Hic Hic Hooray: Hiccups Explained 421
Anonymous Hero writes "Finally after millions of years (and zillions of hiccups) New Scientist gives us an explanation for this most annoying and least obvious of adaptations!"
"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell
I always feel like a little kid when I get them... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I always feel like a little kid when I get them (Score:2, Interesting)
There is a trick to making them go away. It takes some concentration, but you can consciously prevent your muscles from doing that to you. I wish I knew how to explain it - it's like teaching someone to burp on command - I just "know" how to do it, but I'm not sure how to explain what to do.
Re:I always feel like a little kid when I get them (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Get a glass of water.
2. Take a deep breath and let it out, but don't push it out. Don't worry if you hiccup during that breath.
3. Without taking another breath, start taking *tiny* sips of the water; try to take at least one per second. Swallow each one. Keep your epiglottis closed as much as you can, in case you hiccup in the middle of doing this.
4. After 10-15 sips, the muscles in your mouth and throat will start to get tired, making it more difficult to do this. Keep going.
5. After a few more sips you won't care about the tired muscles, because you'll really REALLY want to breathe. Force yourself to take a couple more sips, then stop drinking and take that breath.
You should have no more hiccups after this. If you keep hiccuping wait a few minutes and try again. If it doesn't work on the second try, you're screwed. Also, this will not work if the hiccups are from being drunk and it may not work if they're a side-effect of medication.
Re:I always feel like a little kid when I get them (Score:4, Interesting)
another remedy (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I always feel like a little kid when I get them (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I always feel like a little kid when I get them (Score:2, Funny)
The parent to my post was referring to having the hiccups while at work. I don't really suggest you try this while in a meeting!
Re:I always feel like a little kid when I get them (Score:4, Funny)
Why not? It could get rid of the hiccups. I am sure the rest of the people in the meeting could relate. And if it didn't work, and you hiccuped with a mouth full of water, causing you to inhale a portion of it, and then invoulantarily cough and spew that water all over the conference table, well, that would just provide some comic relief that was probably sorely needed anyway.
Right?
What I want to know (Score:5, Interesting)
easy influenced (Score:3, Interesting)
My hypothesis
Falling asleep and/or coughing is a dangerous activity with predators around. So when one person coughs and gives the game away it would be prudent to get your coughing over and done with now rather than when it goes quiet again.
With yawning maybe it's a trigger to take an oxygen blast before it's necessary.
Will that do?
Re:easy influenced (Score:2)
I think it's more likely that when you hear somebody else cough, you concentrate on your own throat and force it to feel itchy so that you need to cough. It's the same process as when you have a broken limb with a cast on it. Everything is just fine until somebody mentions the word 'itch', and all of the sudden you're running for the wire coat hanger. Speaking of coughing, ever notice that when somebody with a scratchy voice talks you constantly have to resist the urge to clear your own throat?
With yawning maybe it's a trigger to take an oxygen blast before it's necessary.
Or maybe you psychologically feel like whoever yawned has sucked up a large portion of the oxygen in the air and that perhaps you should hoard some of it before anybody else does the same. :-)
Re:What I want to know (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What I want to know (Score:2)
Re:What I want to know (Score:5, Interesting)
Seeing another person yawn triggers the desire in you to yawn for the very real purpose of getting rid of your excess C02 as well. This may be because we know that if one of us is getting sleepy or deprived of oxygen we all are, or if one of us is in a location that is prone to oxygen depletion-- the bottom of a cave or burrow, for example-- then we need to move to an area that is more open to moving air.
Humans have a lot of responses like this. When one of us gets sick and vomits, anyone else who sees it also feels sick and tries to vomit. The implication being that if one of us has eaten bad, possibly toxic food, the rest of us should try to purge our stomachs before it affects us.
Try this the next time you're at home with your dog or cat. Yawn widely and deeply in front of your pet. Chances are, you can make your pet yawn. This is an old, *old* mechanism.
I know I'm yawning just thinking about it.
Re:What I want to know (Score:2, Funny)
Re:What I want to know (Score:2)
Re:What I want to know (Score:2, Funny)
Try this the next time you're at home with your dog or cat. Yawn widely and deeply in front of your pet. Chances are, you can make your pet yawn. This is an old, *old* mechanism.
Whew! When I first read that, I thought you were recommending vomitting in front of your dog or cat and waiting to see what happens. Might be something fun to try at somebody else's house.
Re:What I want to know (Score:2)
No, no, no (Score:4, Funny)
Re:What I want to know (Score:4, Interesting)
Very odd.
Re:What I want to know (Score:3, Informative)
but I think the general consensus is that its all about group synchronization.
Killer whales maintain pod cohesiveness through diving and respiratory synchronization
(humans may have a vestige of this tendency in contagious yawning... quoted from What's new in neurofeedback [eegspectrum.com]
I think yawning is also an important way of telling your companions "Time to GET OUT OF MY HOUSE."
Re:What I want to know (Score:2)
Every time I come out of the movie theater, I get vampire jokes because they think I'm allergic to the sun.
Now we know... (Score:2, Funny)
Short Answer (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Short Answer (Score:3, Interesting)
I mentioned this article to the recently-pregnant project manager who sits next to me and she said she could feel her baby hiccuping while it was still "in development" and that it is a very strange sensation.
Re:Short Answer (Score:2)
Since the transducers are essentially very selective microphones, over the course of a 45 minute test you could see one or both of the twins hiccuping. It's pretty funny.
Re:Short Answer (Score:2)
Re:Short Answer (Score:2)
Explanation? (Score:2, Informative)
I'm sorry, where did that article provide the explanation? I saw theory, but no proven, scientific answer, as the last two paragraphs indicate...
Babies (Score:5, Interesting)
The doctor also said that they have no clue why it happens, and that at least one study had shown that if you bring a baby out into bright light they will often start hiccuping. I keep pointing my daughter at the sun, but so far, nuthin. :)
Re:Babies (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Babies (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Babies (Score:2)
Certainly not true for our daughter. When a really tiny baby, hiccups used to make her cry as she had no idea what was happening. Even now (she was one last week) she often gets frustrated with them. Mind you, depending on her mood she can also think they're funny.
Cheers,
Ian
Photopic sneeze (Score:4, Interesting)
This is an idea - a theory, for goodness sake! (Score:5, Insightful)
This "explanation" is apparently supported by the thinnest of threads in terms of evolutionary history, and hard evidence is not presented to back this claim. This does not stop the Slashdot editors from posting this as "stuff that matters."
Please let the brainstormers check their ideas with research, show correlation, then causation, then present their findings in a way that can be checked by others.
This hypothesis, if you can call it that, is not tested and is perhaps not testable.
Why this reflex motion a) exists at all, and b) why it persists, if it descende from the frog may only be fodder for spectulation.
Science requires more than mere speculation.
Phooey.
Anomaly
Re:This is an idea - a theory, for goodness sake! (Score:2, Insightful)
A theory is not a hypothesis. A theory is not just an idea.
Re:This is an idea - a theory, for goodness sake! (Score:2)
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
It is also:
An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
However, in science, something tends to not be a 'theory' unless has been first tested and not found to be false yet.
Re:This is an idea - a theory, for goodness sake! (Score:5, Insightful)
Does it "matter?" I think this article is fascinating. The suggestion that specific adaptations might persist beyond their usefulness to an organism because they form a foundation for later adaptations raises really interesting questions about how complex neurological behaviors are "built up" in organisms, and research in this territory could lead to a greater understanding of the line between inherited and learned behaviors, and the evolution of neurological response. That's cutting edge.
Science is indeed more than speculation but science begins with speculation, hypothesis, and theory. When I want hard science news I go to the resources in the scientific community, I read my Chemical and Engineering News magazines. 95 percent of what I read there is so dry and technical it would be pointless to post it on Slashdot.
"Münchnones, or mesoionic 1,3-oxazolium-5-oxides, are versatile substrates for 1,3-dipolar additions in constructing biologically active heterocycles. They usually are made by multistep synthesis, but now, Bruce A. Arndtsen, an associate professor of chemistry at McGill University, Montreal, and coworkers have come up with an easier way [J. Am. Chem. Soc., 125, 1474 (2003)]."
That's "real" science reporting. And it is definately more groundbreaking, in the immediate sense, than an article speculating about hiccups. But there is nothing wrong with a "color" science article that makes me think and wonder and dream a little bit about larger issues.
in software terms (Score:2)
private class Brain {
try {
} catch(UnknownException e) {
this.hiccup();
}
Re:in software terms (Score:3, Funny)
// FIXME: We have no idea what this does,
// but we're afraid to touch it. It caused
// an infinite loop in the Eden testing lab.
// See workaround below. -Adam 1.0 team
Brain::hiccup()
{
while (1)
{
memcpy(GLOTTIS, 0xff);
sleep(2000 * (random() + 0.5));
if (fearLevel() > 0.7)
break;
}
}
Next on Eye on Springfield... (Score:2, Funny)
"!Hic! Kill me. !Hic!"
I don't get it (Score:2)
These doofus scientists don't even watch TV or go to the pub, obviously. Boffins.
Take THAT creationists! (Score:5, Funny)
Score one more for the we came from a puddle of sludge team!
Not that I wouldn't prefer creation over evolution. Probably wouldn't have hiccups. Thanks a lot, natural selection.
Re: Take THAT creationists! (Score:2)
If the square peg is not going in the round hole, you're not pushing hard enough
More ammunition (Score:5, Funny)
Re:More ammunition (Score:2)
Researchers have also confirmed that doing that prevents hiccups.
Of course, that is what I am going to tell my wife. You know, she gets hiccups often. Maybe she should have a friend or two come over...
Re:More ammunition (Score:2)
Suffer the little children (Score:3, Interesting)
My brothers just had a little girl. She quite a noisemaker - Cries almost all the time. Now I've noticed that sometimes in her rare quiet periods when she gets hickups - she doen't seem to care.
Now this is a child that uses high screaming as the first symptom of hunger, or any othe discomfort - but when she has hickups she doesnt seem to notice. She'll just go on watching our faces - or whatever little people does for fun. This is even though every hickup makes her little body jump.
While not even resembling proof for anything - it might suggest that the theory that suckling and hickups are related behaviour is not that far of.
I get the worst hickups myself. My little 100kg 190 cm body, shakes in cramps an my head and throat aches - and they last for a long time. We once threw a dinner party - and I had the hickups all through dinner - quite conversationkiller
So what? how to heal it? (Score:2, Interesting)
For most of us, hiccups are just a small annoyance for a couple of minutes, but I remember watching a medical TV emission where people explained that they suffered from chronical hiccups. These persons could have hiccups for several days (night and day), and their life was not funny at all.
JB.
Re:So what? how to heal it? (Score:2)
It's really strange - the only way I seem to be able to get rid of hiccups is to forget that I have them. Unfortunately it's bloody impossible to actively try and forget that you have them!
But... (Score:2, Interesting)
For some reason I stopped when I was 12 or so, never had any since. I think these scientists are going off a hunch.
If Only... (Score:5, Funny)
Remember how all of the school health books had a little blurb on hiccups? The Q&A form went like this:
Q: What causes hiccups?
A: Hiccups are a spastic contraction of the diaphragm combined with the closing of the windpipe. Drink some water...
I got in trouble for not accepting that. The teacher gave the class the same answer and I told him: "OK, so that's what they are, but WHY do we get them?" Same answer again. So I explained to the teacher and the class the difference between cause and effect.
2 hours after school...oh, the trauma! Freakin' great way to foster a sense of inquiry.
Re:If Only... (Score:2)
Ah well,
-l
Re:If Only... (Score:2)
Compressing a gas increases its temperature because -
A. Increased number of intermolecular collisions
B. Atoms bounce off of the compressing piston with more energy than they had before
(3 filler options)
Anyway, it took me fifteen minutes to explain to her that even if collisions were perfectly elastic, they couldn't give the molecules more average kinetic energy than they started with (6th grade conservation of energy!). She thought choice A was the answer while she was setting the paper!
What a Letdown (Score:2)
Hiccups when eating hot curries (Score:2)
I'm prepared to accept the possibility of ancestry shared with fish, but I've never heard of fish eating curries
It's All Mental (Score:2, Interesting)
I have this argument with my significant other all the time. She gets hiccups fairly regularly - perhaps once a month. I haven't had the hiccups in over 15 years.
When I was young, I remember reading an article that suggested hiccups were purely psychological. Since then, I've been convinced that it was purely a matter of will.
Occasionally I'll get a single hiccup - usually after drinking a carbonated beverage of some variety. But I know that hiccups are psychological, and I never have a second hiccup. As I said, this has worked for over 15 years.
My significant other? She swears that it's some biological function. Her hiccups? They last for at least five minutes - sometimes up to half an hour.
Call me crazy, but at least I'm hiccup-free.
Re:It's All Mental (Score:5, Funny)
Tonight, we'll interview a man who's had the hiccups for 27 years!
*cut to clip from interview*
*hic* Kill me. *hic* Kill me. *hic* Kill me. *hic* Kill me.
Re:It's All Mental (Score:2)
I've stopped other people by looking them in the eye and saying "YOU DO NOT HAVE THE HICCUPS" in the most commanding voice I can muster.
There's another post in this thread that suggests that their may be 'interfaces' to biological functions that aren't apparent to their owners. I have an example of this: ear wiggling. I don't know how to wiggle my ears on command, but now and then a high-pitched sound will startle me and I'll feel my ears pull back on their own. This would probably be a more useful function if humans had more directional ears, but it's a nice try anyway. It's obvious to me that this is the muscle needed to initiate novelty ear wiggling... I just haven't found a way to make it happen at will.
Explanation? (Score:2, Insightful)
Chronic Hiccups (Score:2, Insightful)
nohup (Score:5, Funny)
nohup whoami
"UNIX: It sure beats drinking a glass of water while standing on your head!"
New cure (Score:2)
Evolution? (Score:2)
Re:Evolution? (Score:2)
Not necessarily true. I dont believe in "evolution" but see enough evidence of natural selection to believe in that small part of the theory. If it does have something to do with breathing in the womb, for instance, then I would imagine those who do not carry the trait wouldnt make it out very well.
Add to that the fact that humans are occasionally born with gills to this day, and it begins to make more sense.
Having said that, I have no real issue with natural selection.. my issue is with the lightning whacking an amino acid once and everything here springing from that.
(I am one of those wonky creationists who believe that evolution and creation are not necessarily mutually exclusive.. who is to say things werent "created" and then left to their own devices?)
Maeryk
Re:Evolution? (Score:2)
Feel better now?
A cure? (Score:2)
Check the Guinness book of world records... there's a guy who has had the hiccups for 60 years or so... Oh, the poor soul. C'mon scientists, he's waiting on you! ;)
Hiccups as protection from aspiration (Score:2)
From the article: another (theory is) that they prevent amniotic fluid entering the lungs (of babies). If their purpose is to prevent liquid getting into the lungs, points out Christian Straus at Pitie-Salpetriere Hospital in Paris, you would expect the closure of the glottis to be associated with the contraction of the muscles used for breathing out, as in a cough, not those for breathing in.
Would someone like to explain to Mr. Straus that there is a greater chance of aspirating amniotic fluid when one is breathing in, than when one is breathing out!?!
Re:Hiccups as protection from aspiration (Score:2)
My wacky theory, my cure (Score:2)
I theorized that, like blinking, sneezing or coughing, a hiccup was trying to clear some sort of irritating blockage. So I tried manually pressing in and slightly up just on and below the breastbone while trying to burp - basically adding a bit more strength and persistence to the action of the diaphragm. Now it may just be me - but when I've been hiccuping, this always causes a sort of foamy burp, and the hiccups end.
Now it could just be that the diaphragm gets stretched a bit and stops contracting (like stretching a cramping muscle). But my theory has always been that some foam has built up and feels like a blockage to the stomach. It wouldn't show up on any medical imaging, so it isn't surprising that it wouldn't have been detected. And since hiccups are commonly associated with eating or drinking too fast or drinking fizzy drinks - getting air into your stomach, it doesn't seem TOO improbable.
Anyhow - call it wacky if you want, but my hiccup cure has never failed me.
Ok, but... (Score:2)
If it turns out that this theory is correct, how will it help us get rid of them?
I'm so disappointed that it appears that the only point of the article/theory is to try and explain hiccups in utero.
Here's the cure! (Score:2)
Hold a paper towel tightly over a glass of water and drink the water through the towel.
There you have it. One of the world's most vexing problems solved by a doofus on
Re:Drinking (Score:2, Funny)
On the surface I may seem very profound, but deep down inside I'm actually a very shallow individual.
Re:This is curious (Score:2)
Perhaps they're going to use mind control to give everyone in the world hiccups, and then they'll reveal they have a cure if we pay them (little pinkie to corner of mouth) one hundred billion dollars!
Re:OT - Bitters and lime juice... (Score:2, Interesting)
Put your thumb on the person's (victim's) forehead. I've no idea why this works, but it seems to be extremely effective. I think part of it has to do with the person concentrating on your thumb on their forehead.
BTW-It does not work on yourself, I've tried.
Re:OT - Bitters and lime juice... (Score:2)
Remember, use this advice only for good, not for evil!
Re:Yes and no (Score:2, Informative)
> The article relates a new theory, nothing more. It's a promising theory, and one which can be disproven easily. If the test fails to disproove the theory, then it can be taken more seriously as an explanation. Still, it may never be PROVEN, per se.
In the natural sciences, theories are never proven, per se.
Re:Yes and no (Score:2)
Also, it is never possible to prove that an event that I just observed actually occured, and as you get further and further from that level of certainty things get fuzzier and fuzzier. However, there are many potential ways to prove the big theories to a degree of certainty that is as acceptable as claiming that any given even just occured.
They just require higher tech than we have. Obviously time-travel solves this problem (even if it's only capable of observation, which is the most plausible type of time-travel). Other solutions vary per theory. This theory is an easy one. If we conclusively determine what DNA corrosponds to the reflex, and can get DNA samples from the fossils that we think it came from, then we can see if that DNA sequence exists. If it does, and does not exist in that creature's ancestors, you've proven your theory. Woefully, that assumes all sorts of difficult things.
Re:Cure? (Score:2)
Re:Cure? (Score:2)
Re:Cure? (Score:2)
Worth a try ...
Re:But... what's the cure? (Score:2, Funny)
A bullet to the back of the head usually works.
Of course, this has other undersirable consequences, but I could find nothing in your list of requirements that covered preserving the life of the hiccup victim.
black humour, n.: a form of humour that pokes fun at sad, or otherwise undesired occurances (i.e. "NASA: Need Another Seven Astronauts," and "You can always count on NASA to put on a great fireworks show.")
Stopping hiccups (Score:4, Interesting)
Place both of your fingertips so that you feel the "bottom" of your rib cage, about 2 inches above either side of your belly button. Then move your fingers down about an inch, and then finally push in about an inch. Basically, you're pushing on your diaphragm. Hold for about 30 seconds. (Basically two hiccup cycles.)
I discovered it after learning musicians should be breathing from their diaphragm. Has worked like a charm over the many years.
Cheers
Re:Stopping hiccups (Score:3, Interesting)
So, whenever I get hiccups, I dig around in my ear with a q-tip (or finger, in an emergency) and it works every time.
Wierd, huh?
Re:Stopping hiccups (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:But... what's the cure? (Score:3, Insightful)
2. My mom taught me this - get a glass of water, then hold your breath and take 8-10 little sips, swallowing after each one. 80% success rate, for me.
Not sure about sure-fire... (Score:2)
I see all sorts of weird techniques being presented all over this story, but I haven't see anyone present the most simple solution. I can't think of a time this hasn't worked for me. Just hold your breath. Usually you have to do it for at least 30 seconds. You have to hold it and almost be pushing the air down in your throat, if that makes sense.
Re: Millons? (Score:2, Offtopic)
> There are many slashdotters who believe this and can argue quite coherently against evolutionists.
If that's the case, why do we always hear the same old schlock instead of those coherent arguments?
> Use logic, reason, arguments.
Add "evidence" to that recipe and you'll understand why most of us reject mythomagical explanations of how the universe works.
> Creationists understand and agree with natural selection.
Actually, some do, some don't. Some, usually called "theistic evolutionists", don't even deny evolution.
> I do not think this attitude of "evolution is right" should be encouraged on slashdot.
Let's instead encourage looking at the facts, and we'll get the same result.
> All I'm asking is that we change this culture and start to respect opinions of each other.
Even when those opinions are demonstrably idiotic?
Re:Millons? (Score:2, Offtopic)
I feel compelled to reply to this troll. Why do you have to make comments like this? There are many slashdotters who believe this and can argue quite coherently against evolutionists. I personally have not yet met a single evolutionist who _understands_ the creationist position. Especially on slashdot.
Indeed, I do not. I have never seen any evidence for Creationism. I just cannot take it seriously at all. Remember, shooting holes in "Evolution Theory" is not evidence for Creationism. It's not an either/or question, not a zero sum game. Just that some parts of evolution aren't yet understood well doesn't mean there is any evidence for Creationism.
Re:Millons? (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is that there are a large number of different positions that can be lumped under the "creationist" title. In one point of view, it forms a continuum:
Young Earth Creationist to Old Earthers
6000 years old ala Archbishop Ussher, the earth is flat, pi is exactly 3, rabbits chew their cud, etc. uber-strict literalism(yes these people exist)
6000 years old ala Archbishop Ussher, literal 7-day creationists
~10,000 years old earth, literal 7-day creationists
~10,000 years old earth, "God's Time" 7-days; ie not using our notion of time, aka Day-Age
10,000-millions years old, with either day-age or literal 7-days
Billions of years old, often using day-age terminology for creation events.
Except for the first group all of the above might incorporate evolution or big-bang theories in some modified form. Common modifyiers might be that God created "kinds" of animals (the term "kinds" usually nebulously defined, if at all) and that they evolved into the current species we see today. Stricter I suppose would be those who agree with "kinds" being created and that they adapt via microevolution (never macro-) or that they can differentiate to some degree, but only through degeneration. Big bang might be incorporated as how God created the universe, stars, planets, etc. but with some different rate than the mainstream accepts or using day-age terminology for God's forming the stars and planets, etc.
After the more or less literal creationists come different positions in theistic evolution. People here might range from "God made everything look the way science tells us to test our faith" to "evolution happens but God made people with some day-age thingie" to "evolution happens, but God guides it" to "evolution and big bang yeah, but God's so friggin smart he coded it all into the laws of nature at the start" or "I don't mix my science and religion." The first group might prefer to be called creationists whereas the others would find the term insulting.
There are of course many other variants, but that's kind of the point of this: creationism applies to a lot of different points of view which directly contradicts what you've been saying. Also, you're calling the more literalist positions ignorant the same way evolutionists call creationists of all stripes ignorant. Pot. Kettle. Black.
For a history of the creationist movement in America and how the different camps relate to each other try Ronald L. Numbers' "The Creationists." It's a little dated now (1992) but is an excellent read. The guys' an evolutionist, but Gish (of Institute for Creation Research and one of those more literal guys you'd call ignorant) gave it the thumbs up, if memory serves. As for me, I like my religion and science seperated.
Re:Millons? (Score:2)
If you are desparate for my to link to something, then I can link you to a book I have heard is good but have not personally read. Here it is if you like [amazon.com]. I just don't really see the need to post links. There are people out there who have dedicated their careers to this. Their resources are readily available with google. Why do you need me? I'll happily direct anyone to resources in person, but on slashdot a person has to convince me they are genuinely interested - since every time previously I have ended up in circles. As I said I don't want to end up defending arguments on those websites or books. I'll leave that up to the people who have dedicated their careers to it.
I hope that clears it up.
Re: Millons? (Score:2)
Thanks
Re: Millons? (Score:2)
I think this deserves more research by me in the future, because a biologist who is convinced there are massive problems with evolution and then changes his mind would be significant indeed - and so would understanding his reasons why.
Especially considering this review [alienryderflex.com]:
At least one pro-evolution writer, Gert Korthof, has seized with delight Denton's apparent flip-flop on evolution. In Part 2 of Nature's Destiny that appearance is quickly dispelled, but Denton still deserves some of the blame for the confusion. Virtually every reference to evolution in Part 1 could be replaced with a reference to the survival of species, and the argument concerning the laws of physics would not be diminished. By using the word "evolution" as he does, Denton seems to be contributing to the obfuscation of that word, rather than clarifying it as Phillip Johnson seeks to do.
When we begin reading Part 2, it immediately becomes apparent that Denton is talking about something very different from Darwin's concept of natural selection acting on random changes. Denton proposes that evolution is true in a sense, but that it is not driven by random changes, but rather by intelligently directed leaps which involve significant changes in complexity. Further, he proposes that these directed leaps are not performed by supernatural acts of interference with the laws of physics, but instead were elaborately planned into the laws of physics from the beginning. Thus, Denton finds a point of common ground between pure naturalism and the intelligent design of higher organisms -- a remarkable feat.
Anyway, I'm off to bed.
Re:Excellent Troll, My Friend (Score:2)
I have tried pointing out many times that this is equally true of evolution. Science deals with things we can test. Origins fall outside that realm.
On the contrary, there are a huge number of observations which could conceivably disprove evolution if they were to be observed. You mention it yourself by finding Jurassic preceeding the Cambrian. Discovering essentially modern forms hundreds of million of years before they could have evolved would put a huge dent in evolution.
But, it's also true that the evidence for evolution is so massive and compelling that quite a few observations would be needed to convince the Scientific community that evolution was no longer viable as a framework.
Distilled to its logical essence, it's practically self-obvious. Currently, electrical engineers are using "evolutionary" methods to design circuits. By making random "mutations" and "cross-breeding" test designs which are then rated on how well they meet the design goal.
A claim for a 6000 year old Earth is just not Scientifically supported. It is Religion posing as Science solely because of the First Amendment and the fact that you literally can't teach modern Biology without teaching Evolution.
Evolution is such a sucessful theory that it is a fundamental unifying principle of Biology. Prior to Evolution, Biology was a loose grouping of independant disciplines. Genetics was independant of Cladistics was independant of observations of the behaviors of organisms. Today, all the subfields of Biology are related through the principle of Evolution.
To find a useful and convincing replacement for Evolution, you are going to have to replace a whole lot of useful Biology.
So, rather than Creationism/Evolution being two equally competing philosophical underpinings for the world we live in, as you portray, they are instead a Scientific and a non-Scientific way of explaining the same things.
Whilch is all I said in the first place: Creationism is not Science, it is Religion.
Re:Excellent Troll, My Friend (Score:2)
Oh goody, it looks like some creationists have moderation points. Notice at this time, all the anti creationist post have been modded offtopic.
While we're at it check out my suggestion for Slashdot's moderation system [slashdot.org].
Re:Millons? (Score:2)
Examples, please
Religion, on the other hand, specifically biblical christianity, has never changed
Please compare what is known about 1st century christianity with your religion and tell us christianity has never changed.
Re:Not quite as useful... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is an idea - a theory, for goodness sake! (Score:2, Insightful)
This "explanation" is apparently supported by the thinnest of threads in terms of evolutionary history, and hard evidence is not presented to back this claim. This does not stop the Slashdot editors from posting this as "stuff that matters."
Please let the brainstormers check their ideas with research, show correlation, then causation, then present their findings in a way that can be checked by others.
This hypothesis, if you can call it that, is not tested and is perhaps not testable. Why this reflex motion a) exists at all, and b) why it persists, if it descende from the frog may only be fodder for spectulation.
Science requires more than mere speculation.
Phooey.
Anomaly
Re:sweet! (Score:2)
Don't pay anybody to check you out. Just stick your head under water for like 15 minutes and see if you're still alive. :-)
Disclaimer: I'm only joking, so please, please please don't try this. If you ignore this disclaimer, I will accept no responsibility for your death. However, if you find that you can breathe under water, I will require 20% of any revenue that you earn due to your new-found gift. :-)
Re:great...now all we need is... (Score:2)
You need a straw, glass of water.
Plug your ears and drink as much water as you can.
Honest it works almost everytime.