The Reality Check Episode 46

Wind Turbine Illness + Madoff & Ponzi Schemes + Post-Mortem Nail Growth Myth

Wind Turbines

 Part 1:

Is there any legitimacy to wind turbine syndrome? 

There are wind turbines in plenty of places now, and people are starting to complain how it effects their health, but does it really effect their health? 

The symptoms include trouble sleeping, headaches, buzzing at the ears, dizziness, vertigo, nauseous, irritability, problems with concentration and memory, and many more. 

It's probably just a nocebo effect, the people who keeps thinking that it's effected by the wind turbines and thinking that it causes these kind of symptoms, then they will show those kinds of symptoms. 

This is probably similar to the popular disease causing power lines. In the 80s, many many people complain about the power lines and how it's making them sick when there's no evidence whatsoever that it effects the people at all. Now, that trend faded, and people are complaining and claiming other things make them sick when there are no evidence at all that it does cause them illness. 

So, what's the real deal? Does it cause illness?

There's a good research done in 2006 by some French scientists, and they found no evidence that the wind turbines effect the health of the people living near it. The document and supporting evidence can be found on the The Reality Check's website here: The Reality Check Episode 46

Another thing is that if people didn't want the wind turbine to be situated near their homes, then every time they see or hear it will make them angry and frustrated. That's another part related to the nocebo effect. 

Scientists say that if you are really bothered by it, then live at least 1.5 km away, so you won't be hearing the motor to remind you constantly.

Part 2:

Benard Madoff

Benard Madoff, the self-confessed author of the biggest financial swindle in history, was sentenced to the maximum 150 years behind bars for what judge called an "extraordinarily evil" fraud that shook the nation's faith in its financial and legal systems and took "a staggering toll" on rich and poor alike.
What Madoff did was people gave him money, which he said he would invest somewhere, and when he earns money, both sides win. This is what investment brokers do.
So, the story began like this: Madoff owns a building with each of the floors managing the business in in their area. But, there's the 17th floor which no one is allowed into. Once, someone entered and saw a bunch of old computers running some sort of program in there, and the person asked other people why doesn't Madoff replace them. Other people just told him that Madoff takes care of that.
What Madoff was really doing was taking people's money and putting it into his own bank for his personal use. When people want to withdraw money, he can still give it to them. But, as long as the number of people withdrawing is less than the people investing, he'll have free money to use all the time.
That is what a Ponzi scheme is. It's a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering returns other investments cannot guarantee, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent.
Most of these investor brokers suddenly disappear. But Madoff was caught before he disappeared.
The Ponzi scheme was named after Charles Ponzi (March 3, 1882 - January 18, 1949) was an Italian swindler, who is considered one of the greatest swindlers in American history. The term "Ponzi scheme" is a widely known description of any scam that pays early investors returns from the investments of later investors. He promised clients a 50% profit within 45 days, which was way too much, that's why he got caught quite quickly.

Science Myth of the Week:
Do your fingernails keep growing after you die?
Of course not!

The Reality Check Episode 45

BMI + Michael Jackson Skin Colour + Eskimo(Inuit) Words for Snow

BMI Chart

 Part 1:

What is BMI?

It stands for body mass index, or Quetelet index, is a heuristic measure of body weight based on a person's weight and heigh. It does not really measure the percentage of body fat, it is used to estimate a healthy body weight based on a person's height, assuming and average body composition. Due to its ease of measurement and calculation, it is the most widely used diagnostic tool to identify weight problems within a population, usually whether individuals are underweight, overweight, or obese. It was invented between 1830 to 1850 by a Belgian polymath Adolphe Quetelet during the course of developing "social physics". The BMI is defined as the individual's body weight divided by the square of his or her height. It is used in kg/m^2. 

But this isn't really reliable, because a lot of other factors are essential as well, such as the person's age, frame, muscle density, and much more. Of course it's difficult to have to calculate everything, so it's just an easy way to see if you are okay. 

The big problem here is that if you use the BMI to calculate many great athletes, they would all be considered overweight or obese. 

Michael Jackson

Part 2:

Respect to Michael Jackson! Even if you don't like his type of music, you can't deny he's got loads of talent. 

It was back around 30 years ago, when Michael Jackson suddenly turned "white". Many people thought it was because he was ashamed of his ethnicity and color. But, from what Reality Check is saying, it seems like he said that it was because of some disease called vitiligo. Vitiligo is a chronic disorder that causes depigmentation of patches of skin. It's just the cells attacking each other when they are not suppose to. 

There's a way to not let people notice, it's to use makeup. We all know the Michael Jackson used a lot of makeup before. People said that it might the reason why he wears gloves all the time. 

Science Myth of the Week:

Do Inuits really have 400 words for snow?

This isn't true at all. They have around 30 words for snow, just as English does as well. 

The Reality Check Episode 44

Avro Arrow Conspiracy + Brain Drain + Beavertails

Avro Arrow

Part 1:

What is the Avro Arrow? 

The Avro Arrow (CF-105) is an advanced, supersonic, twin-engined, all weather interceptor jet aircraft developed by A.V. Roe of Canada. He worked on it from 1949 until the government's controversial cancellation of the project in 1959. It was developed to take out Soviet bombers. It was a really promising project. They had better results than any other plane in the world. The government somehow came out with a crazy idea that it's bad for the Canadian citizens. What most people think it's that the US is threatened by Canadian's power. At the end of WW2, Canada had the 4th largest military in the world. Another thing the government cancelled the project is probably because the military was putting more and more money into it. One more thing is that hen the bombers wasn't a big threat anymore, then there wasn't any point of using the Avro Arrows. One last thing is that because time is moving on, and the world just didn't need those kind of specialized interceptor planes anymore. 

Part 2: 

Is there a brain drain? Is it true that all the doctors and supposedly smart people are leaving Canada to the US? 

In the 70s, the immigration was 0.26%, while emigration was 0.27%. In the 80s, immigration was 0.52%, and emigration was 0.19%. In the 90s, immigration was 0.73%, and emigration was 0.15%. So, over the part 2 decades, it means the number of people entering is 3 times of people leaving. But, it's true that the people leaving have a average higher education than the people coming in. Canada did lose important and smart people to the US, but that is a really small percent. the brain drain is actually a trickle. 

The Reality Check is thinking that there are much more scholarships and opportunities in the US for being rich and famous, Canada doesn't have scholarships for sports as well. So, this probably is one reason why more people are moving out and moving in. 

Science Myth of the Week:

What is a Beavertail? It's a famous Canadian delicacy, it's mostly in Ottawa.

Are those real beaver tails? No, it's just a delicacy shaped like a beaver tail.

The Reality Check Episode 43

Real Vaccine Dangers + Cosmetics + Bilateral Symmetry

Bilateral Symmetry

Part 1:

Are vaccinations deadly? In this podcast, it's going to explore MMR, Polio, and DDT.

So, what is a vaccine? 

A vaccine is any preparation intended to produce immunity to a disease by stimulating the production of antibodies.

Vaccines are used for a lot of diseases, from smallpox to some sexual transmitted diseases.

But, people can die from vaccines. Do we just not get vaccinated? Would that be the best choice? 

Polio, mostly leads to muscular weakness. There are a few polio vaccinations, and one of them thought to make the polio worse. But those cases only happen one out of 750000. So, yes, people do get paralyzed when they get they get the vaccine to work with the polio disease. 

There is another kind of vaccination which also worsens polio if you are unlucky. Because polio can only be at one part of your body, once this kind of vaccine works with polio, polio spreads to the rest of the body. But, from 1997 to 2007, they gave 10 billion of these vaccines to around 2 billion people who had polio, and there were 9 cases. During those years, around 33000 kids got paralyzed by polio, but 6.5 million kids prevented polio because of the vaccines. 

How about MMR vaccination? Statistics say that no one died from MMR vaccination, but there have been around 1 in a million cases which the person have headaches frequently. 

Now we talk about DDT. This kind of disease affects the respiratory system. So, if you do get this disease, death is 1 in 20. 1 in 200 if taken care of. So, it's still better to take the vaccines. 

In conclusion, there's no such thing as a perfect vaccine, which protects everyone who receives it and entirely safe for everyone. 

Part 2:

Cosmetics, what do they actually do to us?

Sorry everyone, they mention a lot of medical things I can't spell, so if you like to know more, go to their website here: The Reality Check Episode 43

Science Myth of the Week: 

How much more evidence do we need for evolution?

There are certain things that still holds true, but there are "new" information about evolution, and not everything is exactly as Darwin said. If Darwin came to our society, he would look at our definition of evolution, he would see his fundamental ideas in them, but he would also see changes in them. Such as the genetic information we have now is beyond what anyone could have ever imagined back then. There is also the new taxonomy, even for many people that are still alive, that's a big change already. 

It's actually because we have new theories such as bilateral symmetry and radio symmetry, the way we classify the creatures changed. 

Bilateral symmetry is that your left right looks like your right side, if you are normal. 

This is because evolution can't be like just inventing anything from thin air. Evolution can only work with what they have already. They can only make tests and if they are better adapted in the environment, then they would survive. 

The Reality Check Episode 42

Critical Thinking 101 + Psychic Dogs + Myopic Myth

Critical Thinking

 Part 1:

What is critical thinking? (Not the kinds you see in newspapers, but what it actually is)

There is this bill 44 in Canada that allows parents to pull kids out of class if it's about sex or evolution, and the newspapers always say that this is good for critical thinking, and no, that is better for critical thinking. So, many people miss out what critical thinking actually is.

So, what is it? 

Critical thinking is a method or set of tools for assessing the trustworthiness of claims or arguments, it's a formal way for us to reason. 

We reason over things everyday without really thinking about it; critical thinking helps us actually think about what we are deciding and use proper logic in order to determine what is actually the best course. 

A lot of the time, we use critical thinking during arguments that are worth arguing. If someone is just ranting on something that's not worth talking about, it's not worth arguing. All arguments are made up of a few key parts: premises, logic, and a conclusion. If you miss out one of those things, then it's not an argument. 

What is a premise? The premise is the foundation of argument. These are the things that should be supported by evidence.

The conclusion is difficult to make out sometimes, but you have to make your conclusion clear. It's the fundamental assertion. So, try to listen and see what the person is trying to convince you of.

What connects the premise and the conclusion is logic. Sometimes when either the premise of conclusion is true, but the other is false, then it's not a trustworthy argument. 

Another thing is that critical thinking can actually help someone else's argument better. When you are truly interesting in the subject and the topic a person is arguing about, even if the argument is poor, you can actually use critical thinking to make it better. 

Part 2:

Dogs are psychic?

Are dogs psychic? many people think they are, and many people think they are not. 

Many pet owners find their cats or dogs waiting for them at the door when they get home. So, do they wait all day? Or did they hear the owners coming? Or are they psychic? 

There is a book called: Dogs know when their owners are coming home and other unexplained powers of animals. The author is Rupert Sheldrake. 

Basically, how this experiment went was, he set up a webcam, and you observe the pet all day. Then, when the owner comes home, we check the time when the pet detects the owner. How much time they spend at the waiting spot and other things like that. 

There are many problems in the experiments of course, because the pets do have a biological clock and they know when their owners come back, so they start waiting. But, after when the owners comes home at unexpected times, the pets won't be able to detect it earlier. 

There are many other problems such as when the owner leaves for a short time, then the owner won't bother filling his water and feeding the pet a bit. So, the dog can use these kind of things to predict when the owner comes home. There are many other problems that effect the experiments. 

Science Myth of the Week:

Are people who wear glasses nerds? 

No, it's just a stereotype we see in movies. They have no relation whatsoever. 

The Reality Check Episode 41

Landfills + Chelation + Safety in Numbers

Landfills

Part 1:

What are some dangerous problems landfills cause?

One major problem that most of us know is that chemical substances sink into the ground, and they not only pollute the soil; if they are able to get into the water nearby or the water underground, then it would pollute that as well. Basically landfills will pollute the area of land that garbage is dumped on, whether is in the short term or long term. 

A lot of the things we throw away just stay that way for thousands, even millions of years. Those things just don't change, they will just be there for a really long time. But, there are other things, such as some oil left inside a container, those things thrown in a landfill will cause hazard waste, and it's extremely bad for the environment; long term or short term. Another similar thing is pesticides, all those different types of pesticides molecules are designed to kill and destroy something. We certainly don't want any of that in the wild. Those kind of things should be taken care of carefully.

What strategies do people use to design a good landfill? 

The first step of course is to reuse and recycle as much as we can, so most of the stuff we throw in the landfills will be those fixed things. Hazard things of course should be taken somewhere else to be treated differently.

Landfills are extremely expensive, that's why they are huge, and they have a fixed cost.

So, what's the lesson?

The lesson is that people are freaked out about landfills with tons and tons of garbage in them, but have no clue about the chemicals we are dumping somewhere else. Cause people are used to garbage, it's something disgusting and smelly. Chemicals on the other hand are not so common. 

Part 2:

Chelation

Chelation: It is a kind of treatment which they pump into your body somehow. Then the chelating agents will remove the heavy metals from your body. For the most common forms of heavy metal intoxication, wich as lead, arsenic, or mercury. Once if catches the heavy metals, it just holds onto it, and then later on, we'll urinate it out. It's one of the true forms of detoxification. 

It was first used during World World 1 to get rid of the heavy metals people got into their body because of the poison gas. 

People hope taking it will help them live longer, and prevent heart diseases. 

So, is it harmful? Or does it really help?

Scientists found out they not only remove the heavy metals, they also remove a lot of things we need in our body, which is isn't good. So, I guess it's okay to use it once or twice. Because people have died doing this. 

Science Myth of the Week:

Is there safety in numbers?

The answer is yes and no. If you are fighting a war, it would better to be in numbers. But, the protective effect of other people is balanced by the complication by something called the diffusion of responsibility, basically means more people seems like a good thing, but when there are more people around, individual people feel less compelling to help. Just saying that people will think that someone else will help, and so they don't help. Sometimes, people just feel that they don't know as well as other people, so they will want to let someone else to act. 

So the safety in numbers just depends on the situation. 

The Reality Check Episode 40

Children's Cold Medicine + Ad Hominem + Pool Urine Dye

Part 1: 

The controversy around cold old medicine for children, because there were a few reports that came out that said these cold medicines don't work at all. 

Cough and cold products have been sold for decades, and there wasn't much proof needed before. Consequently, the studies that support these medicines are generally of poor quality. So, when you look at these studies, you can see the studies of children is much worse than the studies of adults. 

There are several products of course that are completely safe. Which are: 

Antihistamines: Which is a treatment for a lot of allergies. They don't really have effects on colds though. 

Sudafed: They are said to cure running noses by opening up air ways. 

There are a lot more of course, but I'll just list these, because I just don't know how to spell the others.

Of course, reports showed that there is no evidence at all that these medications work on children under 12. There are also side effects as well we have to be careful about. 

Part 2:

What is Ad Hominem? It came from the Latin term: to the man. It is also known as argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy. The ad hominem is not always fallacious, for in some instances questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue. It's not just a personal attack, it's a personal attack in response to an argument. 

There are many different types of ad hominems:

1: Ad hominem abuse: usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to invalidate his or her argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument.

2: Ad hominem circumstantial: This just points out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. 

Science Myth of the Week:

Will the special pool dye turn urine red? Is this true?

This simply just doesn't exist, but of course the concept is possible, but we don't have such chemicals in the pool now. 

So, where does this myth comes from?

It probably just came from someone who didn't want the kids to pee in the pool. 

The Reality Check Episode 39

Wikipedia/Britannica+Homemade Pesiticides+Dark Meat Myth

Part 1:

Wikipedia or Britannica? Is Wikipedia as reliable as Britannica?

There's this research done by Nature around 4 years ago, around 50 encyclopedias sent in their own entries on a broad range of scientific discipline. Only entries that were within the right limit were looked at. Each of the entries were sent to the experts of the field to see if they are correct or not for peer review. The experts were told to look for 3 types of inaccuracy, factual errors, critical admissions, and misleading statements. When the experts gave back the entries, they would have typed down the errors to let the encyclopedia know. 

The result is: The average scientific entries of Wikipedia contains 4 errors or admissions, while Britannica had 3. 

3 months later, Britannica released a 20 paged paper about how Nature is "fatally flawed". Almost everything about the journal's investigation from the criteria for identifying inaccuracies to the articles and their headlines was wrong and misleading. Britannica thinks everything should be just trashed. They think there are 5 problems:

1: Nature declined their repeated request to make the full reports available.

2: Nature reviewed text that wasn't even from the encyclopedia Britannica.

3: Nature accused Britannica of omissions on the basis of the reused of articles exerts, not the articles themselves.

4: Nature changed Britannica articles. 

5: Nature failed to distinguish minor errors from big errors and counted errors that did not exist. 

Nature stands by itself and say that they did not make the reviews public because they felt that it might reveal the reviewers identity. 

So, people are still arguing if Britannica is better than Wikipedia or not. We can just go look at the reports that can be viewed and decide for ourselves which one to trust more. But, we still have to keep in our minds that doesn't matter which encyclopedia, they will all have some errors. So, we must be careful. 

Part 2:

Recently, governments have been telling their people to stop using homemade pesticides. A lot of people say that they use homemade pesticides because for one it's much cheaper and it gets the job done as well. The government tells us that because we don't have the full knowledge on how the homemade pesticides will react to things, and what side effects it might have, it's dangerous to use homemade pesticides. A lot of people think that it's homemade, how dangerous or toxic can it be? But, just because you use "organic" things, and stuff from home, doesn't mean it can't be dangerous. 

Science Myth of the Week: 

Healthier meat versus dark meat, which is tastier? Which one is healthier? 

Dark meat is of course tastier, but it's a bit harder to cook. 

Dark meat is slightly higher in nutrients, but it is also higher in fat. So, white meat is healthier. 

The Reality Check Episode 38

Politics/Skepticism + Climate Change Questions + Red Bull Myth

Part 1:

Now the world isn't just black and white, or you are a skeptic or not. There are many people who call themselves skeptics and say that their beliefs and political views are supported by science. For example, there was a meeting of skeptics, and one of them asked when are we going to start promoting skepticism into something useful, like public health.

That is actually a really interesting thing to ask, because it's not really backed up by science, it's not an obviously a beneficial thing. There are still a lot of people who think the healthy care system is quite bad, and want to change that. 

The point is that bringing up things like this and politics just deludes the purpose of skepticism. If you are left wing or right wing, it's just a matter of perception. And when you believe something, your mind will biased towards that belief. 

These kind of things are just opinions, such as the health care thing. Rich people would like to get the health care that their pets get, because if you want your pet to get checked up or a surgery, you can get it just like that if you have money. But for humans, it doesn't work that way. Humans have to wait in line to get what they want. Legally, of course.

Being a skeptic is also biased. We can say that because we are skeptics, we tend to lean more on the scientific and the evidence side and think that what other people say isn't really true. 

Part 2:

The Climate Change comments from episode 35.

Is climate change a political idea, or a scientific idea, or both? 

Climate change is just an idea, it is used in different ways and by different groups. Usually people say climate change is talking about human effects. Of course governments muddle the idea to make us think from a scientific point of view, but there are of course a lot of governmental advantage to it. 

Are humans controlling climate change?

No, we cannot control the climate change, or we can just change it to anything we want. However, we do influence climate change, and there are loads and loads of evidence that because of human activities, the CO2 levels are higher than ever. 

Science Myth of the Week:

There is a myth that said Red Bull is made from bull testicles, made from bull urine. The original one, not the ones you see in stores today. 

It's not true at all. Red Bull contains mainly taurine, and those things can be extracted from bull urine, but it is not where the manufacturers get taurine. 

The Reality Check Episode 37

Skeptic Course + Pentawater + Swine Flu Myth

Water is water

Part 1:

There's this new kind of program going on since 2009, which is a course taken out of classes. Schools will choose their best and brightest students to attend these courses, where the students will learn about things we hear on the Reality Check. They would learn a variety of things and explore many topics we usually wouldn't have a chance to learn. They are basically like a Skeptic Course. They also get guest speakers who talk about so many things. 

It seems to be a course to kind of trick the students to go to college, by using interesting topics, and no homework, and they can also eat and drink in class. 

They also make most of the people talk in the end. Most of them are all very shy at the beginning, and the people organizing it try to make it a very relaxed atmosphere, and so it gets the kids to want to talk much more. 

The kids also have handson experiences, such as encoding the Bible Code, they found out how easy it is to actually hide not only sentences, but paragraphs. Other activities such as, each student is given a candle, and they are to observe and say what they found out about the candle in a period of time. Each of the candle has been modified to make people think it has been burnt, but it hasn't. They carved out some of the candle, and made dripped some wax on the side. Then the teacher pass out a candle that has really been burnt, and see what the difference is. Another activity is a dowsing test by using a coat hanger (of course this isn't true, but just to let the students feel it). The kids try to locate a bottle of water and see how many people who actually felt anything or nothing at all. Just interesting and fun activities that actually gets the kids to participate and learn something.

Part 2:
What is Penta Water?
Penta Water is a brand of bottled water that is claimed by the manufacturer to be structurally different from what we call "normal" water, and it is said as "ultra-purified" water. This has been going on for more than a decade already; the company started back in 1999 in San Diego.
This is obviously bogus, because water is water. If you change the structure of it, then it's not water, it's something else. We have these kinds of products everywhere actually, and people still buy them today. All of these different companies claim that their water has either more oxygen, or it's more purified, or it can flow much easier through your body. No, water is water. H2O is H2O, that won't change. We can make the purest water ourselves.
Those companies have animations on their websites and show that their water is better than the other water we see. Which is not true at all.
They claim that their water molecules are pentagon shaped, and they keep us more hydrated, and goes through your body easier. This is just simply ridiculous.

Science Myth of the Week:
Can you get swine flu from eating pork. By eating pork, you can transmit some viruses, but not swine flu, it's respiratory.
It's only called Swine flu because in the DNA of the virus, the structure looks similar to the other kind of flu that commonly effect pigs. 

The Reality Check Episode 36

Japanese Horror + Bible Code + Soda Can Myth

The Bible Code

Part 1:

I'm sure we all agree that Japan produces the best thrillers. From everything we know, their thrillers are downright heart stopping. 

So, if you look at American thrillers, they tend to evoke shock, disgust, and suspense. Japanese thrillers however, they focus more on fear of the unknown, and big sense of fatalism. Japanese thrillers actually make us think that it might actually happen. They tend to include things we understand and see everyday. They also tend to include scary children in there, and they make it really creepy. 

The generally use Japanese ghosts, and their ghosts are different from what we usually see in western movies. They are usually people who died from the wrongful death, or their burial wasn't performed correctly. 

Traditionally, the Japanese thinks that they dead will only move forward to another place if they perform the burial right. 

Another thing is the long hair. Usually, traditionally, Japanese people have long hair they tie in a bun, and the hair would be let down only when people die. So, that's another scary thing about it. 

The music they play makes everything ten times more creepy as well. 

The reflection they use to see the ghosts are all really natural, unlike the Hollywood thrillers. 

The face covered ghosts also give a really strong feeling to the people watching the thriller. 

Part 2:

The future has been predicted in the Bible thousands of years ago!?

What is the Bible Code?

The Bible Code is an idea which you take the text of some document, such as the Bible, and you get rid of the punctuations and you get rid of the spaces. Then you wrap around the text in a cylinder, and so once you finish one line, it would just jump to another line but not like reading. And then, the idea is that you can read a particular letter, and you skip a certain number of letters to get to the next letter, and you skip the same number again to get to the next, and so on. The particular numbers that you get may spell something interesting. 

People have tried this before, but now we have computers, and they make things so much easier. 

The Bible Code is to find the events that took place after the Bible was written, to see if it actually told the future or not. 

So, who came up with this Code? We actually don't know who originated this Code. 

It actually started to become popular is because someone found this way and found that some important leader of a place was going to be assassinated, and at first people didn't believe it of course. But, in the end, the person really got killed, that was when this Code became popular. 

It it actually easier in the original Hebrew. One is that these texts tend to be written without vowels, so it's much easier; you don't have to look for a vowel to make a word, you can just use any of the letters together. Second is multiple spellings for the same words. There are many more that makes the original Hebrew easier. 

Science Myth of the Week:

When you tap a soda can, will it really not burst out as much? 

When the can isn't opened, so it's stable. When you open it, you reduce the pressure, so the CO2 comes bubbling out. So, it's actually not true. 

The Reality Check Episode 35

Climate Change+Plastic Bags+Ozone Depletion

Climate Change

Part 1:

So, what do we know and what don't we know about climate change? What is climate change?

There are actually many definitions for climate change, but the general idea is longer term changes than just the weather. Climate change is long term, weather change is short term. 

The Reality Check is going to focus on the human part of climate change. 

So, what is a greenhouse gas? Light from the sun arrives on Earth, some would be deflected back from the clouds, and some of the energy is absorbed by the Earth. Some of the energy is reverted back from the surface of the Earth. Certain gases such as CO2 stops that part of the energy from going back out to space, and it traps it on Earth, and that's how it's warming up. 

Well, is the Earth really heating up? Well, from what we know, the Earth is heating up since we have had human activity. We are increasing the amount of CO2 in the air. It already increased the Earth's temperature by 1 degree C, and from what scientists tell us, we might have a 5 or 6 degree C change in the next 30 years. 

This warming has a really high probability of causing changes in rainfall, drought, ice melting, and therefore sea level rise, and less and less food. 

From everything we know, we should not pretend that everything is just okay and ignore everything. We should know that there is a problem, we can't deny that. Even though it seems like this kind of climate pattern has been repeated over several times throughout history before humans were around, we should still try and do something about it. 

Part 2:

Back then, there was a choice to choose a paper bag or a plastic bag. Of course there are many concerns back then as well, such as, which one is dirtier, which one is more environmentally friendly, and things like that. 

Plastic bags actually is a better choice. They weight less, they require less space and energy to ship them. Plastic bags of course create more pollution while being made, but they also have a higher change of being reused. Plastic bags also cost less to make. So, in the long run, plastic bags is the better choice.
But of course just considering those few things plastic bags are better, however there are a lot of other evidence and facts that shows plastics bags are worse for the environment when you come to try to get rid of it.

Layers of the Earth

Part 3:
What's up with the Ozone layer lately? We used to hear about it all the time before, but we don't hear about it anymore these years.
As we all know the Ozone layer is in the Stratosphere. Ozone itself is a molecule formed from 3 oxygen atoms, O3. For every 10 million air molecules, there are around 3 ozone molecules. The Ozone layer absorbes around 97% to 99% of the sun's ultraviolet rays. Naturally, Ozone molecules are destroyed and created, but the amount of it remains constant. Ozone depletion, CFCs (Chlorofluorocarbon), they are stable, non flammable, and non toxic. These molecules contain chlorine, they are not water soluble, so they stay up in the air and just gets blown around and ends up in the atmosphere. They can only be broken from the sun's ultraviolet rays.
More developed countries agreed to not use CFCs at all since 1996, and the CFCs have decreased from our atmosphere.   

The Reality Check Episode 34

Pyramid Theory + Singularity + Frog Myth

Part 1: 

How the heck did they build the great pyramid?

It was built around 4500 years ago as a tomb for a Pharaoh. We don't know exactly how it was built though. I'm sure many people out there would like to just see more than just pictures of the pyramid, people would like to understand it. 

The oldest info we have on how they built it was by a Greek traveler, who went there and asked them how they built it. From what he has written down, they used levers and tools for raising blocks. But, nowadays, scientists actually calculated the amount of levers and things they would need to use to complete such a task, and they found out that they need at least hundreds of levers in order to raise one block. So, that part is not entirely true. Because it would be really impractical. The other most popular theory is a giant ramp leading up to the pyramid. That would be also impractical. Another ramp theory is the spiral ramp. That is actually the most widely accepted theory, but it also has problems as well. One problem would be if you built the ramp first, then you won't able to calculate the corners clearly. There are many other theories as well, but all with some problems in it, so we are still trying to think of ways they could have built it. 

There is a French architect by the name of Jean-Pierre Houdin. And there is an amazing story how he quit his lucrative job and dedicated 9 years of his life to figuring out how the pyramid was built. He made computer models and tried many things. He came up with a theory himself. Here it is:

He thinks that the pyramid was built by three different levels. For the first level, people used the one big ramp theory, which theoretically works. The second layer, they have ramps that goes on the inside of the pyramid. The ramps go along the walls on the inside. When the people dragging the block up gets stuck on the corners, there's actually places for the people to go out of the pyramid, and then go around the corner and come back in to keep dragging it. the last level on the very top, they used levers on the inside to lift the rest of the blocks up. 

You can actually go online to look for animations which give would give you a clearer image of this theory. His theory really explains everything that happened and is happening to the pyramid. For example, it explain why the cracks appear and things like there is a notch which most people didn't take notice of, and he explained that it was a way for the people to switch the blocks. 

Part 2:

What is the singularity? 

"Within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence, shortly after the human era would be ended." - Vernor Vinge, written in 1993

Singularity has over 20 meanings, but the most popular one is used in astrophysics to talk about gravitational singularity, which has infinite energy and infinite density, and zero volume; usually talks about a black hole or the beginning of the universe. 

In this case, it just means a point in time whether be such technological development that there will be superhuman intelligence and our current models will break out.

Well, how would this happen?

1: Computer and human interfaces may become so intimate that users may be considered to be superhuman intelligent.

2: Biological science may provide means to improve natural human intellect.

3: There may be a developed computers that are "awake" and superhumanly intelligent.

4: Large computers or networks may "wake up" as a superhuman intelligence.

Science Myth of the Week:

Frogs won't try to escape water that is slowly boiling. That is untrue, frogs do jump out when they feel like it's too warm for them. 

To Save the Future: New Alliances of Science and Ethics

Kathleen Dean Moore

There is a professor at OSU who gave a talk about what we should do to insure that we have a future.
She started off with a good analogy, which is if there was a 10 story building, and we live at the top, because we are the most powerful. Everyday, we send workers to go to any of the bottom floors and take a few bricks to make a higher building. We can do this for decades and centuries, but one day the whole building will collapse. It simply won't work that way. You think we should ask ourselves "What should we do?", but instead, we go to coffee shops and talk about football. Why?

She gave another analogy, which is that we are just like the dinosaurs, just doing whatever we do, and one day we will all die. But, she said that the dinosaurs didn't know that whatever that killed them was coming, we do. We should be doing anything we can to prevent it.
She then went on to say that all the environmentalists are doing well, but the one thing they are not doing
it pushing the public to have a collective action to help the world together.

There are two premises in getting people to have a collective action, which are: having facts and evidence on such things as how the world is now, and what we should do now. The other thing is the cultural side of us; it tells us what should be valued, and what is worthy and worth doing. Either one alone can't do it. One is empirical premise, and the other is normative premise. With both of them together, we will have a good conclusion.

Most of the times we see people arguing to an issue with only one of the premises; that won't lead to any good conclusion. It's because many people work in the first premise, and many in the second premise. We need to get both of premises to work together in order to get a good conclusion.

There are three questions we should ask ourselves. Which are:
1: What is the world?
2: What is the place of humans beings in the world?
3: How then should we act?

Things simply won't work if both premises don't work together. This is an extremely difficult task, the people in the first premise isn't used to how the people in the second premise talk, and vice versa.

So, how should we do this? The first move is to start small alliances. It's to make small connections with each other first, and slowly, things will fall into place.

The professor said her small alliance found many answers people gave to the question:
Do we have an obligation to save the future? For what reason?
Yes, because the survival of human kind depends on it.
Yes, for the sake of the children.
Yes, for the sake of the Earth itself.
Yes, for the sake of the sparrows and the sea grass which newborn whales and tons of other fish, which can fish on the coral reefs...which are good in themselves.
Yes, we have an obligation to save the future, because the gifts of the Earth are freely given, and we are called to gratitude and reciprocity.
Yes, for the full expression of human virtue.
Yes, because all flourishing is mutual.
Yes, for the stewardship of God's creation.
Yes, because compassion requires thus to prevent suffering.
Yes, because justice demands it.
Yes, because the Earth is beautiful.

This world is beautiful, and what is beautiful must remain; therefore, the Earth must remain.

So, the mission now is clink the two premises together.

The Reality Check Episode 33

Who has more sex? + King Tut's Curse + JFK Was a Donut?

King Tutankhamun's Tomb

Part 1: 

Do men have more sexual partners than women? On average, in a closed heteral sexual population, do you think men or women have more sexual partners? 

More people think that men have more women sexual partners than women have men sexual partners. This have been observed in quite a lot of tests and analysis. It's not all the same number for all the research, but generally men have more women sexual partners. There are some cases which women have more men sexual partners in some areas of the world. 

The actual answer is they are equal. Mathematically speaking, it's suppose to be the same. Why? It's actually a trick question, because when a woman gets with a man, it also means the man gets with the woman. It's actually both ways around, so it's equal. 

This was first pointed out by David Gale, who is a mathematician at Berkley, in a New York Times article. 

Why do people think men have more sexual partners than women? It's because of the media once again. Things such a prostitutes makes people think that men have more sexual partners than women. Another thing is the men exaggerate and women understate. And people also have different definition if it counts or not. 

Part 2: 

In 1922, Howard Carter and his team discovered King Tutankhamun's tomb, which is notable for a tomb of a pharaoh and it was completely intact, not robbed at all. It is the only tomb that we have discovered that hasn't been robbed. However, there is a curse that effected every single person who went in the tomb. One of the members of a team is a king of a small land, and he died of a mosquito bite two weeks after the discovery of the tomb. A large number of the group died of strange early deaths. Many scientists today think that when the explorers went in the tomb and breathed the air inside, they breathed in some kind of toxic mold that built up by the rotting organs. But there are still many people who disagree with the explanations. 

So, what is the truth? Was there really a curse? We say that the people who are involved in the expedition are all cursed. But there are many debates whether this person counted or this person didn't count. It's all very fuzzy and unclear. And if we just take the 22 main people that did experiments to the tomb, their average lifespan is 72 years, which is quite a long time for the people back then. 

Even the main person, Howard Carter, himself lived up to 62 years old. 

In conclusion, there was no curse. 

Science Myth of the Week:

It was said that JFK made a mistake during his speech in Germany, in June 26, 1963. 

They said that he should have said: "I'm a citizen of Berlin". But what people said he said was: "I am a jelly donut".  

But, he actually didn't, he was just speaking in a bad accent. And some people are just weird to think about it. 

The Reality Check Episode 32

Cold Reading + Baby Einstein Videos + Shaving Myth

Part 1: 

What is cold reading? Cold reading is a series of techniques used by mentalists, illusionists, fortune tellers, psychics, mediums and other con artists to determine or express details about another person, often in order to convince them that the reader knows much more about a subject than they actually do. Without prior knowledge of a person, a practiced cold reader can still read quickly obtain a great deal of information about the subject by analyzing the person's body language, age, clothing or fashion, hairstyle, gender, sexual orientation, religion, race or ethnicity, level of education, manner or speech, place or origin, etc. 

But we shouldn't just trust in them we they tell us something that only we know, we still have to be skeptic about it. And here's why: Everything they do can be done by someone who's not psychic, it can be done by anyone at all. We can also pretend to be psychic as well. 

The first technique to be a good cold reader is confidence. 

The second is to be vague at first. You use the other clues they give you and build up the things. 

The third one is make a statement that can be apply to anyone, but make the listener think that it's only for them.

There are some craps psychics that just make up names for people's guardians, which are unfalsifiable. 

There are just so many ways you can convince people that you know them very well without really knowing them. The people who is listening to you also wants you to be a psychic. And the person will help you if you talk vague, and which makes the teller seems like a really good psychic. 

Part 2:

Do the Baby Einstein videos make your kids smart or dumber?

The Baby Einstein videos are videos you give your kids to watch and listen at the age around 1 to 3, and they show language, poetry, and music. It's supposedly said that it helps the growth of the baby's mind, and makes it smarter and more creative. 

A big percent of the parents think that these videos really do help their kids. 

This Baby Einstein videos was started by a teacher named Julie Aigner Clark.

Many people sued the baby Einstein company saying that this doesn't help at all, and it's actually harming the children, because many of the children at the age of 2 watch way too much of the videos. 

Einstein said that he's not talented, he's just passionate about what he does. The Baby Einstein company said that their videos actually make the passion in the children much earlier and stronger than before. 

Videos can't interact with the children; by reading to your children, they can interrupt you and interact with you. 

Science Myth of the Week: 

Many people think that shaving off hair from any part of the body will make the hair grow darker and thicker. Is this true? 

No, it doesn't! It just mainly depends on genetics and hormones. 

The hair is softer at the end, so when you shave it off, it seems like the hair became thicker. Another thing is that when men and women age, we get more hair and it does get darker. It's not because you shaved it. 

The Reality Check Episode 31

Evolution Acceptance + Zeitgeist + Staring at the Sun

Eclipse

Part 1: 

This this the Reality Check is going to talk about the public understanding of evolution, and if that matters or not. And then the nature of ignorance and possible communication problems. 

In July 2008, and there was a poll that went like this: 

1: Human beings evolve from less advanced lifeforms over millions of years?

2: God created human beings with their present forms in the last 10000 years.

58% of the people went for the millions of years, 22% of the people went for 10000 years, and the rest just wasn't sure. That means 42% of the population doesn't really know anything about evolution at all. 

The looked at who checked which box and concluded that a person with a college degree is more likely to know the answer, but only 71% of them. And men are more likely to accept evolution. But still there is around 42% of the people thought dinosaurs and humans coexisted, so we can see that the idea of evolution isn't really out there yet. Generally speaking, the polls are worse for the US citizens, and only a little better for Britain. Then it was found that 5% of adults thought Darwin wrote a brief history of time which was actually written by Steven Hawking. 

This is crazy! It's hard to believe that so many people don't know so many things these days. You don't even have to go to school to know about Charles Darwin and evolution. There is something wrong with our world, and all our societies. 

We know, of course, that not everyone has the opportunity and the chance to learn about these kind of things. But, another thing is if people have the opportunity to learn, or they do know but reject it. 

Part 2:

Zeitgeist is a documentary made in 2007 that talks about the origin of christian faith, how American banks have seized world power at the beginning of the 20th century, and how these 2 items are related to the wars fought in the 20th and 21st century. 

The first part is called the greatest story ever told. It basically talks about how Jesus Christ is fake and it's passed down from ancient Egyptian mythology about the sun god. It gave evidence on the astrology and the astronomy, which according to the Reality Check is just bogus, it's just all crap. 

Part two talks about 9/11 conspiracy beliefs. It's just all basically crap with unconvincing evidence. 

The third part of the movie is about money and banks, and how the economy is all controlled by the government messing with the citizens. Another thing is that banks are profitable from wars, therefore, banks make wars. 

It also talks about a lot of things that just aren't true and crap. 

So, in conclusion, don't watch it!

Science Myth of the Week:

Would you go blind if you stare at the Sun?

We know that when there's a solar eclipse, you are not suppose to look at the eclipse with your naked eye because you'll go blind. The truth is that when the sun is blocked by the moon, that is okay, but the black spots on your eyes will expand and when the moon moves away from the sun, your eyes will get hurt because of the contrast is too much. 

The Reality Check Episode 30

Homosexuality/Natural? + Teaching 9/11 Truth + Friday 13th Accident Rates

Part 1:

Is homosexuality natural? 

What does natural mean? It's actually really hard to define what natural is. Natural can mean anything, because everything is created by nature. It can also mean everything but anything that has something to do with humans. So, what does natural mean? There's this book by G. E. Moore called Principia Ethica, which Moore wrote in 1903 and discussed the term naturalistic fallacy. This is the argument that whatever is natural is good. Even though there are many definitions of natural, let's just say that natural is basically what happens in the wild. 

All the creatures that have to have sex to reproduce have been found to have homosexuality in them. At least now we know that it's not just humans. So, the answer is yes, homosexuality is very natural. 

Another thing is that homosexuality in humans is a lot more complicated. A lot of the times of course is because of how they are born, but something it's cultural pressure and other situations that made them that way. 

Part 2: 

Should we teaching this conspiracy in universities? 

There are several professors who came together to put together a video declaring academic persecution because they are not allowed to teach the conspiracy on 9/11, and that the Bush government was behind 9/11. Of course the professors will teach all sides of the story and then let the people make up their own minds on which of the stories to believe. Now, most of the 9/11 theorists are taking in Darwin's idea about evolution, hoe change must occur for natural selection to take place. There professors say that they know people who got fired for suggesting there is a conspiracy at all for 9/11. 

So, if these professors are so smart, how come they didn't find other stories from the other side and see which is more persuasive? 

They also blamed Bush for Building 7, which collapsed because of all the debris that went crashing into it. People thought the government didn't care at all, because there wasn't any firefighters there at all when it was burning to the ground, and it was a controlled attack. The truth was that the firefighters found out that the building was collapsing already, and they pulled all the people out. 

They also said that it couldn't have collapsed because the fire is not hot enough to melt the steel. The truth is that under the room temperature, and because of the fire, it weakened the steel. The stabilizer was on the outside where the plane crashed into, that's another reason. 

So these professors let the dogma to fog up their views and they are not being their roles. 

Science Myth of the Week: 

Does more accidents happen just because it's Friday the 13th? 

There was a study published in 1993 by the Department of Public Health, they basically concluded that Friday the 13th is unlucky for some, the risk of hospital admissions as a result of a transport accident may increase by 52%, stay at home is recommended. It's probably because of this report, many people think that it is more dangerous. But, this wasn't a good research, because they only took two samples. 

There are several research done by the Finnish. There's one published in 2002 by the Department of Public Health in somewhere in Finland. They did the experiment from 1995 to 1997, they looked at all the fridays. The conclusion is that Friday the 13th may be dangerous day for women, largely because of anxiety from superstition. 

There is another study done in Finland, in Helsinki. They looked at everything, and they found that there was no significant differences at all. 

So, there is no consistent evidence for any of the results. What we can say is that there is no difference, it's just another day. 

The Reality Check Episode 29

The Nocebo Effect+Circumcision/AIDS+Chicken Eggs Myth

Part 1:

What is the Nocebo Effect? It's actually the opposite of the Placebo Effect, it's just tricking someone to think that they have been cursed, or you have injected a poison into them when you didn't at all. The name Nocebo is translated directly from Latin, meaning "I will harm". This term was chosen by Walter kennedy in 1961. It wasn't really popular and known until 1990s. 

There was an experiment in Japan where they took around 50 boys and split them into two groups. The first group, they told them that they are going to inject a tiny bit of poison into them, and it will turn itchy and red later. They told the other group that they are just going to inject a harmless liquid, when in fact, they are injecting the poison. It turns out that the boys that thought they were being poisoned started to become red and really itchy, and the other group, nothing happened at all. So, basically, just believe affects a lot. 

Of course there is a limit over the effects, just because you think you have cancer, it won't mean that it will come true. There are only a few minor things such as headaches and rashes, which will come true if you really believe it. 

Part 2:

Does male circumcision really reduce the transmission of HIV? 

So, what is circumcision? It's the removal of some or all of the foreskin from the penis. 

What is HIV? Human immunodeficiency virus is a lentivirus (a member of the theretrovirus family) that causes acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), a condition in humans in which the immune system begins to fail, leading to life-threatening opportunistic infections. HIV has killed millions and millions of people already. 

So does circumcision really reduce the transmission of HIV? Yes, it does! 

Science Myth of the Week:

Does my grocery store sell aborted chicken fetuses? 

The eggs that we get from the supermarket are on the ones that are unfertilized eggs. These kinds of eggs are produced doesn't matter if there is a rooster or not. 

The Reality Check Episode 28

The Sun's True Colour+Google Atlantis+Great Wall of China Myth

Part 1:

What color is the sun? Is it yellow or not? Of course we are now talking about from the perspective of "most" humans, because other creatures might have the ability to see things we can't see. 

The light we see usually in our daily life is around 380-780nm. So if the wavelength coming from the sun is around 700, then it's red, isn't it? Not exactly.

Most scientists on the planet agree that the surface temperature of the sun is around 5500C. The sun seems to admit blue or greenish colors when you actually look at it. Other people say that it admits yellow. But it is argued that it is not yellow, because when we see the color yellow, it's where the sun's flame peaks, so it plays tricks with our eyes. But then let's look at it in another way, it doesn't admit yellow light, when it shines on a white piece of paper, it doesn't go yellow. It's actually really hard to determine, because you can't just look at the sun for a long time, and it depends on where you are. If you are in space, it will look different. So, the sun is actually white, cause it admits transparent energy! 

When you keep looking at the sun though, other weird colors appears and overlaps. Don't do that, cause it will hurt your retina. But according to scientists, it's okay to look at it for 30 seconds, that's the safe range. 

Atlantis

Part 2:

Atlantis has been found? People have been searching for this place for thousands of years. And Jan, 2009, someone thought they found Atlantis. They claim it to be a bit far out from Africa. 

So, people went on Google Ocean to see if it's true or not. And they did see a lot of straight lines parallel to each other. It looked really man made, but is it? People thought they were roads. But the Reality Check actually went around and browsed the ocean, and the grid they found is everywhere. In the end it was just a grid google used to make sure everything is in place. 

So, Atlantis was a naval power around 9600 BC, which conquered many parts of Europe and Africa, it was mainly described as being a military threat. It sank in the ocean in a single night.

The records of Atlantis came out when plato wrote about it, and every other book or story about Atlantis is based on what Plato said, so it might not even be true. Because Plato was a philosopher, and not a historian. It is said that he heard all these from fishermen. But looking at what we have today, we still can't say that Atlantis is real or not. 

Science Myth of the Week: 

It is said that out of all the man made structures, only The Great Wall can be seen from space. So is it true?

It is not, you cannot see the Great Wall from space. 

The Reality Check Episode 27

Scientific Progress

Part 1:

Scientific progress, is it really happening? Can we even talk about process? Of course we can, we just to define our terms, once we do, then we can talk about if it's happening or not. 

Progress according to the Reality Check is that the scientific method has allowed greater predictability and specificity about the natural world. So according to this defined term, then there is progress going on. 

"When people thought the Earth was flat, thy were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." - Issac Asimov

Many many people argue about how Darwin was wrong about evolution because a certain kind of species of bacteria actually share their genes with each other. Some other people argue about how Newton is wrong because when you use the equation at the speed of light, the whole thing goes haywire. But that doesn't mean we should just throw away their theories and ideas! Darwin can then said to be right for most caes, and Newton is right in our physical world, because everything we can test here today fits his laws perfectly. 

So, has there been progress? Yes, there is more and more predictability in life today. But no as well because of all these discoveries and ideas are killing our planet. So, we have to define our terms. 

The reason we people put so much trust into everyday life science is because it helps things become predictable and makes our lives easier. 

"The pencil is mightier than the pen." Robert M. Pirsig

The Reality Check Episode 26

Evolution's History+Carbon Dating

The Origin of Species

Part 1:

The Reality Check is going to do a general introduction, explore various issues about evolution, a little bit about intelligence design, and evolution psychology. 

"If I were to given an award for the single best idea anyone has ever had, I'd give it to Darwin, ahead of Newton and Einstein. And everyone else. In a single stroke, the idea of evolution by natural selection unifies the realm of life, meaning, and purpose with the realm of space and time, cause and effect, mechanism and physical law. But it is not just a wonderful scientific idea. It is a dangerous idea." - Daniel Dennett

So we are going to look at the how the idea of natural selection came to be, and the argument of design. 

There are three main things that are required for evolution to occur. The first thing is heritability. Second is variety and diversity. Last is selection. If all three of these exists, then you can have natural selection. 

Darwin was deeply effected by Sir Charles Lyell's book called Principles of Geology. Big things can happen over time, and things that seems fixed can be changing. Another theory Darwin got into his head was populations will just grow unchecked until something checks them. Basically creatures' populations will just grow and grow unless something makes them die. This was where Darwin probably got the idea of natural selection. He probably thought since things can change only a tiny bit over a long period of time, why can't the population and species do so?

At first evolution was called transmutation. People thought we are all fixed and can only be changed by mutation. There were many small published articles anonymously, so people didn't really take notice, but when Darwin published it with his name, it held a lot of weight on his name. 

William Paley came out and said that when you come across a design of just anything magnificent or beautiful, you would think that there would have to be a designer. This was when he used natural selection to try and prove the existence of God. 

Now on to evolutionary psychology, it basically states that the brain evolved like all other organism, and the behavior we now have are influenced by the genes we had a long time ago.  

Whichever sex invests more in offsprings will tend to be more selective and thus the other sex will compete for their attention. 

So basically the Darwinian idea of natural selection provides a refutation to the argument from design and explanations on how organisms developed, why there are certain constraints, as evolution has no foresight and can only modify what is already produced, and the underlying biological framer which various cultures influence to produce us.

"Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." - Charles Darwin (Origins of Species)

Part 2: 

For most people, we mostly think scientists use Carbon dating for all fossils and it's the best way. But, actually you can only use it to find the age of something that's around 6500 years old, anything older than that, you'll have to use another method. It's pretty much useless for really ancient stuff, such as dinosaurs, but it can be used for a big part of human history.