Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
> 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.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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. :)
> 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.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
.. 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 ..
;-)) 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.
.. we play what we're dealt. :-)
I've never completely understood why some of the Christian creationist folks automatically assume that people who don't have any problems with modern biology's conception of evolution must be atheists, agnostics, pagans, etc. I would submit that the vast majority of Christians on this planet have no argument with the fact that the universe is a tad older than 6,000 years and that evolutionary common descent is a perfectly sensible way for God to create the kind of biodiversity that we see on Earth today.
Personally, I'm an apathetic agnostic (I care so little about religion that I can't be bothered to call myself an atheist
Really, the fact that we see so many similarities between different creatures on Earth is one of the strongest pieces of evidence in favor of evolutionary common descent. Now, granted, this fact is certainly not evidence against creation ex nihilo. But if God was creating everything ex nihilo He could have made a diverse array of creatures with completely different internal systems specifically engineered for optimal operation in the creature's native environment. Evolution, by and large, has done a pretty good job. Sure, it's not perfect; there are some flaws in the human body that I'd just as soon not be burdened with, but hey
At any rate, I just don't understand how people who believe in an all-powerful God could possibly suggest that He could not, and did not, create the biodiversity on Earth via the simple and elegant processes of evolution. Biology is in the business of answering the "how" questions. It is not in the business of answering the "why" questions, and has never claimed to be. Those who claim otherwise are "putting words in science's mouth", so to speak.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
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.
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last