the history of prior extinctions is:
Raup, David M., and J. John Sepkoski, Jr.  1986. Periodic extinction of families and genera.  Science, 300:1734-1737.
I measured their graph of extinction rate peaks and found that a regression line of the peaks reached 100% for extinction rates at the end of the Precambrian.  [I know that percentages aren't appropriate in calculating regressions, but I thought the use of the number as a proxy for actual numbers was informative.]  Far greater species numbers presumably go to zero in each genus or family that goes extinct.  Their data only cover groups that fossilize and are found in rocks of known ages.


Joseph G. Engemann           March 6, 2014

Evolution: QUANTUM EVOLUTION

MAKING SENSE OF THE EVOLUTIONARY JUMBLE

You haven't heard of Quantum Evolution before?  Neither have I.  But a cover article in Time this month is about Quantum Computers and their remarkable ability to solve complex problems.  The speed is advanced over digital computers with their 1 or 0 bits because the quantum ones use 1 or 0 for 1 as well as 1 or 0 for 0 which complicates the whole matter beyond my simple level of number understanding.

But it makes some kind of intuitive sense as applied to the linear versus global thinking of the other post on this site I just posted today, 2/28/2014.  My global right brain thinking has been able to grasp some of the complexity and simplicity of evolution my peers are missing.  Maybe the Quantum Computer will have the capacity to do the same.

Why the complexity?  We have several million different animal species living on our planet, each tracing ancestry back to the first animal species that graded imperceptibly from a population of protozoans a couple of billion years ago.  As the first one diverged, as well as successive later ones, the original species often became extinct, but along the variously branched ancestry some survived relatively unchanged for long times, some even to the present.  So as soon as the first branch developed, evolution was no longer linear, and at the next level it was no longer two dimensional.  After a few more levels of branches (although branching of one line could be much earlier or later in time than another branch, the number of possible dimensions becomes astronomical.

Features can be lost, gained, or changed at different rates and types in each line.  Features adaptive to survival are present if the line does not become extinct and may be known only from fossils if the type can fossilize.  Extinct species may or may not leave fossils.  Can a Quantum Computer make sense of evolution.  I doubt it will happen soon because they probably have to be programmed by linear thinking whizzes.  Can they get past the garbage in, garbage out (GIGO) that plagued early computing efforts?

Once biologists get past the problem of differentiating between analogous and homologous features they can make jumps rivaling what a good computer can do to solve evolutionary questions.  Analogous features are like a bat's wing and an insect's wing not sharing a common structure in previous ancestors.  Homologous wings are like a bat's, bird's, and (perhaps) flying reptile sharing wings developed from a vertebrate ancestor's forelimb.

Earlier posts might help my peers understand the importance of the pogonophorans in their central role in evolution of the vertebrate line and the early branching of major lines of the animal kingdom.  If they can't do that they will be mired in past errors making the task impossible.

Joseph G. Engemann     February 28, 2014

SCIENCE THINKING ERRORS

ERRORS COMMON TO RELIGION AND SCIENCE

                             [based on journal entry of 12/20/2006]

Linear versus global thinking was a problem in writing my evolution book.  Related problems are evident in the science and religion hierarchy; perhaps in other human organizations as well.

Global, or right brain, thinking is difficult to present to others because of the linear nature of speech, writing, and other left brain processes.  Not all are comfortable with the side tracks or tangents, as I mistakenly labeled my insights in classes, insights that are essential to see the big picture of complex subjects such as evolution.  Many want just the facts or essentials and deprive themselves of the chance to get true understanding of a subject.

In ecology, evolution, physiology, and perhaps many other areas, multiple causes are part of the explanation of how a result comes about.  Unfortunately, many scientists have made the mistake of finding evidence for something contributing to an effect and take it as disproof of other factors contributing to the same effect.  Even worse, they find an incorrect conclusion of proof from their experiments and dismiss alternate explanations.

In evolution, I first realized some of the problem when evolutionary connections indicated by morphological gradients leading from one group to another were given a directional understanding that was 180 degrees from an equally plausible explanation.  Perhaps skimpy fossil evidence of age of groups was used or other presumed evidence from anatomy; whereas simple to complex is no more reasonable than complex to simple as evidence of direction of evolution, depending on selective pressures.

In science and religion, orthodoxy is championed by the hierarchy.  They choose the operative principles and enforce them.  When most of it is good, the process is good.  But the process of change becomes geological in speed and minute in immediate quantitative aspects.  The peer review process may lead to an inbreeding that prevents advances based on things reviewers do not fully appreciate.  This is hinted at by the fact that many papers that represent important advances opening new areas of science have had many rejections before finally being accepted for publication.  Eugene Garfield provided many such cases in the “Citation Classics” items profiled in Current Contents, Life Sciences during the last half of the twentieth century.

and on 12/29/2006

Regarding the entry above about errors of science and religion, I was thinking a few days ago that a larger number of things apply that include government and organizations of all types and society as a whole in many cases.  Authority, imposed, elected, or acknowledged, may be given greater credence than deserved.  Tradition or the status quo is hard to overcome.  Majority view is given more respect than it deserves in many cases. 

Was it Abraham Lincoln or Will Rogers who said “You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”?

Joseph G. Engemann     2/28/2014

CREATIVITY: BRAINSTORMING

QUIET BRAINSTORMING

Susan Cain, in her book, Quiet (see 02/02/2014, post 34), lists the four rules applied to group brainstorming sessions.  She then presents evidence that collective work of individuals done independently provides more creative solutions than come from similar numbers working in a group brainstorming session.  Since the individuals use quiet reflection by themselves it hardly merits a term, individual brainstorming.  But I have used the term individual brainstorming or solitary brainstorming in my past thinking about the topic.

Nine months ago (05/02/2013) my third post listed mental manipulations that might help one do solitary brainstorming.  Creative solutions may come best in quiet situations because the left brain and right brain can work more effectively.  Before you can optimize a thought in a group situation another's contribution may derail the thought.  We can't truly work at a high level on all things when we are multi-tasking.  One line of evidence is the rise in automobile accidents when the drivers talk, text, eat, read or listen.  Beginning teen-age drivers have progressively higher accident rates as more peers ride with them.

One of the biggest reason's noted by Cain for group brainstorming not being as effective as expected is the conscious or subconscious fear of criticism of one's contribution, even though criticism is against the brain-storming rules.

As noted above, coordination of left and right brain hemispheres may be made more difficult in a group setting.  But quiet brainstorming doesn't work in a vacuum, or more accurately, with a paucity of knowledge, experience, and ideas.  Some of the best stimulation of that type can come from interaction with peers, either at meetings of those with like interests, or reading what they have to say.  Meetings may have a benefit not found in brainstorming, of questions, comments, and clarification if needed.

CREATIVITY ASSISTS

Try to be creative, but be relaxed about it.

Question things, but don't be disagreeable.

Broaden your perspective or widen your interests, solutions are often by analogy to a principle of some other topic.

Humor in your life may make it easier for you to make unlikely mental connections.

If you prime your mind to think about something when you sleep, keep a notepad and pencil handy to make a note if it wakes you up; it will make it easier to get back to sleep.

Believe in causality, expect answers or causes for everything of concern.

Don't forget adequate quality rest, nutrition, exercise, and contact with others.

THE INTROVERSION THING

Yesterday I was reading comments readers of Cain's book left online at the Barnes and Noble Nook Store.  The comments were very positive in general from both introverts and extroverts.  One very critical one seemed to be a result of professional jealousy.  But the sense of relief many expressed at finding a positive view of their introversion seemed counterbalanced by a view that they were trapped, but now comfortably, in their introversion.  I do not think they are trapped, as you can see from the conclusion of my blog posted on 2/2/2014.

Joseph G. Engemann         February 18, 2014

CREATIVITY

Creativity: Art

ART

My 1974 unpublished manuscript on creativity, "The Two-Way Street", had chapter 11, pp 65-69 titled ART start with the following extract below.

     Art is often linked closely in our thinking with creativity.  Evidence of this is the difference in price of a masterpiece and its copy done with equal technical skill.

     Creativity is developing the new and creative artists have more than technical skill, in that there is something new about their work - a new insight in an old medium or an old or new insight in a new medium or modification of a medium.

     The new or novel may entertain, but it is not truly great art, unless there is a message of importance and permanence (except in the performing arts), with perhaps the evocation of emotion, giving an insight into reality.  I think social values are important in judging art.  Thus the nude can be beautiful but the lewd cannot.  Beauty and perhaps art are still, as the old axiom says, in the eye of the beholder.  And, as most artists know, the setting has a profound effect on what the eye sees.  Thus concerts are rarely given in boiler factories.  I find more beauty in the simple, and the ornate or detailed must have an aspect of simplicity to be beautiful.  But putting my personal tastes and judgments aside, may I give a couple of examples of some simple approaches to the new.

Anemographs

     I sometimes make visual displays I call anemographs.  I was present when the first one I know of was made in Tasmania.  Several of us took our lunch breaks together at the University of Tasmania in 1956, and we entertained ourselves at the suggestion of Dr. Harold Reynolds with some doodling, and also cooperative or progressive doodles.  Leon Hughes was making some rather graceful ones (see Fig. 11-1) when the ink on his pen blotted and he instinctively tried to blow the drop off his doodle.  It streaked out in an interesting pattern.  This serendipitous discovery was quickly converted into several intentional variations.

     After returning to this country, I experimented further with the technique and found it produced rather uncertain results with a characteristic nature.  The art consultant on a TV program where I displayed them thought they resembled Japanese calligraphy.  Figure 11-2 shows an example of this technique of dropping ink and blowing it around without the use of pen or brushes.  It's fun and maybe entertaining, but it is not art.

-end of extract-

My incompetence with the internet made me take this way to thank the authors of first two comments, Patrick and kylie, in about ten months of blogging.  I picked the topic above because it included Tasmania, recently visited by one of you.  When I started this blog it was primarily to get my novel ideas about evolution into some form for posterity.  I didn't care too much about getting them into print before I died, I just wanted to make sure they were available for posterity.  I was concerned that they would go out with the trash after I died so I thought if they were on the internet they might be there (figuratively) forever.

Joseph G. Engemann    February 8, 2014      Figures added with minor editing, June 27, 2014