Ready, Steady, Evolve 911
Stront writes "New Scientist is reporting that plants and animals can 'bottle up' evolution until they need it. A certain protein 'hides away' mutated genes acting like a genetic valet, however in extreme environments, such as high temperature or noxious chemicals, the cleaning process breaks down and the mutations are released all at once. This goes some way to explaining examples that are considered to defy standard evolutionary theory, such as the Bombardier Beetle."
Hmm... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hmm... (Score:2, Insightful)
Mind you this "pent up evoloution" really doesn't make sense for non-reducable systems: If evolution is trial and error, then how would evolution know what to queue up? It could be a queued up sequence of disastrous changes. Or are we to believe that evolution queued up random delta logs in every creature, and an infinite number of changes leads to the Bombardier Beetles defensive system as one random lucky draw?
Re:Hmm... (Score:4, Insightful)
Evolution most definitely does NOT know what to queue up. And yes, it might queue up disastrous changes. A lot of natural selection takes place very early in embryonic development, and the real disastrous changes are eliminated right then and there (reabsorption, miscarriages, spontaneous abortions).
That said, as an ardent evolutionist with an MS in population genetics, I sometimes have to wonder about things like the bombardier beetle. The genome has its own "grammar", and the simple model, while a decent big picture, doesn't (yet) cover the incredible complexity and subtlety of what's going on.
Re:Hmm... (Score:2)
I'm sure that the bombardier beetle's defense mechanism had some sort of intermediate form as well. I find it highly unlikely that something like that would just lie dormant almost perfectly encoded in the genome.
Maybe there needs to be a new field of Probabilist Evolutionary Biology. I would think that computer simulations using genetic algorithms could prove whether or not this could happen in nature.
Re:Hmm... (Score:3, Informative)
Yup!
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html
I'll go a step further here... (Score:3, Interesting)
Who is to say that God didn't create the mechanism of evolution? It goes along with my belief that God wouldn't create a creature that couldn't adapt.
Also, the idea that form follows function fits nicely into the idea of niche.
A definition of niche from AP Dictionary:
the unique position occupied by a particular species, conceived both in terms of the actual physical area that it inhabits and the function that it performs within the community.
It is plain to see that life adapts. To suggest otherwise would be to deny the very truth. The finches on Galapagos are one of the first and most pristine examples of both adaptation and niches.
Furthermore, I believe that many, including myself, study science because it is the search for truth and meaning in the physical world. As such, you could consider it a religion of sorts. As for me, such a scientific search for the truth is merely a parallel path to the search for God, like orthodox christianity, because truth is what God is all about.
parahydroxybenzene (Score:5, Informative)
I'm doing the traditional /. thing and not actually reading the article, but I assume it's the old news on heat-shock and chaperone proteins being shown to be a general case.
This isn't "saving up" mutations. This is a system for supressing aberrant mutations breaking down in stressful environments. The True Believers out there would like to phrase this to illustrate the cleverness of natural selection, but this is the failure of a beneficial system leading to a honking buttload of mutants appearing. Nothing more. Yes, throwing a bunch of random solutions at the problem may find an answer and allow a population to continue living in a stressful environment, but it's a bit assuming to try to say the system has evolved to break down in this manner (though it is a rather elegant failure mode).
As for the bombardier beetle...
Hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide, when mixed, turn brown over the course of a couple minutes and won't taste very good. Various beetles besides the Bombardier Beetle use the chemicals, uncatalyzed, merely for the foul taste. Evolution can work in as many steps as it likes increasing the foulness of the taste without any delightful imagery of exploding beetles occurring to anyone.
Of course the page linked to is slow to abandon such delightful imagery so, while it is kind enough to mention that nothing very exciting happens unless you add a catalyst, it likes to give the impression that without that catalyst (or "anti-inhibitor", if you please) the beetles would die a horrible death in the manner of a piece of popcorn, though not quite as tasty.
Let me let you in on another "secret". There can be huge ranges of activity in classes of closely related proteins. This is especially true of the enzymes responsible for catalyzing naturally occuring reactions between simple chemicals. This is a bit of a problem for the Creationist because their idea of the beetles stumbling across a highly efficient enzyme and blowing themselves to bits for generations is very useful. Having them stumble across a weak version that merely made them taste a little worse than their competitors when an attacker mixed the chemicals together is hardly an exciting idea. Nor is it exciting for this weak enzyme to follow the same path of increasing the foulness of the taste that the parahydroxybenzene glands went through.
Of course, once this enzyme reaches a certain level it does get to be dangerous to the beetles. Chance encounters with learning predators that may have only have caused injury become fatal due to the beetles' own defense mechanism (though, because the added foulness of taste deters predation, this is still beneficial to the species, though not to the individual). Any solution is beneficial, as the alternative is death. The apparent winner is to excrete the chemicals, which isn't surprising as some of the other Brachinus species do this without the fun of superheating. Coevolution of improvements to the catalyst and to the ejection system gives us what we have today.
Unfortunately, answering one set of Creationists' call to provide an explanation is met with catcalls of "just-so-story!" from another set. It's really best to ignore them as a group... which, hey, is what I'll be doing.
Re:parahydroxybenzene (Score:3, Insightful)
Their inappropriate use of the word "science" maligns the reputation of legitimate science for academics and researchers everywhere.
P.S. you didn't miss much in the article, its repetitious, involves lots of exploding beetles, and eventually resorts to name calling (an ad hominum attack as a result of ad hominum attacks),
* I have nothing against Christian Scientists. It is a legitimate religion. Additionally, all the Christian Scientists I know agree with the sentiment that their faith is indeed not a science.
Re:Hmm... (Score:2, Informative)
Doesn't this kind of go against the theory of natural selection? I mean, if the mutated gene is hidden, then there really isn't a difference between the inferior and superior versions, so the gene pool won't be improved.
Not really. Suddenly hostile environment would probably kill off a large proportion of the population in a short time (evolutionarily speaking). If any hidden combination of genes expressed themselves then and even slightly affected the odds of survival then the resulting population would be replete with this set of genes.
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
This finding in no way goes against natural selection.
Re:Hmm... (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course it could also be used to explain why there is a missing link... The climate changed drastically and a rapid number of changes occurred that won't readily be in the fossil record because the rate of change was too fast.
Maybe, maybe not, I wasn't there, but I could believe it. The problem is, I couldn't read the article, don't know much about genetics, and not knowing how the research was done, they could have been trying to massage facts for a theory to reach the same conclusions. I.E. torture the facts until they say what we want.
That's why... (Score:2, Funny)
So that's why reading slashdot made me evolve so fast ! Thanks again guys, I like my new body (too bad I turn to stone at night now...)
"thinking" (Score:4, Funny)
Never trust any arguement that has to resort to putting thinking in quotes! Especially if the word 'god' is on the same page!
Re:"thinking" (Score:5, Interesting)
and
Develop inhibitor in other tissues so as not to poison self
Did I miss anything? Oh yeah, anyone who thinks postulating God is a smaller step than postulating evolution is fooling themselves big time.
My copy of NS is back at home, so I can't comment on the new stuff, just the old rubbish about 'The bombadier beetle couldn't have evolved' <sigh>
Justin.
Re:"thinking" (Score:5, Insightful)
The fear of evolution is partly based on the idea that man is perfect, and then from that the fear that a perfect being could have evolved from chaos.
The flaw is believing that man is perfect.
Re:Why can't we think for ourselves? (Score:2, Interesting)
For your fear of evolution, I suggest Darwin's book, The Voyage of the Beagle. You can find it in wiretap if not your local library.
As for the sanity argument, you're both right and wrong. I've decided myself that I must assume my own sanity for anything else to follow. If I don't, I can't do anything at all. I don't pretend to be able to prove my sanity, and indeed, I sometimes question it.
There is a fantastic angle to one's sanity that you should consider. Read Go"del, Escher, Bach by Dounglas Hofstadter. Page 191-192 even, the argument between Prudence and Imprudence. They discuss something much simpler than evolution; propositional calculus (aka. basic logic): the theory that given "if P then Q" AND "P" always means Q. Imprudence ends with "You want a proof. I guess that means you want to be more convinced that the Propositional Calculus is consistent than you are convinced of your own sanity...."
Re:Why can't we think for ourselves? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why can't we think for ourselves? (Score:4, Insightful)
The thing that draws most scientifically minded people to evolution is the scientific observations presented to back it up, and the difficulty in refuting it for the most part. Christianity on the other hand, while having the difficult to refute part down REALLY solidly, has only a series of assumptions based on "faith" for its defense. No offense to anyone's religion, but religion not only is not equal to science, but it doesn't even WANT to be like science. You're not SUPPOSED to test your God. You're just supposed to believe. Nothing wrong with that, but when you start putting up faith in the face of scientific data, it's a bit silly.
Your philosophical argument about thought is very interesting, but I don't need faith in my own intelligence either. I believe what I see with my own eyes; i.e. thinking for myself.
Re:proof vs. faith in religion (Score:3, Insightful)
Science doesn't claim "objective truth", at least not in the philosophical sense you mean it. Scientific truths are never claimed to be anything more than theory informed by repeatability. I'm comfortable basing my worldview on that. In fact, I'm not only comfortable, I feel that it's the only secure ground to stand on.
I can't follow the rest of your argument because it's a non sequiter. You go from objective physical truth (which science doesn't claim, but does investigate) to objective moral and ethical truth (which science doesn't claim or investigate).
Re:Why can't we think for ourselves? (Score:4, Interesting)
One line of thinking is to believe that God set it all up: the Big Bang, evolution, killer asteroids all to get to this point. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, there's no reason to believe God couldn't have figured out exactly the starting conditions to create humans. And in so doing, God not only demonstrates that ability, but also gives us li'l children of his a world with all sorts of clues about how it works and how it came to be how it is. And now our task, should we choose to accept it, is to create a universe where we have defeated the Four Horsemen and our own flaws because it's the Right Thing To Do.
To me, God starting with the Big Bang and getting to here is a lot more impressive than doing a little sculpting in 4004 B.C.
Re:Why can't we think for ourselves? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because evolution was taught as truth in high school and college, and it allows you to live your life any way that you want without concern for life after death or accountability to a higher power doesn't mean that you should buy it.
It upsets me that so many people who believe in God imply that simply because someone does not believe in God they cannot have any true morals or ethics. I did not believe in God through most of high school and college, yet (I believe) I was a very moral person. I did not drink, did not do drugs, worked hard, tried not to lie (though I was somewhat less successful in that regard
I realize that this is going to get modded down, but it frustrates me that so many people who pull this "I'm an intellectual therefore I believe in evolution not God" crap are actually simple drones of the left. Think for yourself, will ya?
(Note, I have moderator access, but I think responding is much better to this than modding down)
I am sure there are just as many drones on the right who simply believe in God because it is easier. Most Christians (the majority of religious people in America) have not read the Torah, Koran or Bhagavad Gita. Why is this? Is it because they know after reading the Bible that nothing else can possibly be correct? They may say that to themselves, but I doubt it is the truth. I find it much more likely that the Bible is what they were brought up with, and it is simply easier to follow what they already know as opposed to working to figure out what they can truly put their faith in.
I find it perplexing that many people take the time to diligently study the religion they were brought up to know, yet few take even scant moments to study the countless other religions in this world. Well, no, it doesn't really perplex me. It saddens me.
if ($religion==$ethics) {} (Score:4, Insightful)
This is not to say that relgion does no enhance life. I see many religious people who do good things for the world/community based on their beliefs.
I've also seen many non-religious people who also do a lot of good, not out of any believe in heaven or an afterlife, but simply because they believe in doing good. The contrast to this is ina a few people I know, we can take a few friends of mine.
Friend 1: Found little point in life, was quite constantly depressed. Verged on very drastic negetive consequence. She became "Christian" (though many other religions are good as well, I won't say Christian is the best) and was embraced by her church, found love and certain amount of peace in herself. She seems a lot happier lately
Friend 2: Was raised as an athiest, by athiests. She has not only no religion, but also background reason for life, or a strong basis for doing anything. She seems wholly unsatisfied at most times, and care little for many of her actions. This isn't to say that she's done strong harm to anyone else, but she lacks a fundamental goal in life, doesn't believe in having children (world sucks too much to raise them in), and often enough has a "what's the point attitude."
Friend 3: Has no real religion. Was raised by a supportive and loving family. Believes she has a future, and wants to propogate children. She often helps others, and is a caring, giving individual.
I've met a lot of other people who are quote religios" but do wholly bad things. They tend to have a good regard for their church circle but little for those outside.
My point. Relgion doesn't always define a meaning in life, but it often helps. The fundamental teachings and upbringing behind it are what is essential. If a church is teaching you how to be a good person, and not teaching you intolerance of others, then the church is doing a good job. If your parents raise you with the same values, then your parents are doing a similarly good job.
Often, it's the basic teachings (play nice, be a good boy Vs care for others, be a good Christian/other) that are important.
I have no name for my believes. I disagree with a large part taught by my family's religion, but agree with many of the basic tenets of goodness towards others. I also believe in evolution, but also in a higher power, and yet don't find a conflict. I'm definately not a bible banger, but I'm happy in my own purpose in life, which is what I think really counts.
Contradictions and agreements are welcome, but remember to think before you post - phorm
Re:Why can't we think for ourselves? (Score:3, Interesting)
Just because I don't believe there is a "god" watching over me this does not mean that all those things my parents, my family, my teachers and my friends have tought me are sudenly invalid. Religions do impose a moral, but it is not the only way. If this were so people who are jews or budist should have a diferent law then cristians or muslins? After all the laws reflect, or at least should reflect the morals of a culture.
And you ask what is the utility of morals beside avoid being punished? Why do you think the world is not a chaotic place? If there were no morals, people would kill each other because they steped on your feet. Every society have a moral, and it is dinamic, the hole point is that it changes slowly, in terms of generations. Your morals are diferent from those of you father and even more then of your grandfather. why do you think it was all right to have slaves before and now it is a crime? If morals weren't dinamic, we would still be slavaring people and buring witches in public places (maybe live in CNN).
People are moral not to avoid punishment, but because they do believe that folowing those rules they are doing the right thing. And if the olnly reason a person don't kill others is because you believe there is a "supreme being" that will punish you if he did, I do hope never to meet with that person, because when he or she overcome the fear of this "punishment", then he or she would most likely become a serial killer.
Re:Why can't we think for ourselves? (Score:5, Interesting)
Trying to take this as a serious question, not a troll - which is difficult when you put forth the proposition that evolutionary theory is some sort of leftist plot...
My brain is to some degree the result of "random" events (leaving aside discussion of what "random" really means), but the results are then processed through the filter of natural selection.
But the reason I have confidence - not infinite confidence, mind you, but confidence - in my thinking on these matters is because I have learned the system whereby we subject ideas to a similar sort of selection pressure. We call it "the scientific method". It's produced some pretty impressive results - a bunch of them make possible the machine you're reading this on. When we apply this method to the development of life, evolution is an inescapable conclusion.
That doesn't mean that we fully understand everything about the development of life, any more than we fully understand the rest of biology, or physics, or anything. And yet no one argues that "Sharks giving virgin births?! We don't fully understand the process of reproduction, therefore the theory of abiogeneis must be true!" or "Quantum theory and relativity are irreconcilable! Therefore we have to accept Arisotle's version of physics!" We can have the broad outlines, and yet still look at specifics and say "I don't know".
But as for your contention that "a perfect God created us in his image. Therefore, our thinking is sound," we don't need the scientific method to see the flaws in that; we can use an older discipline of thinking called "logic". Fully stating your argument: "our belief in a perfect creator god is sound because a perfect creator god made us [nearly?] perfect in our reasoning", we can clearly see its circular nature.
Put down your "holy" books and take your own advice, ok?Re:Why can't we think for ourselves? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you spill a few billion glasses of milk every second for a few million years, I can pretty much guarantee that one of them will come out looking like alabama.
Note that looking like alabama was not the "goal" of the spilled milk, which is why your argument against evolution doesn't make any sense. Just because few people win the lottery doesn't mean that NOBODY will EVER win the lottery. Play enough quick pic numbers in the molecular lottery, and maybe one in every few million trillion will be worthwhile. The rest aren't around afterwards to wonder about their bad fortune.
Re: Why can't we think for ourselves? (Score:3, Insightful)
> Why does everyone insist on buying into the propaganda that is crammed down their throats by the liberal media and school systems?
Heh, "liberal media" - now that's a good one!
> Someone PLEASE point me to some genuine, hard proof that evolution is reality because I assure you that I have never seen any.
Nor have I seen any proof that my computer is made of atoms, that mass warps space, that I can't travel faster than light, that perputual motion machines of the second kind are impossible, etc. Science simply isn't in the business of proving things to science-deniers; science is in the business of explaining what we see in nature.
> Just because evolution was taught as truth in high school and college, and it allows you to live your life any way that you want without concern for life after death or accountability to a higher power doesn't mean that you should buy it.
Knowledge of evolution doesn't correlate with atheism quite so well as you suppose.
> If your existence came into being based on totally random events, then your brain also was the result of a random event. How then, can you possibly trust in your own thinking, which is what tells you to believe in evolution? It's kind of like spilling a glass of milk and hoping that it comes out as a map of Alabama.
Probably the single most important miscomprehension prevalent among creationists is ignorance of the fact that the universe isn't a completely random place - at least not one with a flat probability distribution over the range of conceivable outcomes. There are these things called "laws of nature" that heavily bias the probability of some configurations of matter/energy over others. If you've ever been in a chemistry lab you may have noticed that the result of mixing two chemicals in a beaker is not an entirely random product.
It's exactly this not-flat-probability distribution that allows evolution to happen. Evolution has more to do with cause and effect than with spilled milk.
> Creationists believe that a perfect God created us in his image.
And yet we are horribly imperfect!
>
Lots of people "belive in" both evolution and divinity. See the recent survey in the talk.origins newsgroup.
Also, can you actually show that evolution has anything to do with "the left"? Or was that just your knee jerking?
the "perfect image" of a "perfect god" (Score:3, Funny)
According to you, we can have faith in the soundness of our own thoughts because God created our minds in his own image, and he is perfect.
As for me, I think that evolution is a well-supported scientific theory, and that your God is a ludicrous fictional character that is no more believable than Santa Claus or the tooth fairy.
Clearly, if I am right, then you are wrong. I have no difficulty justifying the possibility that you are wrong in my own belief system: There is no concept of perfection in evolutionary theory, only various degrees of adaptation to existing circumstances. We all make mistakes, and you are lucky that your mistake did not lead to what we believers in evolutionary theory euphamistically call "natural selection".
On the other hand, if I am wrong, then my flawed belief in evolution obviously cannot be the product of a perfect brain created in the image of a perfect God. If I am a creation of a perfect god, than he did not create me in his image: if I am created in the image of god, than he is not perfect.
In short, the very fact that I disagree with you proves that you are wrong... Hey, I wish that was true more often! That would be so convenient!
Re:Why can't we think for ourselves? (Score:3, Funny)
It's kind of like spilling a glass of milk and hoping that it comes out as a map of Alabama.
No, it's like spilling glass of milk after glass of milk until one comes out that looks like a map of Alabama.
Re:"thinking" (Score:2)
Re: "thinking" (Score:5, Informative)
> THIS IS A THEORY! It seems to explain the world in a decent way, but 5/10/25/100 years from now we could find a better one.
Notice the important and not particularly subtle difference between evolution, the theory, and evolution, the phenomena that the theory is intended to explain. Sure, we might find a better theory someday, but the underlying fact that life has evolved enormously over the past several billion years is not going to go away.
> There is so much about our physical world that we don't understand, that I'd say it's likely that evolution is wrong in it's current form.
That's a complete non sequitur. If you s/likely/possible/ then it will pass muster. But even so, scientific theories aren't quite so disposable as some people seem to believe. And even the biggies, such as the generalization of Newtonian physics to modern physics, always move our understanding of the universe further away from the naive mythology of the Bronze Age rather than moving us back toward it.
> For example, the creation of life: our current theory says chemicals and energy came together in a primordial soup and formed basic life.
Sorry, but "the creation of life" is not a part of the phenomena or theory of evolution at all. Evolution happens whether life arose from a "soup", was created by a god or committee of gods, has always existed, was sent back from the future, etc. The theory of evolution makes no claims whatsoever about what caused life to start.
> Is it possible? Sure, I guess, but seems to me the idea of a higher power is just as plausible as the soup.
This is absurd. We know that the ingredients of the soup occur naturally in the universe, and we know that our bodies are merely bags of chemicals, but the existence of a "higher power" is purely speculative. (Notice that I don't rule out the existence of a "higher power"; I merely point out the absurdity of invoking one as an equally plausible explanation of anything.)
>
As I said, we haven't been discarding the major theories at a very high rate, and whenever we do, it never leads us any closer to an Invisible Sky Man as an explanation for anything. If the theory of evolution is ever discarded or substantially revised, you can bet that the result isn't going to be any more pleasing to creationists than the current theory is. And that's because the underlying facts that any theory must explain aren't going to go away.
It's a theory... (Score:4, Insightful)
About the word "Theory" (Score:5, Informative)
Another meaning is of governing principles as in "theory of operation". I have a book at home call "Loudspeakers: Theory and Design". The author does not offer hypotheses about how speakers work; he has no doubt as to whether they work and how they work. He's not writing conjecture - he's writing science and engineering - the general body of rules governing the operation of loudspeakers, which the author collectively refers to as their "theory of operation". This second sense of the word can be defied.
In the days of Darwin, the word "theory" in "Theory of Evolution" probably may have refered to the first sense of the word, as a hypothetical explanation of the origin of all species, including ours. But talk to a biologist or naturalist today and he'll tell you they have no doubt but that evolution is a fact; how it works, its principles of operation, is something they're still exploring and trying to explain.
This confusion between the meanings is something the Bible-thumbers love to exploit (I'm not lumping you in with them, though). They jump up and down and shout about how evolution is just a "theory" and that their half-baked Creation Science theories deserve equal consideration in the schools. Don't buy it. Evolution is a fact. We're sure of the big picture; it's just some of the details that we haven't worked out yet.
--Jim
Re:About the word "Theory" (Score:2)
Hmmm...that sure is odd. I could have SWORE one of my teachers, (a tenured professor in the biology department who has a PHD in Chemistry and Biology nonetheless), believes evolution is a crock and believes that creation (or "intellegent design", as he says) is the most viable explaination, and believes evolution has too many flaws in it to really be considered a viable theroy. Oh yea, I attend an accredited public college.
Re: About the word "Theory" (Score:4, Informative)
> I used to believe in the neo darwinist theories [NGT] completely, but two years full time work with genetic algorithms changed by mind. GAs work, but not as well as they would need to for life to have evolved in the time frames involved. It does not add up.
GAs, as usually implemented, are a very bad model for biological evolution. That's because they aren't intended to be models for biological evolution; they're merely inspired by biological evolution.
However, they are useful for demonstrating some principles that creationists are fond of denying. Such as the fact that completely random mutations in the genotype, when filtered by a biased selection process, can result in evolutionary "progress". They can also show the importance of the component processes, e.g. take your favorite GA and run it with mutations turned off and see what happens, or run it with random selection rather than fitness selection and see what happens. You will find that GAs make a very good case that random mutations filtered by natural selection are a plausible explanation for change in an otherwise unguided system, such as the earth's biological system.
> I recommend "Not by Chance" by Dr. Lee Spetner who explains why not in a more authorative manner than I could manage.
I have not had time to read Dr. Spetner's book, but I am told by scientists who have read it that he pulls a real whopper of a bait-and-switch argument when it comes to the dénouement. You may want to visit the talk.origins newsgroup and ask about the logic of Dr. Spetner's argument before you take him too strongly to heart. For a warmup, read this [google.com]:
Re:It's a theory... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's a theory... (Score:2)
Natural selection doesn't go poof, though.
An aside: I consider it irresponsible that the story link is not balanced by a more mainstream view, and by mainstream I mean Google's opinion, not mine--why not the TalkOrigins site, which comes up first in Google on bombardier beetle evolution?
Re:It's a theory... (Score:4, Interesting)
If a horse evolved a saddle, no, it doesn't provide the horse with an advantage in the wild, but if it helps it be adopted by humans and through that relationship fed, protected from predetors, and allowed to breed, then the saddle was a beneficial adaptation by the horse.
Look at aphids and ants... the ability to secrete sugar is not a particularly useful ability for the aphid, but the ants then enter into a symbiotic relationship, helping protect and nurture the aphids.
Another good example is the breeding of dogs. There are many breeds which now are totally unsuited for life in the wild (short legs, terrible arthritic joints, etc). These are not traits which are inherently useful to the dog, but we seem to like them. Just because we were the ones selecting the properties we liked, and not a life/death struggle in the wild, doesn't make it any less evolution.
Nature doesn't care how (or why!) the organism survives and procreates, only that it does.
Doug
More info please! (Score:3, Informative)
Evolution (Score:4, Informative)
Just look at the classic example of ants collection food. It is beautifully described in John R. Koza's [genetic-programming.com] great books (1 [amazon.com], 2 [amazon.com] and 3 [amazon.com]) on the subject.
Just imagine adding a fermone layer to freeciv [freeciv.org] and let the random search for a superior player begin.
Re:Evolution (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Evolution (Score:3, Insightful)
As for genetic programming, you are right, someone has to provide a set of common rules, building blocks, whatever, but a random process actually reaches a solution through selection of the fitest, which I find nice...
Re:Evolution (Score:2, Insightful)
So, as soon as you throw a moderator on that equation (survival) all of a sudden you have a learning algorithm that throws away anything that isn't any good.
Sorry I couldn't help myself. =)
Re:Evolution (Score:2, Troll)
Genetic algorithms are not proof of evolutionary theory. They merely demonstrate that, under very controlled conditions, the application of "survival of the fittest" and random mutations in a "gene pool" can allow solutions to develop in a way analogous to natural selection.
You can't make a jump from that to proving the theory of evolution by natural selection. Indeed, it's highly unlikely that that theory will ever be proved beyond doubt, and many people (not just loonies) expect it to be debunked sooner rather than later. (Personally, I don't hold that view.)
Genetic algorithms are interesting - I've had fun with them myself. But they *prove* exactly nothing.
Re:Evolution (Score:2)
Re:Evolution (Score:2)
I proves that the theory of natural selection is an applicable concept and can be applied to another problem domain.
It is as good as a proove of a theory gets.
Natural Selection explains the current situation and lead to verifyable conclusions (GA).
It's not very hard to get the first thing right,
the second one is the tricky one.
Creationism, Solipsism, The Gian Goat are all theories, but usually lack the second requisite to be called scientific.
General Relativity was a fancy theory, until it let to new conclusions, which were proven.
Of course, it does not prove that it is really the driving concept behind evolving life, but that is true for every scientific theory. And like any scientific theory it is bound to be modified, to accomodate new facts.
Re:Evolution (Score:2)
The Creationists argument is that God created the universe, which cannot be disproved because God is omnipotent in that universe and hence can contrive existence and truth. Many Creationists wish to prove their conjecture, however, by disproving every other plausible explanation, such as evolutionary theory.
Which strikes me as remarkably short sighted; I would tend to believe that a creationist would understand that their deity is riddled with enigmas with plausible explanations, and fully capable of providing alternative theories to creationism itself, if for nothing else than plausible deniability. Proof of God would undermine the need for faith.
Bombardier Beetle (Score:4, Insightful)
Only if you're a creationist.
debunking [talkorigins.org]Re:Bombardier Beetle (Score:5, Insightful)
Quinones are produced by epidermal cells for tanning the cuticle. This exists commonly in arthropods. [Dettner, 1987]
Some of the quinones don't get used up, but sit on the epidermis, making the arthropod distasteful. (Quinones are used as defensive secretions in a variety of modern arthropods, from beetles to millipedes. [Eisner, 1970])
Small invaginations develop in the epidermis between sclerites (plates of cuticle). By wiggling, the insect can squeeze more quinones onto its surface when they're needed.
The invaginations deepen. Muscles are moved around slightly, allowing them to help expel the quinones from some of them. (Many ants have glands similar to this near the end of their abdomen. [Holldobler & Wilson, 1990, pp. 233-237])
Some invaginations (now reservoirs) become so deep that the others are inconsequential by comparison. Those gradually revert to the original epidermis.
In various insects, different defensive chemicals besides quinones appear. (See Eisner, 1970, for a review.) This helps those insects defend against predators which have evolved resistance to quinones. One of the new defensive chemicals is hydroquinone.
Cells that secrete the hydroquinones develop in multiple layers over part of the reservoir, allowing more hydroquinones to be produced. Channels between cells allow hydroquinones from all layers to reach the reservoir.
The channels become a duct, specialized for transporting the chemicals. The secretory cells withdraw from the reservoir surface, ultimately becoming a separate organ.
This stage -- secretory glands connected by ducts to reservoirs -- exists in many beetles. The particular configuration of glands and reservoirs that bombardier beetles have is common to the other beetles in their suborder. [Forsyth, 1970]
Muscles adapt which close off the reservoir, thus preventing the chemicals from leaking out when they're not needed.
Hydrogen peroxide, which is a common by-product of cellular metabolism, becomes mixed with the hydroquinones. The two react slowly, so a mixture of quinones and hydroquinones gets used for defense.
Cells secreting a small amount of catalases and peroxidases appear along the output passage of the reservoir, outside the valve which closes it off from the outside. These ensure that more quinones appear in the defensive secretions. Catalases exist in almost all cells, and peroxidases are also common in plants, animals, and bacteria, so those chemicals needn't be developed from scratch but merely concentrated in one location.
More catalases and peroxidases are produced, so the discharge is warmer and is expelled faster by the oxygen generated by the reaction.
The walls of that part of the output passage become firmer, allowing them to better withstand the heat and pressure generated by the reaction.
Still more catalases and peroxidases are produced, and the walls toughen and shape into a reaction chamber. Gradually they become the mechanism of today's bombardier beetles.
The tip of the beetle's abdomen becomes somewhat elongated and more flexible, allowing the beetle to aim its discharge in various directions.
Why, that sounds like a series of random... oh, forget it. You'll probably ignore this too.
Re:Bombardier Beetle (Score:2, Insightful)
That's because you're a creation scientist. Real scientists expect explanations to be difficult sometimes.
Re:Bombardier Beetle (Score:2)
Except you didn't see a flaw. You were too stupid to understand the reasoning. In your arrogance you assume that if you don't understand it then it can't be true.
Either that or you're trolling.
Re:Bombardier Beetle (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, it's like this. We know small changes occur. If enough small changes occur in a row, common sense indicates that the result is a large change. Apparently that common sense is lacking in some creationists, who seem to believe there is some "kind barrier" across which mutations cannot progress, despite the fact that there is no evidence of such a barrier. Believing things without hard evidence, though, is right up their alley.
Human beings and chimpanzees share like 99.6% of their DNA. A little bit of extrapolation based on known rates of genetic change indicates that a common ancestor is very plausible. Extend this same concept across all the known genera and species, and evolution hardly requires any huge leap of faith. It certainly doesn't require belief in any mechanism for which we have no evidence.
Keep these things in mind the next time a creationist tells you "It takes more blind faith to believe evolution than creation."
Pokemon/TMNT (Score:3, Funny)
Shredder has many vials of a substance called "Mutagen" that can also release these mutations.
I have serious doubt. (Score:2, Troll)
Sorry pals. The standard evolution theory by Darwin is basically flawed. I'm not one of these air-heads who doubt carbon dating etc. But we have record in all older human of a superior alien power interfering which life on this planet. Why should this be in fact wrong ? The acients surely saw something and misinterpreted it, without having much knowledge about the world. However humans are not cracked up such much as they seem to be so it's very unlikely that this is all made up.
You guy defending the evolution theory so keenly are in fact a new kind of religious zealot - you just replaced the trinity with natural sciences.
I wonder when the first fires will burn and the whitchhunts start.
Re:I have serious doubt. (Score:4, Informative)
No, because there is nothing evolutionarily "bad" about cancer, so long as you don't get it until you've had offspring.
"But we have record in all older human of a superior alien power interfering which life on this planet."
So aliens came and jiggered with life on earth - cool. One then simply wonders... how did this superior alien lifeform come about? Infinite regress...
"You guy defending the evolution theory so keenly are in fact a new kind of religious zealot - you just replaced the trinity with natural sciences.
I wonder when the first fires will burn and the whitchhunts start."
Total sensationalist bullshit. There are many, many excellent popular books on the subject. Why not educate yourself? Or wait for the aliens to take you away...
Re:I have serious doubt. (Score:2)
Ready, Steady, Evolve (Score:2, Interesting)
Trilobyte (Score:2, Funny)
I'm going to get a fish tank, some water, air, soil etc and then sterilise the whole lot while it's sealed in the tank, so there can't possibly be any life in there whatsoever.
I'm then going to watch the tank and wait to see how long it takes until I get a Trilobyte.
It might take a while longer to get a bombadier beetle or a Neanderthal man though...
Obviously I'll set up a web cam pointing at the tank so you guys can watch too...
Nick...
Throw rocks inside (Score:3, Funny)
Bombadier Beetle faq link (Score:5, Informative)
There's no great mystery; all of the chemicals are common, other beetles exist that excrete them separately; and the temperatures and pressures are not really that great (only just above boiling). So what?
Re:Bombadier Beetle faq link (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds like you didn't read the refutation. Many of the parts of that system do exist in other beetles. "Irreducible complexity" is a myth creationists invented because the big words made their ranting sound scientific.
Interesting (Score:3, Interesting)
I've always been curious about evolution, but have found a problem in it that I havn't been able to get around.
We can see natural selection at work withen a species before our eyes in a matter of generations, but have yet to see any dramatic jump that evolutionary theory supports.
Could this be the answer? Could these stored up Genes have enough in side of them to not only modify a breed of species, but create an entirly new one? I'd love to see more research on this.
If so, we have discovered the final missing link in evolutionary theory.
Re:Interesting (Score:2)
God is God, and science is science. God created science. Until we get to know God, the science He gave us is pretty darn interesting. From a scientific standpoint, evolutionary theory is the best thing we have.
Let me ask you this. If you want to get super technical, take all known species on the planet. Figure out their aprox. weight and size and ask yourself if they could fit in the Arc of Noah (a ship whos size is clearly defined).
They can't. I don't know about you, but the best answer I have is devation from the initial species through natural selection and quite possibly evolution.
Do you have a better explination?
Defensive Mechanism? (Score:2, Insightful)
And I think the protein breaksdown under the conditions stated simply because not many creatures have evolved to live in volcanos or toxic waste dumps.
Creationism (Score:2, Funny)
This type of topic on Slashdot always creates lots of posts bashing Creationists. Because of this, I would like to give you a rational, logical expanation about the beliefs of Creationists, to dispel the ignorance displayed here on Slashdot.
What is a Creationist?
A Creationist believes that living things were designed and created by God, rather than a process such as evolution.
So God is a designer and creator?
Yes, this is fundamental to the beliefs of Creationists.
What is God? An old man with a big white beard?
That's just silly. God is everywhere, he is a spirit. You can't see him.
You said God was a designer and creator. Why?
Sorry?
What's he do it for?
Erm. What? Oh I know this one! You mustn't question the doings of God, they are unexplainable by mere mortals?
So this invisible and unexplainable thing you call God created all living creatures, but you can't explain why?
You must have faith.
And you think that's a more sensible explanation of life on Earth than evoluton?
I've got my faith. I don't have to question it.
So what about the fossil record? Did God create that?
[Hands on ears] La la la la la la la la...
Re:Evolutionism (Score:2)
A Evolutionist believes that living things were created by chance, rather than an intelligent creator such as God.
No, evolutionists do not believe that living things were created "by chance". Evolution is a process. If you fill a jar with marbles then where they fall is random, but symmetrical and seemingly intelligent patterns will emerge. But you don't need a God to explain those patterns, nor do they have anything to do with chance.
So evolution is a designer and creator?
Yes, this is fundamental to the beliefs of Evolutionists.
No. See above.
What is Evolution? A random sequence of low probabilities scattered over a long period of time to make them seem plausible?
That's just silly. Evolution is everywhere, it is a process. You can't see it.
You demonstrate your lack of understanding of evolution here, but I'm not going to bother explaining it. Get a textbook. And yes, to an extent you can see it, at least at the microevolution level, and we have some records of it at the macro level.
What's it do it for?
Erm. What? Oh I know this one! You mustn't question the doings of Science, they are unexplainable by mere mortals?
The whole point of science is to try to explain the world around us. Blind faith is completely the opposite to that.
Rather than responding to my joke dialogue by mistrepresenting the views of evolutionists, you might like to answer the points raised by it.
that darned beetle (Score:3, Informative)
There are many organisms that use what would be lethal chemicals to disorient, disable and/or kill their prey and/or predators. If you think of the squillions of beetles in the world (and there really are billions and billions of them), then look at the amount of time they've existed (a very very long time), is it really that surprising that such a feature could evolve?
Something as advantageous as being able to secrete chemicals that predators don't like gives you such a massive advantage over your defenseless peers that natural selection is going to promote that feature very aggressively, then one beetle arrives that has slightly too powerful secretion methods that squirt the chemical rather than simple secreting it onto their exoskeleton. Now you have an even bigger advantage, you can deter your predator before it has you in it's mouth. Again, natural selection is going to promote that quite aggressively because you're less likely to be injured and unable to reproduce further.
I admit that the leap from there to squirting two different chemicals so they meet at a precise point and react is a little greater, but it only has to happen by random chance once, after that natural selection (less other random chances of death) will take care of making it the predominant feature.
Given the incredible amount of specialisation nature displays elsewhere, the bombadier beetle doesn't seem to be too out of the ordinary. I would suggest that something like bioluminesence is equally impressive/unlikely.
Okay, this is weird -- (Score:2)
The story deals with what happens to the human race when those genes come out for the first time since we took over from the Neandertals. (Probably not the best summary, but God it's early.)
Not a bad book -- I wasn't too compelled by the first half, but now that I'm on the downhill stretch I'm more and more engrossed. A neat idea, and one that looks like it may have some basis in fact. (Scary thought, given the human race's reaction in the book to what happens...)
Therefore, the Supreme Creator loves war (Score:2, Funny)
Clueless (Score:2)
Missing the Point? (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, I'll bite. Time to feed the Trolls...
The bombardier beetle never defied standard evolutionary theory. It may have defied belief, but that's a different matter entirely. If anything, the bombardier beetle, and countless other amazing species, show the awesome power of something as simple as random mutation and selection.
Weak faith (Score:3, Interesting)
Hundreds of years ago these same people would've been saying that "There's no proof that planets orbit the sun" or that "The surface of the earth isn't slowly moving". As more scientific knowledge comes in they are forced to drop dearly held beliefs and move on to new ones. Eternal "truths" don't work very well when they are based on the current temporal world. Instead of tying their faiths to the physical world they should focus on the philosophical and spiritual worlds where they should've been all along.
Re:Missing the Point? (Score:3, Informative)
The fact is, the theory of evolution explains perfectly well how something like this beetle could have evolved. There are numerous other beetles, which have the same chemicals, although, use them differently. There are also numerous examples of dangerous "design" in the animal kingdom (Our Windpipe right beside our food-pipe for crying out loud)
There is, as yet, no known species which could not have come into existence through a mechanism like evolution. Therefore, evolution, at present, is an excellent theory.
Analogy to software projects (Score:5, Funny)
however in extreme environments, such as day before the deadline, the manager process breaks down and all the kludges are released all at once.
just look at your friends (Score:2, Funny)
- the most highly tuned muscles in their bodies are their hands/fingers (how many geeks have "hardbodies"?)
- most wear glasses (what is there to see more than 18 inches away?)
- they do not use vocal speech effectively (excluding expletvies that are equally applied to machines and other humans)
- have you seen the children of real geeks!
Wait! you complain - I know some exceptions to these observations. Of course you do - they are by definition not real geeks, or will be culled from the herd over time.
I can't wait to see what people look like 1000 years from now - extra fingers?, permanent near sightedness?, no legs?
Intelligent design? (Score:4, Insightful)
what they percive as "intelligent design".
On the other hand, they completely ignore that nature is far more abundant with "unintelligent design" - especially at the molecular level.
Intelligent design would be to use the same enzyme in all animals. Today, you have the same enzymes, but they have differences, not in function, but in all kinds of non-important ways.
Strangely (for the creationist), these differences are larger between, say a human and a bacteria than between two different types of bacteria.
Oh, and that beetle example is bulls**t. Read some non-biased information somewhere
instead of that pseudoscientific creationist crap.
(someone linked to a faq at talk.origins, probably a good place to start.)
Re:Intelligent design? (Score:2)
Intellegent design is bunk because nature is more complex then God. You're going to have a lot of converts on that one.
More on Duane Gish (Score:2)
TheFrood
thank you SO much slashdot (Score:2)
Ho ho.
Punctured Equilibrium (Score:2)
It's called Punctuated Equilibirum... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It's called Punctuated Equilibirum... (Score:3, Insightful)
Whereas...? (Score:2)
Please forgive the following rant (Score:2, Interesting)
Enter evolutionary theory. It seems that to show any skeptisism is to be labled a creationist. Who decided that those were the only options? Regardless of the validity of any other ideas out there, modern evolutionary theory does have trouble neatly explaining some observations. As a result, the theory is continually becoing more complex (There is really not sufficient room to go into detail so I apologize). At some point, skeptisism is appropriate.
Years ago, people widely believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and anyone who didn't think so was automatically labled a heretic. Rather than concede that the Earth was moving, planets were plotted as moving in epicyclic patterns. This was a real mess to explain in the context of known physics. As far as I know, Gallileo was not an atheist yet I believe he was excommunicated for suggesting that the Earth moved.
Now it's the opposite problem. To challenge evolutionary theory is to be labled a creationist, even though evolutionary theory is looking more and more like planets moving in epicycles everyday.
Eureka, the missing step! (Score:2, Funny)
going from airplanes to cars??? (Score:4, Funny)
Wow, Now that's evolution that cannot be easily explained.
Is God a sadist? ...or a bad engineer? (Score:2, Flamebait)
If this little fellow was the product of intelligent design, would not that same intelligent design extend to the other creatures around it?
Or did the "designer" just want to sit back and guffaw at the pain and suffering inflicted on one of his creations by another?
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense (Score:3, Interesting)
the bombardier beetle evolved just like everything (Score:4, Informative)
A step-by-step evolution of the bombardier system is really not that hard to envision. The scenario below shows a possible step-by-step evolution of the bombardier beetle mechanism from a primitive arthropod.
1.Quinones are produced by epidermal cells for tanning the cuticle. This exists commonly in arthropods. [Dettner, 1987]
2.Some of the quinones don't get used up, but sit on the epidermis, making the arthropod distasteful. (Quinones are used as defensive secretions in a variety of modern arthropods, from beetles to millipedes. [Eisner, 1970])
3.Small invaginations develop in the epidermis between sclerites (plates of cuticle). By wiggling, the insect can squeeze more quinones onto its surface when they're needed.
4.The invaginations deepen. Muscles are moved around slightly, allowing them to help expel the quinones from some of them. (Many ants have glands similar to this near the end of their abdomen. [Holldobler & Wilson, 1990, pp. 233-237])
5.Some invaginations (now reservoirs) become so deep that the others are inconsequential by comparison. Those gradually revert to the original epidermis.
6.In various insects, different defensive chemicals besides quinones appear. (See Eisner, 1970, for a review.) This helps those insects defend against predators which have evolved resistance to quinones. One of the new defensive chemicals is hydroquinone.
7.Cells that secrete the hydroquinones develop in multiple layers over part of the reservoir, allowing more hydroquinones to be produced. Channels between cells allow hydroquinones from all layers to reach the reservoir.
8.The channels become a duct, specialized for transporting the chemicals. The secretory cells withdraw from the reservoir surface, ultimately becoming a separate organ. This stage -- secretory glands connected by ducts to reservoirs -- exists in many beetles. The particular configuration of glands and reservoirs that bombardier beetles have is common to the other beetles in their suborder. [Forsyth, 1970]
9.Muscles adapt which close off the reservoir, thus preventing the chemicals from leaking out when they're not needed.
10.Hydrogen peroxide, which is a common by-product of cellular metabolism, becomes mixed with the hydroquinones. The two react slowly, so a mixture of quinones and hydroquinones gets used for defense.
11.Cells secreting a small amount of catalases and peroxidases appear along the output passage of the reservoir, outside the valve which closes it off from the outside. These ensure that more quinones appear in the defensive secretions. Catalases exist in almost all cells, and peroxidases are also common in plants, animals, and bacteria, so those chemicals needn't be developed from scratch but merely concentrated in one location.
12.More catalases and peroxidases are produced, so the discharge is warmer and is expelled faster by the oxygen generated by the reaction.
13.The walls of that part of the output passage become firmer, allowing them to better withstand the heat and pressure generated by the reaction.
14.Still more catalases and peroxidases are produced, and the walls toughen and shape into a reaction chamber. Gradually they become the mechanism of today's bombardier beetles.
15.The tip of the beetle's abdomen becomes somewhat elongated and more flexible, allowing the beetle to aim its discharge in various directions.
Random Comments on Biology and Slashdot (Score:5, Informative)
I have an MS in ecology and population genetics, but have also made my living in the CS field for years (to pay the mortgage, you understand
Evolution (and I've taught college courses on the subject) is not engineering. To understand it, you need to understand ecology, genetics, biochemistry, lots of general biology, etc., etc. There are few topics with more misunderstandings, by people who think they understand it all, and don't. Including some people in the field, har har.
Finally, regarding the Creationists and the "irreducible complexity" thing. As the Theory of Evolution got traction in the intellectual world, the Creationists always pointed out something we didn't understand as proof of a Creator. As more and more became understood, they retreated to the next thing. This was called the "God of the gaps" approach - if we don't understand NOW what's going on, it must be GOD!
That's how I feel about "irreducible complexity". It will be found to be reducible. Well, maybe, mabye not. Where is it written that talking monkeys should necessarily come to understand the Cosmos in all its glory? That's what we are, boys and girls. For all our wonderful accumulated knowledge, there's an infinite ocean of subtlety out there... there's no guarantee that it's all accessible to our brand of cognition or any other computation either.
We return you now to your regularly scheduled trollfest...
Re:Random Comments on Biology and Slashdot (Score:3, Interesting)
I think it's very wrong to generalize about "engineers" using those who post on Slashdot as a representative sample. On any given topic, including computer-related topics, a large number of /. posts exhibit a surprising degree of ignorance. I think, as with anything else (like TV news), when it's a field you're more familiar with, you're much more likely to notice the errors, as well as more likely to be judgemental about those errors.
Actually, I think it can be a mistake to even label someone "an engineer" and make significant assumptions of their strengths and weaknesses based on that. Most intelligent, thinking people (note I'm excluding well over 50% of the general population here) have multiple interests and strengths, and it's only the most narrow of these who have limited their life's scope to only those topics which directly affect their work.
As for talking monkeys, we are conceptualizing, abstracting, self-aware monkeys. Those qualities tend to make the particular animal family we belong to somewhat irrelevant.
Which brings me to understanding the cosmos - it's easy to prove that we aren't capable of understanding it in any complete sense. However, given time and access to sufficient information, we are capable of developing theories which encapsulate and communicate the essence of what's going on. It's difficult to imagine any rational, detectable process, which does not involve a deity, being impenetrable to the application of analysis and logic, and to the development of appropriate theories.
The idea that "there's no guarantee that it's all accessible to our brand of cognition or any other computation" tends to imply that there's an unknowable deity or equivalent process doing things that we can't possibly understand, and which defy logic. I don't think that's likely to be correct. What will stop us from knowing something are simply physical and logical limitations - we can't know what preceded our universe, or what's outside our universe, or what it's really like inside a black hole, etc. Some of these questions are essentially meaningless, at least to us. Already, at the quantum level, we're reduced to describing particles as clouds of probability - but this doesn't necessarily reflect a gap in our understanding at all. You could argue that the inside of a black hole or the exact nature of an electron are not "accessible to our brand of cognition", but it seems more likely that these things are fundamentally not accessible to three-dimensional creatures occupying four-dimensional spacetime in this particular universe.
Another physical limitation is the degree of complexity our brains are capable of entertaining. Our theories are all compressions of reality, and we never have access to nor time to process all possible relevant information. Our theories are always only simplified models and approximations. So it's a given that our understanding on any particular topic is always limited. But the flip side of that is that we are capable of coming to some understanding, however limited and gross, of any topic that is physically accessible to our inspection.
Re:Article? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Such a subtle mechanism (Score:5, Funny)
OTOH, we are so dumb, this is surely a proof that there is no designer.
Furthermore, people are so dumb, that the universe must be a bad dream I'm having, and other people are just an imagination or representations of myself.
I must stop talking to myself.
Re:Such a subtle mechanism (Score:2)
*creepy*
Re:Less potent (Score:3, Informative)
There's a good account of such a possible route here [talkorigins.org]
The steps listed are not claimed to be the route, just a possible route.
Re:Question for creationists (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Question for creationists (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the problem with trying to argue these points when science and religion collide. Both sides believe that they are correct based on their own dogma. The religious side is correct because the bible is correct - end of argument. The science side is correct because this is the prevailing paradigm.
There is one interesting piece in the article:
We should remember God's admonition to Job, 'Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?' (Job 38:4).
It is interesting to note that this argument cuts against both sides!
Re:Ga. school board OKs teaching creationism (Score:2)
> creationism
> *Weeps*
Go ahead and mark this day down on your Return to the Dark Ages timeline.
Before long, we'll be teaching kids not to have their pictures taken because their souls will be stolen away and that Baby Jesus cries whenever they touch themselves *there*. Then we can continue with the whole War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength policies.
Re:Ga. school board OKs teaching creationism (Score:2)
1. The article seems to intentionally mistake "theory" with "Theory". In general, a "theory" is the same as a conjecture, while a scientific "Theory" is a scientific term for a falsifiable explanation that describes facts. From this perspective, evolution is a fact, but natural selection is a Theory.
2. In the call out box "An explanation of the origin of life theories", I was expecting a description of modern Theories of evolution, like punctuated equilibrium or neo-Darwinism. Instead, it (mistakenly? intentionally?) sets up a false science/religion dichotomy where either you believe in Darwinism or you believe the Christian God manipulated human beings by hand. The interesting part is that pure Darwinism focuses too much on natural selection, while biologists today tend to believe that mutation plays a greater role. But from the CNN article, a layman would think its Darwin or nothing.
Incorrect about the Atheist Argument (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:how does one hide a gene? (Score:2)