The Little Algae That Could 196
A reader writes "This NewsFactor Network article says scientists have discovered a genetic "missing link" that helps to explain how primordial pond scum evolved into the land plants that now cover the Earth. Their conclusion: A type of green algae is the closest living relative of the first land plants."
Spawn (Score:4, Funny)
Lawyers.
Re:Spawn (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Spawn (Score:2, Funny)
Not all pond scum evolved (Score:3, Funny)
Leaves a lot to be desired... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Leaves a lot to be desired... (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Leaves a lot to be desired... (Score:2, Funny)
Or,
"Leaves, a lot to be desired."
Re:Leaves a lot to be desired... (Score:3, Interesting)
> Sure seems like there would be many more 'missing links' between algae and a land plant.
No problem: every time a 'missing link' is found, it generates two new 'missing links' -- one to either side of the one just found. There shouldn't be any problem generating enough to fill your gap.
Re:Leaves a lot to be desired... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well... the news article misses the beat on a few things, including which journal it was published in (Science, not Nature). The term "missing link" is often bandied about in the news whenever the topic turns to ancestral organisms. That wasn't really what the paper was about. The real issue was that this algae appears to be the closest living relative of the land plants. For that reason, any characteristics it has in common with the land plants are most likely ones which were present in the common ancestor of all land plants. Being able to place the ancestor of the land plants between two "frames" this way (common characters of land plants AND characters of Charales algae) gives us a window onto what kind of organism the land plants are derived from. Here's a tiny quote from the original paper:
Identification of the Charales as the sister taxon to land plants with the Coleochaetales as sister to the Charales/land plant clade suggests that the common ancestor of land plants was a branched, filamentous organism with a haplontic life cycle and oogamous reproduction... Although it is tempting to envision the origin of land plants as having been from amorphous pond scum, these data indicate that the common ancestor of land plants and their closest algal relatives was a relatively complex organism.Non-watered down story (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Non-watered down story (Score:2, Interesting)
You can get the abstract here [nih.gov] for free and demonstrate to yourself that the news article was wrong, and that it was actually in Science [sciencemag.org], not Nature. Thus endeth my Karma whoring for today. :)
Re:Non-watered down story (Score:3, Informative)
The Closest Living Relatives of Land Plants
Kenneth G. Karol,1* Richard M. McCourt,2 Matthew T. Cimino,1 Charles F. Delwiche1
The embryophytes (land plants) have long been thought to be related to the green algal group Charophyta, though the nature of this relationship and the origin of the land plants have remained unresolved. A four-gene phylogenetic analysis was conducted to investigate these relationships. This analysis supports the hypothesis that the land plants are placed phylogenetically within the Charophyta, identifies the Charales (stoneworts) as the closest living relatives of plants, and shows the Coleochaetales as sister to this Charales/land plant assemblage. The results also support the unicellular flagellate Mesostigma as the earliest branch of the charophyte lineage. These findings provide insight into the nature of the ancestor of plants, and have broad implications for understanding the transition from aquatic green algae to terrestrial plants.
1 Department of Cell Biology and Molecular Genetics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA.
2 Department of Botany, Academy of Natural Sciences, 1900 Benjamin Franklin Parkway, Philadelphia, PA 19103, USA.
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: karol@umail.umd.edu
The evolutionary origin of the embryophytes (or land plants) from their green algal ancestor was a pivotal event in the history of life. This monophyletic group has altered the biosphere and now dominates the terrestrial environment, but uncertainty as to the identity of their closest living relatives has persisted in the literature after more than a century of scrutiny (1-3). Morphological and molecular studies have identified two distinct lineages within the green plants sensu lato, termed Charophyta and Chlorophyta. The Charophyta comprise the land plants and at least five lineages (orders) of fresh water green algae, and are sister to the Chlorophyta, which consist of essentially all other green algae. Previous molecular analyses have verified monophyly of most of the charophyte orders (4-6), but branching patterns among these lineages have been only weakly supported, with results that were sensitive to taxon selection and method of phylogenetic reconstruction. Similarly, analyses of morphological and genome structural data have clarified some relationships (7-10), but have been limited by the number of characters available, uncertain homology assessment, and a lack of character independence.
Identifying the closest living relatives of land plants has been difficult. Roughly 470 million years of evolution since the colonization of the land, coupled with rapid radiation and numerous extinction events (2, 3, 11), has resulted in an inherently difficult phylogenetic problem, with much information from the early, common history of evolution obscured by subsequent evolution in the now independent lineages (12).
To investigate the evolutionary origin of land plants and identify the closest living relatives of this group, we analyzed DNA sequence data from four genes representing three plant genomes: atpB and rbcL (plastid), nad5 (mitochondrial), and the small subunit (SSU) rRNA gene (nuclear). The data set used for phylogenetic analyses excludes introns and unalignable regions for a total length of 5147 base pairs [Appendix 1 (13)] (14). We sampled 34 representative charophytes, including eight land plants, and six outgroup taxa [Appendix 2 (13)]. The data were analyzed with Bayesian inference (BI), maximum likelihood (ML), maximum parsimony (MP), and minimum evolution with two distance measures [LogDet (ME-ld) and maximum likelihood (GTR+I+ [Gamma ] ; ME-ml) distances] [Appendix 3 (13)]. Both BI and ML are probabilistic methods that utilize explicit models of sequence evolution to test phylogenetic hypotheses. Advantages of BI are that it is relatively fast and provides probabilistic measures of tree strength that are more directly comparable with traditional statistical measures than those more commonly used in phylogenetic analyses (15, 16). To measure phylogenetic stability, posterior probabilities (PP) as inferred by BI were calculated and bootstrapping was performed for the ML, MP, and ME analyses.
Using BI and ML on the combined four-gene data set (Fig. 1), we found the order Charales sister to the land plants with strong statistical support (PP = 1.0, ML = 94) and a monophyletic Coleochaetales sister to the Charales/land plant clade (PP = 1.0, ML = 59). The MP and ME analyses [Appendix 4 (13)] also support the result that Charales have a closer relationship to land plants than do Coleochaetales (MP = 80, ME-ld = 97, ME-ml = 92). The overall structure of the best tree is consistent with previous work in that the classically recognized orders were also recovered (land plants, PP = 1.0, ML = 100, MP = 100, ME-ld = 100, ME-ml = 100; Charales, PP = 1.0, ML = 100, MP = 100, ME-ld = 100, ME-ml = 100; Coleochaetales, PP = 1.0, ML = 62, MP = Fig. 1. Phylogenetic relationships for Charophyta determined by Bayesian inference from the combined four-gene data set. The maximum likelihood tree (-ln = 64499.87863) was of identical topology. Posterior probabilities are noted above branches and maximum likelihood bootstrap values are below branches. The topology is drawn with Cyanophora rooting the tree. Branch lengths are mean values and are proportional to the number of substitutions per site (bar, 0.05 substitutions/site). Taxonomy is modified from (23). [View Larger Version of this Image (41K GIF file)]
The phylogenetic placement of Mesostigma, a unicellular, scaly green flagellate has been controversial. Traditionally classified with like forms as a prasinophyte, it also has been allied with the Charophyta. The phylogenetic position of Mesostigma is critical to understanding the evolution of form and structure in the lineage that gave rise to land plants. Like the results presented here, analyses of actin sequences place Mesostigma at the base of the Charophyta (17), and analyses of SSU rRNA gene sequence data place it among them (albeit in close association with Chaetosphaeridium, a grouping not supported by other data) (5, 18). By contrast, maximum likelihood analyses of amino-acid data from both the plastid and mitochondrial genomes of Mesostigma find strong support for placement of this genus as sister to all green algae rather than as a basal charophyte lineage (19, 20). The latter analyses differ from those presented here in the number of taxa sampled (8 versus 40). When divergence times are large and internal branches short, limited taxon sampling can lead to inaccurate phylogenies (12). If taxon sampling explains this conflict, then one would predict convergence on the phylogeny presented here as additional organellar genomes become available.
Both Charales and Coleochaetales have long been considered to be close relatives of the land plants (1, 21-23). Key morphological characters uniting these three lineages include branched filamentous growth, oogamous sexual reproduction, and phragmoplastic cell division, along with a suite of ultrastructural and biochemical features (2). In light of similar morphological traits (i.e., parenchyma-like tissue, placental transfer cell wall ingrowths, and zygote retention), the genus Coleochaete and, in some instances, a single species, C. orbicularis, has been discussed as a possible sister taxon to land plants (8, 24). Our results indicate that the Coleochaetales are monophyletic and less closely related to the land plants than the Charales. Both Bayesian inference and bootstrap analyses permit evaluation of alternative hypotheses; we were unable to identify any alternative hypothesis with nontrivial support (25).
The Charales also share numerous characteristics with land plants, some of which are not found in the Coleochaetales. These include gross sperm morphology and ultrastructure (26), numerous discoidal chloroplasts per cell, protonemal filaments, complete absence of zoospores (sperm are the only flagellate cells), and encasement of the egg by sterile jacket cells (cortication) prior to fertilization (10, 21). Our data suggest that many of the similarities between Charales and land plants reflect homology rather than convergent evolution. Cortication of the zygote reminiscent of that in Charales is found in some species of Coleochaete, but occurs only after fertilization of the egg, and zygote cortication is not thought to occur in Chaetosphaeridium (10). In addition, primary plasmodesmata have been confirmed in the Charales, a character shared with land plants (27). Although plasmodesmata have been described in Coleochaete, it is unknown whether their development is primary or secondary in nature.
Identification of the Charales as the sister taxon to land plants with the Coleochaetales as sister to the Charales/land plant clade suggests that the common ancestor of land plants was a branched, filamentous organism with a haplontic life cycle and oogamous reproduction. The early stages of development in the Charales involve formation of protonemal filaments reminiscent of those found in some mosses and other land plants, which suggests that a similar heteromorphic development might have occurred in the common ancestor. Other characteristics of this ancestor, including both developmental and biochemical features, may explain not only how their descendants came to survive on land, but also how they ultimately came to dominate terrestrial ecosystems. Moreover, the charophytes have important applications in a wide range of disciplines (Charales in cell biology, Coleochaetales in ultrastructure, and Zygnematales in physiology) (10). Consequently, a robust phylogeny relating these taxa to land plants can place this work in an evolutionary context and lead to the identification and development of appropriate model systems for future studies.
Although it is tempting to envision the origin of land plants as having been from amorphous pond scum, these data indicate that the common ancestor of land plants and their closest algal relatives was a relatively complex organism. The extant Charales are the remnants of a once diverse, but now largely extinct, group which includes some of the oldest known plant fossils [roughly 420 million years ago (Ma) from the late Ordovician] (11, 28). While the fossil record for the other charophyte orders is fragmentary at best (29), the molecular phylogenetic data presented here (Fig. 1) suggest that these lineages diversified more than 470 Ma. While not species-rich, these algae hold a key position in the tree of life and, consequently, represent an important part of eukaryotic diversity.
REFERENCES AND NOTES
1. F. O. Bower, The Origin of Land Flora. A Theory Based upon the Facts of Alternation (Macmillan, London, 1908).
2. L. E. Graham, The Origin of Land Plants (Wiley, New York, 1993).
3. P. Kenrick, P. R. Crane, The Origin and Early Diversification of Land Plants, Smithsonian Series in Comparative Evolutionary Biology (Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, 1997).
4. R. L. Chapman et al., in Systematics of Plants II, D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis, J. J. Doyle, Eds. (Kluwer Academic, Norwell, MA, 1998), pp. 508-540.
5. B. Marin and M. Melkonian, Protist 150, 399 (1999) [ISI][Medline].
6. R. M. McCourt, et al., J. Phycol. 36, 747 (2000) [Abstract/Full Text].
7. H. J. Sluiman, Plant Syst. Evol. 149, 217 (1985) [ISI].
8. L. E. Graham, C. F. Delwiche, B. D. Mishler, Adv. Bryol. 4, 213 (1991) .
9. B. D. Mishler and S. P. Churchill, Brittonia 36, 406 (1984) [ISI].
10. L. E. Graham, L. W. Wilcox, Algae (Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2000).
11. M. Feist, N. Grambast-Fessard, in Calcareous Algae and Stromatolites, R. Riding, Ed. (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1991), pp. 189-203.
12. J. Felsenstein, Syst. Zool. 27, 401 (1978) [ISI] .
13. Supplementary material is available on Science Online at www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/294/5550/2351
14. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and sequencing: Total cellular DNA was isolated by the CTAB method [ J. J. Doyle and J. L. Doyle, Phytochem. Bull. 19, 11 (1987) ], UNSET method (a high-urea, SDS extraction buffer) or using the Nucleon Phytopure Plant DNA extraction kit (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech) following the manufacturer's protocol from fresh thalli growing in uni-algal condition. The genes were amplified by PCR with gene specific primers (atpB upstream: 5'-TGTTACTTGTGAAGTTCAACA-3'; atpB downstream: 5'-CTAAATAAAATGCTTGTTCAGG-3'; rbcL upstream: 5'-ATGTCACCACAAACAGAAACTAAAGC-3'; rbcL downstream: 5'-AATTCAAATTTAATTTCTTTCC-3'; nad5 upstream: 5'-GTAGGTGATTTTGGATTAGC-3': nad5 downstream: 5'-GTACCTAAACCAATCATCATATC-3'; SSU upstream: 5'-GTAGTCATATGCTTGTCTC-3': SSU downstream: 5'-CTTGTTACGACTTCTCCT-3') and sequenced using either an ABI-PRISM 377 or 3100 DNA sequencer (PE Applied Biosystems) according to the manufacturer's protocols. The resulting sequence chromatograms were edited and compiled into a single alignment using Sequencher 3.1.1 (Gene Codes Corp.) and exported in NEXUS format for phylogenetic analyses. Many published SSU rRNA gene sequences were difficult to align to published secondary structure models. Small subunit sequences that could not be matched to such structure models were resequenced for this study (13). A single intron was found in the Coleochaete orbicularis nad5 sequence and the distribution of introns in nad5 was examined in the taxa within our study. No introns were found in any other species of Coleochaete or other algal charophyte nad5 sequence sampled. Introns with the same insertion point as that of C. orbicularis were only found in Sphagnum (a moss) and Marchantia (a liverwort) which share a sequence identity of 69.39%, compared with only 37.82% and 37.81% to C. orbicularis, respectively. Anthoceros (a hornwort) has an apparently unrelated intron inserted 128 base pairs downstream with 37.35% identity with that of Sphagnum, 35.99% identity to Marchantia, and 39.46% to C. orbicularis. For comparison, pairs of random sequences with similar base composition and length as the natural sequences had an average of 37.78% sequence identity. These data suggest that the C. orbicularis nad5 intron was acquired independently from that shared by Sphagnum and Marchantia.
15. J. P. Huelsenbeck, J. P. Bollback, in Handbook of Statistical Genetics, M. Bishop, Ed. (Wiley, London, 2001).
16. J. P. Huelsenbeck, F. Ronquist, R. Nielsen, J. P. Bollback, Science 294, 2310 (2001) [Abstract/Full Text] .
17. D. Bhattacharya, K. Weber, S. S. An, W. Berning-Koch, J. Mol. Evol. 47, 544 (1998) [ISI][Medline] .
18. H. J. Sluiman and C. Guihal, J. Phycol. 35, 395 (1999) [Abstract].
19. C. Lemieux, C. Otis, M. Turmel, Nature 403, 649 (2000) [CrossRef][ISI][Medline] .
20. C. Lemieux, C. Otis, M. Turmel, in press.
21. F. E. Fritsch, The Structure and the Reproduction of the Algae (Cambridge Univ. Press, London, 1935), vol. I.
22. J. D. Pickett-Heaps and H. J. Marchant, Cytobios 6, 255 (1972) [ISI] .
23. K. R. Mattox, K. D. Stewart, in The Systematics of the Green Algae, D. E. G. Irvine, D. M. John, Eds. (Academic Press, London, 1984), pp. 29-72.
24. B. D. Mishler and S. P. Churchill, Cladistics 1, 305 (1985) .
25. Alternative hypotheses that were explored include: Coleochaete orbicularis sister to land plants, PP = 0.0, ML = 0.0%; Coleochaete sister to land plants, PP = 0.0, ML = 0.0%; Coleochaetales sister to land plants, PP = 0.0, ML = 0.0%; Coleochaetales sister to Charales, PP = 0.0, ML = 0.4%.
26. T. M. Duncan, K. S. Renzaglia, D. J. Garbary, Pl. Syst. Evol. 204, 125 (1997) .
27. M. E. Cook, L. E. Graham, C. E. J. Botha, C. A. Lavin, Am. J. Bot. 84, 1169 (1997) [Abstract] .
28. M. Feist and R. Feist, Nature 385, 401 (1997) [ISI][Medline] .
29. H. Tappan, The Paleobiology of Plant Protists (Freeman, New York, 1980).
30. We thank T. Bachvaroff, T. Cooke, G. French, M. Hibbs, J. Lewandowski, T. Marushak, and E. Zimmer for critical comments; C. Drummond, S. Snyder, and A. Zeccardi for technical assistance; J. Bollback and J. Huelsenbeck for important discussions and assistance with Bayesian analyses; M. Casanova, M. Feist, and V. Proctor for material; F. Lang et al., C. Lemieux, C. Otis, and M. Turmel for unpublished sequence data; and S. Fritz, A. Kaspar, R. Sudman, K. Sytsma, and the GPPRGC ("Deep Green"; USDA) for help with development of this project. This work was supported by NSF grant DEB-9978117 and is dedicated to the memory of C. C. Delwiche.
7 August 2001; accepted 9 November 2001
10.1126/science.1065156
Include this information when citing this paper.
Re:Non-watered down story (Score:1)
Re:Non-watered down story (Score:1)
Note for University Students (Score:3, Informative)
If you attend a major university, you may be able access Science magazine electronically free of charge (minus tuition of course) from any computer with an IP address on your university's network. Try going to Science's homepage [sciencemag.org]. If under the advertisments at the top of the page, there is some text that says "Institution: University of foo", then you have electronic access to all the articles that have appeared in print (Sadly institutional subscriptions don't include access to papers on ScienceExpress that have been published electronically but not yet on paper)
--Phillipan amusing comment (Score:1)
Re:an amusing comment (Score:2, Informative)
Re:an amusing comment (Score:2)
-Legion
Re:an amusing comment (Score:2)
If you mean evolution in terms of adaptation based on traits that make the species more hearty, that is scientific and observable.
Extension of that pattern to explain origin of species is not scientific in nature. It is merely conjecture. When you speak of origin of all species, you move past the scientific method. Since it's not a theory that can be tested, it can't be called science.
Evolutionists and creationists have the same data, we just have different explanations of the cause of that data.
Your belief that it is explainable by survival of the fittest, time and chance may be the "only game in town that makes sense" to you, but having a creator who intelligently designed the basic species and allowed them to adapt from there seems to me to fit the evidence more accurately.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
PS - God loves you and longs for relationship with you. If you want to know more about this, please contact me at tom_cooper@bigfoot.com
Re:an amusing comment (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:an amusing comment (Score:2)
I think that the "invisible superhero" makes a bit of sense given that you may need to bend the known rules of physics to allow for eternally existent matter.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
Re:an amusing comment (Score:1)
Eh? Why exactly- what reason do you have to think that this is what SHOULD have happened? The reality is that the material universe exists: one needs to explain how it works, not try to prove that it exists...
---I think that the "invisible superhero" makes a bit of sense given that you may need to bend the known rules of physics to allow for eternally existent matter.---
First of all: what evidence is there that matter is "eternally existent"? And second of all, you don't have to bend the rules of physics at all: as victor Sternger has pointed out, it is perfectly acceptable to the laws of physics for the universe to litterally come out of nothing, the way that quantum particle/anti-particle pairs do ALL THE TIME everywhere.
However, the more important point here, that you missed, is that "invisible superhero" explanations are unacceptable as explainations because a) they violate the very bounds of reasoned dicussion (because once this becomes an acceptable "explanation" we've destroyed the very need to explain anything at all: the "explanation" can work for ANYTHING) and b) they do not actually "explain" ANYTHING (i.e. that "something of unknown characteristics did it in an unknown way" is just a fancy way of saying "I don't know").
Re:an amusing comment (Score:2)
But unlike the creationist view, evolution is based on research and analysis. Creationism is based on a nifty book written by people long ago who didn't even write it down for several generations. For example, a classic game of "telephone" probably led to the Bible's editions of the past several hundred years or so. And before 1611 it was mostly in Latin and Greek. [pair.com]
Somehow I feel I can trust evolution a bit more as a viable theory for how life came to be.
Re:an amusing comment (Score:2)
Re:an amusing comment (Score:3, Informative)
This is wrong on the factual level as well as on the philsophical level.
On the factual level, we have observed speciation in the wild and in the laboratory. For example, the ring species of birds, where one species breeds with another as you move east, until they wrap back on each other. Change of species features has been observed!
On the philosophical level, you can't do science without speculation! That's the only way to advance. Caring only to make "correct" statements, one will never invent and devise experiments to test if one is wrong. And not experiments means no progress. By being wrong (experimentally), scietists cause progress and advancement. These errors are beneficient, think about that!
Re:an amusing comment (Score:2)
It's one thing to say that there are variations within a kind, but there are substantive issues with suggesting that the same process can explain the existance of the great diversity of species.
I don't argue that species features are observed to change. That is objectively measureable.
Of course scientists speculate, but there's a difference between speculations that can be tested and those that cannot.
Those that can be tested are called hypothesis - after testing they are called theories.
Those that cannot be tested are appropriately called speculation, or beliefs. They are not science, and shold not be called that.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
Re:an amusing comment (Score:1)
But secondly, the theory of evolution is most certainly scientific. This is a moot point: claiming that it is not is simply in contradiction to virtually all accounts of what science is. You're going to have a _very_ hard time finding a preponderance of accredited theorists of science who would be willing to agree with your view.
And indeed, it quite regularly makes testable predictions about what sorts of things we should expect to find if the theory is true, and these predictions have proved incredibly accurate. We have also been able to build models from evidence, and test these models in the real world. Just because something is historical does not mean that science is toothless in the face of it. Certainly, one cannot prove that _history_ happened in a certain way, but one can certainly amass all the evidence one can about the functioning of the world, records left by this functioning, and make and test hypothesises.
Re:an amusing comment (Score:2)
Sorry, but you are basically repeating the same old argument from incredulity again. On what BASIS do you think you are coming out with this objection?
Is this objection that variation within a species cannot ever produce a variation that makes news species. That's the factual problem right? So if one exception were ever to be raised, your "rule" or "law" would deserve to be revised, right? There is plenty of evidence out there that species change from one to the other. Many very direct! Many observed in the wild! (Try reading "The Beak of the Finch")
Now what are you really objecting to? That there is a difference between a fact and a theory? That evolution is a theory, and so cannot be as good as a fact? BUT EVOLUTION is both FACT AND THEORY. There is a theory of evolution supported by facts of evolution. And this theory of evolution proposes new research directions, and lends coherncy to these facts of evolution. That is what a scientific theory is!
Perhaps you think evolution has aspects that are speculative. But so what? There are speculative aspects to all theories. Do you object to Quantum Mechanics implying that there are many worlds? Do you object to GR predicting that time-travel is possible? Do you think you can "pick-and-choose" which part to believe and which part not to, arbitrarily and on whim, using your own gut level intuition as a guide? When the findings of science has shown consistently that our gut level intuitions are wrong in many points, subtle or otherwise?
To rephrase: go ahead and object to the speculative parts of evolution. But please come out with a scientific argument for that objection. The onus is on the contratrian to supply the arguments, since the (overwhelming) weight of the evidence points to evolution.
Re:an amusing comment (Score:3, Interesting)
> Extension of that pattern to explain origin of species is not scientific in nature. It is merely conjecture.
All science is 'conjecture'. The difference between science and other types of conjecture is that scientists think out the implications of their conjectures and then look at the world again to see whether it conforms to those implications. That is the essence of the scientific method.
> When you speak of origin of all species, you move past the scientific method.
Not at all. Please re-read my previous paragraph.
> Since it's not a theory that can be tested, it can't be called science.
Ah, but it can be tested. Indeed, you can reasonably think of all of modern genetics as a big test of the theory of creation, which was originally a 'conjecture' based on the fossil record, but which had very strong implications for what we should see when we started realizing how genetics worked on the level of biochemistry. Alas for creationism, modern genetics bears those implications out quite well.
If you understand the scientific method and then add just a tiny amount of knowlege about biology, biochemistry, and paleontolgy, it becomes immediately obvious why the 'conjecture' represented by the theory of evolution continues to be accepted as 'scientific'.
> Evolutionists and creationists have the same data, we just have different explanations of the cause of that data.
Yes: scientists have a dense network of interrelated and mutually supporting, falsifiable theories spanning several fields of study, whereas creationists have "I think goddidit."
> Your belief that it is explainable by survival of the fittest, time and chance may be the "only game in town that makes sense" to you, but having a creator who intelligently designed the basic species and allowed them to adapt from there seems to me to fit the evidence more accurately.
Anything can be made to 'fit' the evidence if you are willing to invoke enough miracles. And that's exactly what creationists do when they're pressed to actually explain something: lurk talk.origins for a while if you doubt me.
Also notice that divine intervention has no explanatory value whatsoever: any observation is compatible with it. Unlike scientific explanations such as the theory of evolution, creationism is beyond falsification.
Re:an amusing comment (Score:1)
PS - Science loves you and longs for relationship with you. Dont be afraid to question your peers, and the world around you!
Other religions? (Score:1)
If you thump your bibles at them, they'll do the same right back at you. THEN who's right? heh? heh?
--R
A dime a dozen (Score:2)
There are plenty of other origins in various religions around the world, but non of them are ex nihilo, and the vast majority were essentially dispelled by TIROS I (the first weather satellite, which sent down bulk photos - incidentally, TIROS I was designed by a Christian Creationist named Dr Gary D Gordon), if not already killed soon after the invention of the telescope.
Some of these odd little cultures, however, are absolute rippers! For example, search for ``sirius'' in this page [warp0.com].
Hope that's answered your question. (-:
Re:an amusing comment (Score:2)
PS - God loves you and longs for relationship with you.
Has he appeared to you and told you this personally, or are you guessing?
-Legion
Wait a minute (Score:3, Interesting)
I've never completely understood why some of the Christian creationist folks automatically assume that people who don't have any problems with modern biology's conception of evolution must be atheists, agnostics, pagans, etc. I would submit that the vast majority of Christians on this planet have no argument with the fact that the universe is a tad older than 6,000 years and that evolutionary common descent is a perfectly sensible way for God to create the kind of biodiversity that we see on Earth today.
Personally, I'm an apathetic agnostic (I care so little about religion that I can't be bothered to call myself an atheist
Really, the fact that we see so many similarities between different creatures on Earth is one of the strongest pieces of evidence in favor of evolutionary common descent. Now, granted, this fact is certainly not evidence against creation ex nihilo. But if God was creating everything ex nihilo He could have made a diverse array of creatures with completely different internal systems specifically engineered for optimal operation in the creature's native environment. Evolution, by and large, has done a pretty good job. Sure, it's not perfect; there are some flaws in the human body that I'd just as soon not be burdened with, but hey
At any rate, I just don't understand how people who believe in an all-powerful God could possibly suggest that He could not, and did not, create the biodiversity on Earth via the simple and elegant processes of evolution. Biology is in the business of answering the "how" questions. It is not in the business of answering the "why" questions, and has never claimed to be. Those who claim otherwise are "putting words in science's mouth", so to speak.
Move on, old news (Score:1)
But is it more advanced than e katzcoli bacteria? (Score:1)
Pond scum is closest? (Score:2, Funny)
account in Genesis in a little unclear
on which day pond scum was created.
I mean on day 3, you get herbs, grass
and fruit trees on dry land.
On day 5 you get the living creatures
that move in the ocean. Does pond scum
move? does this count?
Just MHO, but I'd call it a herb (Score:2)
Psychics (Score:2)
Weeeeelll, I wouldn't be so sure. Defining ``motion'' can be a bit touchy when you get down a ways in scale.
Ah, so you were there...? (-:
Then perhaps you can explain a few things for us then, like Carpet Rock in Arizona, the remnant of an immense steel-reinforced dam?
Re:Psychics (Score:2)
There's a new one on me - one might expect Google to have *some* reference to such a thing, but no such luck... Any pointers?
Not that I expect finding such a thing would make any more difference than the thousands of well-documented "impossible" finds have already made to the Church of the Evolution...
Carpet Rock (Score:2)
The closest I see at the moment is a travel magazine site [mysteriousworld.com] with some excellent pictures and a reference to a buried stone pavement elsewhere, but nothing on the dam itself. My original source is on paper, and is almost certainly filed at ``home-home'' 350km southeast of here.
Such as... (Score:2)
Totally weirded out yet? No? Then click on more of those links! (-:
I'll dig up some better references for you but only if you're serious.
On the religious side, consider Moses' crossing point [wyattarchaeology.com] halfway down the Gulf of Aquaba (at the time considered to part of the Red Sea), complete with horse and human skeletons, chariot parts from very specific chariots, weapons, and Phoenecian memorial pillars on each beach, plus much more.
Pond scum (Score:1)
A good link (Score:1)
Guess the genetics are just confirming an older theory. Now if they could only find the missing link between men and geeks...
Finally! (Score:2)
Charales and Primordial scum (Score:3, Funny)
This however has nothing to do with primordial scum! Charales [arizona.edu] are advanced green algae that looks something like a submerged moss. I need to read the article, but i suspect the reason Nature would publish this is that they used some new fancy algorith to calculate the phylogenetic trees.
Re:Charales and Primordial scum (Score:1)
some new fancy algorith to calculate the phylogenetic trees.
Spot on. Bayesian estimation. The newest latest way to get the "right" answer. Althought that being said I really do like it myself - I need to work through the math some more, but it seems like a way of approaching parametric bootstrapping results without the gigantic computational overhead...
Re:Charales and Primordial scum (Score:2)
Nothing alive today is comparable (Score:3, Interesting)
The first form of "life" (i.e., a self replicating chemical) would probably be a million times simpler than anything that could survive today.
Re:Nothing alive today is comparable (Score:2)
Even crystals have to have a way of acquiring food, and that's generally by existing in a strong solution of their ingredients. Can you postulate a viable solution of protolife?
No.
In detail, a million times simpler is dead. Ten times simpler than prokaryotic is generally dead.
In even more detail, a couple of billion years is nothing like enough. Given stupidly optimistic conditions (e.g. entire universe made of the correct amino acids, target critter many times simpler than anything known today), a trillion years is many, many, many zeroes too few.
Re:Nothing alive today is comparable (Score:2)
Secondly, there are ways of quantifying genetic and genomic "complexity", but comparing the "complexity" of something abiotic to something living is inherently nonsensical.
Thirdly, an order of magnitude difference in genome size (measured in number if genes, one way of giving a number to "complexity") between prokarotes is possible. The prokaryote with the smallest genome has roughly 400 genes, though I don't know the size of the largest prokaryotic genome off hand, I know it is a few thousand genes. So ten times "simpler" than a prokaryote isn't dead.
From crystals to 400-gene prokaryotes (Score:2)
There is no conceptual difference between a crystal assimilating structure from a surrounding solution, and a macrophage ingesting other organisms or organic particles, except that the macrophage's filtering is generally better.
Excellent! Name any standalone self-reproducing unit - either observed or with reasonable indirect evidence - with circa 40 genes and I'll agree with you.
BTW, contrast a crystal structure (repeating pattern of one to dozens of atoms) with 400 genes, each consisting of specific chromosomes, each consisting of specific proteins, each consisting of specific amino acids, each far more complex than the most complex crystal.
Re:Nothing alive today is comparable (Score:1)
At the levels we're talking about, saying that something is "alive" or "dead" is not particularly enlightening, and usually misleading. There is no hard and fast line between "alive" and "dead." Ten times simpler than prokaryotic may not be alive in the sense that a prokaryote is "alive," but that doesn't mean it's inorganic, or has no complexity, or even no self-reproducing complexity.
Alive, alive-oh! (Score:2)
Then let's draw one. ``Unable to continue growing or reproducing,'' or more succinctly, ``Positive nett entropy.''
Yes, it does. Anything ten times simpler than prokaryotic has insufficient cellular machinery to survive unaided. By ``unaided,'' I mean that anything that simple has to be a parasite, and a parasite implies a host, and a host must be around ten times more complicated, but we're starting with something (in the original) ``a million times simpler.'' And if you delete the cellular machinery, there's this enormous gap left between the organisational ability of a simple crystal, and that of a ``simple'' (many millions of atoms) cell which no developmental theory seriously begins to cover. And we haven't even got to the Cambrian Explosion yet,
GAME OVER PLAYER <1>
Ah, so simple! (Score:2)
The simplest ``self-replicating'' molecule is one atom. Oxygen ice, for example, forms more of itself from surrounding liquid oxygen on the more temperate planets of our solar system. But if we're talking structure, maybe salt's two-atom cubic form will do.
However, if we're talking about something that actively seeks out food to convert to more of itself, either a larger ``it'' or more ``its,'' the smallest known (Mycoplasma genitalium) consists of 470 genes (another poster placed this at 400) with a 580,000 base-pair genome, of which about 300 are absolutely essential [mansfieldct.org]. Informed speculation has gone as low as 100 genes [nationalacademies.org] (which would imply around 130,000 base-pairs), going beyond this [aip.org] requires a hive- or colony-like structure [gaiabooks.co.uk] and some means of collating enough genes to start a new group collective organism.
By contrast, each of your cells harbours DNA to the tune of around 3 billion bases. If a strand of this DNA were unwound, it would be several meters long. If your proteins also uncurled you'd look like the dust puppy from UserFriendy [userfriendly.org]. At the other end of the scale, one of the smallest known (parasitic) organisms is the Q-beta virus, at 3 genes totalling about 4500 base-pairs. This is a long, long way from standalone.
To be sure, and like Mr Dawkin's facetious weasel stunt (100% selectivity base on bare-faced teleology indeed! I fart in his general direction
Crystal clear, base pairs, half life, weasel words (Score:2)
Yes, that's what the seed of a crystal does. It collects unstructured molecules from its environment and adds them to its structure. The amount of regularity is great, but the amount of information is not far from zero.
Actually, it does fit our definitions of what life is, under the subhead ``fragment.'' What the MIT researchers have done is isolate one property of a pre-existing biological reaction which is itself part of an immense chicken-and-egg problem. They have not generated anything essentially new, nor anything which could form spontaneously, or form from pre-biotic material, or exist outside a very specialised laboratory environment. Like cloning, this is a modification of what already exists, not development from scratch.
More importantly, think about those 580,000 base pairs. That's over half a million combinations (choice of 4 at each point) which have been randomly generated, selected, and integrated into the population in only 4 billion years, which is asking a bit much, even ignoring the problem of the complex machinery within which said generation and selection takes place, and of propagating a change through squillions of precursors.
Now zoom out from genitalium to a huamn cell. Roughly three billion base-pairs in 4 billion years, or a year and a third per base-pair. Tall order? It reaches past the Moon, my friend!
What we're seeing with these programs is not deity being squeezed into a niche ecology, it's people putting their wishful materialistic ideas into practice. And this has been good because in each case it then becomes possible to test a discrete model and highlight the flaws in it. This makes it easier to amend the flawed thinking behind the models. In each case, this has helped Diety to shoulder His way back into the general scientific consciousness.
What each model essentially illustrates is that you can't reach your target without presupposing extensive design. Take the weasel as a simple example. It has 100% selectivity. Nature has a very, very small fraction of 1% selectivity. The weasel takes forever at 99% selectivity and can't win if you reduce the selectivity below about 96%. The weasel is also selecting from a very restricted range, knows its target (teleology), and can survive with any number of ``defective'' cells.
replication, abiogenesis, (Score:2)
Who needs a proof-of-concept? Every living thing contains proofs-of-concept! Lots of proofs-of-concept. Actually, truth be told, too many proofs-of-concept for the time available under the most optimistic evolutionary assumptions.
What can I say? Ah, yes, the word on the time-saving cap I got for Christmas. WRONG [mattox.com] (-:
One of the more obvious big gaps in this sequence is that viruses require a host organism to be anything like viable. For example, they can't reproduce themselves at all without one.
It's not scientific to exclude the supernatural, it's merely materialistic. And materialism is a belief, even one which cannot be formally proven.
If it isn't random, then it has a purpose. If it has a purpose (teleology) then it isn't evolution. People can assert that selection is non-random until they're blue in the face (or meet Stephen J Gould) but firstly it's wrong (the success or otherwise of selection is essentially random as well, and kept so by factors such as changing circumstances), and secondly it cannot compensate for the proposed randomness in mutation.
It is a system without foundations (there is no reasonable path through abiogenesis, and all that we know of mathematics says that there never can be), and presumes upon a nett positive effect (successes, an increase in functionality) in an environment observed to be heavily dominated by destructive effects (decay, disasters).
Error after error! If this had been the bad old days, Torquemada would be having words with you in person! (-:
A mechanism not only has to evolve, it has to establish itself in significant numbers in a viable population of organisms, and out-compete other similar mechanisms. This happens very infrequently, so the vast majority of mechanisms would have to re-evolve countless times.
You wind up with a double molecule, one which almost always kills the organism, not a single molecule with twice the complexity.
This applies more to your claims than to mine. Chemistry as we know it does not magically produce life, or any significant step toward life, when left to itself - or even when given some very directed nudges, as in Stanley Miller's experiments [arn.org] - it destroys and breaks down life and components of life.
Re:Nothing alive today is comparable (Score:2)
On The Next Jerry Springer ... (Score:2, Funny)
Today, on Springer! Men reveal secret fetishes to their significant others, with slurpy results!
Guest: "Jerry, I've been having a secret space affair with an algal bloom on the blue planet known as Earth, and I'm here today to tell the truth to my space lover. I want her or him or it, whatever you call an amorphous sillicon entity, not that I actually know but man, the things he, she, or it can do
Jerry: "Oh really? Well, space man, we've got a surprise for you! Turns out your dalliances on Earth created something you didn't quite expect
Guest: "Uh-oh."
creationism (Score:1)
Re:creationism (Score:1)
Why is it funny? It was a challenge, which is now being met.
Re:creationism (Score:1)
Just keeping us all honest.
Just for curiosity sake, I don't think evolution is correct. Figure I should show my colors in a forum like this.
How does this work? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:How does this work? (Score:1)
Re:How does this work? (Score:1)
Wanna guess how many new species are being made a day?
Re:How does this work? (Score:3, Informative)
You seem to be trying to make some syllagism here but I don't follow it at all.
I read that we lose 6 species each day from the face of the earth6 species a day may be the correct figure for animals or plants during the last few thousand years- you should be able to find a better estimate in an ecology textbook. I don't know is there is an estimate of species lost and creation in bacteria, archaebacteria, or protists, especially since the notion of species in bacteria is somewhat tricky because of the magnitude of lateral gene transfer.
The rate of speciation and extinction varies over geological time though. Sometimes the net change will be (roughly) zero, sometimes there will be mass extinctions, and sometimes there will be rapid and speciation and creation of new taxa.
we don't see new species being createdYes we do, its all over the fossil record. Bacteria and plants can undergo rapid speciation because of the flexibility of their genomes, animals generally less so, so the documentation of speciation is better for bacteria and plants. We'll understand speciation much better when we have a better understanding of how organisms develop- how the interactions between genes and environment bring about a complete organism which is less or more simaler to its ancestors.
we see statistical laws in action everywhere we look, with increaing entropy being of great interest.I don't see what this has to do with the rest of your post. Events which are more probable than the alternatives will on average occur more than the alternatives. Entropy will increase over time in closed systems but entropy can be shifted or exported from closed systems
What makes evolution feasible?heredity, mutation, and varying reproductive success between organisms.
Heh (Score:2)
Do you honestly believe that biological evolution, a slow and meticulous process that takes millions of years to produce real results, can possibly compete with the destructive power of mankind, which can wipe out a species in a few short years? I've heard some pretty weak arguments against evolution, but I have to admit that this is one of the more desparate attempts at straw-grabbing that I've come across.
a story from long ago (Score:2)
One telling point of the conversion was the space aliens nostalgia for the microbial (or some such thing) civilization he remembered from one of his earlier visits to earth.
Sadly I do not remember the title or the author. It feels like a bar conversation, but that may be wrong.
Re:a story from long ago (Score:1)
Re:a story from long ago (Score:1)
Re:a story from long ago (Score:2)
for some reason Callahan's Crosstime Saloon now comes to mind, but I could be wrong. It feels more like a subplot atmosperic thing than a main plot point.
[shrug]
Re:a story from long ago (Score:1)
It wasn't that the alien was long-lived, but that it was a ramscoop pilot, living thousands of years real-time at close to lightspeed, so subjective time was short. The alien lamented the anaerobic ecology of the old, pre-photosynthesis earth. Our predecessors saw us coming and accepted their gradual replacement. Hence the cautionary tale.
Re:a story from long ago (Score:1)
"The Green Menace," which was published as part of "Cautionary Tales."
Re:a story from long ago (Score:2)
From a few of my bio classes (Score:1)
yah yah I'm a.... kar-ma whore! (Score:2, Informative)
Sure it's cheap, but I had to share my non-discovery with the world. And by world I mean Slashdot.
Shouldn't that be "Alga"? (Score:1)
How to find a missing link (Score:2)
The article left me a bit flat because I went in with false expectations: I thought they were going to talk about the enormous gulf between pre-biotic soup and algae, not algae and land plants.
Re:How to find a missing link (Score:2)
Algae (Score:1)
Or perhaps I'm just thinking of a crappy movie.
Oh, Shrek! (Score:2)
Are you sure you're not thinking of Princess Fiona fighting the Merry Men?
remarkable (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:remarkable (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not sure what being a European might have to do with it - there are lots of Creationists there, too, but they seem less willing to speak freely, possibly for fear of reprisals.
There happen to be quite a lot of us that are trained as scientists and/or engineers, have looked at the data, and come to the conclusion that Creation 1) requires orders of magnitude less faith in the unseen than does evolution, and 2) fits the available data considerably better, too.
I don't want or intend to turn this into a flame fest, but if you're at all interested in why, I'd suggest looking in one of several places:
Uber-hacker Do-While Jones' excellent site [scienceaga...lution.org] on why science is against evolution. Be sure not to miss the archives of the newsletter, Disclosure [scienceaga...lution.org] - reading through these will keep you up nights if evolution is important to your world view... (Check out the article on "Lucy" for an enlightening look at the art of passing off a total pipe dream as "science".)
There's a pretty good book out called "In Six Days" [amazon.com] containing essays from 50 respected PhDs who explain why they find it considerably easier and more scientifically consistent to belive in Creation than evolution.
Michael Behe's excellent book, Darwin's Black Box. [amazon.com] This outlines the irreducible complexity argument for Creation that is far better butressed by actual science than is evolution.
or is it just another incarnation of the kind of thought that makes people believe in UFOs or witchcraft?
Creationists aren't stupid, or ignorant. There are a few that are knee-jerk fundamentalists, but I find many more are thoughtful scholars. I find that many Creationists are better versed on the science and the data relating to origins than most all evolutionists. In short, the only thing science can say with certainty about origins is that we do not know. Do not be so quick to dismiss alternatives that may well be completely legitimate, even if their implications may be quite uncomfortable for you... Please read up as suggested above before flaming.
...and a sequel! (Score:2)
He also has all but one unit of a BSc in Philosophy, which he abandoned because it wasn't answering his questions, and he wasn't exactly dying for extra letters after his name. (-:
Re:...and a sequel! (Score:2)
But that's not censorship! (Score:2)
I wonder if it's just being delayed, or if someone's buying time to think of answers? If so, they're largely wasting their time. The God Factor, although still chocker with factual content, relies much more on personal testimonies and less on dry factoids.
You might like to try ordering direct from an Australian retailer [koorong.com.au].
Re:remarkable (Score:2)
There are scientists who are creationists,but this is not reasonable basis for assuming that Creationism is valid.
Of *course* Creationism is a valid theory, both as science and human thought about the realities of the universe. But Creation cannot be circumscribed by science, for the Creator encompasses science, not the other way around. Creation even fits all the available evidence far better than evolution. (It is despised by many, though, because it implies that naturalism is not the measure of all things.) Niether theory can be proved or disproved by scientific means - there are some things that science can not tell us. Sorry to break that harsh reality to you, but "Evolutionism" is a religious worldview with a far higher percentage of "unreasonable fundamentalists" than any religion that believes in a Creator...
Next Mistake:Straw Man
This is a convenient, but wholly unacceptable dodge used over and over by evolutionists. This is NOT a straw man - it strikes at the very heart of the debate: Since Evolutionists flatly reject the notion that life was "created", the only alternative then left to them is that life somehow spontaneously generated on its own. Evolutionists (such as yourself) now routinely try to limit the scope of evolution to what happened on Earth *after* life somehow magically appeared, ignoring the inconvenient fact that this logic requires it to have, in fact, originated somehow, somewhere, at some point in the past. The reason this is happening is that even evolutionary scientists recognize the folly of claiming life came from non-life, especially in a universe that's not nearly old enough, even using the most generous estimates. This is why many evolutionists now claim life on Earth had to come from elsewhere (the ridiculous panspermia argument) - the Earth simply isn't nearly old enough (niether is anywhere else, but that's beside the point...) This is a cowardly and disingenuous dodge, because it still doesn't address that crucial development of the first living thing, it simply attempts to shift it offstage under the cover of smoke and mirrors, declaring any discussion about the real origin of life "off-limits".
That's funny.I guess they never heard about these. [gate.net]In fact, they must not be very aware of modern medical and bilogical sciences in general.
Not at all true. Spend a little time doing reading up even on your own evolutionary sources, and you'll find there are a number of very substantial and very fundamental problems with this idea. Most particularly, there is the fundamental problem that mutations result in a *decrease* in the amount of information present, not the creation of new information, which is what evolutionary theory requires. The site you reference in essence gapes in awe at the changes that can be wrought in morphology by twiddling the genetic knobs, while leaving entirely unanswered the foundational question of the mechanism that could have created the knobs in order for them to be available to twiddle. Another aspect that evolutionists conveniently gloss over is that DNA/genome mapping produces relationships between organisms that *simply cannot be* if the fossil record is granted any validity at all. A great many scientists would throw up an incredible ruckus if DNA were used as an ironclad determiner of evolutionary relationships...
A great example of this can indeed be found at Do-While Jones Science Against Evolution web site: I could recommend several, but one article that gives a good high-level overview and hits to the point here is "Stoneage Mutant Mammal Turtles" [scienceaga...lution.org], discussing some of the difficulties that evolution would have to overcome in order for reptiles to grow breasts and make the transition to mammals. The number of significant, non-trivial morphological and *functional* changes that have to be made *simultaneously* in order to even pretend this could happen should be enough to convince even the most closed-minded evolutionist that perhaps he should entertain the possibility that perhaps evolution cannot produce what we see around us.
Next Mistake:A revisiting of the first fallacious statement by citing John Ashton's book, In Six Days.
Your argument seems to be that faith and origins cannot be related, except by the truly ridiculous leap of faith necessary to belive life spontaneously derived from dead stuff. This is ridiculous. The fact that some of the 50 scientists whose essays are in "In Six Days" find their evolutionary views in line with their views of faith should not be surprising, except to those that summarily dismiss both anything outside the natural world and the existence of any spiritual dimension to man. The quote you slam is dead-on: Some people choose to extend a little faith in the unseen as an alternative to the inevitable alternative that life is indeed meaningless. If you believe (or even want to believe) in the very concept of "good", then you are ultimately forced to recognize God. The 20th century was filled with dreary philosophers that all started with the premise that God could not exist and then (correctly) reached the only logical conclusion they could from that starting point: the same one Dostoevsky stated as, "If God does not exist, then everything is permitted."
Next Mistake:Behe of all people?Is this a reference or a joke?
Not at all. Evolutionists don't *like* Behe, but that doesn't affect the fact that his observations are correct, and supported by the data. Irreducible complexity is a serious problem for evolutionists, one they try to ignore or ridicule, rather than address. The chances against any single aspect of an irreducibly complex system arising is astronomical, the chances against them all arising at the same time, in the same place, in the only possible correct arrangement for function, advantage, and the sustenance of life, (not to mention adaptive advantage) is well and truly ZERO.
Odd that Behe has never published a single technical paper for peer review....
I was not aware that was a requirement for truth... Seriously, this is an ad hominem attack on Behe and his credibility. His academic credentials are not in question, he is quite well-qualified to do all the things he has done. The simple fact that he is a Fellow at the prestigious Discovery Institute should carry some weight relative to his academic standing. Behe could well have chosen to publish his findings in places where they would have been peer-reviewed. He chose not to because he's smart enough to know that no challenge to evolutionary dogma is permitted by the Church of Evolution. (I think it's telling that in your link to a review of his book, the author of the review lets his bias show so freely by dismissing Behe simply because his book was published by the same house that published "The Bell Curve". That book was universally hated by PC academia, but the science on which it is based holds up well under any objective evaluation, and the authors' motives are clearly (if one bothers to read the book) anti-racist. This is the whole problem with today's emasculated Politically Correct academia: NO deviation from the official party line is EVER tolerated. The only absolute allowed is that there is no absolute but that one. Funny how "tolerance" works in academia today...)
and as far as his book goes, well, Behe offers no general laws, models, or explanations for how design happens, no testable predictions, and no possible way to falsify his hybrid evolution/ID hypothesis. He is simply claiming that design is a fact that is easily detectable in biochemical systems.
You don't seem to get it, do you? There is a fundamental difference in *worldview* at issue here. Yours states that *all things* must be explainable by science. Behe's (and mine) is that there is ample evidence for intelligent design in the Creation we see all around us. The irreducible complexity of biochemical interactions is just one example of many millions. (The clear implication (to those of us that refuse to wear blinders) is that there *is* something beyond what science can tell us, and that the evidence points to the existence of a Creator. A bit more thoughtful reflection on that point will convince one that this must be an omnipotent and omniscient Creator ("Immortal, Invisible, God Only Wise", to quote the hymnist...)
As THE ONLY POSSIBLE objective standard of Truth, God cannot be modeled, falsified, or explained by laws other than His own. But not all will open their eyes: Pilate asked his famous question, "What is Truth?" with Truth standing right in front of him...
All in all, this post did not address the original question,which was (to paraphrase) Why is it that,when discussing anything even vaguely related to evolution,Creationists feel the need to spout their psuedo-science?
First of all, it's not pseudo-science. There is some very bad "Creationist" science. There is some equally bad "Evolutionist" scince, much of which is sadly now taken as dogma rather than open to question. Niether kind is defensible. There is a vast array of fast-growing sceince that support the Creationist perspective. Open your mind.
Real science argues for Creation far more forcefully than it argues for evolution. In the not too distant future, evolution will be relgated to the dustbin of history and laughed at as the prime example of how science can go so far astray from anything even remotely supported by the evidence.
Evolution is a self-admittedly anti-supernatural worldview, rather than a valid theory of origins.
Science is one way of getting at truth, but it is the height of hubris to think that all truth is circumscribed by science.
and by the way ... (Score:2, Informative)
But where did IT come from? (Score:2)
Easy - it evolved from creationists!
=tkk
The Slashdot editorial staff strikes again (Score:2)
hyacinthus.
pond scum, eh? (Score:2)
I love first-hand science.
de-evolution (Score:3, Insightful)
The implcation here is that this pond scum could have been a more developed organization that gave up complexity over the eons.
Re:Human DNA (Score:2)
getting there (Score:2)
In a few years both human and chimp DNA will be fully sequenced (three of 24 human chromosomes have been fully deciphered). Then a gene-by-gene comparison can be fully done. It is expected to be about 98% identical.
Re:Human DNA (Score:2, Informative)
It has been done lots of times. Based upon chromosomal organization here [indiana.edu] and based upon DNA sequences here [uchicago.edu], for example or here [utm.edu] for a good set of lecture notes on the topic.
Re:yet still, I wonder... (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Oooh right (Score:2)
Also, 640k should be enough for everyone.
Don't hit delete! It works for me! (Score:2)
Actually, it takes about 3G - if you're talking in terms of base-pairs - to make a human genome. And where did that all come from? A couple of trillion consecutive incredibly lucky accidents? Yes?
OK, right... hmmm... are you interested in owning a bridge? Only $USD10,000 down secures you the first option on the lease, it's got a steady revenue stream and fabulous subleasing possibilities. Made out of lasting rivetted steel, it's a great little money-spinner. It may also enlarge or stiffen your penis or breasts, supply you with toner, leather jackets, search engine entries and hot teen babes, besides solving every mortgage and credit problem you could ever imagine.
I have to agree with you (Score:2)