The greatest symphonic show on earth

It doesn't get much nerdier than this. And by nerdy, I of course mean effing awesome. Attenborough, Dawkins, Bill Nye? And the orangutan baby? C'monnnnnn.



This also reminds me to remind YOU, if you haven't watched David Attenborough's Life of Mammals series, check it out. It's simply amazing.

Oh, you mean to tell me God has this much free time?

One of ID'ers (those that subscribe to "Intelligent Design" or thinly veiled creationism) favorite arguments is that evolution CAN'T EXPLAIN THE ANIMAL EYE. It's surely too complex to have simultaneously evolved in multiple creatures from simpler processes and random genetic mutations. Michael Behe (learn his name and henceforth scoff every time it's mentioned in conversation if you'd like props from your educated friends) coined the term "irreducible complexity" to describe situations like the eye. Therefore, evolution must have some guiding hand and these "gaps" can be filled in by God's ever-omnipotent force and wisdom. I've said it many times before, but it bears repeating: I believe that science can (and will continue to) determine exactly how evolution has performed to produce such amazingly complex structures like the eyeball. And that takes much less faith than the chasmatic leap it would take for me to believe that (G)od had anything to do with it.

Now let's look at a fairly simple diagram of how scientists believe evolution of the eye probably happened. Pretty awesome, right?

And finally, just for fun... check out these amazing macro images of a few different types of eyes from around the animal kingdom. #evolutioninaction 

Discus fish

Horse

Caiman

Find the full gallery from Suren Manvelyan here. 

Shut up, Rick Perry -- I refuse to acknowledge you as my governor.

It's a little bit sad that this guy dropped out (got forced out) of the GOP race. At least he was forcing the discussion. Now, no one's talking about science except to deny it.


One of the phrases I keep hearing passed around is "You're entitled to your own set of opinions, but not your own set of facts." Well…. duh. It seems like common sense but I realize that most of the time when I debate people, or hear others debate, they're not debating opinions anymore. They're debating the validity of the set of facts they're using. However, the definition of "debate" involves "consideration" and "deliberation." To me, that includes logical, rational, thoughtful time-spent analysis over the validity of all sides of an argument.

Take the GOP debates as a perfect example of opinion pandering. No one watches the candidates to determine if they're intelligent, well-educated, or even thinking long-term. The general populace is watching to gauge whether or not the candidates say things that reinforce their own opinions. We want validation for what we already think we know. WE LIKE PEOPLE THAT AGREE WITH US. It's easier that way. Disagreements or gaps in our knowledge leave us feeling… empty, lost, confused. 

A perfect explanation for why people refuse to learn about evolution (or any science). We simply don't know everything. We can't know everything (yet, probably ever). And that makes some people very, very uncomfortable, and perhaps a bit depressed and lost. Does that mean life is pointless? Of course not. Maybe I'm an exception (and I don't really think that's true), but that particular lack of knowledge EXCITES ME. It's an undiscovered frontier! In the same way that explorers used to travel to distant lands and name them, we can travel inwards and outwards (to the level of atoms, and outer space, and everywhere in between). 

Facts are rock-solid. Facts are scientifically-backed, tried and tested. Facts are reality.