Still More Evidence for Evolution 1482
Uche writes: "Biologists at the University of California, San Diego have uncovered the first genetic evidence that explains how large-scale alterations to body plans were accomplished during the early evolution of animals."
Not "more evidence for evolution" (Score:3, Insightful)
Many details of evolution are not understood, particularly the genetic mechanisms. This new discovery helps answer some of those questions, but it doesn't make evolution any more "real" than it already is. It's possible we haven't discovered every moon or even every planet in our solar system, but that doesn't mean the sun may actually revolve around the earth after all. We're pretty sure we haven't found all of the subatomic particles, and we still don't agree on what makes gravity, but physics is still secure and we don't expect the Red Sea to part on its own.
Accepting Creationism means tossing out all of established science. Creationism is the adversary of all science, not just Darwinian evolution.
Re:Evolution WILL happen (Score:2, Insightful)
Jerry Springer's audience aside, the genetically fit are more likely to pass their genes on, and their offspring are more likely to survive. What makes an individual genetically more or less fit may or may not match your notions of genetically inferior or superior, but that is irrelevant.
Re:Not "more evidence for evolution" (Score:2, Insightful)
Bleh (Score:5, Insightful)
Creationist: It was designed that way.
Seriously though, that article seemed a little light on details. It appears that there are two articles [nature.com] on the Nature site.
Re:Evolution WILL happen (Score:3, Insightful)
What does this mean? Human beings will continue to become more intelligent, probably taller, and probably more beautiful.
Intelligence creates material success, which is a prize factor for breeding.
But why only probably more beautiful? Beauty is fairly relative, and for the human race to become more beautuful there has to be prolonged cultural stability.
So we will stop being wolves and start being domestic dogs.
So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
"God," they go on to say, "we no longer need you. Anything you can do, we can do. We know now how everything works."
"Is that so?" God responds. "Well, in that case, how about a contest? You create a man, and I'll create a man and we'll see which turns out better."
"Agreed," the scientists repond.
"But," God continues, "you'll have to do it like I did and create a man from the dirt."
"Not a problem," the scientists chortle, knowing enough to be able to resequence basic elements into complex structures like DNA. So, in unison, the scientists get out their beakers, bend down, and scoop up some dirt.
"Whoa, whoa, whoa," God says. "You get your own dirt."
My point? Evolution is a non issue. The real debate is in the origin of the framework by which everything evolves. Scientists playing with DNA can make pretty much anything happen. But they still can't create matter with a thought.
- JoeShmoe
.
So what indeed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Troubling (Score:3, Insightful)
There have been several calls over the last year in the scientific press to attempt to get scientists to take the "propogation of science" throughout the population more seriously, and this includes point out where challengers (such as creationism) fall short of the mark.
I remember also several articles in New Scientist and Scientific American trying to motivate scientists to "spread the word" against creationism. Perhaps it's just a response to that.
Simon
It's a shame (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a shame that UCSD found it necessary to refer to the creationist bugbear. Creationism has been dead and buried for well over a century except in the USA, where it lives on as a political movement impervious to scientific discussion. Scientists should deny it the courtesy of appearing to take it seriously.
Behe Refuted (Score:3, Insightful)
The book basis its premace on six fallacies:
Fallacy one: There is a boundary between the molecular world and other levels of biological organization.
Fallacy two: The current utility of a given feature (molecular or otherwise) explains "why" the feature originally evolved.
Fallacy three: Unless we can identify advantages for each imaginary gradual step leading to a contemporary bit of biochemistry, we cannot invoke a Darwinian explanation.
Fallacy four: Molecular evolution: "a lot of sequences, some math, and no answers."
Fallacy five: There is a conspiracy of silence among scientists concerning the failure of Darwinian explanation.
Fallacy six: The evolution of complexity is unaddressed and unexplained.
More: Darwin's Black Box Review [amsci.org]
Behe's empty box
"Behe's colossal mistake is that, in rejecting these possibilities, he concludes that no Darwinian solution remains. But one does. It is this: An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become-because of later changes-essential. The logic is very simple. Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps). Another part (B) later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn't essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as further parts get folded into the system. And at the end of the day, many parts may all be required."
"The point is there's no guarantee that improvements will remain mere improvements. Indeed because later changes build on previous ones, there's every reason to think that earlier refinements might become necessary. The transformation of air bladders into lungs that allowed animals to breathe atmospheric oxygen was initially just advantageous: such beasts could explore open niches-like dry land-that were unavailable to their lung-less peers. But as evolution built on this adaptation (modifying limbs for walking, for instance), we grew thoroughly terrestrial and lungs, consequently, are no longer luxuries-they are essential. The punch-line is, I think, obvious: although this process is thoroughly Darwinian, we are often left with a system that is irreducibly complex. I'm afraid there's no room for compromise here: Behe's key claim that all the components of an irreducibly complex system 'have to be there from the beginning' is dead wrong."
[b]The Fallacy of Conclusion by Analogy[/b]
When it comes to explaining science to the public, analogies and metaphors are essential tools of the trade. We all can better understand something new and unusual, when it is compared to something we already know: a cell is like a factory, the eye is like a camera, an atom is like a billiard ball, a biochemical system is like a mouse trap. An A is like a B, means A shares some conceptual properties with B. It does not mean A has all the properties of B. It does not follow that what is true for B is therefore true for A. Analogies can be used to explain science, but analogies cannot be used to draw conclusions or falsify scientific theories. Yet Behe commits this fallacy throughout his book.
For example:
[ol][li]A mousetrap is "irreducibly complex" - it requires all of its parts to work properly.
[li]A mousetrap is a product of design.
[li]The bacterial flagellum is "irreducibly complex" - it requires all of its parts to work properly.
[li]Therefore the flagellum is like a mouse trap.
[li]Therefore the flagellum is a product of design.
More: Features: Behe's empty box [spacelab.net]
Publish or Perish
On page 179 of Darwin's Black Box Michael Behe claims:
"There has never been a meeting, or a book, or a paper on details of the evolution of complex biochemical systems."
He closes the chapter with this ludicrous statement:
"In effect, the theory of Darwinian molecular evolution has not published, and so it should perish"
(Did someone say publish or perish?: The Elusive Scientific Basis of Intelligent Design Theory)
To be honest, I suspect that the extent of detail Behe is demanding would require a combination cutting-edge biochemistry lab and a time machine. How else can science fully recover, for example, every single step in the evolution of the bacterial flagellum that took place billions of years ago?
More: Publish or Perish [talkorigins.org]
Review of Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box (1998)
For those who have not already encountered this book or one of its numerous reviews, let me simply say that the author sets out to argue that the organic world is so complex, particularly at the level of molecular biology and biochemistry, that Darwinian evolution cannot possibly have led to it. As evolution cannot produce irreducibly complex systems (the blood-clotting process, for instance, the biochemist's analogue of the eye), they must be the outcome of the activities of an Intelligent Designer. In other words, the book is a tiresome reworking at the molecular level of the timeworn "design" argument.
So much has already been written by reviewers of this book that it seems unnecessary to add anything more (go to ahref=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/publis
More: Review of Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box (1998) [infidels.org]
Re:Well done lads, collective pat on the back (Score:3, Insightful)
A professor of Creatonism? que?
Re:Not "more evidence for evolution" (Score:2, Insightful)
Ianac (Christian), but I really feel I must take exception to this very one-sided view. I accept evolution. I know a lot of Christians who accept evolution too. Creationism is not the "adversary" of science. Creationism and evolutionism can co-exist and even complement each other quite happily. Your view on whether everything started because of God, or some random happenstance, is completely irrelevant if you have any kind of critical thinking ability.
Die-hard, zealoty Christians who interpret the bible completely literally and have no basic reasoning ability (the Earth is only five thousand years old, anyone who says otherwise is a liar under the influence of Satan...okay slightly extreme but you know the type)--these people are the "adversaries" of science. If they didn't have Christianity, they'd find something else.
Unicorns in flower-pots (Score:5, Insightful)
Aha. I agree that the Creator that you mention exists, but did you also know that He was Created by a Unicorn in a Flower-Pot?
What's that ? You don't believe me ? Well, that's just because you are afraid to meet the Unicorn in the Flower-pot!Re:Well done lads, collective pat on the back (Score:5, Insightful)
Professors and teachers of evolution themselves admit that it is nothing more than a theory. Creationism is also, admitted by the professors of said doctrine, to also be a theory.
Creationism holds about as much water as a scientific theory as geocentrism does, i.e. NONE. If it weren't in the frickin Bible you nutbags wouldn't have any reason WHATSOEVER to think that the entire biological population was made bow-zap 4K years ago or so. Why? Because there is no physical evidence whatsoever to back it up! None!
Where are the dinosaurs in the Bible, my little buckaroo? You'd certainly figger that something as mind-bogglingly large as a brontosaurus might just be MENTIONED once or twice.
Oh yes, and your First Amendment rights stop right where my nose begins. I don't want MY kids being taught that religious claptrap, thanks very much. And I am, for the record, a parent. I don't want them begin taught that Xenu is a "viable alternative," or that we all sprouted from the forehead of Zeus, or WHATEVER creation myth you care to throw out there. Science, pure science, and damn be he who first cries "Hold! Too much!"
- Rev.Re:Troubling (Score:4, Insightful)
For many of us 'creationist-bashers' its exactly this type of comment that gets us pissed off. 'Mere beasts'!!! 'Spark Plug'!!! WTF
I won't scream 'show me the evidence!' I won't scream 'when your dead your dead - deal with it!'
I'll simply say stop being so damn arrogant. We're just a lucky lump of carbon and water that happens to be able to use tools and stuff - big wow!
Plenty more where we came from I'll bet.
Re:Well done lads, collective pat on the back (Score:3, Insightful)
This is an extremely flawed argument that creationists like to use in an attempt to use scientists' intellectual rigor against them. Unfortunately, it relies on a misunderstanding of exactly what a "theory" is.
To quote Stephen Jay Gould, "evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts." You can read the entire thing here [google.com], and I would recommend it for any creationists in the house.
It seems that under the First Amendment, that both theories should be taught, and let everyone decide for themselves.
So any crackpot theory should be taught in schools? Including the ridiculous ones which theorize that many ancient monuments were created by extraterrestrials, or that astrology is valid in any way?
This seems to be yet another instance of the government telling us what we should think.
Kind of a blatant way to appeal to the average slashdotter's distrust of government; so blatant, in fact, that even the most credulous reader will see right through it.
Why take so called "Creationism" seriously? (Score:4, Insightful)
Wake up US people, you are just helping the superstition by making comparisons between a logical, scientific theory and a superstition. They are not even apples and oranges, they are apples and fiends.
Re:Troubling (Score:4, Insightful)
> I also believe in creation to the extent that some higher being at one point installed the last "spark plug", if you will, in order to give humans that certain something extra that separates us from mere beasts.
Your delusions arise from the false assumption that we are separate from 'mere' beasts. The more we learn about the other apes, the more we realize that all the "humans only" stuff is merely a difference in degree of ability, not some great unbridgeable gap.
Re:Evolution WILL happen (Score:1, Insightful)
Muahahahah, someone who passes on their genes is obviously not genetical inferior to anything, you silly moron.
Re:Creation vs. Evolution debate at my university (Score:4, Insightful)
> The creationists mostly lied the whole time.
I've never been to a creationist debate, but from what I've read about them their SOP involves -
- Pack the audience with True Believers (sometimes by bussing, though that probably wouldn't be necessary at a university).
- Use their clock time to throw out scores of false claims, each of which would take the scientists several minutes to refute.
The net result is the appearance of having won. And of course that's all their striving for, since the movement is political rather than scientific.You're Thinking Too Hard :-) (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're missing the point. This sort of thing isn't really taking a stand on the issue you're talking about, although we all tend to jump right to that anyway. Like you said, it can't be proven (or at least, we have absolutely no conception as to how to prove it right now) but what they are finding is the mechanism by which these things happen.
Before you discount the importance of this in the face of "God/No God", think of this: where would we be if Newton hadn't told us that, yes, the universe does have rules. Pasteur told us that, yes, there is something tangible (not just "sin") that causes disease. It might not directly be addressing your fundamental question, but it is an important thing to answer for both sides of the debate, as well as anyone in the middle or way out in left field. If you're looking to understand God or the Universe or something else entirely, discoveries like these help to realign your perceptions about how the world works in very jarring and enlightening ways. You don't have to go around believing you got the plague because you were a bad person, even though you thought you did everything right. You don't have to believe that there was a storm because you were destined to wind up at the bottom of the ocean for that affair you had. You can believe these things if you want to, but you gain the freedom and knowledge to make a more informed decision than our ancestors were able to make.
That, in my opinion, is the ultimate form of progress.
This does not really impact the fundamental question that you're addressing at all, nor does it take away from the beauty of the world around us. Indeed, I think things like this only serve to enrich both, and I find it sad that most people use these sorts of findings just to deconstruct the world for science or God.
Re:Troubling (Score:5, Insightful)
Since creationists (I'm not counting just the belief that humans have a divine something as creationism) are going out of their way to discredit science, is that too unreasonable? The difference is that the scientists do it using the results of solid research, and the creationists do it by bullshit and lies. So it isn't really stooping to the same level.
This isn't really "more evidence for evolution" and more than gravity wave detectors are supposed to give us "more evidence for gravity" to refute flat-earthers. This is evidence about more detail of how evolution happens.
Re:Bias (Score:2, Insightful)
Let me start by saying that I'm not a rabid evolutionist, nor am I a rabid creationist. I suppose I could be called a very weak theist, but those of you who aren't philosophers should probably just think of me as agnostic. It's not exactly accurate, as I believe that there is something greater than myself, but I'm not nearly so arrogant as to say that I know what that something is (or anything else that is essentially unknowable).
In response to pkplex: they're trying to prove evolution for the same reason that you are trying to prove your very specific version of creationism; they think that it's true. They ARE looking for truth, though you (and I) might disagree with where they're looking for it.
Noah's ark has been found, eh? If that was actually a known true statement, rather than just something that someone said and you believed (much like the theory of evolution is to others) then you'd have a very good point. I don't think you do. Here are a few very quick questions about The Ark. Dimensions for it are, as you said, given in the Old Testament. 300 cubits x 50 cubits x 30 cubits. A cubit is approximately 18 inches (it's actually a measurement from a person's elbow to the tip of the person's middle finger). We therefor have (with dimensions for my fellow Americans) 450' x 75' x 45'. This is quite the engineering project for one man and his family. The acquisition of the gopher-wood and cypress that was to be used in its construction would have been rather fun for several people. Oh, and the bible says that it was done by Noah, not by Noah and God. Let's assume, though, that it was a success, and all of the animals were brought onboard, and they all had enough to eat (including the carnivores), and everyone disembarked merrily after the end of the flood. What do the carnivores now eat? What about the herbivores? If even one member of any species (save human) died at this point, the entire species would be wiped out. Oh, and if the "God will protect them" argument is used, why not just have him float them and forget the whole "Ark" nonsense? Or just have him kill all the people that the flood was intended to kill? Even assuming they all have enough to eat AFTER the flood, what about genetic diversity? Two members of a species do not a diverse population make.
You also point out that there is historical evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ. Good for you. I'm going to pull a similar trick: I exist. Amazing, I know. I don't, however, have a religious following. It's one thing for Jesus Christ to be a historical figure. It's another thing entirely for him to have been exactly as portrayed by a group of writings picked during a convention a little before 400 AD (I want to say 397 AD, but that might be off by a bit).
I agree that life has order and design; as I said, I'm a theist. But the existence of order and design in the universe (and even if one believes in evolution, one must either believe in an almost limitless multiverse or in a designed universe for one's beliefs to be taken seriously) does not point a person toward any particular religion. What it CAN do is point a person away from certain false systems of belief.
You're looking for a better explanation of life than is being handed you be the scientific community in general. Great. Just don't use bad arguments and the assumption that your personal religious beliefs are unquestionable truths to attack evolution. Come at it with something of substance.
Re:Not "more evidence for evolution" (Score:3, Insightful)
> Gathering more evidence bolsters a theory in an inductive reasoning sense, but in the framework above, you can only prove for sure that theories are false.
True enough, but that's how all science works. You gather up all the hypotheses that claim to explain the available evidence, apply Occam's Razor, and go with the result until new evidence demands otherwise.
And while the result isn't 'true' in the same sense as a mathematical theorem or a boolean variable, on the big scale it seems to work very well in practice. Yes, we twiddle the details all the time, but big theories like the heliocentric solar system, gravity, atomic theory, evolution, etc. seem to stand the test of time. The only one I can think of that has undergone substantial revision after general acceptance is the replacement of Newtonian physics with Einsteinian relativity, and even that was nothing more than extending a specific case to a more general framework.
When creationists argue that "evolution is just a theory" they reveal first that they don't understand basic science, and second that they don't have anything constructive to offer toward an explanation of the universe.
Re:Evolution WILL happen (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Evolution WILL happen (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not "more evidence for evolution" (Score:4, Insightful)
> Come on get real. Evolution is accepted as fact by *those who don't want to believe in God*, because it implies no accountability.
Actually, very many educated people who believe in god also recognize the validity of the theory of evolution. I understand that the Pope has even made a formal declaration that the ToE is acceptable.
Just because your twisted branch of religious belief rejects science, it does not follow that all branches do.
> Creationists do *not* toss out "all of established science".
They sure toss out a lot of it, because so much of it conflicts with their religious beliefs. They start by throwing out evolution, then end up throwing out the rest of biology, physics, geology, and archaeology because they all offer support to the biologists' discoveries. History, while not generally considered "a science", also gets thrown out because it doen't offer them a gap to hide Noah's flood in. Then they also have to throw out astronomy and planetology because those disciplines support the true age of the earth instead of one particular mythical one.
The problem with creationists is that they don't understand the mass of mutually-supporting evidence that the theory of evolution is founded on, so when they try to throw it out they end up recursively throwing out most of science in an effort to support their denials.
> have a degree in comp sci - that's science, right? (as in computer SCIENCE, for the terminally stupid). I have a scientific approach to life. I just don't happen to believe I am a random product of electrocuted sludge, which although postulated about until the cows come home has never actually been *proven*
You reveal that you have no understanding of science. Science doesn't deal in proofs (unless you want to count mathematics and logic as fields of science). Science deals in economical explanations of evidence.
It's a shame that comp sci is usually offered in the College of Natural Sciences rather than in the College of Engineering where it belongs; it's an even greater shame that schools are letting people graduate with a degree from the College of Natural Sciences without even knowing what science is.
> except for the circular "well we're here so it must have happened that way" nonsense that many people seem to accept
Sounds more like creationist claims than scientists' claims.
> and the awfully convenient "millions of years" stuff which means it can't be demonstrated in a lab in a short time
Since you've already shown your ignorance of science I guess I shouldn't be surprized to discover that you are unaware that lots of science happens outside the laboratory. FWIW, evolution is studied in the lab quite a bit more than astronomy and geology are.
Re:Control genes (Score:5, Insightful)
100 years back, if you were diabetic, asthmatic, blind, deaf, had severe allergies, etc, then you didn't get to breed - in fact you were lucky if you lived past childhood. Back another 100 years, and short-sightedness would be a major problem. These days, those illnesses are curable through modern drugs, so sufferers can continue their line. We can already see the end result in humans today - more people require eyesight correction, more people have asthma and similar problems, etc. Generally the human race is getting a frailer immune system and is producing less accurate copies of the "standard".
I'm not advocating eugenics here to get a "pure race" back!
Note that if you took the medicine away, the human race (at least the Western version) would become an extremely unstable system and many people would die. This is a good example of a naturally-unstable system being kept in stability by an external control system.
Grab.
Re:Well done lads, collective pat on the back (Score:3, Insightful)
These are all 'theories' as well...
Re:Not "more evidence for evolution" (Score:3, Insightful)
True scientists question theories to find what's right. They take a hypothesis, test it against real-world results, see if it fits, and keep going until they get a hypothesis which _does_ match the real world as accurately as possible. If two people come up with opposing hypotheses which both fit the data, they'll argue about why they're each right, and in the end science will either (a) find further data to prove one or the other, or (b) find a way to merge them into a single entity.
Creationists OTOH start not with a hypothesis but what they think they know as a fact, ie. creation by God in 6 days, in the year 4004BC. As a creationist, this is the only possible outcome - if you believe in creation, it is impossible for you to believe that any evolution has occurred, by definition. So if there's data which disproves creation, the only way ahead is to (a) ignore or (b) attempt to discredit that data (or the person providing the data), which creationists have done throughout the 20th century.
We don't believe in evolution bcos "we're here so it must be true", we believe in it bcos it fits the data gathered from all sciences, ie. a world several billion years old, geology, fossils, and the range of body forms for creatures. Certainly there's gaps in it, but there's less gaps than in the Biblical creation theory, and every development in biology has supported evolution and cast further doubt on creationism.
Grab.
Positive Mutations & Antibiotics (Score:5, Insightful)
What about antibiotic resistant bacteria? A relatively quick case of evolution in action. Obviously not a positive mutation from our viewpoint - but a positive one from the organism's viewpoint.
Re:Any European creationists out there? (Score:2, Insightful)
It hard to be hardlined and see the world in black and white only if you have so much history to deal with.
Also things tent to move more slowly and being dutch with much more communication... Nothing is really deside anymore, we agree upon a common plan and that is it then. It's just to hard to agree on religious and political and other dogmatic idears so in most cases we make a exception for those.
This is however not really european, it's dutch. I mean in Greace and in France many religious groups are restricted just because the officials are of another group. That is just bad, and de european courts agree, but nothing much happens. This is a very sad time to be an European.
Americans seem to use to be irrational. The current president thinks very much in black and white. We on this side don't have the luxery of ignorence anymore, everything is and are shades of grey now.
My view is that microevolution is working.
Also: God created the universe and de planet earth a long long time ago, a really long time ago. Then God made the planet in 6 periodes like it is, and right now we are living in the 7th periode (I guess a creation day is a bit longer then 24hours)... and by the time the 7th day ends God will have restored the world to what would have been had Adam not sined. Humans will be perfect and life forver in peace and happyness... Just think of the progress that would be posible then!
Also I think that God created the species after their kind. However, Mozes defines a specie as follows: Two individuals are of the same kind/specie if and only if they share a common ancestor. Evolutionist do not see it that way
Re:Neo-darwinists and neo-creationists (Score:3, Insightful)
I would expect that most people who think clearly about these things wind up "neodarwinists." The point is to come up with an explanation for "all the other processes of life" and we would be commiting classicly flawed logic if we used the-things-to-be-explained as the basis of the explanation.
If evolution depended on the existence of complex processes of life to work, it would be useless and likely wrong.
As it turns out, however, you can explain it all (including reto-viruses, co-operation, and even the first post trolls) as a simple consequnce of random mutation and natural selection.
Your statement is akin to fearing that "a lot of physisists are neonewtonist--they think everything can be explained in terms of a few types of forces acting on a few types of particles." In many cases you want to look at the higher consequences just to keep from swamping in the details, but you shouldn't slip into confusing consequences with causes.
-- MarkusQ
Moving goalposts (Score:3, Insightful)
In children, this attitude is cute and interesting. In philosophers, it's part of the trade. In adults making a reasoned argument, it's ingenuous and artificial.
Please snap out of it.
Re:Creation vs. Evolution debate at my university (Score:3, Insightful)
I was one of those teenagers. Not in the debate you are describing, but one held at Colorado State University back around 1980. The debate was very useful in that I came away from it suitably impressed by the clear victory of the biology professor who was debating the creationist Duane Gish.
After the debate that I attended, I began reading outside of the narrow list of 'scientists' my church and parochial school presented me with. It didn't take me long to learn the difference between evidence and belief.
I think it proves very well the point John Stuart Mill made in On Liberty: any idea should be debated. If it's not true, it will be exposed; if it is, it will be strengthened.
Re:Well done lads, collective pat on the back (Score:5, Insightful)
So is all of science. In science you observe the world and come up with an explanation (a theory). Then you see how far that takes you. Theories let you understand how things work and are used to build things. For example, there is a theory of elecricity, which makes it possible for you to read this post.
An important property of a real theory that in principle you can present evidence to falsify it. What evidence would you present to falsify creationism?
It seems that under the First Amendment, that both theories should be taught, and let everyone decide for themselves.
First Amendment gives you the right to speak for creationims, but it does not give you the right to force others to listen.
Having said that, I wish they would teach both in science classrooms. Just explain the evidence for both: genetics, fossils, geology for evolution and some old book written by ancient men for creationism. Then let the kids sort it out.
Re:Real computer scientists vs. evolution. (Score:4, Insightful)
Second, nobody said you need to grow a fully formed stomach when there was none before. I've already has this conversation on
Stop thinking stomach, and start thinking proto-organs, or even single cells that exist symbiotically within another organism. Ameobas don't have stomachs, they have, I dunno, specialised cell groupings that secrete a 'digestive' chemical that extracts nutrients from any external piece of whatever that happens to float by. This is not a "chicken/egg" problem, so stop coming at it from that angle. As for those 999,999 generations of nonworking "stomachs": that took a whole 2 or 3 days of debugging in a pond somewhere to get the right one, way back 600 million yrs ago. After that it was just code tweaking.
What is it with people and evolution, that they can't imagine some slimy chemical mud that has "intent" - in so far as it gravitates toward another chemical gradient (food) - being alive?
Imagine Q or Rod Serling standing next to a small puddle explaining this to you OK? Here we have a pool of chemical x that naturally moves towards chemical y. In a few moments, this chemical soup will undergo a common reaction involving common chemicals. It will become "alive". It will contain a few simple organic compounds that, given some quiet time to themselves, will intermingle and maybe even begin to replicate - the ablity to harvest nearby chemical compounds and assemble them in a *near* mirror image. Hell some of those compunds can be from other "proto-organisms" and we already have predator and prey evolving. Neat huh?
Asking how stomachs and eyeballs formed while imagining them as real functioning eyeballs and assholes is like asking how you get a fully formed modern man equipped with a cell-phone -- from a club-swinging neanderthal. You don't. Because the neanderthal never picked up a club with the express purpose of building a cell-phone. If he did, he would have quickly found that he was without the proper environment to create one, let alone NEED one.
So too, did early life not set out to outfit itself with a stomach, but instead went for the more practical "I just found a new way to eat my food by actively enveloping it instead of passively absorbing it from my environment -- COOL"
what follows sounds like a linux bash but i cant be bothered to clean it up, take what you want. I'm getting tired....
And your comp sci analogy doesnt work either, as building the Linux kernel that way is akin in biological complexity to building a chamaeleon or something from scratch. Try creating a kernel that can "eat", "defend" and "replicate"(sounds like windoze). Your Linux/chaemaleon is wasting time trying to be 10 different species/server tasks. Whereas a flatworm just does what it needs to divide and move on. Maybe you should write the comp sci equiv of a flatworm (haha windoze again), then maybe your flatworm kernel will be able to withstand random mutations?
Re:Well done lads, collective pat on the back (Score:3, Insightful)
> scientific theory as geocentrism does, i.e.
> NONE.
Have you ever heard of the saying: Perception is reality? It has to do with perspective... a person sees something and perceives it to be real. The earth "appears" to be the center of the universe to the casual observer. This idea from the powers of observation. Closer observation reveals the truth, however - that the earth is NOT the center of the universe.
> Where are the dinosaurs in the Bible, my little
> buckaroo? You'd certainly figger that something
> as mind-bogglingly large as a brontosaurus might
> just be MENTIONED once or twice.
Let me ask you a question: If you were a caveman and a guy with wierd unkempt hair (Einstein) came along and tried to explain Relativity to you... would you understand it? I'll let you answer that.
Now, if we move forward a few years give or take a thousand to an age where man has had some progress but not much mind you. This man tries to explain the things around him and understand as most all men do. This powerful presence appears and in it's intelligence, doesn't want to... how did you say it "mind-boggle" him? Things get explained to the man on a level and in a way he can understand. Let's not confuse this man with details ok?
Look at the order of events in Genesis and compare them to the order science says they occured. Does that boggle your mind that it generally agrees with what science now says? The Bible said it thousands of years ago.
> Oh yes, and your First Amendment rights stop
> right where my nose begins. I don't want MY kids
> being taught that religious claptrap, thanks
> very much.
I'm sure these frickin Bible totin nutbags don't want some fricken Darwin totin nutbags telling them that their kids must study Evolution. It works both ways. As for Zeus or other creation myths, such is considered literature these days.
> Science, pure science, and damn be he who first
> cries "Hold! Too much!"
So, Science is your religion I take it.
Ok, now for my additional points:
We are alive. So we were created somehow. Be it by a benevolent power or by chance - we were created.
Our design is encoded in DNA/RNA sequences and this DNA/RNA seems to be universal. From the smallest virus to the largest single-cell organism; from the most primitive paramecium to the human being - we all have DNA/RNA as the method of encoding our biological machinery. i.e. WE ARE RELATED.
The earth was terraformed by life. When life first fell, was created or whatever on earth back when it was still largely molten, there wasn't really any oxygen or plants or any land as we know it today. These archaeobacteria (very advanced in their own right and where the heck did THEY come from??) ate rock. Cyanobacteria came into existance to take advantage of the freshly broken down minerals, the abundant CO2 and the precipitating water. Aerobic bacteria came to be to take advantage of the abundance of oxygen and other material floating around in the soup and in the air.
Life has shown itself to be very hardy when it comes to living conditions. Have they not found spores on parts of spacecraft brought back to earth that were deposited before the craft were launched and are still viable? Life can endure in space without protection.
Who's to say that life didn't just fall on earth - this panspermia idea?
What this all boils down to is that NO ONE has all the right answers - NO ONE is omniscient or omnipotent - at least no human. That means you too Rev.
Keep an open mind ok?
Re:Why take so called "Creationism" seriously? (Score:3, Insightful)
"We don't NEED more evidence"???!!!
That depends on what you goals are, I guess. If you are looking to justify your beliefs, then I can understand why you wouldn't see the need for any more evidence. If you are actually interested in understanding the universe, then you will need all the "extra" evidence you can get. Even though their have been hundreds of prior scientists to do so, physicists still do experiments to determine (and verify past measurments of) such fundamental constants as the speed of light or the universal gravitational constant. They don't need the evidence to justify their pet theory. They need the evidence to improve their model of the universe. Similarlly, biologists need more evidence. They don't need it to disprove another theory that contradicts the present one... but they need it to FIND that next theory. Science isn't about resting on your laurels (or more likely, somebody elses hard earned laurels) and bragging to the world that evolution (or whatever) is right and they are wrong and daring them to prove different. It is about a large scale, organized, search for a better understanding of how things work.
"They never turned out to be completly incorrect, just wrong on details."
Yeah, that spontaneous generation theory was just a little wrong on the details. And luminiferous ether... that was almost spot on, wasn't it. It is certainly not possible for some modern theory like superstring theory to be compeletly incorrect. Get off your (*^&^%& "high horse". I am not championing creationism; but the idea that we don't need new evidence for scientific theories and that science is just about pinning down the details with no more room for radical new developments is a stupid and dangerous view to be propogating.
Re:Well done lads, collective pat on the back (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Honesty - not! (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the only real way to respond to mobs. Appeal to reason when one is strong, so that the reasonable people in the mob can defect.
In the end, it is reason that should rule, and that's all that matters.
Re:Troubling - So explain this... (Score:4, Insightful)
I see your point. God MUST have created us, because of Psychology!
you conscious (if you have one),
You either mean consciousness (self-awareness), which other animals have been shown to have; or conscience, (awareness of right vs. wrong), which is part of abstract reasoning which does indeed make humans unique. I'll give you that, even though some researchers believe otherwise. But your argument wasn't that humans were unique, was it?
human compassion
Define compassion. Some humans have it, some don't. Will humans ever be able to live more peacefully than, say, deer? I doubt it, but one can only hope.
why we can talk,
Hmm. This is one of the arguments used to bolster evolutionary theory.
why we have a great capability to learn and a drive to achieve...
Because it increased our chances of survival in ancient times?
But you say, oh apes can talk and can learn, and have compassion. And I say, you are correct, so can my dog. But neither has made any great advancements in scientific research lately
You mean like the research you are currently discounting out of hand?
and my dog likes to go pee on my fence on regular basis.
Um, my arguments end here.
-bp
Re:Troubling (Score:2, Insightful)
You forget one important thing: Creationists don't do battle in the scientific literature. Instead, they turn evolution into a strawman, which they then attack in a political way. Since what (almost) happened in Kansas, I think that scientists are beginning to realize that they must find in the political arena as well.
Also remember that this is a press release which may have been spun a bit. If you read the paper online [nature.com], you'll see that there's no mention of creationists.
You mean Galileo, right? Let's not forget what happened in that case. As long as Creationists rely on people's prejudices and lack of knowledge to further their position, some degree of spinning is necessary if science wants to capture mindshare in the public
Science: The earth is round
Skeptic: That's ludicrous! How can people on the other side keep from falling off? How can they walk around on their hands?!
Science: People evolved from a common ancestor as Chimpanzees
Creationist: That's ludicrous! Why don't we see monkeys in classrooms? How does water evolve from ice?
By the way, I've actually had people raise those objections.
Re:Control genes (Score:4, Insightful)
As you said, it's the way the system works. There is no "fittest" ideal that all life is striving for. There's merely the "fittest now" and that keeps changing.
Now if we could only lower the utility of trolling /. ...
Re:You do live a sheltered life, don't you? (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole argument is stupid, anyhow. It's based on a mistaken belief that one must cling to a questionable interpretation of the Bible as a matter of faith. Has anyone noticed that only Creationists tie Evolution, Geology, and Atheism together? Those who research Evolution do not insist that one must be an atheist if one believes that evolution rather than recent creation is a better explanation for the development of life on Earth. Those who teach and research modern geology do not insist that one must be an atheist if one believes that geologic processes rather than recent creation is a better explanation for the current geology of Earth.
However, since Creationists fallaciously tie acceptance of modern geology and evolutionary theory to disbelief that God created the Earth, and therefore disbelief in God (i.e., atheism), it has become a matter of faith to oppose evolutionary theory and modern geology as a false, atheistic (and thus, probably diabolic) doctrine by any and all means. If you don't believe me, go read articles and web sites by Creationists that are targetted toward Christians, as opposed to the general public.
To my mind, it is all very pointless because there is no contradiction between evolution and God; who are they to say how God created the universe and life? How can they know that evolution and geological processes are not just more tools in God's toolbox? They can't know, and they who presume to know how God created the universe or to put limits on the methods God used in creation are both small-minded and arrogant beyond belief!
To my mind, the power and grandeur of God is elevated, and not diminished by evolution and geology. To achieve His unknown goals, He started out at least 15 billion years ago with the Big Bang, and designed the entire process of star formation, planet formation, geological processes, evolution, etc! That's a lot bigger than POOF! The Earth was wished into existance a mere 6000-8000 years ago, complete with fake fossils and fake geology.
I wonder if Creationists are afraid of the power and knowledge of the God who created evolution and the Big Bang; I wonder if they want to cut Him down to a size they can comprehend?
Re:Not "more evidence for evolution" (Score:2, Insightful)
Notice that you don't have to show all of that; showing one will suffice.
I'm not sure showing only one will suffice. Showing only one example would at best show that evolution does not account for that one case. Evolution might still account for all the other cases.
In most theories there are anomalous cases that either show the incompleteness of the theory or suggest flaws in the observations or suggest other forces at work. For instance, baloons and airplanes do not disprove the law of gravity.
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Most of the debate in scientific circles is over the underlying mechanisms.
Re:Radical change (Score:2, Insightful)
Unrelated. Those women will just receive a Caesarian. I say this from the point of view of a patriarchal society (US) where women have to fight tooth and nail for their right/option to have a natural birth, as opposed to a C-section, which can be lucrative enough for the doctor and staff. It can be pretty hard to find a physician who places a C-section further down the list of options. But I digress....
During human prenancy, the fetus orients itself head down prior to birth. The problem is that there is no zero-G. Artifical gravity can be made on a space station that is rotating. So I think your point is good in pointing out that space stations might have to approach 1G to give reasonable chances for a "natural" birth.
It's certainly a situation that needs consideration before long-distance space travel or colonization of space or of other planents.
Re:You do live a sheltered life, don't you? (Score:5, Insightful)
However, the fact remains that many adherents to the Atheistic Faith (to say that, conclusively, there is no God takes just as much faith as the converse) seek to throw up Big Bang and Evolutionary arguments as proof of the non-existence of God.
I'm also of the opinion that adhering to the tenet that we are descended from Great Apes goes a long way towards reducing people's willingness to believe in the superiority of homo sapiens. I believe that God created us in His image (and the Bible says nothing of intermediary steps in the process) and so, to claim that there was an "open beta test" for hominids is fairly sacreligious, as it calls into question both God's intent and His competency as a Creator.
I'm a big fan of Don Behe's "irreducible complexity" theory (see Darwin's Black Book, ISBN: 0684834936 [amazon.com]), as it goes a long way towards highlighting the biochemical obstacles to macro-evolution).
Then again, you can always take the Douglass Adams tack: Creation itself is proof of a Divine Creator and since conclusive proof would obviate the need for Faith, Poof! He vanished in a puff of logic.
Man, I'm sorry he's (errrm, Adams, not God) dead. Would have been nice to see the 6th book in his 5-part trilogy completed before his death (instead of the old Tolkien-Unfinished-Works-style book that we'll be getting...)
Re:Evolution WILL happen (Score:2, Insightful)
Humanity continues to evolve. Every generation is a little bit different from the last.
The selection pressures have changed. The ability to resist bacterial infection isn't nearly as important as it used to be, because we have antibiotics (possibly only a little while longer...)
And the ability for ideas to pass from one group to another, one generation to another, is more important now. Look at the idea of "democracy"; at the dawn of the 20th century, there was much debate about its merits vis a vis other forms of government.
Re:evolution, creation (Score:2, Insightful)
Could you cite the scriptures this is in? And in any case, what's your point? It's not as if people couldn't observe the world around them and draw their own conclusions about Nature. For example, you can see the tops of a ship's sails before you see the rest of the vessel. Gazing out to the sea, you can observe a slight curve to the horizon. I hope you aren't implying that the Bible predicted or introduced the idea of a spherical world. If anything, the Church flat-out rejected the idea of a spherical planet for hundreds of years.
People are so gullable these days. Because some scientist somehere says something, everyone believes it, without question. Especially when he says something that supports evolution.
I'd say something nasty about religion here, but I won't. Let's just say that I think faith requires more gullibility than scientific reasoning. However, I do agree that when a scientist publishes a study, it generally gets more attention than some random Joe publishing one on his own. Of course, that's because science is more empirical and objective, something I don't believe religion is associated with much.
How can you predict what happend some 12 billion years ago? The weather is bearly accurate to more than one day, and yet evolutionists claim they know what was in the earths atmosphere billions of years ago.
Through evidence left behind and through an understanding of how things work now. Are you saying that our estimates of the sun's age are wrong? That we can't date rock? We can, with an ever-increasing degree of accuracy, uncover more and more detail about the past. Predicting the future is also becoming more and more accurate. Your example of the weather is pointless, because weather is about as chaotic and unpredictable as you can get. You will notice, though, that our predictions are...for the most part...accurate to the point where we can plan our schedules out to a week. That is, unless you live in Texas.
People dont want to believe that there is a being somwhere in the heavens that is superior to them, a being that created them and the universe. This being is able to create the universe, and all that is in it, from giant starts, to microscopic life in six days.
Maybe some people can't fathom the notion that their religion may be wrong. Just a thought.
Both are theories... (Score:2, Insightful)
The same thing can be said for creationism. The same way that you refute the proof about evolution can be used to refute the proof of your religous beliefs. I can look at what you say is proof of creationsism and simply ignore it, just as you can look at proof of evolution and simply ignore it.
Both are built upon faith. They are just faith in diferent things. Although, I have to say that you are ignoring what it is to be a Christian, if that is your religion. Because, Christians follow the teachings of Christ.
Jesus, was known to consort with anyone and taught people to refrain from judging people. So, by judging the belief and people that have faith in evolution, you are going against the teachings of Jesus. You have no right to do that, you simply have no right to judge.
Only GOD could judge a person by their actions, you proclaiming otherwise puts you at odds with GOD. So, if you dislike the idea of evolution, simply do not believe in it. I am not judging you, simply stating the facts.
A real Chrisian would never judge a person, because that is what Jesus taught. I think he said something along the lines of, "Let he who has never sinned cast the first stone."
I am not a Christian, simply someone that my family is attempting to convert. I only know what information they feed me and that is one thing that they really stress to me.
--
.sig seperator
--
A Christian weighs in (Score:3, Insightful)
The good news is, I agree with you. The bad news is, my agreement doesn't mean what you think it does. I am a fervent practicing Christian. Creationism is the belief that the first two chapters of Genesis, which contain two seperate and conflicting creation accounts, are a comprehensive accounting of the beginning of everything.
My problems with creationism are primarily religious in nature, and while I'll extend an open offer to explain it further, suffice it to say that these reasons have to do with misuse of the scripture itself. It is comparable to one trying to use the Mona Lisa as wallpaper. Finding it to be lacking sufficient size for the task, and believing that its use as wallpaper is of dire importance, the frustrated decorator proceeds to separate the threads of the canvas in an absurd attempt to spread the painting enough to cover the walls. What you wind up with is a destroyed painting, and a lot of discordant threads glued to your walls.
I know that is a bizzare analogy, and it's intended to be. It features a great work of art shredded by an attempt to misuse it, and a purpose so divergent from common sense as to defy any concept of mental health. There are several things very wrong with the situation described in the analogy. The work is of great value. Genesis is of great value as an expression of truth. Although one might take my analogy to mean that Genesis is simply a work of art, I hold it to be transcendent to art. The attempt to force the painting to function as wallpaper seems a ghastly perversion of its actual worth. To expect Genesis to serve as a comprehensive description of creation, when that expectation is fundamentally denied by the book itself, is a ghastly perversion of its actual worth.
This means that while it is ridiculous to purport that Genesis is a comprehensive work of explanation, it is equally ridiculous to dismiss it because it can't be used as wallpaper, or to make the claim that those who appreciate the Mona Lisa oppose wall coverings.
So consider well when you foist the banner of the latest discovery, believing it to be the death knell of religion, that there might be somebody like me who can look through his telescope at the Galilean moons, and laugh that someone was once imprisoned by the church for doing so.
Re:Stereotypes on /.? Never.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Intelligent conversation and discussion can only occur when you throw away all your stereotypes before stepping up to the table. Some
philosopher talked about this once, but basically, you are supposed to try your best to approach the situation without making any
assumption about the person/people with whom are you discussing, how it will benefit you, etc.
I believe quite the opposite. Because of science and its ability to give us solid facts, it's wrong to give all views equal credence at the starting line in a scientific discussion. Of course the idea appeals to us because most of us believe in democracy, equality, etc, and in a purely philosophical question like ideas of right & wrong, aesthetics, etc, you'd be in the right. Science, however, is by no means democratic, by which I mean that any idea MUST match known facts. Discussions on evolution are thus NOT philosophical in nature, because they seek to project facts to formulate an idea about the past. The theory being contested is that animals, including ourselves, developed over time through natural selection. Whether this is true, for a scientist, can only be demonstrated and proven with facts. Creationists OTOH choose to use science when it suits them and discard it when it contravenes their religious beliefs.
This leads me to another argument of yours, that creationists are in the majority. That may be so, but the facts do not rely upon consensus, only on veracity through experimentation. Also, the silly pretense that creationism isn't a religious belief is belied by the fact that it relies on a sort of de novo, deus ex machina placement of life on the planet by a higher power, an inherently religious phenomenon. One could argue in response as Richard Dawkins does, that the idea of the development of man over millenia from more basic organisms is infinitely more awe-inspiring than being plopped here by the almighty about 6000 years ago.
Creationism is to some worthy of ridicule, and understandably so. It's a relic of a time when humans looked up at the sky and thought the stars spoke to them, when we didn't understand why the ground shook or the sun turned dark in mid-day. While I don't agree with bashing people's religious beliefs, when they want to use those beliefs to create public policy, or mandate the passing of those beliefs on in schools, in science classes no less, it's only my duty as a scientist and someone true to simple fact to oppose such stupidity, here and anywhere else I see it.
Re:Both are theories... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, because science and religion are two different things -- there's the philosophy of scientific reasoning (outlined in Karl Popper's works), and there's religious faith. People who mix science with religion or religion with science are equally wrong.
Both are built upon faith.
And that's precisely what's wrong with Darwin's theories. He observed certain phenomena in nature, and based on what he knew about artificial selection, he speculated that similar processes must occur naturally.
However, he didn't know and didn't have the means to discover the mechanisms underlying the hypothesized natural selection. That's why his theory is not scientific -- it's a pure speculation, but it doesn't provide mechanisms, which can be falsified experimentally -- something essential to modern science.
For example, if I declare that natural selection is governed by some process on molecular level, describe the process and design an experiment which shows whether my hypothesis is correct, I'd be following a perfectly scientific route of reasoning. But all this Darwinists are not doing. What they are doing is mixing science with their beliefs. And this is wrong, m'kay?
I'm with you Bud. (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, the evidence for evolution is just so prevelant and overpowering that I cannot understand how any reasonable human being with any powers of reason could deny it.
I mean, I cannot understand why its even a topic of debate.
It seems that the majority of Creationists represent the damnible human facility towards self-delusion in the face of fact because it contradicts their world-view.
The sole exception I grant to the "Creationists-Lite" who believe that their Diety kicked off the Big Bang and then let things progress from there unassisted. While I find the idea a little goofy, I give them that the concept cannot be disproven, and at least it doesn't require them to invent or ignore established fact.
But the mudslingers and other cognitive dissentors I just do not understand.
DG
You should do a little more reading... (Score:2, Insightful)
I read over your link. I'm not impressed.
Hmmmm...you read all of Talk Origins [talkorigins.org]? Are you sure?
There are numerous cases against evolution, but i will point only to one maricopa.edu]: The Second Law of thermodynamics, relating to entropy, states that any system is losing potential energy - it is falling into disorder. Take the universe as a system - evolution (disorder -> order) is impossible. End of argument.
Just as I suspected. You didn't read all of Talk Origins [talkorigins.org]. If you had, you would have found this right here [talkorigins.org], which is not one, but two FAQs on the Second Law. They explain rather nicely why you are wrong.
And yes, the theories of evolution do indeed follow the definition, but they are not as a whole PROOF of the origin of the universe from nothing, nor are they PROOF that life originated from nothing, a prehistoric goo. They are theories that explain current biological phenomena. They describe how things change.
Evolution is the best answer to these questions. It is a testable and tested conclusion to the observations made, something that Creationism cannot boast. Is it "PROOF" on the level you seem to want? Nope, and it never will be. Mathematics is the only school that gets to PROVE something 100% of the time.
Life can change - but can it jump chromosomes? I didn't see any mention of that in your FAQ.
There are many many FAQs at Talk Origins [talkorigins.org], the vast majority of which you seem to have skipped.
Can a species change so much as to be both beneficial and incompatible with its "parent" species? I didn't see that, either. You see different kinds of dogs, they are different species. Still compatible? yep. Specification isn't important - evolving into something completely new matters.
Dogs are different breeds, not different species.
According to dictionary.com's definition, the "theory of creation" cannot strictly be a theory - it cannot be tested. However - it IS a set of ideas used to explain part of reality. And it is quite probable - given a god to create. What's more difficult, humans from goo or a superior being in the universe?
It is a religious idea, not a scientific one. That's why we don't teach it in science class.
Furthermore, exactly how can you make the assumption that creation is "probable - given a god to create?" First, there is the giant hurdle of proving the existance of such a god. Good luck on that one. Second, even if you were able to accomplish such a thing, that by no means proves that such a god put everything on the Earth the way it is now. What if god created evolution? That has just as much probability as any other theory related to the divine. These questions however, are religious, not scientific.
And finally - the "evolution is not a religion, but creationism is" argument. BAH! Creationism is merely saying that life didn't just happen - the universe was designed and built by an intelligent being. It doesn't mean you have to follow religion X, it doesn't require you to even aspire to any religion - it's just some ideas about where we came from.
It's ideas that involve a god whose existance cannot be proven or disproven. Again, these are religious questions and not scientific ones.
If creationism is a religion, because it is associated with other real religions, then evolution is a religion, because it is associated with atheism and secular humanism - belief systems that include ideas about God - that he doesn't exist.
Evolution has nothing to do with any of that. Evolution is a set of ideas as to how the diversity of life came to be on this planet. It says nothing about any god. Gods are not the realm of science. Period.
Belief systems should not be taught in schools - but ideas about man's origin are perfectly acceptible - even inside a biology class.
I agree, and we have one scientific idea to be taught in that biology class--evolution.
This isn't what it claims to be (Score:4, Insightful)
Bias Disclosure: I am a Christian and Biblical Creationist.
The article opener claims that this finding can explain how sea creatures could evolve into insects. That isn't what it explains at all.
So they change a key gene or two and the shrimp lose some legs. SO WHAT? As useful as this may prove to be for gene therapy and all, this does not explain away the Creationists' argument!
To my knowledge, no evolutionist claims that insects were the first land animals. An animal that can survive in a marine environment just cannot migrate to land, no matter how many legs it has.
To explain away the Creationists' argument, not only does a candidate mechanism such as this have to be found, but there must be a detailed explanation of which changes occurred, to which species, in what order, and how the resulting creatures could survive in either land or water.
The evolutionists still have a lot of work to do. If a shrimp loses legs and gills, and absorbs oxygen through the skin, can it still survive in water long enough to go ashore?
Whenever I get in a discussion with evolutionist types, they often respond with an attitude of over-skepticism. Stuff like, "I won't even consider this belief system without absolute proof!" Are those same people now criticizing Creationists for not bowing before this non-proof?
Now as for myself, I have very little knowledge of Biology (just high school level), but I'm no dummy. I know all about the black and white moths, and the drug-resistant bacteria, and the Galapagos finches, and all that. No one I know, Creationists included, doubts that variations occur over time. But I for one reserve the right to doubt an idea like evolution, that if true would completely invalidate my world-view, without more evidence than we currently have.
NOTE: I did not say that I have no doubts about Creationism. I have quite a few, not the least of which is the "Starlight & Time" problem. But that's another topic.
My point in summary: Lots of you Slashdot types love the stance of universal skepticism, but everybody believes something they can't prove. Evolution may be yours, or atheism, or astrology, but Creationism is mine.
Re:hmm.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, if he's all-powerful, then why does he need to do it in 7 days? Why not 7 hours? 22 minutes? 81.45241593145264 nanoseconds? 6 weeks? 15 billion years? Why doesn't he just snap his fingers, initiate the Big Bang, and go off to do something more interesting, like watch anime, or shoot pool, or re-grout the tub, or take up photography? If He doesn't need to take several billion years, then He doesn't need to take seven days either. God, assuming that he is omnipotent, could do it in any amout of he damn well pleases... be it 7 days or 7,000,000,000,000 days. (~19 billion years, for those of you who are anal. Or lazy.)
Re:Creation vs. Evolution debate at my university (Score:5, Insightful)
However, it's ironic that you still have this in your sig:
The court ruled it legal to fuck the voters by running out the clock, and demonstrated how to do it.
A rigorous analysis has shown that in some ways of counting votes, Bush won. In some ways of counting votes, Gore won. From a more neutral perspective, the Florida Supreme Sourt screwed up by not taking control of the process when they had the opportunity to create the perception of an honest vote count. Instead, they allowed numerous abuses by the counting methods of Democrat operatives to go unchallenged. So, the US Supreme Court kept them from allowing a legally conducted election to be overthrown by questionable vote-counting methods.
In the end, it was just a power struggle between two political parties, and had nothing to do with the voters getting "fucked".
Viewing it in some slanted light isn't about facts, it's about religion.
Being Scientific often means forgetting the fact that you have a horse in the race for a bit, and instead evaluating the evidence from a neutral perspective. It's the reason why Science has brought us so far in the past few hundred years, whereas Religion accomplished nothing of the sort in the hundred thousand years before the Scientific Method was even postulated.
Re:Creation vs. Evolution debate at my university (Score:2, Insightful)
No amount of science could have convinced me then, but the realization that a thought process that depends on an invisible, unproveable factor to determine truth is inherently corrupt changed that. You need only look at the number of people who wind up believing in what feels good rather than what empirical and rational means of discovery to see my point. They like a simplistic view of the universe that they can easily grasp all the major details of and of which they are a dominant part.
That's why the skepticism and rigorous testing of the scientific method is so important, why our society has changed so much because of it. It's only honest to call that beyond what we can prove with evidence at hand a hypothesis or speculation, and even then, Occam's Razor should curb the excesses.
Re:Troubling (Score:3, Insightful)
Creationists, on the other hand, believe it is misinterpreted, wrong, or outright lies.
Sooner or later, evolution, like *every* scientific theory, falls back to a set of core beliefs. For a long time, a core belief was everything was newtonian, and there was scads of evidence to prove it. Until we started getting the evidence that there was something more.
Please remember that it is still called "Evolutionary Theory", and that 99% of what science has proven, science has later proven to be wrong.
Does this make it any less true? Maybe not.. but to say belief never comes into it is simply not being critical enough -- which is the exact same mistake that people claim Creationists are making.
Re:You do live a sheltered life, don't you? (Score:3, Insightful)
There's no such thing as "a change from one species to another". It's like people expect some animal to magically turn into some other animal they're familiar with already. But two separate species evolve from one all the time. Bears and wolves had a common ancestor. And look at what people have done to the wolf species itself in the space of a few thousand years, with all these dogs. An example that is still one of the best ones is Darwin's finches. Each island had a different subspecies living on it.
While there are many theroies on that subject, they all rely on some "missing link" that hasn't yet been found. I'm not convinced that it ever will.
Creationists use this stupid argument all the time. They seize on any gap they find:
A gap B
Then someone finds an intermediate form:
A gap X gap B
and now there are two gaps to bitch and moan over!
As more intermediate forms are discovered:
A gap Y gap X gap Z gap B
Look, there are FOUR gaps now! Surely evolution must be wrong, because there just seem to be more and more gaps to explain these theories, right?
Short of a genealogical chart listing every single animal parent back for four billion generations, I don't see how it's possible to satisfy these people.
Re:Not "what evidence" (Score:1, Insightful)
atheism is the absence of belief in deities
Naw, atheism is the belief in absence of deities. The word itself could mean either, athe-ism or a-theism.
What is a theory? (Score:2, Insightful)
A theory is an idea or belief that has been concocted by a scientist to explain a portion of the universe. Until this theory can be wholly proven or wholly disproved the scientist and others that believe in that matter have faith that they are correct.
The same can be said for people of religion. They have faith that what they believe in is the truth of existence. However, there is very little that can be proven. Many of the theories simply are untestable by our current levels of technological advancement. Does that mean that we will never be able to test religous theories? No, we may one day be able to test those theories and prove or disprove their truths.
The Pope himself has stated that evolution is a very good theory. He followed that up by saying that God started/created evolution. This was decreed by the Pope only a few years ago. Look it up, or choose to ignore that actual fact, like many Christians do.
Who is to say that the Pope is wrong? It is very possible that evolution was created by God, it is possible that evolution simply happened through ways we have yet to be able to fully explain. The major difference is that we have better prove of evolution than we do of God.
Once again, that does not mean that there is no God. It is just something that we currently are unable to prove or disprove. The faith in the existence of God is to great to simply dismiss. We just need sound methods or proving or disproving God's existence.
One way that would prove that God exists is for him/her/it to show up on international TV and simply say, "Hey, I am God. Check this out..." (Waves hands) "Here is a new species." Until then, people simply have to have faith that God exists. One day, we may have another method of proving whether or not God exists, right now that is all we can hope for.
Believing in something can be a strong thing and simply cannot be denied. Whether that is the theory of God or the theory of anything. Until it is proven to fully be truth and is more than simply words, all you can have is faith in what you believe.
I am not claiming either as being fully correct or fully incorrect, I am merely sharing my beliefs on these subjects.
--
.sig seperator
--
Re:Positive Mutations & Antibiotics (Score:3, Insightful)
The idea that random mutations can turn a functioning gene into another functioning gene (with no fatal in between states) makes exactly as much sense as the idea the random bit mutations can turn a functioning method into a new working method with a different function (without core dumping in the process).
Never heard of genetic algorithms? They do precisely as you suggest. The fact is, the vast majority of code is not evolved in the sense of vast amounts of mostly faithful replication strewn with the occasional mutation and a population big enough that it can withstand genetic failures without threatening the entire population.
Nature is extremely subtle. One of the things that all living organisms have in common is that their genetic mechanisms have proven to be amenable to some mutation. An organism that was so finely tuned and so brittle that *any* change in its genome would be fatal would be a strong rebuff to evolutionary theory. The fact is that organisms are just not that fragile. Your code is, my code is, Bill Gates' code is, but none of us developed our code under the same conditions that nature developed life on the planet.
The theory is that the genetic mechanism has itself been selected for evolvability. Why else would we have diploid gene pairs? Why else would DNA have the base pair redundancy? Why else would the genome have 'trigger points' which can make for large body changes with small mutations?
The big picture (Score:2, Insightful)
There are very few "creationists" who would argue that evolution in the sense of adaptation or survival of the fittest does not occur. The big question is, can something as complex as a human being really evolve from a single celled creature in the mud, no matter how much time. I agree with PingXao in the sense that it has always seemed odd to me that evolutionary scientists get so bent out of shape by creationists. There is a lot of irony in that. Not to mention it is not very scientific.
Re:Evolution WILL happen (Score:4, Insightful)
We are already domesticated. A key indicator of domestication is neotany--retaining the characteristics of youth. The flatter human face with the bulging skull makes us look much more like babies, and also giver room for a larger brain. The human jaw is shrinking, and canines becoming much blunter than in ape. (Generally--mine look like a baboons, which is a real pain if I bite my lip)
"Intelligence creates material success, which is a prize factor for breeding."
I'm going to have to disagree with you here. People who are wealthier tend to have fewer children, later, than people who aren't. True, this is a cultural trend, and will probably reverse itself. Otherwise we'll end up in Kornbluth's world of the _Marching Morons_.
"Human beings will continue to become
I could be wrong, but I don't think people are evolving to become taller. I believe that all the increases in height (fairly recent, and much to rapid to be evolutionary) are due to better diet. This is an environmental change allowing a fuller expression of genetic potential for height, not a genetic evolutionary change tht will be passed down to our descendents.
Don't show creationists cameras (Score:4, Insightful)
All of this creationism hot air. But on Slashdot? Isn't this a technodweeb's paradise? A science geek's home?
Whenever a debate on evolution springs up on the net, does some appointed sentinel of the far right ring the clarion call of Christian Fundamentalism and call forth a vanguard of babbling halfwits running to the scene of the crime to proclaim The Truth?
I'm really sorry. Mod me troll, mod me flamebait. I know it is no good to throw a pail of water on the idea of commentary on a website devoted to comments. But this is Slashdot, isn't it? We believe in science and tech here, no?
Look, some guidelines for non-creationists, as I see it, for whatever it is worth:
Don't talk to them.
PLEASE! Don't take the bait! They only relate babbling pits of tomfoolery to your mind. You can not reason with them! Every pound of logical heft you hurl in their direction will be replied with immediately by 10 pounds of so much clangityclank of the brain that you will only be left dumbfounded by the psychology of it all. The point is to not engage them. Because engaging them will not allow their ideas to die the ignoble historical death their ideas deserve. The dustbin of history must not be disturbed, as it is already disturbed enough as it is. The more you try to persuade them to reason, the more you breathe life into a sinking ship. Your pleas for reason will only be replied with with flim flam.
They mean well, and that is their problem. But they can't get their brains past a bad idea. They must justify it, by any means possible. So the harder and harder you blow against them, the harder they hold their cloak of belief. Stop blowing, let time and solitude relax their grips on their insanity.
I hear some primitive tribespeople fear having their pictures taken because they think the camera steals a bit of their soul. So if they don't see a camera, they don't get excited. And when their backwards beliefs are not challenged, they live peaceful, harmless lives. In other words, don't show creationists cameras. Get it?
After all, Al Qaeda is nothing more than a Muslim Fundamentalist backlash against the "decadent West." New ideas are dangerous. Progress is disturbing to some people. Some do not accept new, and better ideas. They instead cling to old, crazy ones and get very defensive about it. They frame it in absolutes, that evolution goes against God, for example. Evolution does not go against God. Science is not allied against religion. Any forward-thinking religious person can incorporate evolution into their world-view without evolution challenging their beliefs. It will, in fact, enrich their understanding of the world, deepen the mystery of life by making more clear the complexity of it all, and therefore, eventually, reaffirm their belief in God. But all of this assumes an open mind. Unfortunately, there are a lot of closed ones.
Don't show creationists cameras!
Leave them to their strange ways. Left in peaceful backwards isolation, they will eventually go the way of the Dodo, no irony intended. Right now their numbers are too large and the voraciousness of their passion too disturbing in the USA to be considered harmless. They are quite harmful, to the education and intelligence of all of our children. Give it time, many years, and they will fade away into history. Someday, decades from now, creationism will sound almost cute and harmless, like we laugh at the Spanish Inquisition in Monty Python skits.
Until then, they are just a massive pain in the ass. Please, ignore them! Here on Slashdot, and in the rest of your life. Your intentions are good in trying to challenge them in honest debate, but please, just walk away from them. There is no winning, just lots of hot air for you to inhale.
But... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Catholics are selected for (Score:2, Insightful)
on the other hand, intelligence is also being selected for, so even if catholics have a large progeny, that progeny is increasingly more likely to reject catholocism (in general, religion).
sh_
Re:Two versions of Evolution (Score:2, Insightful)
What I think we should see in schools, personally, is a class (or course unit) devoted to teaching the basics of logic and scientific reasoning. After these skills are mastered, then follow with an open and honest evaluation of the extant evidence related to origins (fossil evidence, geology, anthropology, basic genetics, the basics of microbiology and biochemistry, etc.). The presentation should highlight what is solid about the evidence, what isn't, and how this relates to the theory of evolution and the here-termed "creation hypothesis" (and other mediating positions), either positively or negatively. Giving students the tools to think in clear terms about the matter rather than being spoon-fed one idea or the other would both put the discussion back squarely on the data and how to interpret it and help kids learn to apply good logic to other areas in their lives.
After all, shouldn't our public schools focus on teaching how to think instead of what to think?
Re:Well done lads, collective pat on the back (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, you do know that Newton's laws aren't quite right, right? They are only a good approximation at low speed and manageable mass.
Incorrect. Survival of the fittest is a speculation made by Charles Darwin. He does not propose a way to disprove his statement.
For starters it was a speculation popularized by Darwin. And if you cannot think of a way to disprove his statements, you are in serious need of a basic science course. Science doesn't require you to publish how something can be shown false, only that an educated person can.
Gravity is a phenomenon initially observed by human beings on the planet Earth
What a coincidence! Evolution is a phenomenon that was also initially observed by human beings on the planet Earth!
Re:This isn't what it claims to be (Score:3, Insightful)
Excuse us scientists for only being able to get pieces of a 5-6 billion year-old puzzle. We're really doing the best we can. Here goes.
So they change a key gene or two and the shrimp lose some legs. SO WHAT? As useful as this may prove to be for gene therapy
and all, this does not explain away the Creationists' argument!
First, I don't see how making an animal lose a pair of limbs helps for gene therapy. That aside, nobody's claiming that this is the final piece of evidence, only that it's another nail in the creationist coffin. A common argument of theirs has been that entire organs & limbs can't simply appear or disappear through simple genetic changes. Well, genetically, scientists have made that happen, and showed that on that score creationists are wrong.
An animal that can survive in a marine environment
just cannot migrate to land, no matter how many legs it has.
Walruses. Penguins. Hermit crabs. Mudskippers. Etc. I know they're evolved (oops), but these are all animals that in their daily lives, apparently, do the impossible. With all these animals doing it every day, is it so impossible to believe that it might have happened at some point in the past, with or without legs? And who said legs were a requirement to move to land?
To explain away the Creationists' argument, not only does a candidate mechanism such as this have to be found, but there must be a
detailed explanation of which changes occurred, to which species, in what order, and how the resulting creatures could survive in
either land or water.
Glad to get down to brass tacks with you. The mechanism is natural selection, which we're constantly seeking to describe more thoroughly in our work. We're also seeking all the factual evidence we can to mount atop the mountains of it we already have. While it's difficult to reach through the millenia of the fossil record, we're working on it, based on facts, as we go along.
Now I'd like to require the same factual rigor of you. Please provide factual proof of a God's existence and his influence in placing living things on this planet. I want a candidate mechanism and a detailed explanation of what changes occurred and how. Again, we'd like facts and not bible quotations please.
The evolutionists still have a lot of work to do. If a shrimp loses legs and gills, and absorbs oxygen through the skin, can it still survive
in water long enough to go ashore?
This comment is pointless, as there's no reason a shrimp would have to either lose legs or gills to come ashore. There are gilled fish that can survive for a time ashore as well as gill-less marine mammals, as are there many legless and multilegged animals that can do so.
Are those same people now criticizing Creationists for not bowing before this
non-proof?
The difference is that our evidence is based on a preponderance of facts, developed through repeatable experiment, and leading us in a direction toward a theory that has withstood almost 150 years of scientific scrutiny, despite concerted effort from your camp. Yours is based on mythology, as written by a group of middle-eastern tribesmen under Roman rule between 100 & 500AD. Again, the extraordinary claim that we were placed here by a God requires the extraordinary proof of being provided evidence of God's existence and his influence in worldly affairs.
I have very little knowledge of Biology
This is possibly the most needless statement I've read on Slashdot ever. Congratulations.
I for one reserve the right to doubt an idea like evolution, that if true would completely invalidate
my world-view, without more evidence than we currently have.
We all have the right to persist in a comforting delusion, despite the facts. It's when creationists push for that delusion to be the basis of other's lives through law and forced creationist teaching in public schools that I get indignant.
Lots of you Slashdot types love the stance of universal skepticism, but everybody believes something they
can't prove. Evolution may be yours, or atheism, or astrology, but Creationism is mine.
Ah, yes. You forgot to say "I'm OK, you're OK".
Re:Creation vs. Evolution debate at my university (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, and your being a "non-scientific type" clearly shows. Because you cannot explain it, it must be "magical". You have demonstrated that you do not understand even the most basic principles of the scientific method with an incredible attack of intellectual subterfuge. To wit: your error of assuming that an idea with scientific support exists on an equal footing of any random competing idea.
I also note that you (as are many, including "scientific types") are stuck in the fallacy of centralized thinking. I.e. that there must have been a central cause, maybe even a Who behind all that order that you perceive.
If you like nature programs, then you should particularly watch Attenborough's Trials of Life series. Note the segment on South American termite colonies. (Likely in the episode on "homebuilding", IIRC.) Realize that the hive as a whole is an incredibly complex entity. The aboveground portion of the hive is oriented with respect to the sun's path to control temperature within the hive. Such hives have heatsink fins as part of a natural cooling system underneath. On and on, everything points to the hive as one giant organism. Addressing a single termite as a "creature" is like addressing one of your neighbor's red blood cells as a "creature". From a collection of relatively simple elements (the termites) a complex order arises. Yet no one or collection of termites "plan" the construction of the hive as would a human architect.
Your perception of "chaos" is an illusion. It has become a convenient excuse to hide the fact that your mind cannot wholly encompass all that you experience. Just accept that all the answers won't ever be available, and work up from there. Humans have made the same mistake since the dawn of our history: to write off the unexplained with a comforting blanket of fiction. Comfort doesn't make it true.
In the end, the scientific method gets real results that are readily experienced. Wishful thinking does not.