Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science Software Linux

Linux Reconstructing Tree of Life? 145

Posted by michael from the penguins-at-top-of-food-chain dept.
vaderhelmet writes "Wired has a cool story about how the American Museum of Natural History, funded by the National Science Foundation is using Linux to "construct a pattern of relationships that biologists believe links all of Earth's present and past species -- from the smallest microbe to the largest vertebrate that existed during Earth's 4 billion-year history." They're using their very own homemade supercomputer which ranks in at 107 on the Top 500 supercomputers list. Quote from article: "Linux makes it so easy to create a supercomputer.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linux Reconstructing Tree of Life? More

Linux Reconstructing Tree of Life?

Comments Filter:

  • It works! (Score:4, Funny)

    by teamhasnoi ( 554944 ) * <teamhasnoi@yahoo.cLIONom minus cat> on Thursday July 10, 2003 @02:50PM (#6409229) Journal
    I just found out that Politicians, Hillary Rosen, and Ashton Kutcher are all related to bottom feeding, brainless proto-slime!

    Hurrah for technology!

  • Wow. Um.. this is NOT gonna bode well with religions (and the people involved) that believe in creationism. /catholic
    • Sure it will. All religions believe and have explained that God created everything, they don't explain how He did it. And if He did create everything, then you would expect everything to be related in some kind of an organized hierarchy. All they are doing is using the computers to determine that hierarchy.

      • Re:Religion (Score:1, Flamebait)

        by Daniel Dvorkin ( 106857 )

        Sure it will. All religions believe and have explained that God created everything, they don't explain how He did it. And if He did create everything, then you would expect everything to be related in some kind of an organized hierarchy. All they are doing is using the computers to determine that hierarchy.

        Um, actually, lots of religions do claim to explain how God created everything -- ever heard of something called Genesis? Which is the problem, and why Gould's "Non-Overlapping Magisteria" idea, as ni

        • I used to be an evolutionist, and can spout and cite the exact same drek as evolutionists are known to do. I have a full education and background in the cosmic, biochemical, and biological "evolution" story line. And I know it's more of a fairy tale than the email hoax about Gates giving his money away if you forward some email chain letter.

          However it comes down to a key point - it is mathematically impossible for life to arise spontaneously by stochastic processes. The Bible has it right from the first

          • Re:Religion (Score:2, Interesting)

            by Anonymous Coward
            Unlikely, not impossible. It is however mathematically impossible for a being to exist, has existed *forever*, and can do whatever he wants. The existence of god used to explain a whole lot of stuff, now it makes more questions than it solves, aka, it would take ALOT to explain it, and most of the stuff it explained has been explained by science. In 2000 more years, I doubt many people(maybe .0003%) will believe in creationism.
            • Your assert:
              It is however mathematically impossible for a being to exist, has existed *forever*, and can do whatever he wants.
              Which shows a naturalistic assumption basis. However your concept of God is way too limited. God exists outside our time-space dimensionality; He is infinite, we and our universe are finite. To talk about Him being bounded in some way by time is a null-set discussion.

            • Re:Religion (Score:1, Flamebait)

              by Tyreth ( 523822 )
              That doesn't make sense, sorry. You confine God to our physical realm, presuming He must fit within the mathematical laws He created. That is a faulty assumption.

              Not to mention that God is infinite while everything created is finite. Another problem.

              God is the first cause, the creator, the origin. Atheistic evolution has no answer for first cause, while there must be one.

              Btw, I'd be curious to see the maths you used to show it impossible that God existed.

              In 2000 years, I fully expect evolution to be
              • God is the first cause, the creator, the origin. Atheistic evolution has no answer for first cause, while there must be one.

                Incorrect. Since time is relative (this is scientific fact), there cannot be a first cause. Events that appear to be happening in a particular sequence when viewed from a certain location, can appear to happen in a different sequence when viewed from different location. Who is going to decide what sequence of events is correct (hint: they both are)?

                In 2000 years, I fully expect ev

                • You will have to explain why time being relative means that there cannot be a first cause. It is possible for a train to be moving at 30km or 60km, but only ever being able to move forward. As such, there will never be a point where two different events occur in a different sequence. In other words, I don't understand what you are saying.

                  Your assurances that the theory in 2000 years will not be creationism do little to persuade me, as you can probably guess.

                  If creationism is demonstrated true, then God
                  • As such, there will never be a point where two different events occur in a different sequence. In other words, I don't understand what you are saying.

                    Assume there are two guys with a gun standing one mile apart from eachother, both firing the gun. Depending on where you stand the sound of one gunshot will reach your ears earlier then the sound of the other gun. Now assume the second guy fires the gun when he hears the first guys gunshot, but you are standing 2 miles away from the first guy and 1 mile awa

                    • Your example of the gunshots merely proves that we have difficulty determining what events occurred first, not that both occured simultaneously first and last. The first guy *did* fire first, whether you stand 2 miles from him or 1 mile. The differences is in your perception of who fired first.

                      You need to explain in more detail why proving creationism true proves that God is physical and therefore not infinite?
                      Here is why creationism would affirm God's existence:
                      1. It would show that the history in the
                    • Your example of the gunshots merely proves that we have difficulty determining what events occurred first, not that both occured simultaneously first and last. The first guy *did* fire first, whether you stand 2 miles from him or 1 mile. The differences is in your perception of who fired first.

                      I didn't prove it is difficult to determine the correct sequence of events, I proved it is *impossible* on a cosmic scale. The only means man has to measure and quantitize his surroundings is careful study of his o

                    • Ok, you may have proved it is impossible on a cosmic scale. That still doesn't eliminate a first cause. All you've done is shown our weakness in determining the precise order of events.

                      If God interacts with the physical realm, it does not imply He is at least physical. I believe the physical can be manipulated by spiritual means. Besides, this is all moot. When God incarnated as Jesus the Christ He became part physical. He was fully human and fully God. We don't fully comprehend this, but the two ar
                    • I'll read it later, right now I'm pretty tired. If you could tell me what he's right about though I would appreciate that.
                    • Ok...I have no problem with that. What he was trying to say is that events do not occur in a specific order. What the theory actually says is that the order of events cannot be reliably determined.

                      There is a world of difference in those two things.
                    • Ok, you may have proved it is impossible on a cosmic scale. That still doesn't eliminate a first cause. All you've done is shown our weakness in determining the precise order of events.

                      No I didn't, I tried to show the "precise order of events" is subjective/relative. In cosmology, we don't start with a universe aged 0, we start with a universe that is already 1 Planck-time old when it comes into existence. Within this Planck-time, there is no causality, no cause and effect.

                      Now your treatment of the sc


                    • > Here is why creationism would affirm God's existence:
                      > 1. It would show that the history in the Bible was accurate and true

                      As a good scientist you know that when observations falsify the consequences of a claim then that claim is false. And since we know that some of the history in the Bible is inaccurate and false, your claim must be rejected.

                    • Hmm, I think you replied to the wrong person. Thanks for your thoughts anyway.
                    • Planck time (5.4 × 10e-44 seconds) is the smallest possible unit of time for which general relativity holds. Everything that happens within a Planck time unit is defined by (probablistic) quantum physics and can't be described by (causal/deterministic) classical physics.

                      So, it's not an assumption really, it's just quantum physics; there is no real causality in quantum physics [wikipedia.org], because in quantum physics determinism is lost.

                    • And what was the "cosmic scale" at the very beginning of the universe? It seems to me that at the beginning of the universe, everything may have come from a single point.

                      At the beginning of time, the *visible* universe was compressed to a single point. Remember the universe might be a whole lot bigger then the part we can observe.

                      You can't *prove* anything of this nature, especially when all you have are scientific laws based on our observations of the physical laws around us.

                      I intended to lead the

                    • You are making assumptions about what we may or may not care about.

                      If we can demonstrate creationism as being true apart from God - ie, that the history given in the Bible was in fact correct, from Adam & Eve, age of the earth, flood, history of the nations, etc. Then would that prove God as existing? Note what I'm saying - we've simply proven that the events recorded in the Bible did occur. If that happened, would God's existence be verified?

                    • Couldn't one argue that the non-determinism of quantum physics is the 'portal' if you will, which allows whatever 'God' there is to control the physical world from the metaphysical realm?

                      This is an exellent question. Quantum physics is a descriptive theory, it doesn't try to explain the phenomena it describes, it just tries to predict their outcome as good as possible. This creates the possibility for various interpretations of QM.

                      The standard "Copenhagen" interpretation claims there is no deeper realit

                    • Note what I'm saying - we've simply proven that the events recorded in the Bible did occur. If that happened, would God's existence be verified?

                      No it wouldn't. It would just verify the corectness of the Bible as a *historical* record, it wouldn't verify any claims the Bible makes to the cause of history. (Implication isn't equivalence, so you can't reverse implications. If A implies B, you can't claim A is true just because B is true. This is the bad logics I referred to in another post.)


                    • > Ok...I have no problem with that. What he was trying to say is that events do not occur in a specific order. What the theory actually says is that the order of events cannot be reliably determined. There is a world of difference in those two things.

                      You have failed to grok the reason relativity is called 'relativity'.

                      Ancient intuitions about time, space, mass, human ancestry, etc., simply don't stand up to a check against reality.

                    • Then tell me, if all the history of the Bible was shown true - 6,000 year old earth, origination of all species from two initial kinds (Adam & Eve the original two for humans) - then how could that possibly *not* prove God? In other words, what possible naturalistic atheistic explanation is there?


                    • > If we can demonstrate creationism as being true apart from God - ie, that the history given in the Bible was in fact correct, from Adam & Eve, age of the earth, flood, history of the nations, etc. Then [...]

                      Since much of your 'if' has already been demonstrated to be false, your 'then' is dead code that doesn't really matter.

                    • sn't it also possible that our view of natural science is too narrow for the world it tries to describe? Not to knock you one bit, but that argument sounds like, "We have this really neat hypothesis, unfortunately we have to throw it out the window because it's not the type of hypothesis we're looking for."

                      Our view of natural science is as broad as it can be. It holds that we can only model things we're able to observe directly or indirectly. If we model things we can't measure it's no longer physics, we

                    • Simple, because you still haven't proved God created Adam & Eve and all the other initial couples. Even if we dug up all of their petrified remains, we still couldn't prove God created them.

                      That's what I tried to explain, if you could prove all of biblic history to be true, that still doesn't imply God had anything to do with it, that would just be one possible explanation. It matters little there would be no other feasible explanation, scientists would come up with different explanations once they go

                    • Well then, I see the Biblical history being proven true as indisputable evidence of God. For the very fact that we cannot think of an atheistic naturalistic explanation. You think people will come up with solutions - I'll tell you what those alternatives will be. They will range from polytheism to monotheism, and weirder spiritual ideas - but they will all involve some sort of god/gods. Creation being proven true would eliminate the already minority view of atheism.

                      Tell me, can you think of anything e

                    • You think people will come up with solutions - I'll tell you what those alternatives will be. They will range from polytheism to monotheism, and weirder spiritual ideas - but they will all involve some sort of god/gods.

                      You don't get what I'm saying, or do you? Natural science will *never* come up with a solution that involves the supernatural. Never. Science like that would be called "supernatural science" or theology. Natural science has a methodology that prohibits one from introducing unquantifyable ef

                    • Ok lets wind this up then.

                      I understood perfectly you were saying naturalism will never come up with a supernatural explanation - that is precisely why I asked you later for a scientific statement by which we could test evolution.

                      Next topic, I said: How many scientists do you know that have checked whether the decay rate of K/Ar is constant over millions of years? How many scientists do you know have checked to make sure that the Archaeopteryx really was the ancestor of birds?

                      You replied, Believe me, lo

                    • You missed my point. Not a single scientist has verified those claims I made.

                      The fact that you don't understand how they did it, doesn't mean they didn't do it. Please accept that when scientists produce theories that get accepted by other scientists after torrough investigation, thoste theories are scientifically valid.

                      By shouting form the rooftops they aren't you only demonstrate your failure to understand; you're not contributing to constructive scientific discussion in any way.You can only contibute

                    • PS: this is getting ugly, you may now have the last word.

                      Thankyou for the honor. (sincerely)

                      The fact that you don't understand how they did it, doesn't mean they didn't do it. Please accept that when scientists produce theories that get accepted by other scientists after torrough investigation, thoste theories are scientifically valid.

                      By shouting form the rooftops they aren't you only demonstrate your failure to understand; you're not contributing to constructive scientific discussion in any way.You c

                    • RE: Well then, I see the Biblical history being proven true as indisputable evidence of God. For

                      Didn't God say he would destroy Tyre "for ever"? (Tyre was never overthrown, and still exists albeit under a different name). There are loads of other humorous mistakes like that.

                      RE: Creation being proven true would eliminate the already minority view of atheism.

                      Which account of Creationism are you trying to prove? The one where the fowls were created out of the water, or the one where they were created out of
                    • Didn't God say he would destroy Tyre "for ever"? (Tyre was never overthrown, and still exists albeit under a different name). There are loads of other humorous mistakes like that.

                      Please provide the verse. I don't trust the paraphrasing of those who reject the Scriptures.

                      Which account of Creationism are you trying to prove? The one where the fowls were created out of the water, or the one where they were created out of the land? Rabbits don't chew cuds and bats aren't birds.

                      This has been answered els

                    • RE: Please provide the verse. I don't trust the paraphrasing of those who reject the Scriptures.

                      Try Ezekiel 26. Tyre destroyed for ever by "many nations" and never rebuilt. (Actually, Tyre was never destroyed and still exists.)

                      RE: The food goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, and can now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly digested.

                      That isn't "raising up" food or cud-chewing. Nice try though.

                      RE: Either you or I am insane then,
                    • That isn't "raising up" food or cud-chewing. Nice try though.

                      One thing left to say on this. "chew the cud" is an english translation of the hebrew original. The original meant raising up what had been swallowed. Check yourself. It's not a matter for dispute - it's a fact of the original language. The information is out there (google is your friend).

                      This link [padfield.com] says Tyre was destroyed and never rebuilt. What was the source you were quoting? This link [apocalipsis.org] provides more details.

                      You strike me as the sort

              • Tyreth asserts:

                God is the first cause, the creator, the origin. Atheistic evolution has no answer for first cause, while there must be one.

                It's not clear from the context which thing you are talking about. When I hear people talk about "the creator" and "first cause", generally they are talking about the creation of the universe as a whole. But this is a thread about creationism, so you might be talking about the creation of life/man on earth. I'll answer the question both ways.

                In regards to the fir
                • On the other hand, if you feel, as many "creation scientists" do, that the universe, the earth, life and man all were created in late October, 4004 BCE, there is a great deal of hard evidence against you. Such a belief is not a simple matter of faith, but a more complicated matter of blind faith. A faith that demands that you close your eyes to the world around you doesn't strike me as healthy, or likely to be true. It certainly doesn't count as science, or as something I'd want to see children being taught
                  • A post in parts. Part 1 The Scientific Method

                    There is no proof of evolution. In fact, there is no proof of any scientific theory. Science doesn't work by proof.

                    You have a body of observation that has developed over the years. Someone, let's say Darwin, comes up with an explanation as to the specifics of how nature is functioning, this is called a hypothesis. Among other things, the hypothesis will point out predictions of future observations. A number of scientists will test the hypothesis by perfo
                    • Not a thing here I disagree with. I understand that the "science" of origins is not based in the scientific method. I don't think I ever claimed that. A creation scientist is one who practices science and believes the origin story as presented in the Bible. It's not because they believe they can scientifically examine unrepeatable history.
                    • I must say, I'm glad you are not the poster I was responding to, otherwise I'd have to accuse you of changing your story.

                      Well, it is. In this case our observation is that life of some form arose under the conditions prevalant on earth around 3.8 billion years ago. Other observations - such as the current composition of life forms - provide more observations; the laws of physics provide constraints. Hypotheses can be tested against these.

                      Under no language, or any law of logic or rational could anyone say

                    • fluffy666 wrote:

                      > I understand that the "science" of origins is not based in the scientific method.

                      Well, it is. In this case our observation is that life of some form arose under the conditions prevalant on earth around 3.8 billion years ago. Other observations - such as the current composition of life forms - provide more observations; the laws of physics provide constraints. Hypotheses can be tested against these.

                      The point I was originally making regarding the science of origins, and the point whi
                    • Tyreth wrote:

                      Not a thing here I disagree with. I understand that the "science" of origins is not based in the scientific method. I don't think I ever claimed that.

                      I don't think you did either, was just trying to be as clear as possible as to where I stood.

                      A creation scientist is one who practices science and believes the origin story as presented in the Bible.

                      I disagree, there are many people who practice science, and believe in the origin story as presented in the bible, but those people don't cal
                    • I'm going to skip most everything else you misunderstood, and hone in on one casual challenge you threw.

                      Evolution could be falsified in any number of ways. Just one [properly observed and documented] fossil out of place would be enough.

                      I doubt that you really believed this when you said it. "In the Grand Canyon, in Venezuela, and in Guyana, spores of ferns and pollen from flowering plants are found in Cambrianh and Precambriani rocks--rocks deposited before life supposedly evolved." - these were docume

                    • Well, if the above were your best examples, I won't hold my breath on the rest. Perhaps I should have added 'Not reworked' to the definiton.

                      No, actually, I just picked one example mostly at random. I figured no matter what I present you will say either "it was mixed up somehow" or "out of place fossils do not falsify evolution".

                      It's really up to you - I gave you the search terms to use in google, go look for yourself if you really care. There are enough examples out there of out of place fossils that

                    • I'm not asking you to look for evidence to support my case. You said one out of place well documented fossil would falsify evolution (evolution that teaches simple life=>complex forms). I gave you an example, and you picked on unfair details. So I assume that you are going to do that for every example I present.

                      So I reasoned with myself, if he's just going to pick on every detail, I'll post the necessary steps to find many examples - if he's interested, then he can see them right there. If he's not

                  • A post in parts, Part 2 Evolution Theory

                    Tyreth asks:

                    You tell me, what proof is there of evolution? Even better! What is the scientific theory of evolution by which we can test the theory? What is the scientific theory of evolution which creationists disagree with - that all life evolved from simple single celled life. Show me something we can test.

                    You ask as if it's hard to find. The core of Evolution Theory is found in The Origin Of Species, by Charles Darwin. It can be found onlne at http://www.in [infidels.org]
                    • Thankyou for your post, but...

                      You went to great lengths to explain to me the proper scientific method, then you present this. In Darwin's origin of species, where does he describe how his theory may be falsified? I've heard one say, "if a creature were to spontaneously come into existence it would falsify evolution". Would it really? I don't think so. For this would explain for evolutionists quite nicely how the first simple single celled life came into existence.

                      Tell me how evolution can be falsif

                    • Tyreth wrote:

                      You went to great lengths to explain to me the proper scientific method, then you present this. In Darwin's origin of species, where does he describe how his theory may be falsified?

                      You don't need to explicitly say "This is how my theory can be falsified" for a theory to be falsifiable. The Origin of Species is long, I can't list every way it can be falsified. I will endeavor to list some.

                      If the biologists concept of "species" were to be invalidated, his theory would fall apart just lik
                    • If it can be shown that mutations cannot be inherited, that would pretty much kill large chunks of his theory.

                      A worthless "falsifiable" evidence, since we know that mutations can be inherited. I'm looking for things we don't know.

                      You say:
                      Saying we haven't observed something isn't evidence against it, it's merely a lack of evidence for it.
                      And you also say:
                      If it can be shown that mutation can not result in a new species, that would kill the "origin of species" part of his theory.

                      This is something t

                    • Tyreth wrote:

                      This is something that would be a lack of evidence for. Couldn't it always be said "we simply have not seen mutations result in a new species"?

                      You could say it, but you would be wrong. We have seen mutations result in a new species, we have seen it often, both in the wild and in the laboratory. The talk.origins site has a page devoted to speciation evidence [talkorigins.org].

                      Well then call me an evolutionist. I still believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old, and that all creatures originated from a
                    • I'm responding to your other post in this one too.

                      A clarification, I didn't say anywhere that I agree with the theory of evolution as presented by Darwin (if I did, it was a mistake, I apologise), but rather that I agree that natural selection occurs, that creatures adapt over time and eventually become new species, and as talkorigins.org said, that "a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time" takes place.

                      We have seen mutations result in a new species, we have seen it often, both

                    • [Sorry for the long delay in responding, I felt your thoughtful post deserved a thoughtful reply, and life kept getting in the way of me having time to do so]

                      I was unable to find any mention of the word mutate or mutations, except in one of the references. The creation model in fact accounts for speciation, and indeed counts on it. More on this below (perhaps not in a way you will recognise).

                      The most common biological definition of mutation is "a permanent change in genetic structure that is inheritabl
                  • Sorry for the delay, problems at home. Here is the last part, Part 3, "Creation Theory"

                    Tyreth wrote:

                    It's exactly comments like this that I buck against.

                    First off, I wasn't saying there was "hard evidence" for evolution, I was saying there was "hard evidence" against so called "Creation Theory". First, let me be precise about I'm talking about. There is a set of assertions, called "Creationism" or "Creation Theory" by its proponents. This assertion says:

                    1) The Christian Bible is literally true, in
                    • I am a creationist, but I agree with what you say - creationism is not a scientific theory. At least not in the strictest sense of the word. It is not falsifiable. What I am trying to set straight is that the whole theory of evolution (not the strict definition that talkorigins.org gives, which creationists agree with) is also not scientific, since it is not falsifiable. Not in a scientific way. I've asked a few times now, and no-one's given me a falsifiable theory of evolution

                      I'll tell you why I thi

                    • Tyreth Wrote:

                      I am a creationist, but I agree with what you say - creationism is not a scientific theory. At least not in the strictest sense of the word. It is not falsifiable. What I am trying to set straight is that the whole theory of evolution (not the strict definition that talkorigins.org gives, which creationists agree with) is also not scientific, since it is not falsifiable. Not in a scientific way. I've asked a few times now, and no-one's given me a falsifiable theory of evolution

                      The Theory of
                    • I'll reword it. Evolution as described on talkorigins is falsifiable, but it is also accepted by creationists. This strict use of the term evolution is not what causes controversy.

                      Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is al

                    • This is where you are confusing me, you say you accept the theory as presented by Darwin, and by talk.origins, but you say don't accept the "common descent of living organisms". The common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors is the subject of Darwin's The Origin of Species, and the theories referenced on talk.origins. It is part of the theory you claim to accept.

                      Specifically, Darwin addresses the topic at length in Chapter 4 of The Origin of Species [infidels.org]. Also, on talk.origins, the entire disc [talkorigins.org]

              • > God is the first cause, the creator, the origin. Atheistic evolution has no answer for first cause, while there must be one.

                You don't seem to require a cause for God. You're simply trying to hold the opposition to a standard that you don't hold yourself to.

                > In 2000 years, I fully expect evolution to be recorded in history as a time when people beleived that absurd idea that all life evolved over billions of years. They'll laugh at us as much as we laugh at those who believed in a flat earth.

                B

          • If evolution was just some fairy tale, then why are there literal and figurative mountains of evidence for it? There is no other scientific theory that successfully explains biogeography, endogenous retroviruses, and anatomy. Creationism fails to even be a theory. Why would it be accepted by nearly every biologist and the vast majority of scientists? Surely you don't believe that there is some sort of vast conspiracy of scientists that has lasted more than a century that spans every field from astronomy

            • TychoBrahe stated:

              Please feel free to show us your calculations regarding abiogenesis

              My pleasure. I will assume here that the readers have a basic knowledge of organic chemistry.

              Since 19 of the 20 amino acids used in proteins are chiral, any abiogenesis must take this into account. The reason for the chirality is quite obvious to anyone who has investigated physical biochemistry at all; enzymes are only active when their 3d shapes are exactly as required. Those shapes are utterly dependent on the chiral

              • enzymes are only active when their 3d shapes are exactly as required

                Nope. Enzymes can work pretty well with slightly altered shapes. Sometimes even better for a slightly different job or slightly different conditions cf. site directed mutagenesis, or DNA shuffling (directed evolution)

                The minimum protein complement of a cell that could accurately self-replicate has been estimated at between 280 and 400 proteins. For the sake of discussion, let's use 280

                Yes, in a cell. It's very unlikely life started

                • Bzzzzt. Wrong. The components of RNA did not show up in Miller's experiment; they were racemic. The components of RNA are chiral. To say nothing of the utter impossibility of the conditions Miller used (even he won't defend that experiment any more). The carboxylic acids would dissociate any growing polymer, and there were more of them than of amino acids and purines.

                  The idea of spontaneous polymerization happening defies logic. The free energy change in two amino acids joining to form a dipeptide and
              • I believe I have just enough background to follow what you're saying, but I'm not sure that where you're going is accurate. Admittedly, the finer points of ochem are lost on me, but I at least follow the concepts of chirality and what proteins are made of.

                I have a stronger grasp of probability and statistics, however. Your preemptive strike against talkorigins.org notwithstanding, there is a good write up by Dr. Ian Musgrave there at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob . html [talkorigins.org]. Let's assu

                • If you're a probstat guru, then surely you understand the absurdity of saying "see, this happened, so it wasn't unlikely at all". Please. The issue is that exactly one precise protein is required, with its chirality exactly right. Flip your coin 368 times and see how often you get only heads. That's just to get the chirality correct, not counting the sequence as well.

                  As for the idea of having a complaint about evolution published, go research the sad story of Scientific American and Forrest Mims. No w
                  • If you're a probstat guru, then surely you understand the absurdity of saying "see, this happened, so it wasn't unlikely at all". Please.

                    The point that I was trying to make is that a simple calculation that a specific event would happen looking into the past is not as simple as it may seem. There's a lot more to probability than than a simple calculation. It also has to do with your point of observation. I don't think we want to get too deeply into this, but the fact is, can't simply state that som

                    • Ah, now it's clear. You're objecting to my seeming to pick one specific protein out that is what is in a current day cell. Actually that's not what I was doing; the process was using a theoretical calculation of how many proteins would be needed in a cell to minimally survive, based on current knowledge. No life form is known (past nor present) which is as simple as this hypothetical minimal form. Your point about a single protein is a good one, but to accomplish the functions required to, for example,
                    • I'll have to bow out of the discussion on chemistry, and I'll look into Gentry on my own. What little I could find doesn't seem to present both sides of the story particularly well thus far.

                      I will comment on a few other things.

                      I too have issues with Hovind...

                      Then I strongly recommend against using his $250K pseudochallenge as anything other than an example of dishonest public grandstanding and an attempt to fool people who don't understand the issues. It's a transparent insult to the intelligence o

            • Why do you bother to make the argument that if so many scientists believe it it must be true? Don't you pay any attention to history? Why does it need to be a conspiracy theory if we happen to think most people are wrong on a certain point? It's happened in the past, it will happen again.
          • I'm surprised that you haven't been modded Flamebait right now, but I firmly agree with you.

            We do not necessarily know it all. It is possible that God is deliberately hiding knowledge from our eyes. He knows all, and who are we to question his infallible (at least IMHO) Word?

            -uso.
            If you like the Bible you'll love the 1576 Tomson NT [tripod.com]. :)


            • > We do not necessarily know it all. It is possible that God is deliberately hiding knowledge from our eyes. He knows all, and who are we to question his infallible (at least IMHO) Word?

              One boggles at the simultaneous claims that (a) God is deceiving us and (b) God's word is perfectly trustworthy.

          • > I have a full education and background in the cosmic, biochemical, and biological "evolution" story line.

            Please tell us about your education and background.

            Not that I care; it's just that Creationist Credential Inflation (CCI) is rampant among, well, creationists, and a vague statement like "I have a full education" rings the alarm bells. So what exactly is your degree or degrees, what were the granting institutions, what fields were they in (as stated on the diplomas)?

            > However it comes down t

        • Yes, if you can't win with logic, then resort to insults!


      • > And if He did create everything, then you would expect everything to be related in some kind of an organized hierarchy.

        Why would you expect that?

      • Re:Religion (Score:3, Interesting)

        by rusty0101 ( 565565 )
        He proposed it as a way of suggesting that it was the wrong way to do physics. He may have been wrong as well, but his intentions were not honorable.

        -Rusty
    • You mean </protestant>

      The Catholic Church's line has been open to the prospect of evolutionism, while the fundies have flatly denied it.

      -uso.
    • Like the catholic priest at Santa Clara University said in the Biology class, when I asked him why they weren't teaching creationism in Biology, creationism is not science. And he was teaching science. If anyone wanted to discuss creationism, they should go to the religious studies dept.

  • heh. (Score:2)

    by pb ( 1020 )
    They're using their very own homemade supercomputer which ranks in at 107 on the Top 500 supercomputers list. Quote from article: "Linux makes it so easy to create a supercomputer."

    <Insert Beowulf Joke Here>
  • "Linux makes it so easy to create a supercomputer.""

    BARC unveils Linux based 202 GFLOPS supercomputer [hinduonnet.com]

  • "Linux makes it so easy to create a supercomputer."" In an unrelated happening,1000 Slashdot readers were found dead today in their homes, having choked on their ego after reading a certain article...
  • That's two stories [slashdot.org] in a row [slashdot.org] related to the AMNH [amnh.org] (where the Hayden Planetarium [amnh.org] is). Some groups get all the press.

  • Tree of Life? We'd better keep an eye out for these guys [www1.tip.nl]! =)

  • Tree of Life? (Score:2, Funny)

    by elmegil ( 12001 )
    And here I thought it would be about uses of Linux for Cabbalism!
  • When I navigated the tree, I did not find neandrathals. I know in the past they were considered a sub-species of Homo Sapiens and the tree does not have such fine granularity, but I thought that recent evidence had classified them as a seperate species...

    Can anyone with more anthropological training answer this for me?
    • Just surf the web long and enough and you will find the Neandrathals, they are everywhere. Most even have blond hair and blue eyes, have eaten their enemies brains, infested Northern Europe and bashed the skulls of the little people who came from the south and east or took them as slaves.

      At times they have been called many things one of the most recent designations was the Original Pure Arian race.

      As for where they are on the tree of life, that is a decision best left to the future.

      The tree of life has v

  • Once again, old news. Or am I the only one that's ever used Yggdrasil?
  • What about a beowolf cluster.. of... oh, right
  • Act now!
    For every 50,000 seti packets you get 1 space mile!
    Yah!
  • Since it was Carl Linnaeus [cartage.org.lb] that is considered the "Father of Taxonomy" it only seems appropriate that Linus & and Linux play a role on bringing it into the 21st century.

Slashdot Top Deals

"I'm a mean green mother from outer space" -- Audrey II, The Little Shop of Horrors

Close