The Little Algae That Could

A reader writes "This NewsFactor Network article says scientists have discovered a genetic "missing link" that helps to explain how primordial pond scum evolved into the land plants that now cover the Earth. Their conclusion: A type of green algae is the closest living relative of the first land plants."

Comments

Spawn

[NiftyNews]

And the first thing to spawn from it?

Lawyers.

Re:Spawn

[waitdyahoo.com]

So lawyers are closer to pond scum then we thought!!

Re:Spawn

[smaug195]

Don't you mean slashdot trolls?

Not all pond scum evolved

[13013dobbs]

Some did not. That type of scum is called a 'sales person'.

Re:Not all pond scum evolved

[13013dobbs]

Yes, I do reply to logged in accounts. I do not discriminate against 'trolls'. As far as snotting on me, I thought only Taco did that. ;) You aren't Taco logged in as a troll, are you?

Leaves a lot to be desired...

[BlueOtto]

Sure seems like there would be many more 'missing links' between algae and a land plant.

Re:Leaves a lot to be desired...

[Anonymous Coward]

Then they wouldn't be missing links, would they?

Re:Leaves a lot to be desired...

[czardonic]

Leaves a lot to be desired...

Or,

"Leaves, a lot to be desired."

Re:Leaves a lot to be desired...

[Black Parrot]

> Sure seems like there would be many more 'missing links' between algae and a land plant.

No problem: every time a 'missing link' is found, it generates two new 'missing links' -- one to either side of the one just found. There shouldn't be any problem generating enough to fill your gap.

Re:Leaves a lot to be desired...

[Angry Toad]

Well... the news article misses the beat on a few things, including which journal it was published in (Science, not Nature). The term "missing link" is often bandied about in the news whenever the topic turns to ancestral organisms. That wasn't really what the paper was about. The real issue was that this algae appears to be the closest living relative of the land plants. For that reason, any characteristics it has in common with the land plants are most likely ones which were present in the common ancestor of all land plants. Being able to place the ancestor of the land plants between two "frames" this way (common characters of land plants AND characters of Charales algae) gives us a window onto what kind of organism the land plants are derived from. Here's a tiny quote from the original paper:

Identification of the Charales as the sister taxon to land plants with the Coleochaetales as sister to the Charales/land plant clade suggests that the common ancestor of land plants was a branched, filamentous organism with a haplontic life cycle and oogamous reproduction... Although it is tempting to envision the origin of land plants as having been from amorphous pond scum, these data indicate that the common ancestor of land plants and their closest algal relatives was a relatively complex organism.

Non-watered down story

[ChazeFroy]

You can find the original, non-watered down story at Nature. Of course, you need a subscription :-)

Re:Non-watered down story

[Angry Toad]

You can get the abstract here for free and demonstrate to yourself that the news article was wrong, and that it was actually in Science, not Nature. Thus endeth my Karma whoring for today. :)

Re:Non-watered down story

[bigdreamer]

For those of you who don't have a subscription to the Science journal, here's the article, with references:

The Closest Living Relatives of Land Plants

Kenneth G. Karol,1* Richard M. McCourt,2 Matthew T. Cimino,1 Charles F. Delwiche1

The embryophytes (land plants) have long been thought to be related to the green algal group Charophyta, though the nature of this relationship and the origin of the land plants have remained unresolved. A four-gene phylogenetic analysis was conducted to investigate these relationships. This analysis supports the hypothesis that the land plants are placed phylogenetically within the Charophyta, identifies the Charales (stoneworts) as the closest living relatives of plants, and shows the Coleochaetales as sister to this Charales/land plant assemblage. The results also support the unicellular flagellate Mesostigma as the earliest branch of the charophyte lineage. These findings provide insight into the nature of the ancestor of plants, and have broad implications for understanding the transition from aquatic green algae to terrestrial plants.

1 Department of Cell Biology and Molecular Genetics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA.
2 Department of Botany, Academy of Natural Sciences, 1900 Benjamin Franklin Parkway, Philadelphia, PA 19103, USA.
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: karol@umail.umd.edu

The evolutionary origin of the embryophytes (or land plants) from their green algal ancestor was a pivotal event in the history of life. This monophyletic group has altered the biosphere and now dominates the terrestrial environment, but uncertainty as to the identity of their closest living relatives has persisted in the literature after more than a century of scrutiny (1-3). Morphological and molecular studies have identified two distinct lineages within the green plants sensu lato, termed Charophyta and Chlorophyta. The Charophyta comprise the land plants and at least five lineages (orders) of fresh water green algae, and are sister to the Chlorophyta, which consist of essentially all other green algae. Previous molecular analyses have verified monophyly of most of the charophyte orders (4-6), but branching patterns among these lineages have been only weakly supported, with results that were sensitive to taxon selection and method of phylogenetic reconstruction. Similarly, analyses of morphological and genome structural data have clarified some relationships (7-10), but have been limited by the number of characters available, uncertain homology assessment, and a lack of character independence.

Identifying the closest living relatives of land plants has been difficult. Roughly 470 million years of evolution since the colonization of the land, coupled with rapid radiation and numerous extinction events (2, 3, 11), has resulted in an inherently difficult phylogenetic problem, with much information from the early, common history of evolution obscured by subsequent evolution in the now independent lineages (12).

To investigate the evolutionary origin of land plants and identify the closest living relatives of this group, we analyzed DNA sequence data from four genes representing three plant genomes: atpB and rbcL (plastid), nad5 (mitochondrial), and the small subunit (SSU) rRNA gene (nuclear). The data set used for phylogenetic analyses excludes introns and unalignable regions for a total length of 5147 base pairs [Appendix 1 (13)] (14). We sampled 34 representative charophytes, including eight land plants, and six outgroup taxa [Appendix 2 (13)]. The data were analyzed with Bayesian inference (BI), maximum likelihood (ML), maximum parsimony (MP), and minimum evolution with two distance measures [LogDet (ME-ld) and maximum likelihood (GTR+I+ [Gamma ] ; ME-ml) distances] [Appendix 3 (13)]. Both BI and ML are probabilistic methods that utilize explicit models of sequence evolution to test phylogenetic hypotheses. Advantages of BI are that it is relatively fast and provides probabilistic measures of tree strength that are more directly comparable with traditional statistical measures than those more commonly used in phylogenetic analyses (15, 16). To measure phylogenetic stability, posterior probabilities (PP) as inferred by BI were calculated and bootstrapping was performed for the ML, MP, and ME analyses.

Using BI and ML on the combined four-gene data set (Fig. 1), we found the order Charales sister to the land plants with strong statistical support (PP = 1.0, ML = 94) and a monophyletic Coleochaetales sister to the Charales/land plant clade (PP = 1.0, ML = 59). The MP and ME analyses [Appendix 4 (13)] also support the result that Charales have a closer relationship to land plants than do Coleochaetales (MP = 80, ME-ld = 97, ME-ml = 92). The overall structure of the best tree is consistent with previous work in that the classically recognized orders were also recovered (land plants, PP = 1.0, ML = 100, MP = 100, ME-ld = 100, ME-ml = 100; Charales, PP = 1.0, ML = 100, MP = 100, ME-ld = 100, ME-ml = 100; Coleochaetales, PP = 1.0, ML = 62, MP = Fig. 1. Phylogenetic relationships for Charophyta determined by Bayesian inference from the combined four-gene data set. The maximum likelihood tree (-ln = 64499.87863) was of identical topology. Posterior probabilities are noted above branches and maximum likelihood bootstrap values are below branches. The topology is drawn with Cyanophora rooting the tree. Branch lengths are mean values and are proportional to the number of substitutions per site (bar, 0.05 substitutions/site). Taxonomy is modified from (23). [View Larger Version of this Image (41K GIF file)]

The phylogenetic placement of Mesostigma, a unicellular, scaly green flagellate has been controversial. Traditionally classified with like forms as a prasinophyte, it also has been allied with the Charophyta. The phylogenetic position of Mesostigma is critical to understanding the evolution of form and structure in the lineage that gave rise to land plants. Like the results presented here, analyses of actin sequences place Mesostigma at the base of the Charophyta (17), and analyses of SSU rRNA gene sequence data place it among them (albeit in close association with Chaetosphaeridium, a grouping not supported by other data) (5, 18). By contrast, maximum likelihood analyses of amino-acid data from both the plastid and mitochondrial genomes of Mesostigma find strong support for placement of this genus as sister to all green algae rather than as a basal charophyte lineage (19, 20). The latter analyses differ from those presented here in the number of taxa sampled (8 versus 40). When divergence times are large and internal branches short, limited taxon sampling can lead to inaccurate phylogenies (12). If taxon sampling explains this conflict, then one would predict convergence on the phylogeny presented here as additional organellar genomes become available.

Both Charales and Coleochaetales have long been considered to be close relatives of the land plants (1, 21-23). Key morphological characters uniting these three lineages include branched filamentous growth, oogamous sexual reproduction, and phragmoplastic cell division, along with a suite of ultrastructural and biochemical features (2). In light of similar morphological traits (i.e., parenchyma-like tissue, placental transfer cell wall ingrowths, and zygote retention), the genus Coleochaete and, in some instances, a single species, C. orbicularis, has been discussed as a possible sister taxon to land plants (8, 24). Our results indicate that the Coleochaetales are monophyletic and less closely related to the land plants than the Charales. Both Bayesian inference and bootstrap analyses permit evaluation of alternative hypotheses; we were unable to identify any alternative hypothesis with nontrivial support (25).

The Charales also share numerous characteristics with land plants, some of which are not found in the Coleochaetales. These include gross sperm morphology and ultrastructure (26), numerous discoidal chloroplasts per cell, protonemal filaments, complete absence of zoospores (sperm are the only flagellate cells), and encasement of the egg by sterile jacket cells (cortication) prior to fertilization (10, 21). Our data suggest that many of the similarities between Charales and land plants reflect homology rather than convergent evolution. Cortication of the zygote reminiscent of that in Charales is found in some species of Coleochaete, but occurs only after fertilization of the egg, and zygote cortication is not thought to occur in Chaetosphaeridium (10). In addition, primary plasmodesmata have been confirmed in the Charales, a character shared with land plants (27). Although plasmodesmata have been described in Coleochaete, it is unknown whether their development is primary or secondary in nature.

Identification of the Charales as the sister taxon to land plants with the Coleochaetales as sister to the Charales/land plant clade suggests that the common ancestor of land plants was a branched, filamentous organism with a haplontic life cycle and oogamous reproduction. The early stages of development in the Charales involve formation of protonemal filaments reminiscent of those found in some mosses and other land plants, which suggests that a similar heteromorphic development might have occurred in the common ancestor. Other characteristics of this ancestor, including both developmental and biochemical features, may explain not only how their descendants came to survive on land, but also how they ultimately came to dominate terrestrial ecosystems. Moreover, the charophytes have important applications in a wide range of disciplines (Charales in cell biology, Coleochaetales in ultrastructure, and Zygnematales in physiology) (10). Consequently, a robust phylogeny relating these taxa to land plants can place this work in an evolutionary context and lead to the identification and development of appropriate model systems for future studies.

Although it is tempting to envision the origin of land plants as having been from amorphous pond scum, these data indicate that the common ancestor of land plants and their closest algal relatives was a relatively complex organism. The extant Charales are the remnants of a once diverse, but now largely extinct, group which includes some of the oldest known plant fossils [roughly 420 million years ago (Ma) from the late Ordovician] (11, 28). While the fossil record for the other charophyte orders is fragmentary at best (29), the molecular phylogenetic data presented here (Fig. 1) suggest that these lineages diversified more than 470 Ma. While not species-rich, these algae hold a key position in the tree of life and, consequently, represent an important part of eukaryotic diversity.
REFERENCES AND NOTES
1. F. O. Bower, The Origin of Land Flora. A Theory Based upon the Facts of Alternation (Macmillan, London, 1908).
2. L. E. Graham, The Origin of Land Plants (Wiley, New York, 1993).
3. P. Kenrick, P. R. Crane, The Origin and Early Diversification of Land Plants, Smithsonian Series in Comparative Evolutionary Biology (Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, 1997).
4. R. L. Chapman et al., in Systematics of Plants II, D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis, J. J. Doyle, Eds. (Kluwer Academic, Norwell, MA, 1998), pp. 508-540.
5. B. Marin and M. Melkonian, Protist 150, 399 (1999) [ISI][Medline].
6. R. M. McCourt, et al., J. Phycol. 36, 747 (2000) [Abstract/Full Text].
7. H. J. Sluiman, Plant Syst. Evol. 149, 217 (1985) [ISI].
8. L. E. Graham, C. F. Delwiche, B. D. Mishler, Adv. Bryol. 4, 213 (1991) .
9. B. D. Mishler and S. P. Churchill, Brittonia 36, 406 (1984) [ISI].
10. L. E. Graham, L. W. Wilcox, Algae (Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2000).
11. M. Feist, N. Grambast-Fessard, in Calcareous Algae and Stromatolites, R. Riding, Ed. (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1991), pp. 189-203.
12. J. Felsenstein, Syst. Zool. 27, 401 (1978) [ISI] .
13. Supplementary material is available on Science Online at www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/294/5550/2351/ DC1.
14. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and sequencing: Total cellular DNA was isolated by the CTAB method [ J. J. Doyle and J. L. Doyle, Phytochem. Bull. 19, 11 (1987) ], UNSET method (a high-urea, SDS extraction buffer) or using the Nucleon Phytopure Plant DNA extraction kit (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech) following the manufacturer's protocol from fresh thalli growing in uni-algal condition. The genes were amplified by PCR with gene specific primers (atpB upstream: 5'-TGTTACTTGTGAAGTTCAACA-3'; atpB downstream: 5'-CTAAATAAAATGCTTGTTCAGG-3'; rbcL upstream: 5'-ATGTCACCACAAACAGAAACTAAAGC-3'; rbcL downstream: 5'-AATTCAAATTTAATTTCTTTCC-3'; nad5 upstream: 5'-GTAGGTGATTTTGGATTAGC-3': nad5 downstream: 5'-GTACCTAAACCAATCATCATATC-3'; SSU upstream: 5'-GTAGTCATATGCTTGTCTC-3': SSU downstream: 5'-CTTGTTACGACTTCTCCT-3') and sequenced using either an ABI-PRISM 377 or 3100 DNA sequencer (PE Applied Biosystems) according to the manufacturer's protocols. The resulting sequence chromatograms were edited and compiled into a single alignment using Sequencher 3.1.1 (Gene Codes Corp.) and exported in NEXUS format for phylogenetic analyses. Many published SSU rRNA gene sequences were difficult to align to published secondary structure models. Small subunit sequences that could not be matched to such structure models were resequenced for this study (13). A single intron was found in the Coleochaete orbicularis nad5 sequence and the distribution of introns in nad5 was examined in the taxa within our study. No introns were found in any other species of Coleochaete or other algal charophyte nad5 sequence sampled. Introns with the same insertion point as that of C. orbicularis were only found in Sphagnum (a moss) and Marchantia (a liverwort) which share a sequence identity of 69.39%, compared with only 37.82% and 37.81% to C. orbicularis, respectively. Anthoceros (a hornwort) has an apparently unrelated intron inserted 128 base pairs downstream with 37.35% identity with that of Sphagnum, 35.99% identity to Marchantia, and 39.46% to C. orbicularis. For comparison, pairs of random sequences with similar base composition and length as the natural sequences had an average of 37.78% sequence identity. These data suggest that the C. orbicularis nad5 intron was acquired independently from that shared by Sphagnum and Marchantia.
15. J. P. Huelsenbeck, J. P. Bollback, in Handbook of Statistical Genetics, M. Bishop, Ed. (Wiley, London, 2001).
16. J. P. Huelsenbeck, F. Ronquist, R. Nielsen, J. P. Bollback, Science 294, 2310 (2001) [Abstract/Full Text] .
17. D. Bhattacharya, K. Weber, S. S. An, W. Berning-Koch, J. Mol. Evol. 47, 544 (1998) [ISI][Medline] .
18. H. J. Sluiman and C. Guihal, J. Phycol. 35, 395 (1999) [Abstract].
19. C. Lemieux, C. Otis, M. Turmel, Nature 403, 649 (2000) [CrossRef][ISI][Medline] .
20. C. Lemieux, C. Otis, M. Turmel, in press.
21. F. E. Fritsch, The Structure and the Reproduction of the Algae (Cambridge Univ. Press, London, 1935), vol. I.
22. J. D. Pickett-Heaps and H. J. Marchant, Cytobios 6, 255 (1972) [ISI] .
23. K. R. Mattox, K. D. Stewart, in The Systematics of the Green Algae, D. E. G. Irvine, D. M. John, Eds. (Academic Press, London, 1984), pp. 29-72.
24. B. D. Mishler and S. P. Churchill, Cladistics 1, 305 (1985) .
25. Alternative hypotheses that were explored include: Coleochaete orbicularis sister to land plants, PP = 0.0, ML = 0.0%; Coleochaete sister to land plants, PP = 0.0, ML = 0.0%; Coleochaetales sister to land plants, PP = 0.0, ML = 0.0%; Coleochaetales sister to Charales, PP = 0.0, ML = 0.4%.
26. T. M. Duncan, K. S. Renzaglia, D. J. Garbary, Pl. Syst. Evol. 204, 125 (1997) .
27. M. E. Cook, L. E. Graham, C. E. J. Botha, C. A. Lavin, Am. J. Bot. 84, 1169 (1997) [Abstract] .
28. M. Feist and R. Feist, Nature 385, 401 (1997) [ISI][Medline] .
29. H. Tappan, The Paleobiology of Plant Protists (Freeman, New York, 1980).
30. We thank T. Bachvaroff, T. Cooke, G. French, M. Hibbs, J. Lewandowski, T. Marushak, and E. Zimmer for critical comments; C. Drummond, S. Snyder, and A. Zeccardi for technical assistance; J. Bollback and J. Huelsenbeck for important discussions and assistance with Bayesian analyses; M. Casanova, M. Feist, and V. Proctor for material; F. Lang et al., C. Lemieux, C. Otis, and M. Turmel for unpublished sequence data; and S. Fritz, A. Kaspar, R. Sudman, K. Sytsma, and the GPPRGC ("Deep Green"; USDA) for help with development of this project. This work was supported by NSF grant DEB-9978117 and is dedicated to the memory of C. C. Delwiche.
7 August 2001; accepted 9 November 2001
10.1126/science.1065156
Include this information when citing this paper.

Re:Non-watered down story

[Anonymous Coward]

your name and id have been turned over the the appropriate authorities. hope it was worth the karma points.

Re:Non-watered down story

[bigdreamer]

What are you talking about? And why should I take an AC seriously?

Re:Non-watered down story

[bigdreamer]

OK, checked it out. You're right-I'm violating copyright law. I turned myself in to all appropriate authorities (Slashdot and Science). Thanks for pointing out my gaffe.

an amusing comment

[coltrane99]

From an angry writer to Wired on the technique used in this research: http://www.wired.com/news/commentarySection/0,1292 ,49350,00.html

Re:an amusing comment

[coltrane99]

Maybe this link will work better.

Re:an amusing comment

[Legion303]

Heh. I wonder if he's related to Dwayne Gish. His fallacy, of course, is in claiming that researchers use similar genomes to prove evolution. They don't; evolution has already been shown to occur in many other studies. Evolution really *is* the only game in town that makes any sense. :)

-Legion

Re:an amusing comment

[anomaly]

I think I need some clarification.

If you mean evolution in terms of adaptation based on traits that make the species more hearty, that is scientific and observable.

Extension of that pattern to explain origin of species is not scientific in nature. It is merely conjecture. When you speak of origin of all species, you move past the scientific method. Since it's not a theory that can be tested, it can't be called science.

Evolutionists and creationists have the same data, we just have different explanations of the cause of that data.

Your belief that it is explainable by survival of the fittest, time and chance may be the "only game in town that makes sense" to you, but having a creator who intelligently designed the basic species and allowed them to adapt from there seems to me to fit the evidence more accurately.

Respectfully,
Anomaly

PS - God loves you and longs for relationship with you. If you want to know more about this, please contact me at tom_cooper@bigfoot.com

Re:an amusing comment

[coltrane99]

You admit 'adaptation based on traits that make the species more hearty, that is scientific and observable.' That's excellent. However, there's no bright line between this kind of change and 'origin of species'. Occam's razor demands that one not create one. It's 'the only game in town' in the sense that it is the only explanation that fits the facts and does not introduce invisible superheros into the equation. If we are allowed to introduce superheros, we can come up with an infinity of possible explanations.

Re:an amusing comment

[GeorgieBoy]

Evolutionists and creationists have the same data, we just have different explanations of the cause of that data.

But unlike the creationist view, evolution is based on research and analysis. Creationism is based on a nifty book written by people long ago who didn't even write it down for several generations. For example, a classic game of "telephone" probably led to the Bible's editions of the past several hundred years or so. And before 1611 it was mostly in Latin and Greek.

Somehow I feel I can trust evolution a bit more as a viable theory for how life came to be.

Re:an amusing comment

[(void*)]

Extension of that pattern to explain origin of species is not scientific in nature. It is merely conjecture.

This is wrong on the factual level as well as on the philsophical level.

On the factual level, we have observed speciation in the wild and in the laboratory. For example, the ring species of birds, where one species breeds with another as you move east, until they wrap back on each other. Change of species features has been observed!

On the philosophical level, you can't do science without speculation! That's the only way to advance. Caring only to make "correct" statements, one will never invent and devise experiments to test if one is wrong. And not experiments means no progress. By being wrong (experimentally), scietists cause progress and advancement. These errors are beneficient, think about that!

Re:an amusing comment

[GeorgieBoy]

No, actually. I'm simply saying an oral tradition has greater potential for embellishment of the original source, because stories can become essentially re-authored along the way. There are many good teachings in the Bible. I just personally do not believe that it contains credible *evidence* of how life on Earth came to be. It's just one explanation.

Re:an amusing comment

[anomaly]

I thinkg we agree more than we disagree.

It's one thing to say that there are variations within a kind, but there are substantive issues with suggesting that the same process can explain the existance of the great diversity of species.

I don't argue that species features are observed to change. That is objectively measureable.

Of course scientists speculate, but there's a difference between speculations that can be tested and those that cannot.

Those that can be tested are called hypothesis - after testing they are called theories.

Those that cannot be tested are appropriately called speculation, or beliefs. They are not science, and shold not be called that.

Respectfully,
Anomaly

Re:an amusing comment

[anomaly]

If you are a materialist - which I presume based on your "invisible superheroes" comment - you have the challenge of explaining the material universe not having turned all of the kinetic energy into heat an eternity ago.

I think that the "invisible superhero" makes a bit of sense given that you may need to bend the known rules of physics to allow for eternally existent matter.

Respectfully,
Anomaly

Re:an amusing comment

[Black Parrot]

> If you mean evolution in terms of adaptation based on traits that make the species more hearty, that is scientific and observable.

> Extension of that pattern to explain origin of species is not scientific in nature. It is merely conjecture.

All science is 'conjecture'. The difference between science and other types of conjecture is that scientists think out the implications of their conjectures and then look at the world again to see whether it conforms to those implications. That is the essence of the scientific method.

> When you speak of origin of all species, you move past the scientific method.

Not at all. Please re-read my previous paragraph.

> Since it's not a theory that can be tested, it can't be called science.

Ah, but it can be tested. Indeed, you can reasonably think of all of modern genetics as a big test of the theory of creation, which was originally a 'conjecture' based on the fossil record, but which had very strong implications for what we should see when we started realizing how genetics worked on the level of biochemistry. Alas for creationism, modern genetics bears those implications out quite well.

If you understand the scientific method and then add just a tiny amount of knowlege about biology, biochemistry, and paleontolgy, it becomes immediately obvious why the 'conjecture' represented by the theory of evolution continues to be accepted as 'scientific'.

> Evolutionists and creationists have the same data, we just have different explanations of the cause of that data.

Yes: scientists have a dense network of interrelated and mutually supporting, falsifiable theories spanning several fields of study, whereas creationists have "I think goddidit."

> Your belief that it is explainable by survival of the fittest, time and chance may be the "only game in town that makes sense" to you, but having a creator who intelligently designed the basic species and allowed them to adapt from there seems to me to fit the evidence more accurately.

Anything can be made to 'fit' the evidence if you are willing to invoke enough miracles. And that's exactly what creationists do when they're pressed to actually explain something: lurk talk.origins for a while if you doubt me.

Also notice that divine intervention has no explanatory value whatsoever: any observation is compatible with it. Unlike scientific explanations such as the theory of evolution, creationism is beyond falsification.

Re:an amusing comment

[mgblst]

How does one explain the appendix???

PS - Science loves you and longs for relationship with you. Dont be afraid to question your peers, and the world around you!

Re:an amusing comment

[junkgrep]

First of all, science no longer plays Platonic games like "kind" as if their were some higher-plane types the variation of which is tricky bussiness.

But secondly, the theory of evolution is most certainly scientific. This is a moot point: claiming that it is not is simply in contradiction to virtually all accounts of what science is. You're going to have a _very_ hard time finding a preponderance of accredited theorists of science who would be willing to agree with your view.
And indeed, it quite regularly makes testable predictions about what sorts of things we should expect to find if the theory is true, and these predictions have proved incredibly accurate. We have also been able to build models from evidence, and test these models in the real world. Just because something is historical does not mean that science is toothless in the face of it. Certainly, one cannot prove that _history_ happened in a certain way, but one can certainly amass all the evidence one can about the functioning of the world, records left by this functioning, and make and test hypothesises.

Re:an amusing comment

[junkgrep]

---you have the challenge of explaining the material universe not having turned all of the kinetic energy into heat an eternity ago.---

Eh? Why exactly- what reason do you have to think that this is what SHOULD have happened? The reality is that the material universe exists: one needs to explain how it works, not try to prove that it exists...

---I think that the "invisible superhero" makes a bit of sense given that you may need to bend the known rules of physics to allow for eternally existent matter.---

First of all: what evidence is there that matter is "eternally existent"? And second of all, you don't have to bend the rules of physics at all: as victor Sternger has pointed out, it is perfectly acceptable to the laws of physics for the universe to litterally come out of nothing, the way that quantum particle/anti-particle pairs do ALL THE TIME everywhere.

However, the more important point here, that you missed, is that "invisible superhero" explanations are unacceptable as explainations because a) they violate the very bounds of reasoned dicussion (because once this becomes an acceptable "explanation" we've destroyed the very need to explain anything at all: the "explanation" can work for ANYTHING) and b) they do not actually "explain" ANYTHING (i.e. that "something of unknown characteristics did it in an unknown way" is just a fancy way of saying "I don't know").

Re:an amusing comment

[Legion303]

Several other people have beat me to the punch on this, so let me just wrap up with this: I don't argue with creationists; they argue from a foundation of belief and I argue from a foundation of science, and the two will never be reconciled. You'll never convince me (unless God himself steps in, smites me, and tells me I'm wrong, and even then I'll immediately start testing the hypothesis that I'm hallucinating) and I'll never convince you, which is how it should be.

PS - God loves you and longs for relationship with you.

Has he appeared to you and told you this personally, or are you guessing?

-Legion

Re:an amusing comment

[Anonymous Coward]

Has he appeared to you and told you this personally, or are you guessing?


She.

Re:an amusing comment

[(void*)]

It's one thing to say that there are variations within a kind, but there are substantive issues with suggesting that the same process can explain the existance of the great diversity of species.

Sorry, but you are basically repeating the same old argument from incredulity again. On what BASIS do you think you are coming out with this objection?

Is this objection that variation within a species cannot ever produce a variation that makes news species. That's the factual problem right? So if one exception were ever to be raised, your "rule" or "law" would deserve to be revised, right? There is plenty of evidence out there that species change from one to the other. Many very direct! Many observed in the wild! (Try reading "The Beak of the Finch")

Now what are you really objecting to? That there is a difference between a fact and a theory? That evolution is a theory, and so cannot be as good as a fact? BUT EVOLUTION is both FACT AND THEORY. There is a theory of evolution supported by facts of evolution. And this theory of evolution proposes new research directions, and lends coherncy to these facts of evolution. That is what a scientific theory is!

Perhaps you think evolution has aspects that are speculative. But so what? There are speculative aspects to all theories. Do you object to Quantum Mechanics implying that there are many worlds? Do you object to GR predicting that time-travel is possible? Do you think you can "pick-and-choose" which part to believe and which part not to, arbitrarily and on whim, using your own gut level intuition as a guide? When the findings of science has shown consistently that our gut level intuitions are wrong in many points, subtle or otherwise?

To rephrase: go ahead and object to the speculative parts of evolution. But please come out with a scientific argument for that objection. The onus is on the contratrian to supply the arguments, since the (overwhelming) weight of the evidence points to evolution.

Re:an amusing comment

[gi-tux]

If you believe in evolution as the origin of species, how do you explain that we still have "lower species"? Why haven't they all evolved into "higher species"? If these "lower species" are species that haven't yet evolved, why do we not see this inter-species evolution happening now?
No matter which of these you believe, you have to accept that it all started somewhere. I have to accept that God always was and always will be, while you have to accept that something always was because the pond of slime had to come from somewhere.

Re:an amusing comment

[gi-tux]

unless God himself steps in, smites me, and tells me I'm wrong, and even then I'll immediately start testing the hypothesis that I'm hallucinating

Someday he will tell you that you are wrong, and you won't have to work hard to test the hypothesis of hallucination. It will be obvious that you (and I) will either be in eternal bliss or eternal damnation.
And remember on that day, you were told that God is real and that God exists. God didn't have to appear to me personally and tell me that he loves me. He left plenty of evidence in both the scriptures written by inspired men, and in the world around me. I don't have to see a miracle to believe that they happened, just as I don't have to put my hand on the burner of the stove to believe that it is hot.

Re:an amusing comment

[Ionized]

uhh... i've had this discussion so many times it almost hurts to reply. but, sure, i'll dredge it up one more time.

evolution isn't a ladder. creatures don't evolve "toward" anything. they simply adapt to their current surroundings. what we deem lower forms of life are just as suited if not moreso to their environs as we are, hence they have no need to evolve.

think of evolution as moving sideways, not up or down. evolution has no goal or end result, it is merely concerned with the present.

Re:an amusing comment

[Unknown Poltroon]

The comittee.
(like you have a beter explination for male nipples, the duck billed platypus, and for that matter, the human race?)

Re:an amusing comment

[Anonymous Coward]

:::If you believe in evolution as the origin of species, how do you explain that we still have "lower species"?

If you believe that most Americans are descendents of Europeans, how do you explain that we still have Europeans?

Re:an amusing comment

[gi-tux]

That isn't species to species! That is a simple migration of a species. There are no significant differences between Americans of European descent and Europeans other than language.
I am talking one celled organisms becoming multicelled organisms becoming eventually complex creatures like man.

Re:an amusing comment

[gi-tux]

I will buy adaptive evolution. That can be duplicated. My grandfather's family breed Tennessee Walking Horses for their gate. And he used only the best that he could find, and came up with horses with a very nice ride (please no remarks from the Quarter Horse crowd on this, it is just an example). But I have never seen a horse become a different species, just because its environment changed. I have seen rather large horses placed in small areas, but they didn't produce dogs or cats as offspring to use the space more effectively.

Re:an amusing comment

[Ionized]

have you been around for several hundred million years?

Re:an amusing comment

[junkgrep]

---But I have never seen a horse become a different species, just because its environment changed.---

This statement is just ridiculous. YOU have never seen it? For goodness sake, unless you are a few thousand years old, it'd be unlikely that you'd notice such differences. Evolution is an exceedingly SLOW process, measured in human time.
Even so, there HAVE been a few odd examples of speciation (generally defined as enough change so that two populations can no longer breed with each other) occuring in times short enough for humans to remember (the most complex animal case being a type of fish, since quicker species changes are ore likely in creatures with less complexity). Chase down the talk.origins FAQ for a reference.

Re:an amusing comment

[junkgrep]

--- I have seen rather large horses placed in small areas, but they didn't produce dogs or cats as offspring to use the space more effectively.---

Put quite simply, it is GOOD for the theory of evolution that you have not seen this. If you had, that would DISPROVE the theory of evolution, because it would show that natural selection + long periods of time is NOT necessary for macro changes: intelligent design can simply spring into form when it needs to.

And that's what's truly funny about this objection: not only does it mistate what evolution would expect to see, it actually states as "ridiculous" and "I've never seen it" something that is almost EXACTLY what the creationists are saying happened: spontanoues order with no visible natural ordering mechanism behind it (i.e., a god said "poof!" and it was).

Re:an amusing comment

[junkgrep]

What sort of monster sends people to eternal bliss or eternal damnation based simply on something as trivial as what they happen to believe or not believe? Even we measly HUMANS have long since decided that such behavior is despicable.

--- God didn't have to appear to me personally and tell me that he loves me. He left plenty of evidence in both the scriptures written by inspired men, and in the world around me.---

This is what you believe, certainly, and I am glad you enjoy believing it so much. However, not all people believe this, or think the scriptures or the world around you point to any such conclusion. You can either respect this as a legitimate difference, or try to argue the point, but few non-believers are very impressed with scripture and long-ago discredited arguments from supposed design.

---I don't have to see a miracle to believe that they happened, just as I don't have to put my hand on the burner of the stove to believe that it is hot.---

This is a false analougy, which you should be able to see on closer examination: so can you explain to me why it is? I wont accuse you of dishonesty for making it, but be more careful next time not to make such misleading arguments.

Re:an amusing comment

[Anonymous Coward]

" It will be obvious that you (and I) will either be in eternal bliss or eternal damnation.
And remember on that day, you were told that God is real and that God exists."

Do all theists resort to post mortem threats, or is it just the ones that I run into? And how do you reconcile your belief that your god is just and good when this god would mete out infinite punishment for finite sins? Eternal torture for crimes committed in one human life span seems neither just nor good to me. In fact,it seems roughly equivalant to sending a five year old to the eletric chair for stealing candy.

"That's an awfully nice soul you got there..be a real shame if something happend to it."-The theist resorting to mafia tactics once gross rationalizations,misinformation,fallacious reasoning, and emotional bribery have failed.

Move on, old news

[kigrwik]

The cowboynealae algae has been known to Slashdot for quite some time, now...

yet still, I wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

how an organism could defeat the enormous odds and produce an offspring that has a positive 'mutation'. Much less where the creature would not destroy it in utero, or after birth as is many organisms habits. Then (for higher sexual species) for the EXACT SAME mutation to occur with the same results (surpassing natures detection of abnormality in utero or after birth and all). Plus, not only would both creatures have to be of opposite sex, but both would have to actually be produced in the same area in order to meet and mate.

Well, like that owl said... I guess the world will never know!

Re:yet still, I wonder...

[HorsePunchKid]

Either this is a troll, or you're just very, very... underinformed. To address your first point, that the odds of a positive mutation occuring are very small, I'll refer you to the Law of Truly Large Numbers. Essentially, if you have a population (sample size) so large, unlikely things are bound to happen. With six billion humans on this planet, something that happens to only one in every million people, you end up with 6,000 very unlikely things happening. Now think of how many microscopic organisms there were when all this preliminary evolution was going on. I don't know, but I'd say it didn't take them long to surpass six billion samples. To address your second point, I'm fairly sure that whatever plant-like life first managed to live on land was asexual, thus having to have the same mutation in two different specimens that are close enough to end up mating is irrelevant.

Re:yet still, I wonder...

[HorsePunchKid]

Oops... thanks for the correction. I was apparently not thinking very hard when I responded (particularly seeing as I grew up in a family of biologists :). In any case, I feel the first point is more important to make. People seem to like to forget just how big the world (and indeed the whole universe) is, and thus how many unusual or unlikely things happen. It's becoming increasingly relevant now that we're becoming more connected. It makes it much easier for knowledge of unlikely events to spread. Thus it seems to me increasingly dangerous to forget how many unlikely things are constantly happening.

Pond scum is closest?

[gewalkeriq]

I'm not sure which is closest, the
account in Genesis in a little unclear
on which day pond scum was created.

I mean on day 3, you get herbs, grass
and fruit trees on dry land.

On day 5 you get the living creatures
that move in the ocean. Does pond scum
move? does this count?

Re:Pond scum is closest?

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously you haven't been paying attention in physics class. Since the Earth 6,000 years ago was very much our Earth today, there is no chance that temps ever reached absolute zero. Therefore, everything that exists on Earth was in constant movement.

So yes, pond scum moves.

Re:Pond scum is closest?

[Dave Bieler]

Actually, the earth was only created only about 6,000 years ago. And the earth was MUCH different back then You should do a little research on the canapy theory...you might learn a little.

Re:Pond scum is closest?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the earth was only created only about 6,000 years ago. And the earth was MUCH different back then You should do a little research on the canapy theory...you might learn a little.

Canape theory? Is that some new creationist theory that on the 7th day God served hors d'oeuvres?

Re:Pond scum is closest?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup - prepared in a high-humidity environment under an ice shell.
They're cooked using only select wavelengths of visible and IR light, since higher-energy frequencies are reflected or absorbed by the solid H2O...
An ideal environment for growth, resulting in planet-wide prosperity...

It was fantastic while it lasted.

Pond scum

[baggers]

I'm sure I saw some of this primitive pond scum working in Target recently. They were the ones being more helpful than the rest of the staff...

Human DNA

[jeneag]

Interesting if they could take the human DNA and go back all the way to see if we really came from monkeys. which doesnt make any sense for me (at least now).

Re:Human DNA

[Graymalkin]

Uh...the genetic difference between man and chimpanzee is about 1.6% which means we share 98.4% of our genetic material with chimpanzees. That 1.6% differences code all the phentotypes that makes us different from chimpanzees as well as our similarities.

Re:Human DNA

[Angry Toad]

It has been done lots of times. Based upon chromosomal organization here and based upon DNA sequences here, for example or here for a good set of lecture notes on the topic.

But is it more advanced than e katzcoli bacteria?

[owlmeat]

Thats what I want to know?

A good link

[SevenTowers]

can be found here. This dates from spring 2001 and describes the possible linkage between the algae and modern plants, based on fossil similarities.

Guess the genetics are just confirming an older theory. Now if they could only find the missing link between men and geeks... ;-)

Finally!

[jht]

This is the first good explanation for Geraldo Rivera I've seen yet!

Charales and Primordial scum

[axolotl_farmer]

For a long time, Charales has been one of the prime suspects in being the sister group of the land plants

This however has nothing to do with primordial scum! Charales are advanced green algae that looks something like a submerged moss. I need to read the article, but i suspect the reason Nature would publish this is that they used some new fancy algorith to calculate the phylogenetic trees.

Re:Charales and Primordial scum

[Angry Toad]

some new fancy algorith to calculate the phylogenetic trees.

Spot on. Bayesian estimation. The newest latest way to get the "right" answer. Althought that being said I really do like it myself - I need to work through the math some more, but it seems like a way of approaching parametric bootstrapping results without the gigantic computational overhead...

Re:Charales and Primordial scum

[diaphanous]

The phylogenetic algorithms may be of interest- though I haven't read the paper yet and I'm not very knowledgeable about molecular systematics anyhow, but any results on the origin of a major taxa (and land plants certainly qualify) are inherently interesting, even if as you noted, they aren't surprising or arrived at by novel techniques.

Nothing alive today is comparable

[catbutt]

Because anything that can exist today must compete against everything else, which has had a couple billion years to evolve. In other words it needs an immune system, a system of acquiring or making food, etc....or it would be gobbled up or starve before you even noticed it was there.

The first form of "life" (i.e., a self replicating chemical) would probably be a million times simpler than anything that could survive today.

Re:Nothing alive today is comparable

[leonbrooks]

In other words it needs an immune system, a system of acquiring or making food, etc...

Even crystals have to have a way of acquiring food, and that's generally by existing in a strong solution of their ingredients. Can you postulate a viable solution of protolife?

The first form of "life" (ie, a self replicating chemical) would probably be a million times simpler than anything that could survive today.

No.

In detail, a million times simpler is dead. Ten times simpler than prokaryotic is generally dead.

In even more detail, a couple of billion years is nothing like enough. Given stupidly optimistic conditions (e.g. entire universe made of the correct amino acids, target critter many times simpler than anything known today), a trillion years is many, many, many zeroes too few.

Re:Nothing alive today is comparable

[diaphanous]

I don't understand what you are saying. Crystals don't have food, at least not in the sense that organisms do, so talking about crystals acquiring food is meaningless.
Secondly, there are ways of quantifying genetic and genomic "complexity", but comparing the "complexity" of something abiotic to something living is inherently nonsensical.
Thirdly, an order of magnitude difference in genome size (measured in number if genes, one way of giving a number to "complexity") between prokarotes is possible. The prokaryote with the smallest genome has roughly 400 genes, though I don't know the size of the largest prokaryotic genome off hand, I know it is a few thousand genes. So ten times "simpler" than a prokaryote isn't dead.

Re:Nothing alive today is comparable

[diaphanous]

Conversely, many "complex" species that thrive today would have a difficult or impossible existing at prior points in earth's history because they've adapted to be reproductively successful in the environment that they live in in the present day. If you transported them to a different time with a different climate, soil conditions, or competing or predatory species, they'd go extinct- "complexity" isn't always optimal.

Re:Nothing alive today is comparable

[junkgrep]

---In detail, a million times simpler is dead. Ten times simpler than prokaryotic is generally dead.---

At the levels we're talking about, saying that something is "alive" or "dead" is not particularly enlightening, and usually misleading. There is no hard and fast line between "alive" and "dead." Ten times simpler than prokaryotic may not be alive in the sense that a prokaryote is "alive," but that doesn't mean it's inorganic, or has no complexity, or even no self-reproducing complexity.

Re:Nothing alive today is comparable

[EllisDees]

Since we don't have any idea how complex the simplest self-replicating molecule is, speculating on the odds of its forming is a bit pointless, don't you think?

This brings to mind the Tierra program (sorry, couldn't find a good link). It was a system that simulated evolution in a simple way. The man who wrote the program also seeded it with what he thought was the simplest self-replicator within the system. Well, after letting the system run for a few million cycles, a self-replicating program *one quarter* the size of the one he designed had evolved. Point is that nature is not constrained by your views of it.

On The Next Jerry Springer ...

[Freneticus]

I Made Love To An Algal Bloom

Today, on Springer! Men reveal secret fetishes to their significant others, with slurpy results!

Guest: "Jerry, I've been having a secret space affair with an algal bloom on the blue planet known as Earth, and I'm here today to tell the truth to my space lover. I want her or him or it, whatever you call an amorphous sillicon entity, not that I actually know but man, the things he, she, or it can do ... but anyway, I want him, her, or it to know how much he, she, or it means to me."

Jerry: "Oh really? Well, space man, we've got a surprise for you! Turns out your dalliances on Earth created something you didn't quite expect ... so let's bring them in, right now! Sneaky space twinkie, say hello to the entire human race!"

Guest: "Uh-oh."

creationism

[cosmo7]

the term "missing link" was a creationist term used during the Scopes trial. it was part of an argument that said that an incomplete fossil record entirely undermined the whole theory of evolution. it's funny how it's been adopted by scientists.

Re:creationism

[czardonic]

it's funny how it's been adopted by scientists.

Why is it funny? It was a challenge, which is now being met.

Re:creationism

[basking2]

Critically speaking, the challenge in not being met because they have shown nothing that a creationist can't use to prove that the life was designed. Nor do they show that evolution is viable or real, just that the facts seem to fit nicely with what we think evolution would look like, presuming it is the correct method.

Just keeping us all honest. ;-)

Just for curiosity sake, I don't think evolution is correct. Figure I should show my colors in a forum like this. :-)

Re:creationism

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, bullshit and more bullshit. Every time science unearths more "missing links" the creationist loonies demand more evidence for something between those links; when evidence for these are found, they demand for more "missing links" and the process repeats itself. Creationists will never be satisfied because they are never going to accept the evidence of science, ever. Their "theory" is non-falsifiable and is not science.

Re:creationism

[czardonic]

the challenge in not being met because they have shown nothing that a creationist can't use to prove that the life was designed.

I'll grant that evolution has not, and may never be, proven. It never will be to the type with a vested interest in beleiving otherwise. One could reject all scientific theory and consign the workings of the universe (gravity, lightning, rain) to some "creator", if one's head is sufficiently clouded by superstition.

But, as they say, "you can't please all of the people all of the time." In this respect, your right, the challenge is not being met. Convincing beleivers of Creationism is probably a pretty low priority for these scientists. They are simply furthering their studies.

Re:creationism

[basking2]

Well, you really hit on the point. You don't need a "vested interest" to see that evolution is not a clear cut system and has some very non-trivial problems like irreducible complexity and convergence of forms! Many very non-Biblical scientists do not find evolution valid, they are the "Intelligent Design" folks in which Creationists are a subset.

As a side note, evolution was popularized by a political agenda. :-) Random bit of history. Agenda's aside, I feel many Biologists are irresponcibily latching onto what is a good theory, but not a very good one at all, once the hype and antagonism is gone. Even if I wasn't a Christian, I don't think I could think I could swallow some of the ideas evolution pushes.

Re:creationism

[czardonic]

"Intelligent Design" is just an attempt to layer a scientific veneer on the same old superstitious mumbo-jumbo. By the same turn, the idea that Creationists are a subset of some larger movement of counter-evolutionaries is an attempt to legitimize Creationism by pretending that it's not only religious zealots who cling to these tall tales. (How ironic is it that Creationists cook up excuses that only the faithful are credulous enough to fall for?)

It amazes me that Creationists have the nerve to nitpick the evidence of Evolution, and at the same time base their entire counter argument on a fairy-tale, for which there is not one shred of evidence.

Re:creationism

[basking2]

You clearly have not read the literature on this. I've attempted to be somewhat even handed and you reply with slights to my character. Don't bother answering the following questions, because they are pending issues, but you may want to consider them before you come up against some one who knows the score of both camps.

So what is the reason for the systematic defficiency in the archeological record (there should a LOT of "missing links," more than we are finding.)?

Why is convergence "reasonable"? For evolution to make one form, that's fine, but to recreate that form in two species... EXACTLY?? Even evolutionists balk at that. Those are rediculous chances, even for the huge timeline modern science gives Earth's inhabitable existance.

As for proof for Creationism (which is not Intelligent Design, again, read up on this if you want to but heads) we have about as much "proof" as the Evolutionists bring to the table. Much can be found at The Institute for Creation Research which is stricly Creationist in it's perspective and assumptions.

Also, doesn't it bother you that more complicated animals are produced from Evolution? The Universe likes more entropy, not less. More complex is just not how things work, and any scientist will tell you that the Universe doesn't like making exceptions in paradigm. I'll not say that it can't be the case, but it is a red flag that most wide-minded folks are aware of, but that is all it is, a red flag, not a proof.

Finally, I seriously hope you will look into the "fairy tale" you mention. The point of Genesis is not to befuddle scientific but to point out that we are a nasty race by nature, breaking away from the God that made us. The whole of the Christian Bible is there to make the case that we don't have to remain opposed to God and we don't even have to pay for what we've done before. Jesus takes care of all that via the work of the cross. God remains Holy and Just and Loving, and I've not found another statement of God that equals this in it's logical sense, reflections in the observable world, and the change it's made in my life. My faith is based on something more than air and talking head. ;-)

Re:creationism

[czardonic]

Holes in the archeological record are to be expected by any reasonable person. Considering the scale of history, there is no reason to assume that there is an extant complete record.

Convergance is also acceptable to any reasonable person. Organisms that are forced to contend with similar environmental factors are bound to develop similar traits.

Ah, so you believe in entropy, yet not in evolution? How convenient to be able to consign the workings of the universe to scientific thoery on one hand, and to God on the other.

Of course the point of Genesis is not to beffudle science. It is to provide easy answers to those frightened of the unknown.

Yet another hallmark of the religious argument: to demand conclusisve proof of your detractor, while resting your own argument on the hear-say dogma of your creed. You can't be convinced of evolution, convergence is too implausible for you to swallow and you are suspicious of anything that does not conform to the fundamental law of Entropy. Yet, you accept Creation or Intelligent Design for which there is no positive proof, you beleive that some super-being created you and the world around you, and "God remains Holy and Just and Loving" strikes you as a profound statement.

Re:creationism

[basking2]

You did not answer one of my arguments.

Holes in the evolutionary chain is acceptable, but we can't find the chain. Given the nature of the purposed evolutionary process there should be a lot more fossiles of the transitive steps. The deficiency in the system is the lack of the chain, not just a few forms, but a great many of them.

Convergence is no acceptable. It is a problem in Evolution that is real and current. For some critter to develope a fix to a problem or challenge in an environment is one thing, but to have a random process produce that same solution in an isolated instance should be raising eyebrows.

As for entropy and evolution, I posed an interesting note that one is breaking the basic law of the other. The counter argument you offer is a classic from a Rhetoic book and is incorrect. You can not throw the baby out with the bath water and say, "Well, if God made things, cleary science has no place or use in our world." That is the wrong-headed attitudes that some religions have taken, but it is not my position and it is not rational. You have not answered the question, nor am I insisting that you do. It was an observation that should thought on and used to enlighten your perspective. I even qualify that there may be pricipals that we don't know of yet that say that random change should get more complex, but we don't know of it yet, and I'm suspicious that it doesn't exist. Even so, I gave your argument the option as a possibility because as a good scientist interested in truth, that is what I do and how I think.

Well there are my rebuttles. Regarding the steroetypes you mention towards the end, many have applied those to both Christian and non-Christian folk. In either case, they have no place in this conversation. I regard you as a thinking individual which his own mind.

As for the profound statement of some of God's characters, consider the leagal situation the Bible paints us in. No one is perfect, but prefection is demanded, and is provided. Conceptually speaking, it is pretty profound. As for proofs for God, a whole lot exist. If you are really interested in a rational explination for God you can read Mere Christianity by CS Lewis for the philisophical argument and Evidence that Demands a Verdict and Case for Christ for the scientific/historical arguements. Good reading to Christian and non-Christian. If you want to maintain any credibility in this business, you had better be able to explain yourself in terms majority likes, and in my business, it's mostly science, archeology and facts of one sort or another. It also leads to some great intellectual sparing. ;-)

Re:creationism

[czardonic]

Perhaps I did not answer your arguments to your satisfaction. Yet, is this possible? How does one argue to a person who demands physical proof of Evolution, yet accepts the existence of God without a shred of physical proof? How does one change the mind of a person for whom omnipotence is plausible, yet Convergence is not?

The fact is that the Universe is a place unfathomable by the human mind. Considering it's scale on all dimensions, it is hardly surprising that not everything makes sense, or appears as we think it should. We can only put together what few pieces we find.

Again, considering the scale of the Universe and the forces at work within it (the few that we can wrap out feeble minds around), it is a laughable conceit to imagine that we, as humans, play any central role in it.

Re:creationism

[basking2]

I'm sorry if my writting implied that I demand physical proof that isn't available. Both arguments are not currently provable; Evolution remains a theory as do most Intelligent Design ideas.

Well, I think we're at the point where we agree to dissagree. :-) Thanks for the intelligent talk! It's good to be challenged in what I spout out around here.
Regards,

Re:creationism

[czardonic]

Well, I think we're at the point where we agree to dissagree.

Agreed. (heh)

I don't believe in evolution...

[Kommet]

... because it pissed people off that I don't.

You may mark me a Troll now.

This WOULD be cool...

[Anonymous Coward]

...but we all know that evolution isn't true.

How does this work?

[Anonymous Coward]

I read that we lose 6 species each day from the face of the earth. You all already know where I am going with this. Yes, this is flamebait. But if you have an earnest argument, please reply. We lose 6 a day, we don't see new species being created, we see statistical laws in action everywhere we look, with increaing entropy being of great interest. What makes evolution feasible?

Re:How does this work?

[coltrane99]

New ones evolve. Do you have any numbers that indicate there are fewer species today than there were at another time in history?

Re:How does this work?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's look at your unstated assumptions:

1) The rate of species destruction is constant over geologic time spans.

2) The rate of species creation is constant over geologic time spans.

3) If a species exists humans have observed and cataloged it.

4) Humans have recognized all identical appearing but different genetically species.

Now a quick statement on each:

1) We know this is false (c.f. ice ages)

2) We know this is false (c.f. Precambrian explosion)

3) The news reports about new deep sea life being discovered proves this false (oh and don't forget the bacteria living inside of rocks)

4) I'll put money that there is at least a couple of organisms found on different continents that we assume are the same species but may infact be different.

Here's a really wild theory for you to munch on: Perhaps the reason all types of couples are having problems having children these days is because we're in the early stages of a human speciation event.

Re:How does this work?

[ErikZ]

We actually don't see the 6 species being lost a day either. It's a guess.

Wanna guess how many new species are being made a day?

Re:How does this work?

[Anonymous Coward]

The number of species (or at least fossilized species found in strata) does vary dramatically over geological time. There's a kind of a boom and bust pattern- busts being major world-wide extinctions. If I recall correctly, the number if extant animals and plants has fallen drastically since civilization began. I'm sorry I don't have a link to this handy or any numbers off-hand to support this, but you should be able find this information in an introductory evolutionary biology or ecology textbook.

--Phillip

Re:How does this work?

[diaphanous]

You seem to be trying to make some syllagism here but I don't follow it at all.

I read that we lose 6 species each day from the face of the earth

6 species a day may be the correct figure for animals or plants during the last few thousand years- you should be able to find a better estimate in an ecology textbook. I don't know is there is an estimate of species lost and creation in bacteria, archaebacteria, or protists, especially since the notion of species in bacteria is somewhat tricky because of the magnitude of lateral gene transfer.

The rate of speciation and extinction varies over geological time though. Sometimes the net change will be (roughly) zero, sometimes there will be mass extinctions, and sometimes there will be rapid and speciation and creation of new taxa.

we don't see new species being created

Yes we do, its all over the fossil record. Bacteria and plants can undergo rapid speciation because of the flexibility of their genomes, animals generally less so, so the documentation of speciation is better for bacteria and plants. We'll understand speciation much better when we have a better understanding of how organisms develop- how the interactions between genes and environment bring about a complete organism which is less or more simaler to its ancestors.

we see statistical laws in action everywhere we look, with increaing entropy being of great interest.

I don't see what this has to do with the rest of your post. Events which are more probable than the alternatives will on average occur more than the alternatives. Entropy will increase over time in closed systems but entropy can be shifted or exported from closed systems

What makes evolution feasible?

heredity, mutation, and varying reproductive success between organisms.

Re:How does this work?

[EllisDees]

You are ignoring the fact that if it weren't for man's impact on nature, there wouldn't be anywhere near 6 species per year disappearing. Even so, it generally takes a long period of time for evolution to create new species.

Re:How does this work?

[Anonymous Coward]

WE find new species all the time. In fact, in slamanders, we have been able to demonstrate how some species have to exist in recent times. Essentially, there are two species (Ambystoma I believe) who had a range that overlapped. Where the two species co-existed they interbred and the resulting offspring turned out to be fertile. Those offspring then bred to gether until a population that was unique to the first two came to be. This is evoltuion.

Re:How does this work?

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes evolution feasible?

It still is if people were not in the way.

I would make a bet on that in the next 50 years peolpe will make more new species than evolution ever could in that time.

wait... too late I bet the food you eat for lunch today has a plant a man in a white coat made (geneticly enhanced)in a lab.

not to mention the polution and waist we make won't evolve things, just mutate them.

OK I made my piont

Re:Here is a limnk for you!

[core10k]

I can almost see myself giving up Kathryn for a piece of that young, tight little girls' ass. It says "I ate my little toe" right now... I think I'll give her something else to eat.

-Rob Malda

a story from long ago

[Alien54]

I recall one SF story in which a a conservation talks place between a modern human and a very very long lived member of a race from space.

One telling point of the conversion was the space aliens nostalgia for the microbial (or some such thing) civilization he remembered from one of his earlier visits to earth.

Sadly I do not remember the title or the author. It feels like a bar conversation, but that may be wrong.

Re:a story from long ago

[headkase]

I remember the same story too, the author is Larry Niven, but I can't remember what the story was called.

Re:a story from long ago

[0WaitState]

Most likely it one of the tales from Draco's Tavern, by Larry Niven. Conversation was with a Chirpsithtra, perhaps?

Re:a story from long ago

[Alien54]

Most likely it one of the tales from Draco's Tavern, by Larry Niven. Conversation was with a Chirpsithtra, perhaps?

for some reason Callahan's Crosstime Saloon now comes to mind, but I could be wrong. It feels more like a subplot atmosperic thing than a main plot point.

[shrug]

Re:a story from long ago

[tepes]

Larry Niven and "Cautionary Tale."
It wasn't that the alien was long-lived, but that it was a ramscoop pilot, living thousands of years real-time at close to lightspeed, so subjective time was short. The alien lamented the anaerobic ecology of the old, pre-photosynthesis earth. Our predecessors saw us coming and accepted their gradual replacement. Hence the cautionary tale.

Re:a story from long ago

[tepes]

Correction:
"The Green Menace," which was published as part of "Cautionary Tales."

Re:a story from long ago

[dvdeug]

Larry Niven wrote a story, in a bar with the chirpr...s who remembered a civilization on Earth, before plants added free oxygen to the atmosphere, which was a poison to them (as with most creatures of that time.)

Re:a story from long ago

[0WaitState]

The story was "Green Marauder" from Playgrounds of the Mind.

From a few of my bio classes

[radiashun]

I was under the impression that Charophytes gave rise to modern day vascular and nonvascular plants...

yah yah I'm a.... kar-ma whore!

[mother_superius]

You don't get all those horrid ads if you use the printer-friendly version...

Sure it's cheap, but I had to share my non-discovery with the world. And by world I mean Slashdot.

Shouldn't that be "Alga"?

[almightyjustin]

"Algae" is plural. The title should be "The Little Alga That Could".

Just MHO, but I'd call it a herb

[leonbrooks]

Even the wildly-extrapolating scientists are guessing that this particular pond scum was on it's way (and how did it know what its way was?) to becoming parsley, sage and rosemary in thyme.

How to find a missing link

[The Famous Brett Wat]

1. Assume that B evolved from something in set A.
2. Find the element of A that shares the most similarities with B.
3. Declare said element to be the link between A and B on the basis of evidence. (If anyone challenges this conclusion, challenge them in return to come up with a better link candidate.)

The article left me a bit flat because I went in with false expectations: I thought they were going to talk about the enormous gulf between pre-biotic soup and algae, not algae and land plants.

Re:How to find a missing link

[diaphanous]

Yes, with heredity being what it is, that approach is is more or less valid.

Psychics

[leonbrooks]

Obviously you haven't been paying attention in physics class.

Weeeeelll, I wouldn't be so sure. Defining ``motion'' can be a bit touchy when you get down a ways in scale.

Since the Earth 6,000 years ago was very much our Earth today

Ah, so you were there...? (-:

Then perhaps you can explain a few things for us then, like Carpet Rock in Arizona, the remnant of an immense steel-reinforced dam?

Re:Psychics

[dublin]

Then perhaps you can explain a few things for us then, like Carpet Rock in Arizona, the remnant of an immense steel-reinforced dam?

There's a new one on me - one might expect Google to have *some* reference to such a thing, but no such luck... Any pointers?

Not that I expect finding such a thing would make any more difference than the thousands of well-documented "impossible" finds have already made to the Church of the Evolution...

Re:Psychics

[junkgrep]

---Not that I expect finding such a thing would make any more difference than the thousands of well- documented "impossible" finds have already made to the Church of the Evolution...---

Such as?

This argument cracks me up though: it's essentially trying to argue that the natural world is too unnatural to be natural. Eh? Natural/unnatural compared to what? That other, more "natural" universe you happen to have in your pocketeses?

Algae

[loydcc]

Maybe we can clone it and then send it to Mars. Then Val Kilmer and Trinity could fight a rogue military robot.

Or perhaps I'm just thinking of a crappy movie.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Let's talk about REAL scum.

[rice_burners_suck]

Let me digress from the topic for a moment, to give you a little background information about scum.

Have you ever read The Lord of the Rings? It's an AWESOME book. The author has many talents, not the least of which are causing the reader to actually care for (and feel concerned about) the characters. One of my favorite things about the book is the way it makes me feel as though I'm on a perilous journey along with the characters. Many authors don't have that subtle talent. Furthermore, the story mixes storybook-style characters with serious characters and situations. This creates a very interesting style of comedy relief. In my opinion, the author has a great arsenal of writing talents. Not only is the story very interesting, but the writing style itself is a great part of the fun.

Now let me get back on topic and talk about scum. Lord of the Rings, the movie. That's scum. It's trash. It's garbage. The movie sucks so bad, my friend and I actually left the theater in the middle of the movie, disgusted. The book rocks. The movie sucks.

The movie cut 9 out of every 10 scenes out of the book, and several characters, and modified the events. It gave away all mystery (I forgot to mention the element of mystery present in the book) right at the beginning. The movie took a well written, well unfolding book and turned it into a flat, obvious and boring plot. The feeling of being on a journey was gone. Instead, my friend and I felt that the movie dragged on and on, and for nothing. The characters didn't look or behave "real." ALL the beauty of the book was lost. All that remains is plagiarism. I don't care if New Line Cinema licensed whatever--it's plagiarism as far as I'm concerned, and really bad plagiarism at that. You may as well make Lord of the Rings a 30 second flick where Frodo mails the ring to mount doom, and the postman tosses it in the flames for him, because this so-called "Trilogy" of movies isn't any better than that. In fact, it's worse because it's being advertised as something worthwhile.

Leave it at that. Don't waste your time (and corrupt what might otherwise be your good image of the book) by watching that horrible movie.

Late.

Re:Let's talk about REAL scum.

[Anonymous Coward]

The movie cut 9 out of every 10 scenes out of the book, and several characters, and modified the events.

hmmm
movie = 3 hours long
and by your estimate only 1 out of 10 scenes was left in the movie. so by your estimation if they put every single drop of detail in the movies it would end up being a 30 hour movie.
oh yes tom and the barrow wights are gone. and so are the troll statues and forging of the sword. and several other scenes that flesh out the book, but the movie was more on target with the book than any other book to movie combo that i have read and seen. Movies aren't made for the people who have read the book. they are made for the people who haven't to interest them enough so they do go and read the book and see what the author really wrote.

remarkable

[jopet]

for me as an european what is remarkable here is how many people feel the need to come up with creationism in this forum. what kind of religious fundamentalism is this? or is it just another incarnation of the kind of thought that makes people believe in UFOs or witchcraft? or is this just some kind of geek humor I dont get?

Re:remarkable

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it possible that geeks tend to be deep thinkers, and refuse to be brain-washed by the evolutionist bunk that's dished out every day in the media, not to mention academia?

Seriously though...

Have you ever considered which is easier to believe: Something came from nothing or something was created by some supernatural force.

Either way, you've got to accept some form of supernaturalism, because "something coming from nothing" is not a natural (as in naturalism) phenomena.

My first post... couldn't let this one slip by without remark.

Re:remarkable

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm

America seems to be the only Western Democracy that really takes this issue seriously ... like there was actually some sence in what the nutty Creationlists say ... I know this wont please the patriotic amoung them , but I think it all stems from the fact that alot (not all) of americans are really fscking stupid, not only that but they are religious as well as stupid. When is the last time you heard a politition from Europe or any other western country say "god bless *insert country here*"

Re:remarkable

[Anonymous Coward]

Well thank Xenu they didn't bring up the clam theory.

Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap!

Re:remarkable

[junkgrep]

If you really think scientific academia is bunk, you are making a pretty tall claim that I expect to see some backup on.

---Either way, you've got to accept some form of supernaturalism, because "something coming from nothing" is not a natural (as in naturalism) phenomena.---

first of all; what, exactly, is "supernaturalism"? This word, to me, has always seemed to be gibberish trying to conceal the lack of an explanation. All that calling something "supernatural" accomplishes is try to hide from the fact that it has not in the least answered the question of how something came from nothing: because where did the "supernatural force" come from? Giving it a cool metaphysical-sounding name doesn't relieve one of the burden of proof.

But even more importantly: what does this have to do with evolution? The theory of evolution doesn't even deal with the _origins_ of life, much less the origins of matter.

Re:remarkable

[jopet]

well, finding out about the world, the universe, and everything is not exactly about what is *easy* to believe, rather about what is logical. for instance, it is probably easy to believe that computers work by magic - most people agree though, that things are really a *bit* more complicatet there. the thing is: i have nothing against people who insist on their easy beliefs, i am just amazed by the sheer number of them in the us, or in this forum.

Re:remarkable

[EllisDees]

---Either way, you've got to accept some form of supernaturalism, because "something coming from nothing" is not a natural (as in naturalism) phenomena.---

Yes, it is. Read up on quantum physics. "Something from nothing" is the cause of all sorts of phenomena, from radioactive decay to Hawking radiation.

Re:remarkable

[dublin]

for me as an european what is remarkable here is how many people feel the need to come up with creationism in this forum. what kind of religious fundamentalism is this?

I'm not sure what being a European might have to do with it - there are lots of Creationists there, too, but they seem less willing to speak freely, possibly for fear of reprisals.

There happen to be quite a lot of us that are trained as scientists and/or engineers, have looked at the data, and come to the conclusion that Creation 1) requires orders of magnitude less faith in the unseen than does evolution, and 2) fits the available data considerably better, too.

I don't want or intend to turn this into a flame fest, but if you're at all interested in why, I'd suggest looking in one of several places:

Uber-hacker Do-While Jones' excellent site on why science is against evolution. Be sure not to miss the archives of the newsletter, Disclosure - reading through these will keep you up nights if evolution is important to your world view... (Check out the article on "Lucy" for an enlightening look at the art of passing off a total pipe dream as "science".)

There's a pretty good book out called "In Six Days" containing essays from 50 respected PhDs who explain why they find it considerably easier and more scientifically consistent to belive in Creation than evolution.

Michael Behe's excellent book, Darwin's Black Box. This outlines the irreducible complexity argument for Creation that is far better butressed by actual science than is evolution.

or is it just another incarnation of the kind of thought that makes people believe in UFOs or witchcraft?

Creationists aren't stupid, or ignorant. There are a few that are knee-jerk fundamentalists, but I find many more are thoughtful scholars. I find that many Creationists are better versed on the science and the data relating to origins than most all evolutionists. In short, the only thing science can say with certainty about origins is that we do not know. Do not be so quick to dismiss alternatives that may well be completely legitimate, even if their implications may be quite uncomfortable for you... Please read up as suggested above before flaming.

Re:remarkable

[junkgrep]

I think you responded to the wrong person. The comment you responded to was something I was quoting and _disagreeing_ with in the parent post.

Re:remarkable

[Anonymous Coward]

I think a little refutation(flame)is in order....

First Mistake:Appeal to reverence/authority

There are scientists who are creationists,but this is not reasonable basis for assuming that Creationism is valid.If it were, then it must be noted that there are many scientists who are atheists,and necesarily not Creationists. In 1997, a random poll of American scientists listed in American Men and Women of Science determined that 60% did not believe in a personal god--45% were atheists, 15% agnostics, the other 40% believers. But when the same study was made of more distinguished scientists, those who had achieved the prestigious membership of the National Academy of Sciences, the number of unbelievers was 93%, and of atheists specifically it was 85%, and the numbers were greater among physicists than others. For sources and analysis, see Michael Shermer's How We Believe: The Search for God in an Age of Science, 2000, pp. 72-4. What is evident is that scientists are more likely than non-scientists to disavow a personal god (among all Americans generally, 96% believe in god--65% even believe the devil is real, cf. ibid. p. 21). And physicists are the most likely of all to be unbelievers--so if we are to appeal to what scientists conclude about god, then we must disavow the existence of a personal creator. But the absurdity of such a method of deciding what to believe should be apparent.

Next Mistake:Straw Man
"According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe..."
-the first line of actual text from Do While Jone's "excellent" site.

I have to doubt the credibility of any source that does not even understand the theory they are attacking,
or would stoop to using such base tactics as straw-manning.The theory of evolution states: ( 1)All life forms (species) have developed from other species.( 2.) All living things are related to one another to varying degrees through common decent (share common ancestors). (3.) All life on Earth has a common origin. In other words, that in the distant past, there once existed an original life form and that this life form gave rise to all subsequent life forms. (4.) The process by which one species evolves into another involves random heritable genetic mutations (changes), some of which are more likely to spread and persist in a gene pool than others. Mutations that result in a survival advantage for organisms that possess them, are more likely to spread and persist than mutations that do not result in a survival advantage and/or that result in a survival disadvantage.

"Only a few mutations have been scientifically observed that are arguably beneficial. It is well known that mutations produce inferior offspring."
-from the same source

That's funny.I guess they never heard about these.In fact, they must not be very aware of modern medical and bilogical sciences in general.

Next Mistake:A revisiting of the first fallacious statement by citing John Ashton's book, In Six Days.

see above
50 "scientists" might believe it but that doesn't necesarily make it so.

"....The most telling argument for me in rejecting evolution, however, is the meaningless and lack of value it signifies. If evolution occurred, then my existence is not a special event in the Creator's plan. Yet, the Bible says I am special; I was created for a purpose."-a cute exert from the book that speaks volumes

It would be nice to believe that we are special,but then,it would be nice if money grew on trees.

Next Mistake:Behe of all people?Is this a reference or a joke?

"Michael Behe's excellent book, Darwin's Black Box. This outlines the irreducible complexity argument for Creation that is far better butressed by actual science than is evolution."

Odd that Behe has never published a single technical paper for peer review....and as far as his book goes, well, Behe offers no general laws, models, or explanations for how design happens, no testable predictions, and no possible way to falsify his hybrid evolution/ID hypothesis. He is simply claiming that design is a fact that is easily detectable in biochemical systems.For a more thorough trashing of Mr. Behe,look here.

Next:This is too obvious...

"I find that many Creationists are better versed on the science and the data relating to origins than most all evolutionists. "

In my experience, they know no more about evolution than "a tea leaf knows the history of the East India Company."(Douglas Adams always puts things so nicely..: ) )My experience,and yours, might not be indicative of the whole though.What's your point with this?

All in all, this post did not address the original question,which was (to paraphrase) Why is it that,when discussing anything even vaguely related to evolution,Creationists feel the need to spout their psuedo-science?

Re:remarkable

[dublin]

I will be brief, because I really don't have the time to fully address the truckload of logical fallacies in your post:

There are scientists who are creationists,but this is not reasonable basis for assuming that Creationism is valid.

Of *course* Creationism is a valid theory, both as science and human thought about the realities of the universe. But Creation cannot be circumscribed by science, for the Creator encompasses science, not the other way around. Creation even fits all the available evidence far better than evolution. (It is despised by many, though, because it implies that naturalism is not the measure of all things.) Niether theory can be proved or disproved by scientific means - there are some things that science can not tell us. Sorry to break that harsh reality to you, but "Evolutionism" is a religious worldview with a far higher percentage of "unreasonable fundamentalists" than any religion that believes in a Creator...

Next Mistake:Straw Man ... In other words, that in the distant past, there once existed an original life form and that this life form gave rise to all subsequent life forms

This is a convenient, but wholly unacceptable dodge used over and over by evolutionists. This is NOT a straw man - it strikes at the very heart of the debate: Since Evolutionists flatly reject the notion that life was "created", the only alternative then left to them is that life somehow spontaneously generated on its own. Evolutionists (such as yourself) now routinely try to limit the scope of evolution to what happened on Earth *after* life somehow magically appeared, ignoring the inconvenient fact that this logic requires it to have, in fact, originated somehow, somewhere, at some point in the past. The reason this is happening is that even evolutionary scientists recognize the folly of claiming life came from non-life, especially in a universe that's not nearly old enough, even using the most generous estimates. This is why many evolutionists now claim life on Earth had to come from elsewhere (the ridiculous panspermia argument) - the Earth simply isn't nearly old enough (niether is anywhere else, but that's beside the point...) This is a cowardly and disingenuous dodge, because it still doesn't address that crucial development of the first living thing, it simply attempts to shift it offstage under the cover of smoke and mirrors, declaring any discussion about the real origin of life "off-limits".

That's funny.I guess they never heard about these. [gate.net]In fact, they must not be very aware of modern medical and bilogical sciences in general.

Not at all true. Spend a little time doing reading up even on your own evolutionary sources, and you'll find there are a number of very substantial and very fundamental problems with this idea. Most particularly, there is the fundamental problem that mutations result in a *decrease* in the amount of information present, not the creation of new information, which is what evolutionary theory requires. The site you reference in essence gapes in awe at the changes that can be wrought in morphology by twiddling the genetic knobs, while leaving entirely unanswered the foundational question of the mechanism that could have created the knobs in order for them to be available to twiddle. Another aspect that evolutionists conveniently gloss over is that DNA/genome mapping produces relationships between organisms that *simply cannot be* if the fossil record is granted any validity at all. A great many scientists would throw up an incredible ruckus if DNA were used as an ironclad determiner of evolutionary relationships...

A great example of this can indeed be found at Do-While Jones Science Against Evolution web site: I could recommend several, but one article that gives a good high-level overview and hits to the point here is "Stoneage Mutant Mammal Turtles", discussing some of the difficulties that evolution would have to overcome in order for reptiles to grow breasts and make the transition to mammals. The number of significant, non-trivial morphological and *functional* changes that have to be made *simultaneously* in order to even pretend this could happen should be enough to convince even the most closed-minded evolutionist that perhaps he should entertain the possibility that perhaps evolution cannot produce what we see around us.

Next Mistake:A revisiting of the first fallacious statement by citing John Ashton's book, In Six Days.

Your argument seems to be that faith and origins cannot be related, except by the truly ridiculous leap of faith necessary to belive life spontaneously derived from dead stuff. This is ridiculous. The fact that some of the 50 scientists whose essays are in "In Six Days" find their evolutionary views in line with their views of faith should not be surprising, except to those that summarily dismiss both anything outside the natural world and the existence of any spiritual dimension to man. The quote you slam is dead-on: Some people choose to extend a little faith in the unseen as an alternative to the inevitable alternative that life is indeed meaningless. If you believe (or even want to believe) in the very concept of "good", then you are ultimately forced to recognize God. The 20th century was filled with dreary philosophers that all started with the premise that God could not exist and then (correctly) reached the only logical conclusion they could from that starting point: the same one Dostoevsky stated as, "If God does not exist, then everything is permitted."

Next Mistake:Behe of all people?Is this a reference or a joke?

Not at all. Evolutionists don't *like* Behe, but that doesn't affect the fact that his observations are correct, and supported by the data. Irreducible complexity is a serious problem for evolutionists, one they try to ignore or ridicule, rather than address. The chances against any single aspect of an irreducibly complex system arising is astronomical, the chances against them all arising at the same time, in the same place, in the only possible correct arrangement for function, advantage, and the sustenance of life, (not to mention adaptive advantage) is well and truly ZERO.

Odd that Behe has never published a single technical paper for peer review....

I was not aware that was a requirement for truth... Seriously, this is an ad hominem attack on Behe and his credibility. His academic credentials are not in question, he is quite well-qualified to do all the things he has done. The simple fact that he is a Fellow at the prestigious Discovery Institute should carry some weight relative to his academic standing. Behe could well have chosen to publish his findings in places where they would have been peer-reviewed. He chose not to because he's smart enough to know that no challenge to evolutionary dogma is permitted by the Church of Evolution. (I think it's telling that in your link to a review of his book, the author of the review lets his bias show so freely by dismissing Behe simply because his book was published by the same house that published "The Bell Curve". That book was universally hated by PC academia, but the science on which it is based holds up well under any objective evaluation, and the authors' motives are clearly (if one bothers to read the book) anti-racist. This is the whole problem with today's emasculated Politically Correct academia: NO deviation from the official party line is EVER tolerated. The only absolute allowed is that there is no absolute but that one. Funny how "tolerance" works in academia today...)

and as far as his book goes, well, Behe offers no general laws, models, or explanations for how design happens, no testable predictions, and no possible way to falsify his hybrid evolution/ID hypothesis. He is simply claiming that design is a fact that is easily detectable in biochemical systems.

You don't seem to get it, do you? There is a fundamental difference in *worldview* at issue here. Yours states that *all things* must be explainable by science. Behe's (and mine) is that there is ample evidence for intelligent design in the Creation we see all around us. The irreducible complexity of biochemical interactions is just one example of many millions. (The clear implication (to those of us that refuse to wear blinders) is that there *is* something beyond what science can tell us, and that the evidence points to the existence of a Creator. A bit more thoughtful reflection on that point will convince one that this must be an omnipotent and omniscient Creator ("Immortal, Invisible, God Only Wise", to quote the hymnist...)

As THE ONLY POSSIBLE objective standard of Truth, God cannot be modeled, falsified, or explained by laws other than His own. But not all will open their eyes: Pilate asked his famous question, "What is Truth?" with Truth standing right in front of him...

All in all, this post did not address the original question,which was (to paraphrase) Why is it that,when discussing anything even vaguely related to evolution,Creationists feel the need to spout their psuedo-science?

First of all, it's not pseudo-science. There is some very bad "Creationist" science. There is some equally bad "Evolutionist" scince, much of which is sadly now taken as dogma rather than open to question. Niether kind is defensible. There is a vast array of fast-growing sceince that support the Creationist perspective. Open your mind.

Real science argues for Creation far more forcefully than it argues for evolution. In the not too distant future, evolution will be relgated to the dustbin of history and laughed at as the prime example of how science can go so far astray from anything even remotely supported by the evidence.

Evolution is a self-admittedly anti-supernatural worldview, rather than a valid theory of origins.

Science is one way of getting at truth, but it is the height of hubris to think that all truth is circumscribed by science.

Oooh right

[Daath]

From the text you referred to:

The origin of life had to be by supernatural creation, because life is too complex to arise through natural processes.

Also, 640k should be enough for everyone.

Re:Oooh right

[cavemanf16]

Please explain to me how a human eye evolved. It has multiple parts that cannot benefit the body in any other way apart from their job in the eye. A similar comparison would be that my computer is completely useless apart from many things: a power source, software code to run it, I/O devices to allow me to interact to it. Seems to me like intelligent, supernatural design made our world.

AND, you've obviously not taken even a glance at the probabilities of what it would take to form a simple amoeba. That alone, would require: just the right mix of elements, at just the right time, in just the right temperature, at just the right barometric pressure. The probabilities of that happening are in the millions of years alone. Now try multiplying the complexity of that single cell organism one billion times, with a billion more functions than just 'being alive.' You quickly can see that the age of our universe would need to be infinite to even come close to forming just one big blob of a creature, let alone one with eyes, ears, a mouth, a nose, and sense of touch, and all the other things that most animals have.

Lastly, as for your '640k should be enough for everyone' argument - supernatural doesn't mean limited you numb-nut. Supernatural means outside of our known "nature." Don't equate the all-knowing, all-present, all-powerful God to a finite being such as Bill Gates, even if you don't believe in God. To do so belittle's what a Christian believes, which is nothing more than bigotry.

Re:Oooh right

[torako]

For some odd reason I have the feeling that I have heard all of that before... A big problem is that even if I could explain how the eye evolved (which it certainly did), would you understand it? I probably wouldn't, because I am not a biologist, and you aren't either, are you? So, would every explanation just be stupid evolutionist crap?

It is so easy to believe in something like creation, because it doesn't require you to actually think and find out stuff. And doesn't it give you this warm cozy feeling too, to know that you, as a human, are god's darling? Come on, people... These are not the Middle Ages!

You say that it would require an infinite time for evolution to happen. Actually, you "quickly see" that, so please quote the equations and evidence that make you think so. If it's something you made up just writing your message or if it is a bible quote, it doesn't count, naturally.

To be honest, this entire discussion is really weird IMHO. I am a citizen of Germany and lived in the US for one year as an exchange student. Nowhere else have I ever seen people believing in crazy stuff like creationism. About two thirds of the German population are Christians, but never have I heard anyone telling me things like "...bible to be understood in a literal way.." or the well-known creationism crap.

Sorry, folks, it just doesn't make sense.

Re:Oooh right

[junkgrep]

---Please explain to me how a human eye evolved. It has multiple parts that cannot benefit the body in any other way apart from their job in the eye.---

I forgive you for making such a silly argument, since doubtless you did not think it through, and are merely repeating the claims of "intelligent design" advocates. But, in short, it is simply NOT true that an eye cannot function without certain parts, or that various parts do not have functions that are useful even in isolation. Certainly, it cannot function _as_ well, but then, that's exactly what one might expect as you go back along a line of descent. But a single photo sensitive cell is better than no cell at all. Put that cell in a depression, and you have a crude sense of the light's direction. And so on. A perfectly plausible evolution of the eye from simple photo receptor to the mamillian eye is well described in many books on evolutionary biology. It i hard to say for certain that this course is correct, since eyes do no fossilize, but coupled with the range of eyes in nature (and the fact that an "eye" has evolved in at least eight different courses, some of which turned out much better in an engineering sense than human eyes), we can most certainly forward a perfectly _plausible_ and sensible description of how eyes can evolve from even the simplest of components.

"Irreducible complexity" almost always relies on an argument from incredulity, and in almost every specific case I know of, it has been rather easily debunked (most spectacularly in the famous mousetrap example). Try again.

Re:Oooh right

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, well, your argument might be worth looking into in the first place if a beneficial mutation had ever been observed in nature. You would think with all the thousands of different animals on our planet that someone would have been able to find at least one that had an offspring with a beneficial mutation. Unfortunately, this has never been found in nature. So your claim that the different parts of the eye 'evolved/mutated' into what we have today is unsubstantiated. Furthermore, I think it quite ridiculous that if I found out that I had all of the sudden, a new 'growth' of abnormal cells on my body that I would nurture them and call it 'beneficial.' Cancerous cells can certainly be considered an abnormal growth, but they are definitely not beneficial. Every mutation of a living cell that has ever been observed in nature using the scientific method has been shown to be non-beneficial, and quite often, lethal. How you expect this to translate into your evolutionary model, I will never understand. Not because I am an ignorant fool who does not study science, but because I am an educated man who strives to make sure my beliefs and scientific evidence of our universe match up at all times, because if they don't, then my belief system is worthless.

Re:Oooh right

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh good Lord, why do the creationists always get huffy when beaten soundly with the stick of reason?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, its evidence that you haven't looked hard enough. YOU can't come up with a beneficial mutation, but most microbiologists deal with beneficial mutations... to the organism being studied... under the circumstances of the environment its living in... all the DAMN TIME.

Cancer may be bad for you, but being able to cut up Vancomycin is really good for Enterococcus faecalis that lives in hospitals.

Now go get back in line with the rest of the armchair scientists.

But where did IT come from?

[HiredMan]

The real question is - where did the muck come from?

Easy - it evolved from creationists!

=tkk ;)

Note for University Students

[diaphanous]

If you attend a major university, you may be able access Science magazine electronically free of charge (minus tuition of course) from any computer with an IP address on your university's network. Try going to Science's homepage. If under the advertisments at the top of the page, there is some text that says "Institution: University of foo", then you have electronic access to all the articles that have appeared in print (Sadly institutional subscriptions don't include access to papers on ScienceExpress that have been published electronically but not yet on paper)

--Phillip

Re:Note for University Students

[Anonymous Coward]

Sweet. Thanks for the tip.

The Slashdot editorial staff strikes again

[hyacinthus]

Since a _single_ plant is being discussed, the word is not "algae", which is plural, but "alga".

hyacinthus.

pond scum, eh?

[psych031337]

I just smoked some. And in direct comparison to real weed there is a lot of effects missing. I have to conclude that Marijuana probably came some other way.

I love first-hand science.

Other religions?

[RedCard]

There are myraid other religions out there. I would be interested to see what other views of creation have arisen from them, and how christian creationists would respond to the creationist views of other religions.

If you thump your bibles at them, they'll do the same right back at you. THEN who's right? heh? heh?

--R

Re:Miller-Urey

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it is not an interesting thought except to an ignoramus such as yourself. There was no oxygen in the Miller-Urey experiment because there was no free oxygen in the primordial atmosphere. The free oxygen (O2) was produced (and still is) from plant respiration. Either that or God snapped his fingers and made it appear.

and by the way ...

[jopet]

personally i dont see why it should be that easy to believe that something was created by some supernatuaral force that came from nothing - it just adds one unnecessary step. when it comes to this, i prefer not to know. but this already is european creationism: most catholics here dont have a problem with evolution, natural laws and stuff, they just insist that the *reason* for the universe is god. i think that is pretty neat, because it wont interefere with logic too much. on the other hand, the US versions of creationism are more about taking the book literally, stating that god put it all there some 5000-odd years ago, complete with fossil scum and algae. well, *this* is even more bizarre than believing in alien abduction by UFOs. i hear though, that it is thaught to children in school in some places ....

Bacteria

[Anonymous Coward]

Bacteria, and protozoans in general are very little known today.

Blue green "algae" are actually bacteria.

There are only 4000 bacteria species described until today. And they have been recognized using old-fashioned techniques like gram-positiveness etc.

Since 1990 there has been tremendous advances. For example, in 1990 there was only 10 domains recognized. Today we can discern 40 distinct lineages, and with cheaper techniques coming this resolution will accelerate.

It is estimated based on samples that less than one per cent of all bacteria have been described, mainly because the cannot be cultivated using current, traditional techniques.

Protozoan (along with blue green "algae") biodiversity research will explode during the coming decades.

Wait a minute

[cje]

.. having a creator who intelligently designed the basic species and allowed them to adapt from there seems to me to fit the evidence more accurately. .. PS - God loves you and longs for relationship with you ..

I've never completely understood why some of the Christian creationist folks automatically assume that people who don't have any problems with modern biology's conception of evolution must be atheists, agnostics, pagans, etc. I would submit that the vast majority of Christians on this planet have no argument with the fact that the universe is a tad older than 6,000 years and that evolutionary common descent is a perfectly sensible way for God to create the kind of biodiversity that we see on Earth today.

Personally, I'm an apathetic agnostic (I care so little about religion that I can't be bothered to call myself an atheist ;-)) but it seems to me that if there was a God that created all of the life on Earth, He would be akin to the "ultimate engineer." Evolution, from an engineering standpoint, makes a heck of a lot of sense. There's no reason to believe that a perfect God would design a single species "from scratch", as it were, and then wipe the drawing board completely clean and start over from nothing to design a species that is 95% similar to the one He just got done with.

Really, the fact that we see so many similarities between different creatures on Earth is one of the strongest pieces of evidence in favor of evolutionary common descent. Now, granted, this fact is certainly not evidence against creation ex nihilo. But if God was creating everything ex nihilo He could have made a diverse array of creatures with completely different internal systems specifically engineered for optimal operation in the creature's native environment. Evolution, by and large, has done a pretty good job. Sure, it's not perfect; there are some flaws in the human body that I'd just as soon not be burdened with, but hey .. we play what we're dealt. :-)

At any rate, I just don't understand how people who believe in an all-powerful God could possibly suggest that He could not, and did not, create the biodiversity on Earth via the simple and elegant processes of evolution. Biology is in the business of answering the "how" questions. It is not in the business of answering the "why" questions, and has never claimed to be. Those who claim otherwise are "putting words in science's mouth", so to speak.

Heh

[cje]

We lose 6 a day, we don't see new species being created, we see statistical laws in action everywhere we look, with increaing entropy being of great interest. What makes evolution feasible?

Do you honestly believe that biological evolution, a slow and meticulous process that takes millions of years to produce real results, can possibly compete with the destructive power of mankind, which can wipe out a species in a few short years? I've heard some pretty weak arguments against evolution, but I have to admit that this is one of the more desparate attempts at straw-grabbing that I've come across.

Ever Here of the Genus Tropheus?

[Anonymous Coward]

Evolution in action, 'nuf said!

Why, if it evolved does it still exist ?

[CDWert]

Now, first I am a beliver in adaptive evolution, how far that can go , I am am not sure and I am CERTAIN noone is.

Something that always puzzeled me in the search for milestones of genetic evolution is why the evolutionists look to the living things ? I mean if they evolved why the hell are they still around ??

I can see in macro enviroments, austrailla, the galapagos etc, but comn people.

Ok, so this is "genetic link between primordial pond scum" hmmm we have genes of primordial pond scumm ? cool, tha means Jurrasic Park is a possibility .....ZZZZZZZTTTT

Ok well....

"the closest living relative" ......ZZTTTTTTTT
Closest hell, do these people even know how few genes seperate any living animal ?

All conjecture, all of it and not really based on any scientific eveindece of weight....conjecture.

"Missing Link Solves Plant Kingdom Mystery".....back to the title, soles jack and sh*t and jack left town.....Its all conjecture, how does conjecture "SOLVE" anything.......

I am sick of hearing people ramble on this is related to that , yada yada yada, until I can get a spare liver grown in a pile of moss its ueless anyhow.

Id like to see advances made in this arena , but real ones, not guesses and conjecture to be doled out as scientific fact as the title would lead a layperson to belive.

Re:Why, if it evolved does it still exist ?

[EllisDees]

Something that always puzzeled me in the search for milestones of genetic evolution is why the evolutionists look to the living things ? I mean if they evolved why the hell are they still around ??

This is a very common misconception about evolution, and is roughly equivalent to saying that since you are alive, your cousin can't be. Just because you have undergone some genetic change doesn't mean that every other member of your family (or species) has the same genetic change. Actually, the odds against it are phenomenal. While it's true that the mutation might allow you (and your children) to outcompete other members of your species, eventually driving them to extinction, it might just allow you to exploit some resources that others can't. Don't think of evolution as relacement of species, instead picture it just like a family tree.

You are a fucking demented fool

[Anonymous Coward]

and your rationalisation is a piece of shit. fuck off.

Re:You are a fucking demented fool

[thedbp]

>and your rationalisation is a piece of shit. fuck off.

Wow, now if that isn't the epitome of the Christian spirit I don't know what is.

This is totally off-topic, but this Xmas I had this woman trying to convert me from Zen Buddhism to Christianity. She mentioned something about all muslims being evil terrorist murderers, and I just had to chuckle, cuz Christians have killed WAAAAAAAY more people than muslims, and probably every other faith, COMBINED.

The crusades, the inquisition, slavery, the decimation of the Native Americans ... the list gets longer every day.

Christians are like cockroaches. Eventually evolution WILL relegate them to only coming out when no one else is around and scurrying when they see superior beings.

I mean jeez, go ahead, be a closed-minded self-centered, uneducated moron. But don't try to bring ME down, too.

my 2

getting there

[peter303]

This has only partially been deduced by relinking experiments. Split human and monkey DNA into single strands, allow the strands to recombine, then see what temperature causes them to split again. Badly matched DNA splits easily.

In a few years both human and chimp DNA will be fully sequenced (three of 24 human chromosomes have been fully deciphered). Then a gene-by-gene comparison can be fully done. It is expected to be about 98% identical.

de-evolution

[peter303]

(Not a band name!) Gould claims in several books that evolution goes in both directions at the same time. Some organizms are getting more complex, while others are getting less complex. For example viruses and parasites may be remnants of more complicated organisms. We tend to notice only the more complex organisms in life's diversity.

The implcation here is that this pond scum could have been a more developed organization that gave up complexity over the eons.

I hate to have to say this but...

[Leadf00t]

We did not evolve from monkeys any more than we evolved from birds. In fact, we didn't evolve from ANY of the species that are currently living on the earth today. That is an absurd idea and I won't even go into why. Rather, the skinny of the matter is that Homo Sapiens and Chimpanzees evolved from the same distant, and long dead relative. Presumably they looked like Chimpanzees but we can't really know cause we haven't found the fossils yet, presumably because they're probably burried underneath some part of the Sahara Desert now, or deep in the rain forests somewhere where we aren't digging.

Re:I hate to have to say this but...

[thedbp]

well, honestly, that just sort of goes without saying.

and i'd say chimpanzees got the better end of the evolutionary deal. but that's just me.

and i don't EVER want to see ANYONE go digging in what little is left of the rainforest.

frankly, it doesn't matter whether creationism or evolution is true.

what matters is that we're here now. make the best of it and be good to each other.

--------

I have to agree with you

[AKAImBatman]

I may get modded as offtopic for this, but I agree with you whole heartedly. It was a bit like they tried to mix several Sci-Fi flicks (with no plot) into the LoTR universe. I mean, what was up with the two old guy Jedi master BS? And the "super Orc" leader who looked (and acted) like the Predetor? And so on and so forth. Bah. Don't waste your time or money.

Are humans decended from algae too?

[GPS Pilot]

The article says the sperm/egg reproduction mechanism first appeared in this algae. It seems unlikely that the same system would have evolved again independently. Ergo, are humans (and all animals, for that matter) descended from this algae?

Missing link is a media term, not a scientific one

[Anonymous Coward]

The term "missing link" is a term used only in the lay media; you won't find it used in the professional scientific literature.

"Missing link" has most certainly *not* been adopted by scientists.

Alive, alive-oh!

[leonbrooks]

At the levels we're talking about, saying that something is "alive" or "dead" is not particularly enlightening, and usually misleading. There is no hard and fast line between "alive" and "dead."

Then let's draw one. ``Unable to continue growing or reproducing,'' or more succinctly, ``Positive nett entropy.''

Ten times simpler than prokaryotic may not be alive in the sense that a prokaryote is "alive," but that doesn't mean it's inorganic, or has no complexity, or even no self-reproducing complexity.

Yes, it does. Anything ten times simpler than prokaryotic has insufficient cellular machinery to survive unaided. By ``unaided,'' I mean that anything that simple has to be a parasite, and a parasite implies a host, and a host must be around ten times more complicated, but we're starting with something (in the original) ``a million times simpler.'' And if you delete the cellular machinery, there's this enormous gap left between the organisational ability of a simple crystal, and that of a ``simple'' (many millions of atoms) cell which no developmental theory seriously begins to cover. And we haven't even got to the Cambrian Explosion yet,

GAME OVER PLAYER <1>

From crystals to 400-gene prokaryotes

[leonbrooks]

Crystals don't have food, at least not in the sense that organisms do,

There is no conceptual difference between a crystal assimilating structure from a surrounding solution, and a macrophage ingesting other organisms or organic particles, except that the macrophage's filtering is generally better.

The prokaryote with the smallest genome has roughly 400 genes, [...] so ten times "simpler" than a prokaryote isn't dead.

Excellent! Name any standalone self-reproducing unit - either observed or with reasonable indirect evidence - with circa 40 genes and I'll agree with you.

BTW, contrast a crystal structure (repeating pattern of one to dozens of atoms) with 400 genes, each consisting of specific chromosomes, each consisting of specific proteins, each consisting of specific amino acids, each far more complex than the most complex crystal.

Ah, so simple!

[leonbrooks]

Since we don't have any idea how complex the simplest self-replicating molecule is, speculating on the odds of its forming is a bit pointless, don't you think?

The simplest ``self-replicating'' molecule is one atom. Oxygen ice, for example, forms more of itself from surrounding liquid oxygen on the more temperate planets of our solar system. But if we're talking structure, maybe salt's two-atom cubic form will do.

However, if we're talking about something that actively seeks out food to convert to more of itself, either a larger ``it'' or more ``its,'' the smallest known (Mycoplasma genitalium) consists of 470 genes (another poster placed this at 400) with a 580,000 base-pair genome, of which about 300 are absolutely essential. Informed speculation has gone as low as 100 genes (which would imply around 130,000 base-pairs), going beyond this requires a hive- or colony-like structure and some means of collating enough genes to start a new group collective organism.

By contrast, each of your cells harbours DNA to the tune of around 3 billion bases. If a strand of this DNA were unwound, it would be several meters long. If your proteins also uncurled you'd look like the dust puppy from UserFriendy. At the other end of the scale, one of the smallest known (parasitic) organisms is the Q-beta virus, at 3 genes totalling about 4500 base-pairs. This is a long, long way from standalone.

This brings to mind the Tierra program (sorry, couldn't find a good link). It was a system that simulated evolution in a simple way.

To be sure, and like Mr Dawkin's facetious weasel stunt (100% selectivity base on bare-faced teleology indeed! I fart in his general direction :-), or the more complex but similarly flawed ev program, the simulation had somewhere to start, intelligently designed rules to live by, and an intelligently designed, relatively benign ``environment'' to develop in.

Re:Ah, so simple!

[EllisDees]

The simplest ``self-replicating'' molecule is one atom.

You have an example of an atom that can replicate itself? I'd love to see that. Starting with one atom and ending up with two would be a very neat trick, indeed.

Oxygen ice, for example, forms more of itself from surrounding liquid oxygen on the more temperate planets of our solar system. But if we're talking structure, maybe salt's two-atom cubic form will do.

You seem to be talking about simple crystallization. I am talking about a molecule manipulating its environment to produce another copy of the same molecule.

However, if we're talking about something that actively seeks out food to convert to more of itself, either a larger ``it'' or more ``its,'' the smallest known (Mycoplasma genitalium) consists of 470 genes (another poster placed this at 400) with a 580,000 base-pair genome

Actually, I'm talking about something like this. Something that does not necessarily fit all of our current definitions of what life is, but which could lead to it eventually.

or the more complex but similarly flawed ev program, the simulation had somewhere to start, intelligently designed rules to live by, and an intelligently designed, relatively benign ``environment'' to develop in.

Of course if we no longer need a deity to explain the actual origin of life, people will continue to squeeze him into whatever gaps are left. No big surprise there.

A dime a dozen

[leonbrooks]

Judaism and Islam basically parallel Christianity in origins, except Talmudic Judaism is really off in the weeds compared with traditional Judaism, and there's extra rubbish about the world spinning on a bull's horn tacked on by some variants of Islam. Christianity as a social organisation is a pretty diverse conglomerate and you'll get philosophical hits in every part of the spectrum if you look hard enough.

There are plenty of other origins in various religions around the world, but non of them are ex nihilo, and the vast majority were essentially dispelled by TIROS I (the first weather satellite, which sent down bulk photos - incidentally, TIROS I was designed by a Christian Creationist named Dr Gary D Gordon), if not already killed soon after the invention of the telescope.

Some of these odd little cultures, however, are absolute rippers! For example, search for ``sirius'' in this page.

Hope that's answered your question. (-:

Don't hit delete! It works for me!

[leonbrooks]

The origin of life had to be by supernatural creation, because life is too complex to arise through natural processes.

Also, 640k should be enough for everyone.

Actually, it takes about 3G - if you're talking in terms of base-pairs - to make a human genome. And where did that all come from? A couple of trillion consecutive incredibly lucky accidents? Yes?

OK, right... hmmm... are you interested in owning a bridge? Only $USD10,000 down secures you the first option on the lease, it's got a steady revenue stream and fabulous subleasing possibilities. Made out of lasting rivetted steel, it's a great little money-spinner. It may also enlarge or stiffen your penis or breasts, supply you with toner, leather jackets, search engine entries and hot teen babes, besides solving every mortgage and credit problem you could ever imagine.

Oh, Shrek!

[leonbrooks]

Then Val Kilmer and Trinity could fight a rogue military robot.

Are you sure you're not thinking of Princess Fiona fighting the Merry Men?

...and a sequel!

[leonbrooks]

... The God Factor (Amazon don't seem to have it but everyone else does), also by John F Ashton. Qualifications? You want qualifications? For the taking, by the truckload! Quoting from the intro to the first of the fifty authors:

JOHN R DE LAETER

Professor de Laeter is Emeritus Professor of Physics at Curtin University of Technology in Australia [about 15km from here], where he was previously Deputy Vice-Chancellor of Research and Development. He holds a BSc in physics and BEd in education, both with first class honours, a PhD in physics and a DSc in physics, all from the University of Western Australia. Professor de Laeter has served as chairman of the International Commission on Atomic Weights and Isotopic Abundances, and is presently the Australian Academy of Science's representative on that Commission. He has published approximately 200 research papers and was awarded the Kelvin Medal of the Royal Society of Western Australia in 1993. A minor planet is named after Professor de Laeter in recognition of his contributions to astrophysics. He is an Officer of the Order of Australia.

He also has all but one unit of a BSc in Philosophy, which he abandoned because it wasn't answering his questions, and he wasn't exactly dying for extra letters after his name. (-:

Re:...and a sequel!

[dublin]

I'm not surprised - "In Six Days" was available in Oz for well over a year before I could get a copy here. Apparently, this one is embargoed too...

But that's not censorship!

[leonbrooks]

Apparently, this one is embargoed too...

I wonder if it's just being delayed, or if someone's buying time to think of answers? If so, they're largely wasting their time. The God Factor, although still chocker with factual content, relies much more on personal testimonies and less on dry factoids.

You might like to try ordering direct from an Australian retailer.

Crystal clear, base pairs, half life, weasel words

[leonbrooks]

You seem to be talking about simple crystallization. I am talking about a molecule manipulating its environment to produce another copy of the same molecule.

Yes, that's what the seed of a crystal does. It collects unstructured molecules from its environment and adds them to its structure. The amount of regularity is great, but the amount of information is not far from zero.

the smallest known (Mycoplasma genitalium) consists of 470 genes (another poster placed this at 400) with a 580,000 base-pair genome

Actually, I'm talking about something like this [mit.edu]. Something that does not necessarily fit all of our current definitions of what life is, but which could lead to it eventually.

Actually, it does fit our definitions of what life is, under the subhead ``fragment.'' What the MIT researchers have done is isolate one property of a pre-existing biological reaction which is itself part of an immense chicken-and-egg problem. They have not generated anything essentially new, nor anything which could form spontaneously, or form from pre-biotic material, or exist outside a very specialised laboratory environment. Like cloning, this is a modification of what already exists, not development from scratch.

More importantly, think about those 580,000 base pairs. That's over half a million combinations (choice of 4 at each point) which have been randomly generated, selected, and integrated into the population in only 4 billion years, which is asking a bit much, even ignoring the problem of the complex machinery within which said generation and selection takes place, and of propagating a change through squillions of precursors.

Now zoom out from genitalium to a huamn cell. Roughly three billion base-pairs in 4 billion years, or a year and a third per base-pair. Tall order? It reaches past the Moon, my friend!

[discussing Dawkins' Weasel and the ev program] Of course if we no longer need a deity to explain the actual origin of life, people will continue to squeeze him into whatever gaps are left.

What we're seeing with these programs is not deity being squeezed into a niche ecology, it's people putting their wishful materialistic ideas into practice. And this has been good because in each case it then becomes possible to test a discrete model and highlight the flaws in it. This makes it easier to amend the flawed thinking behind the models. In each case, this has helped Diety to shoulder His way back into the general scientific consciousness.

What each model essentially illustrates is that you can't reach your target without presupposing extensive design. Take the weasel as a simple example. It has 100% selectivity. Nature has a very, very small fraction of 1% selectivity. The weasel takes forever at 99% selectivity and can't win if you reduce the selectivity below about 96%. The weasel is also selecting from a very restricted range, knows its target (teleology), and can survive with any number of ``defective'' cells.

Such as...

[leonbrooks]

Piri Riese's map, the Nancy pterodactyl, the [warning: weird link!] plate-gold chain embedded in a piece of natural coal in Illinois, copper arrowheads and human femurs embedded together 400ft underground in a US silver mine (sorry, can't remember the exact location), the Salzburg cube, an [bizarre page alert again!] ancient silver vase embedded in solid rock in Massachusetts, a wooden model aircraft from an egyptian tomb with negative dihedral and vertical tailfin which glides stably, ancient South American roads which run absolutely level for hundreds of miles including through mountains and across precipitous gorges (some still in use today), the 20,000+ tonne shaped stone block dropped near Sacsahuaman, 35km over two mountain ranges and a river gorge from the nearest possible quarry, 2000 tonne blocks of Andesite (damn hard stone) in temple walls many meters above ground level, ancient engravings too small to see without a microscope, alloys which we can't duplicate today (eg non-rusting Iron Pillar in India), earth pyramids in China which dwarf Giza, and an earth mound (100% topsoil) 5km across, the Coso artefact, yadda yadda.

Totally weirded out yet? No? Then click on more of those links! (-:

I'll dig up some better references for you but only if you're serious.

On the religious side, consider Moses' crossing point halfway down the Gulf of Aquaba (at the time considered to part of the Red Sea), complete with horse and human skeletons, chariot parts from very specific chariots, weapons, and Phoenecian memorial pillars on each beach, plus much more.

Carpet Rock

[leonbrooks]

like Carpet Rock in Arizona, the remnant of an immense steel-reinforced dam?

There's a new one on me - one might expect Google to have some reference to such a thing, but no such luck... Any pointers?

The closest I see at the moment is a travel magazine site with some excellent pictures and a reference to a buried stone pavement elsewhere, but nothing on the dam itself. My original source is on paper, and is almost certainly filed at ``home-home'' 350km southeast of here.

Re:Crystal clear, base pairs, half life, weasel wo

[EllisDees]

Yes, that's what the seed of a crystal does.

No, a crystal is simply responding to its environment. It is a completely passive response to a change in temperature. A self-replicating molecule is actively manipulating its environment to produce more of itself.

What the MIT researchers have done is isolate one property of a pre-existing biological reaction which is itself part of an immense chicken-and-egg problem. They have not generated anything essentially new, nor anything which could form spontaneously, or form from pre-biotic material, or exist outside a very specialised laboratory environment.

I wasn't trying to say that that particular molecule was a precursor to modern life. It is more of a proof of the concept that tiny self-replicating molecules do exist. No biologist in the world believes that the first cell appeared, fully formed, out of nothingness. The first cell was built out of smaller things that were not cells. My personal guess is that self-replicating molecules gave rise to virus-like entities that gave rise to proto-cells that gave rise to cells. Can I prove any of this right now? Nope. But it is an explaination that doesn't require anything supernatural.

More importantly, think about those 580,000 base pairs. That's over half a million combinations (choice of 4 at each point) which have been randomly generated, selected, and integrated into the population in only 4 billion years, which is asking a bit much, even ignoring the problem of the complex machinery within which said generation and selection takes place, and of propagating a change through squillions of precursors.

Not really. First off, Evolution isn't random. It is a system that builds on the successes of the past. Once a mechanism has evolved, it doesn't have to evolve again. Serious mistakes are removed from the gene pool so that they can't propagate on. The number of base pairs in a DNA molecule isn't really all that impressive when you consider that a single mutation can double the length of the molecule. You seem to think something magical is going on, when all there is is chemistry.

What we're seeing with these programs is not deity being squeezed into a niche ecology, it's people putting their wishful materialistic ideas into practice.

Hahaha! We're the ones with wishful ideas?

In each case, this has helped Diety to shoulder His way back into the general scientific consciousness.

Yeah. When was the last time you saw a peer-reviewed study whose conclusion was "goddidit!"?

replication, abiogenesis,

[leonbrooks]

I wasn't trying to say that that particular molecule was a precursor to modern life. It is more of a proof of the concept that tiny self-replicating molecules do exist.

Who needs a proof-of-concept? Every living thing contains proofs-of-concept! Lots of proofs-of-concept. Actually, truth be told, too many proofs-of-concept for the time available under the most optimistic evolutionary assumptions.

No biologist in the world believes that the first cell appeared, fully formed, out of nothingness.

What can I say? Ah, yes, the word on the time-saving cap I got for Christmas. WRONG (-:

The first cell was built out of smaller things that were not cells. My personal guess is that self-replicating molecules gave rise to virus-like entities that gave rise to proto-cells that gave rise to cells. Can I prove any of this right now? Nope.

One of the more obvious big gaps in this sequence is that viruses require a host organism to be anything like viable. For example, they can't reproduce themselves at all without one.

But it is an explaination that doesn't require anything supernatural.

It's not scientific to exclude the supernatural, it's merely materialistic. And materialism is a belief, even one which cannot be formally proven.

First off, Evolution isn't random

If it isn't random, then it has a purpose. If it has a purpose (teleology) then it isn't evolution. People can assert that selection is non-random until they're blue in the face (or meet Stephen J Gould) but firstly it's wrong (the success or otherwise of selection is essentially random as well, and kept so by factors such as changing circumstances), and secondly it cannot compensate for the proposed randomness in mutation.

It is a system that builds on the successes of the past.

It is a system without foundations (there is no reasonable path through abiogenesis, and all that we know of mathematics says that there never can be), and presumes upon a nett positive effect (successes, an increase in functionality) in an environment observed to be heavily dominated by destructive effects (decay, disasters).

Once a mechanism has evolved, it doesn't have to evolve again.

Error after error! If this had been the bad old days, Torquemada would be having words with you in person! (-:

A mechanism not only has to evolve, it has to establish itself in significant numbers in a viable population of organisms, and out-compete other similar mechanisms. This happens very infrequently, so the vast majority of mechanisms would have to re-evolve countless times.

The number of base pairs in a DNA molecule isn't really all that impressive when you consider that a single mutation can double the length of the molecule.

You wind up with a double molecule, one which almost always kills the organism, not a single molecule with twice the complexity.

You seem to think something magical is going on, when all there is is chemistry.

This applies more to your claims than to mine. Chemistry as we know it does not magically produce life, or any significant step toward life, when left to itself - or even when given some very directed nudges, as in Stanley Miller's experiments - it destroys and breaks down life and components of life.