Still More Evidence for Evolution

Uche writes: "Biologists at the University of California, San Diego have uncovered the first genetic evidence that explains how large-scale alterations to body plans were accomplished during the early evolution of animals."

Comments

Not "more evidence for evolution"

[flockofseagulls]

Evolution is accepted as fact by scientists and thinking people. It is no more or less a theory than physics or astronomy.

Many details of evolution are not understood, particularly the genetic mechanisms. This new discovery helps answer some of those questions, but it doesn't make evolution any more "real" than it already is. It's possible we haven't discovered every moon or even every planet in our solar system, but that doesn't mean the sun may actually revolve around the earth after all. We're pretty sure we haven't found all of the subatomic particles, and we still don't agree on what makes gravity, but physics is still secure and we don't expect the Red Sea to part on its own.

Accepting Creationism means tossing out all of established science. Creationism is the adversary of all science, not just Darwinian evolution.

Re:Not "more evidence for evolution"

[nyke]

In science there is no fact. Any scientific theory is still theory, and you can only disprove something. Evidence towards is the counterbalance, and readily accepted in mainstream science as poular science. It took 200 years for anyone to start believing darwin, and his theory is quite simple and makes 'sense'. Genetics and environment working in conjunction, influencing each other, random mutations selected out, hey presto, new species.

Re:Not "more evidence for evolution"

[Black Parrot]

> Gathering more evidence bolsters a theory in an inductive reasoning sense, but in the framework above, you can only prove for sure that theories are false.

True enough, but that's how all science works. You gather up all the hypotheses that claim to explain the available evidence, apply Occam's Razor, and go with the result until new evidence demands otherwise.

And while the result isn't 'true' in the same sense as a mathematical theorem or a boolean variable, on the big scale it seems to work very well in practice. Yes, we twiddle the details all the time, but big theories like the heliocentric solar system, gravity, atomic theory, evolution, etc. seem to stand the test of time. The only one I can think of that has undergone substantial revision after general acceptance is the replacement of Newtonian physics with Einsteinian relativity, and even that was nothing more than extending a specific case to a more general framework.

When creationists argue that "evolution is just a theory" they reveal first that they don't understand basic science, and second that they don't have anything constructive to offer toward an explanation of the universe.

Re:Evolution WILL happen

[flockofseagulls]

Evolution is part of life's process, it goes on regardless of human conceit. I don't know what you mean by "few people die." Last I checked we can all plan on dying. The human death rate is at 100%, as always; it just takes longer than it used to.

Jerry Springer's audience aside, the genetically fit are more likely to pass their genes on, and their offspring are more likely to survive. What makes an individual genetically more or less fit may or may not match your notions of genetically inferior or superior, but that is irrelevant.

Re:Evolution WILL happen

[chfleming]

While it is true that modern medicine and human culture has nearly (not completely) stoped natural selection on humans, cultural prefrences still exhibit selective breeding.

What does this mean? Human beings will continue to become more intelligent, probably taller, and probably more beautiful.

Intelligence creates material success, which is a prize factor for breeding.

But why only probably more beautiful? Beauty is fairly relative, and for the human race to become more beautuful there has to be prolonged cultural stability.

So we will stop being wolves and start being domestic dogs.

So what?

[JoeShmoe]

Many years in the future, a bunch of scientists manage to contact God.

"God," they go on to say, "we no longer need you. Anything you can do, we can do. We know now how everything works."

"Is that so?" God responds. "Well, in that case, how about a contest? You create a man, and I'll create a man and we'll see which turns out better."

"Agreed," the scientists repond.

"But," God continues, "you'll have to do it like I did and create a man from the dirt."

"Not a problem," the scientists chortle, knowing enough to be able to resequence basic elements into complex structures like DNA. So, in unison, the scientists get out their beakers, bend down, and scoop up some dirt.

"Whoa, whoa, whoa," God says. "You get your own dirt."

My point? Evolution is a non issue. The real debate is in the origin of the framework by which everything evolves. Scientists playing with DNA can make pretty much anything happen. But they still can't create matter with a thought.

- JoeShmoe

.

So what indeed

[krmt]

Unfortunately, while the scientists presuppose the existence of matter in your argument, you presuppose the existence of a God that can create that matter. No one wins this argument, like any other of this sort.

Re:Troubling

[Space cowboy]

I think it's a retrenchment. Up until recently, science had (mostly) ignored creationism as "just another freak religion".

There have been several calls over the last year in the scientific press to attempt to get scientists to take the "propogation of science" throughout the population more seriously, and this includes point out where challengers (such as creationism) fall short of the mark.

I remember also several articles in New Scientist and Scientific American trying to motivate scientists to "spread the word" against creationism. Perhaps it's just a response to that.

Simon

It's a shame

[CatherineCornelius]

"The achievement is a landmark in evolutionary biology, not only because it shows how new animal body plans could arise from a simple genetic mutation, but because it effectively answers a major criticism creationists had long leveled against evolution--the absence of a genetic mechanism that could permit animals to introduce radical new body designs. "

It's a shame that UCSD found it necessary to refer to the creationist bugbear. Creationism has been dead and buried for well over a century except in the USA, where it lives on as a political movement impervious to scientific discussion. Scientists should deny it the courtesy of appearing to take it seriously.

Behe Refuted

[ecampbel]

Darwin's Black Box Review

The book basis its premace on six fallacies:

Fallacy one: There is a boundary between the molecular world and other levels of biological organization.

Fallacy two: The current utility of a given feature (molecular or otherwise) explains "why" the feature originally evolved.

Fallacy three: Unless we can identify advantages for each imaginary gradual step leading to a contemporary bit of biochemistry, we cannot invoke a Darwinian explanation.

Fallacy four: Molecular evolution: "a lot of sequences, some math, and no answers."

Fallacy five: There is a conspiracy of silence among scientists concerning the failure of Darwinian explanation.

Fallacy six: The evolution of complexity is unaddressed and unexplained.

More: Darwin's Black Box Review

Behe's empty box
"Behe's colossal mistake is that, in rejecting these possibilities, he concludes that no Darwinian solution remains. But one does. It is this: An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become-because of later changes-essential. The logic is very simple. Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps). Another part (B) later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn't essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as further parts get folded into the system. And at the end of the day, many parts may all be required."

"The point is there's no guarantee that improvements will remain mere improvements. Indeed because later changes build on previous ones, there's every reason to think that earlier refinements might become necessary. The transformation of air bladders into lungs that allowed animals to breathe atmospheric oxygen was initially just advantageous: such beasts could explore open niches-like dry land-that were unavailable to their lung-less peers. But as evolution built on this adaptation (modifying limbs for walking, for instance), we grew thoroughly terrestrial and lungs, consequently, are no longer luxuries-they are essential. The punch-line is, I think, obvious: although this process is thoroughly Darwinian, we are often left with a system that is irreducibly complex. I'm afraid there's no room for compromise here: Behe's key claim that all the components of an irreducibly complex system 'have to be there from the beginning' is dead wrong."

[b]The Fallacy of Conclusion by Analogy[/b]

When it comes to explaining science to the public, analogies and metaphors are essential tools of the trade. We all can better understand something new and unusual, when it is compared to something we already know: a cell is like a factory, the eye is like a camera, an atom is like a billiard ball, a biochemical system is like a mouse trap. An A is like a B, means A shares some conceptual properties with B. It does not mean A has all the properties of B. It does not follow that what is true for B is therefore true for A. Analogies can be used to explain science, but analogies cannot be used to draw conclusions or falsify scientific theories. Yet Behe commits this fallacy throughout his book.

For example:

[ol][li]A mousetrap is "irreducibly complex" - it requires all of its parts to work properly.
[li]A mousetrap is a product of design.
[li]The bacterial flagellum is "irreducibly complex" - it requires all of its parts to work properly.
[li]Therefore the flagellum is like a mouse trap.
[li]Therefore the flagellum is a product of design.

More: Features: Behe's empty box

Publish or Perish

On page 179 of Darwin's Black Box Michael Behe claims:

"There has never been a meeting, or a book, or a paper on details of the evolution of complex biochemical systems."
He closes the chapter with this ludicrous statement:

"In effect, the theory of Darwinian molecular evolution has not published, and so it should perish"

(Did someone say publish or perish?: The Elusive Scientific Basis of Intelligent Design Theory)

To be honest, I suspect that the extent of detail Behe is demanding would require a combination cutting-edge biochemistry lab and a time machine. How else can science fully recover, for example, every single step in the evolution of the bacterial flagellum that took place billions of years ago?

More: Publish or Perish

Review of Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box (1998)
For those who have not already encountered this book or one of its numerous reviews, let me simply say that the author sets out to argue that the organic world is so complex, particularly at the level of molecular biology and biochemistry, that Darwinian evolution cannot possibly have led to it. As evolution cannot produce irreducibly complex systems (the blood-clotting process, for instance, the biochemist's analogue of the eye), they must be the outcome of the activities of an Intelligent Designer. In other words, the book is a tiresome reworking at the molecular level of the timeworn "design" argument.

So much has already been written by reviewers of this book that it seems unnecessary to add anything more (go to ahref=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/publish .htmlhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/publish. html>). Specialists far more competent than me have analyzed the numerous and gross deficiencies in Dr. Behe's flatulent arguments in considerable technical detail (see especially ahref=http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/dave/Behe.htmlhttp://w ww.cbs.dtu.dk/dave/Behe.html>), so there would be an emptiness in my remarks if I were to try to emulate them. If I am to add anything to the discussion, I am forced to choose to look at the book from a different perspective. The perspective I shall adopt is that of misrepresentation, for that quality pervades this book at every level.

More: Review of Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box (1998)

Re:Well done lads, collective pat on the back

[LadyLucky]

Note that gravity is a theory. I have a theory about gravity too, should it be taught? Evolution is as much a theory as the theory of relativity, gravity, etc. The details might not be correct, but essentially, there is no known counter-evidence, and no reason to suggest it is incorrect.

A professor of Creatonism? que?

Re:Troubling

[squaretorus]

I also believe in creation to the extent that some higher being at one point installed the last "spark plug", if you will, in order to give humans that certain something extra that separates us from mere beasts.

For many of us 'creationist-bashers' its exactly this type of comment that gets us pissed off. 'Mere beasts'!!! 'Spark Plug'!!! WTF

I won't scream 'show me the evidence!' I won't scream 'when your dead your dead - deal with it!'

I'll simply say stop being so damn arrogant. We're just a lucky lump of carbon and water that happens to be able to use tools and stuff - big wow!

Plenty more where we came from I'll bet.

Re:Troubling

[Black Parrot]

> I also believe in creation to the extent that some higher being at one point installed the last "spark plug", if you will, in order to give humans that certain something extra that separates us from mere beasts.

Your delusions arise from the false assumption that we are separate from 'mere' beasts. The more we learn about the other apes, the more we realize that all the "humans only" stuff is merely a difference in degree of ability, not some great unbridgeable gap.

Re:Evolution WILL happen

[Anonymous Coward]

> Because few people die and the genetically inferior ones still pass their genes to the next generation.

Muahahahah, someone who passes on their genes is obviously not genetical inferior to anything, you silly moron.

Re:Creation vs. Evolution debate at my university

[Black Parrot]

> The creationists mostly lied the whole time.

I've never been to a creationist debate, but from what I've read about them their SOP involves -

• Pack the audience with True Believers (sometimes by bussing, though that probably wouldn't be necessary at a university).
• Use their clock time to throw out scores of false claims, each of which would take the scientists several minutes to refute.

The net result is the appearance of having won. And of course that's all their striving for, since the movement is political rather than scientific.

You're Thinking Too Hard :-)

[krmt]

All these so-called "discoveries" are just window dressing. Articles like this one remind me of the magicians using eye-catching attention getters to distract people from the charade they are respresenting as truth.

I think you're missing the point. This sort of thing isn't really taking a stand on the issue you're talking about, although we all tend to jump right to that anyway. Like you said, it can't be proven (or at least, we have absolutely no conception as to how to prove it right now) but what they are finding is the mechanism by which these things happen.

Before you discount the importance of this in the face of "God/No God", think of this: where would we be if Newton hadn't told us that, yes, the universe does have rules. Pasteur told us that, yes, there is something tangible (not just "sin") that causes disease. It might not directly be addressing your fundamental question, but it is an important thing to answer for both sides of the debate, as well as anyone in the middle or way out in left field. If you're looking to understand God or the Universe or something else entirely, discoveries like these help to realign your perceptions about how the world works in very jarring and enlightening ways. You don't have to go around believing you got the plague because you were a bad person, even though you thought you did everything right. You don't have to believe that there was a storm because you were destined to wind up at the bottom of the ocean for that affair you had. You can believe these things if you want to, but you gain the freedom and knowledge to make a more informed decision than our ancestors were able to make.

That, in my opinion, is the ultimate form of progress.

This does not really impact the fundamental question that you're addressing at all, nor does it take away from the beauty of the world around us. Indeed, I think things like this only serve to enrich both, and I find it sad that most people use these sorts of findings just to deconstruct the world for science or God.

Re:Troubling

[armb]

> Doesn't it seem that these scientists are going out of their way to discredit creationists?

Since creationists (I'm not counting just the belief that humans have a divine something as creationism) are going out of their way to discredit science, is that too unreasonable? The difference is that the scientists do it using the results of solid research, and the creationists do it by bullshit and lies. So it isn't really stooping to the same level.

This isn't really "more evidence for evolution" and more than gravity wave detectors are supposed to give us "more evidence for gravity" to refute flat-earthers. This is evidence about more detail of how evolution happens.

Re:Bias

[Cadrach]

I feel silly dignifying this with a response, but...

Let me start by saying that I'm not a rabid evolutionist, nor am I a rabid creationist. I suppose I could be called a very weak theist, but those of you who aren't philosophers should probably just think of me as agnostic. It's not exactly accurate, as I believe that there is something greater than myself, but I'm not nearly so arrogant as to say that I know what that something is (or anything else that is essentially unknowable).

In response to pkplex: they're trying to prove evolution for the same reason that you are trying to prove your very specific version of creationism; they think that it's true. They ARE looking for truth, though you (and I) might disagree with where they're looking for it.

Noah's ark has been found, eh? If that was actually a known true statement, rather than just something that someone said and you believed (much like the theory of evolution is to others) then you'd have a very good point. I don't think you do. Here are a few very quick questions about The Ark. Dimensions for it are, as you said, given in the Old Testament. 300 cubits x 50 cubits x 30 cubits. A cubit is approximately 18 inches (it's actually a measurement from a person's elbow to the tip of the person's middle finger). We therefor have (with dimensions for my fellow Americans) 450' x 75' x 45'. This is quite the engineering project for one man and his family. The acquisition of the gopher-wood and cypress that was to be used in its construction would have been rather fun for several people. Oh, and the bible says that it was done by Noah, not by Noah and God. Let's assume, though, that it was a success, and all of the animals were brought onboard, and they all had enough to eat (including the carnivores), and everyone disembarked merrily after the end of the flood. What do the carnivores now eat? What about the herbivores? If even one member of any species (save human) died at this point, the entire species would be wiped out. Oh, and if the "God will protect them" argument is used, why not just have him float them and forget the whole "Ark" nonsense? Or just have him kill all the people that the flood was intended to kill? Even assuming they all have enough to eat AFTER the flood, what about genetic diversity? Two members of a species do not a diverse population make.

You also point out that there is historical evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ. Good for you. I'm going to pull a similar trick: I exist. Amazing, I know. I don't, however, have a religious following. It's one thing for Jesus Christ to be a historical figure. It's another thing entirely for him to have been exactly as portrayed by a group of writings picked during a convention a little before 400 AD (I want to say 397 AD, but that might be off by a bit).

I agree that life has order and design; as I said, I'm a theist. But the existence of order and design in the universe (and even if one believes in evolution, one must either believe in an almost limitless multiverse or in a designed universe for one's beliefs to be taken seriously) does not point a person toward any particular religion. What it CAN do is point a person away from certain false systems of belief.

You're looking for a better explanation of life than is being handed you be the scientific community in general. Great. Just don't use bad arguments and the assumption that your personal religious beliefs are unquestionable truths to attack evolution. Come at it with something of substance.

Re:Evolution WILL happen

[shilly]

Yes, yes, fascists made use of evolutionary theory to support their arguments. And Hitler was a vegetarian. And Wagner loved classical music. And Torquemada was a God-fearing Christian, as of course were a significant majority of the German, Ukrainian, Polish and Russians who between them committed millions of antisemitic acts in the first half of the 20th century. You'll bite yourself on the ass if you use that line of reasoning. There are a long list of reasons for the lethal efficiency of the Shoah, including mechanisation, the developments of lethal methods that took place in WWI, the efficiency of German bureaucracy, the visceral hatred of Jews common in many European countries, the development of industrial methods and the rise of large industrial companies, hyper-inflationary economic collapse and the consequent search for a scapegoat, and the excellence of German built railways. Darwinism is a long way down the list. Please, go read "The Last of the Just" and stop co-opting Jewish suffering to your petty cause.

Re:Evolution WILL happen

[shilly]

Devolution is a (rarely used) biological term for a process of degeneration. However, evolution is not teleological and so cannot be thought of as progressing or regressing. And devolution is not the opposite of evolution, so you are correct in spirit if not in detail.

Positive Mutations & Antibiotics

[rlp]

In all of the debate, they only had one true argument, and it was a bad argument at that. Guess what that argument was? "Positive" mutations haven't been reproduced or observed in the laboratory, therefore they do not exist, therefore evolution is false. And this article is about just that.

What about antibiotic resistant bacteria? A relatively quick case of evolution in action. Obviously not a positive mutation from our viewpoint - but a positive one from the organism's viewpoint.

Re:Positive Mutations & Antibiotics

[jonabbey]

The idea that random mutations can turn a functioning gene into another functioning gene (with no fatal in between states) makes exactly as much sense as the idea the random bit mutations can turn a functioning method into a new working method with a different function (without core dumping in the process).

Never heard of genetic algorithms? They do precisely as you suggest. The fact is, the vast majority of code is not evolved in the sense of vast amounts of mostly faithful replication strewn with the occasional mutation and a population big enough that it can withstand genetic failures without threatening the entire population.

Nature is extremely subtle. One of the things that all living organisms have in common is that their genetic mechanisms have proven to be amenable to some mutation. An organism that was so finely tuned and so brittle that *any* change in its genome would be fatal would be a strong rebuff to evolutionary theory. The fact is that organisms are just not that fragile. Your code is, my code is, Bill Gates' code is, but none of us developed our code under the same conditions that nature developed life on the planet.

The theory is that the genetic mechanism has itself been selected for evolvability. Why else would we have diploid gene pairs? Why else would DNA have the base pair redundancy? Why else would the genome have 'trigger points' which can make for large body changes with small mutations?

Re:Any European creationists out there?

[NotInTheBox]

I'm European.... Not that I believe that you could realy call anyone really European.But we have had the Romans, the Spanish (cathaolic) inqusition, the Nazis we have had our share of extremist and selfrightious groups... However many of us are also childeren of the people who where the Romans, the Spanish (cathaolic) Inqusition, or the Nazis.

It hard to be hardlined and see the world in black and white only if you have so much history to deal with.

Also things tent to move more slowly and being dutch with much more communication... Nothing is really deside anymore, we agree upon a common plan and that is it then. It's just to hard to agree on religious and political and other dogmatic idears so in most cases we make a exception for those.

This is however not really european, it's dutch. I mean in Greace and in France many religious groups are restricted just because the officials are of another group. That is just bad, and de european courts agree, but nothing much happens. This is a very sad time to be an European.

Americans seem to use to be irrational. The current president thinks very much in black and white. We on this side don't have the luxery of ignorence anymore, everything is and are shades of grey now.

My view is that microevolution is working.
Also: God created the universe and de planet earth a long long time ago, a really long time ago. Then God made the planet in 6 periodes like it is, and right now we are living in the 7th periode (I guess a creation day is a bit longer then 24hours)... and by the time the 7th day ends God will have restored the world to what would have been had Adam not sined. Humans will be perfect and life forver in peace and happyness... Just think of the progress that would be posible then!

Also I think that God created the species after their kind. However, Mozes defines a specie as follows: Two individuals are of the same kind/specie if and only if they share a common ancestor. Evolutionist do not see it that way ;->

Re:Neo-darwinists and neo-creationists

[MarkusQ]

On the other hand, I think a lot of evolutionists are neodarwinistic, they have this idea that everything happened via random mutations and natural selection, which is contrary to all the other processes of life.

I would expect that most people who think clearly about these things wind up "neodarwinists." The point is to come up with an explanation for "all the other processes of life" and we would be commiting classicly flawed logic if we used the-things-to-be-explained as the basis of the explanation.

If evolution depended on the existence of complex processes of life to work, it would be useless and likely wrong.

As it turns out, however, you can explain it all (including reto-viruses, co-operation, and even the first post trolls) as a simple consequnce of random mutation and natural selection.

Your statement is akin to fearing that "a lot of physisists are neonewtonist--they think everything can be explained in terms of a few types of forces acting on a few types of particles." In many cases you want to look at the higher consequences just to keep from swamping in the details, but you shouldn't slip into confusing consequences with causes.

-- MarkusQ

Moving goalposts

[Spoing]

All you're saying is the same argument that has been offered up for centuries. Each time we learn more and find out what fictions have been pushed as facts, the religious move the goalposts back and deny that a point has been scored.

In children, this attitude is cute and interesting. In philosophers, it's part of the trade. In adults making a reasoned argument, it's ingenuous and artificial.

Please snap out of it.

Re:Creation vs. Evolution debate at my university

[tnak]

I felf very sorry for the young teenagers that came with their church group.

I was one of those teenagers. Not in the debate you are describing, but one held at Colorado State University back around 1980. The debate was very useful in that I came away from it suitably impressed by the clear victory of the biology professor who was debating the creationist Duane Gish.

Before the debate, I thought it would be interesting to see why someone would believe in creation. Afterwards I was a bit depressed. I had no idea how far a person would go to decieve themself and perpetuate a lie.

After the debate that I attended, I began reading outside of the narrow list of 'scientists' my church and parochial school presented me with. It didn't take me long to learn the difference between evidence and belief.

I don't know what can be learned from this...

I think it proves very well the point John Stuart Mill made in On Liberty: any idea should be debated. If it's not true, it will be exposed; if it is, it will be strengthened.

Re:Real computer scientists vs. evolution.

[underpaidISPtech]

First, the thing to keep in mind is sucess is not being better at anything, success is passing on your genes. If you manage to pass on your genes, you're done. For all intents and purposes, you can drop dead at that point, your job is done. Now it's up to your offspring to procreate. As long as they manage that, the "species" is OK. Just keep poppin' em out faster than they drop dead or get eaten.

Second, nobody said you need to grow a fully formed stomach when there was none before. I've already has this conversation on /. with some guy about the eyeball, I don't want to have it again.
Stop thinking stomach, and start thinking proto-organs, or even single cells that exist symbiotically within another organism. Ameobas don't have stomachs, they have, I dunno, specialised cell groupings that secrete a 'digestive' chemical that extracts nutrients from any external piece of whatever that happens to float by. This is not a "chicken/egg" problem, so stop coming at it from that angle. As for those 999,999 generations of nonworking "stomachs": that took a whole 2 or 3 days of debugging in a pond somewhere to get the right one, way back 600 million yrs ago. After that it was just code tweaking.

What is it with people and evolution, that they can't imagine some slimy chemical mud that has "intent" - in so far as it gravitates toward another chemical gradient (food) - being alive?

Imagine Q or Rod Serling standing next to a small puddle explaining this to you OK? Here we have a pool of chemical x that naturally moves towards chemical y. In a few moments, this chemical soup will undergo a common reaction involving common chemicals. It will become "alive". It will contain a few simple organic compounds that, given some quiet time to themselves, will intermingle and maybe even begin to replicate - the ablity to harvest nearby chemical compounds and assemble them in a *near* mirror image. Hell some of those compunds can be from other "proto-organisms" and we already have predator and prey evolving. Neat huh?

Asking how stomachs and eyeballs formed while imagining them as real functioning eyeballs and assholes is like asking how you get a fully formed modern man equipped with a cell-phone -- from a club-swinging neanderthal. You don't. Because the neanderthal never picked up a club with the express purpose of building a cell-phone. If he did, he would have quickly found that he was without the proper environment to create one, let alone NEED one.

So too, did early life not set out to outfit itself with a stomach, but instead went for the more practical "I just found a new way to eat my food by actively enveloping it instead of passively absorbing it from my environment -- COOL"

what follows sounds like a linux bash but i cant be bothered to clean it up, take what you want. I'm getting tired....
And your comp sci analogy doesnt work either, as building the Linux kernel that way is akin in biological complexity to building a chamaeleon or something from scratch. Try creating a kernel that can "eat", "defend" and "replicate"(sounds like windoze). Your Linux/chaemaleon is wasting time trying to be 10 different species/server tasks. Whereas a flatworm just does what it needs to divide and move on. Maybe you should write the comp sci equiv of a flatworm (haha windoze again), then maybe your flatworm kernel will be able to withstand random mutations?

Re:Honesty - not!

[(void*)]

The problem is that creationism in the US is a political movement. Sure they may make a few valid points here and there, but their whole motivation is to discredit evolution, and advance their own social and political agendas. They aren't interested in science or the truth. Addressing their one or two valid criticisms can only take place in to an audience receptive to the it, and not to zealots who aren't interested.

This is the only real way to respond to mobs. Appeal to reason when one is strong, so that the reasonable people in the mob can defect.

In the end, it is reason that should rule, and that's all that matters.

Re:Troubling - So explain this...

[Black Perl]

So explain Psychology,

I see your point. God MUST have created us, because of Psychology!

you conscious (if you have one),

You either mean consciousness (self-awareness), which other animals have been shown to have; or conscience, (awareness of right vs. wrong), which is part of abstract reasoning which does indeed make humans unique. I'll give you that, even though some researchers believe otherwise. But your argument wasn't that humans were unique, was it?

human compassion

Define compassion. Some humans have it, some don't. Will humans ever be able to live more peacefully than, say, deer? I doubt it, but one can only hope.

why we can talk,

Hmm. This is one of the arguments used to bolster evolutionary theory.

why we have a great capability to learn and a drive to achieve...

Because it increased our chances of survival in ancient times?


But you say, oh apes can talk and can learn, and have compassion. And I say, you are correct, so can my dog. But neither has made any great advancements in scientific research lately

You mean like the research you are currently discounting out of hand?

and my dog likes to go pee on my fence on regular basis.

Um, my arguments end here.

-bp

Re:Troubling

[Coppit]

Doesn't it seem that these scientists are going out of their way to discredit creationists? While the real bible-toting creationists constantly rail about the godlessness of science and the inherent evil they see in the theory of evolution, I always thought that the scientific view would be to let the results of solid research speak for themselves. A thinking person would be able to decide for himself what to make of the whole debate.

You forget one important thing: Creationists don't do battle in the scientific literature. Instead, they turn evolution into a strawman, which they then attack in a political way. Since what (almost) happened in Kansas, I think that scientists are beginning to realize that they must find in the political arena as well.

This seems to be way too over the top for my liking. Is it necessary to drag down opposing viewpoints while making your own best case?

Also remember that this is a press release which may have been spun a bit. If you read the paper online, you'll see that there's no mention of creationists.

Certainly, creationists feel that way about what science has shown us since the days of Darwin. Is it necessary to stoop to the same tactics?

You mean Galileo, right? Let's not forget what happened in that case. As long as Creationists rely on people's prejudices and lack of knowledge to further their position, some degree of spinning is necessary if science wants to capture mindshare in the public

Science: The earth is round

Skeptic: That's ludicrous! How can people on the other side keep from falling off? How can they walk around on their hands?!

Science: People evolved from a common ancestor as Chimpanzees

Creationist: That's ludicrous! Why don't we see monkeys in classrooms? How does water evolve from ice?

By the way, I've actually had people raise those objections.

Re:You do live a sheltered life, don't you?

[Dragoness Eclectic]

I'd find Creationists a bit more convincing if they didn't have to resort to blatant misinformation in their arguments again and again. Half-truths and distortions do nothing more than convince me that some of these Creationists don't even believe their own propaganda, since they can't stick to the facts.

The whole argument is stupid, anyhow. It's based on a mistaken belief that one must cling to a questionable interpretation of the Bible as a matter of faith. Has anyone noticed that only Creationists tie Evolution, Geology, and Atheism together? Those who research Evolution do not insist that one must be an atheist if one believes that evolution rather than recent creation is a better explanation for the development of life on Earth. Those who teach and research modern geology do not insist that one must be an atheist if one believes that geologic processes rather than recent creation is a better explanation for the current geology of Earth.

However, since Creationists fallaciously tie acceptance of modern geology and evolutionary theory to disbelief that God created the Earth, and therefore disbelief in God (i.e., atheism), it has become a matter of faith to oppose evolutionary theory and modern geology as a false, atheistic (and thus, probably diabolic) doctrine by any and all means. If you don't believe me, go read articles and web sites by Creationists that are targetted toward Christians, as opposed to the general public.

To my mind, it is all very pointless because there is no contradiction between evolution and God; who are they to say how God created the universe and life? How can they know that evolution and geological processes are not just more tools in God's toolbox? They can't know, and they who presume to know how God created the universe or to put limits on the methods God used in creation are both small-minded and arrogant beyond belief!

To my mind, the power and grandeur of God is elevated, and not diminished by evolution and geology. To achieve His unknown goals, He started out at least 15 billion years ago with the Big Bang, and designed the entire process of star formation, planet formation, geological processes, evolution, etc! That's a lot bigger than POOF! The Earth was wished into existance a mere 6000-8000 years ago, complete with fake fossils and fake geology.

I wonder if Creationists are afraid of the power and knowledge of the God who created evolution and the Big Bang; I wonder if they want to cut Him down to a size they can comprehend?

Re:You do live a sheltered life, don't you?

[ZaMoose]

Interesting commentary, and I must say that I happen to believe that a "He spoke and it came into existence" does sound a heckuva lot like a "Big Bang".

However, the fact remains that many adherents to the Atheistic Faith (to say that, conclusively, there is no God takes just as much faith as the converse) seek to throw up Big Bang and Evolutionary arguments as proof of the non-existence of God.

I'm also of the opinion that adhering to the tenet that we are descended from Great Apes goes a long way towards reducing people's willingness to believe in the superiority of homo sapiens. I believe that God created us in His image (and the Bible says nothing of intermediary steps in the process) and so, to claim that there was an "open beta test" for hominids is fairly sacreligious, as it calls into question both God's intent and His competency as a Creator.

I'm a big fan of Don Behe's "irreducible complexity" theory (see Darwin's Black Book, ISBN: 0684834936), as it goes a long way towards highlighting the biochemical obstacles to macro-evolution).

Then again, you can always take the Douglass Adams tack: Creation itself is proof of a Divine Creator and since conclusive proof would obviate the need for Faith, Poof! He vanished in a puff of logic.

Man, I'm sorry he's (errrm, Adams, not God) dead. Would have been nice to see the 6th book in his 5-part trilogy completed before his death (instead of the old Tolkien-Unfinished-Works-style book that we'll be getting...)

Re:Evolution WILL happen

[OwnedByTwoCats]

The only way for a species to stop evolving is for it to go extinct.

Humanity continues to evolve. Every generation is a little bit different from the last.

The selection pressures have changed. The ability to resist bacterial infection isn't nearly as important as it used to be, because we have antibiotics (possibly only a little while longer...)

And the ability for ideas to pass from one group to another, one generation to another, is more important now. Look at the idea of "democracy"; at the dawn of the 20th century, there was much debate about its merits vis a vis other forms of government.

Re:evolution, creation

[Drizzten]

Isn't it funny how that bible states that the earth is round? and this was written in the bible when the earth was still considered to be flat.

Could you cite the scriptures this is in? And in any case, what's your point? It's not as if people couldn't observe the world around them and draw their own conclusions about Nature. For example, you can see the tops of a ship's sails before you see the rest of the vessel. Gazing out to the sea, you can observe a slight curve to the horizon. I hope you aren't implying that the Bible predicted or introduced the idea of a spherical world. If anything, the Church flat-out rejected the idea of a spherical planet for hundreds of years.

People are so gullable these days. Because some scientist somehere says something, everyone believes it, without question. Especially when he says something that supports evolution.

I'd say something nasty about religion here, but I won't. Let's just say that I think faith requires more gullibility than scientific reasoning. However, I do agree that when a scientist publishes a study, it generally gets more attention than some random Joe publishing one on his own. Of course, that's because science is more empirical and objective, something I don't believe religion is associated with much.

How can you predict what happend some 12 billion years ago? The weather is bearly accurate to more than one day, and yet evolutionists claim they know what was in the earths atmosphere billions of years ago.

Through evidence left behind and through an understanding of how things work now. Are you saying that our estimates of the sun's age are wrong? That we can't date rock? We can, with an ever-increasing degree of accuracy, uncover more and more detail about the past. Predicting the future is also becoming more and more accurate. Your example of the weather is pointless, because weather is about as chaotic and unpredictable as you can get. You will notice, though, that our predictions are...for the most part...accurate to the point where we can plan our schedules out to a week. That is, unless you live in Texas. ;)

People dont want to believe that there is a being somwhere in the heavens that is superior to them, a being that created them and the universe. This being is able to create the universe, and all that is in it, from giant starts, to microscopic life in six days.

Maybe some people can't fathom the notion that their religion may be wrong. Just a thought. ;)

Both are theories...

[cnelzie]

The same thing can be said for creationism. The same way that you refute the proof about evolution can be used to refute the proof of your religous beliefs. I can look at what you say is proof of creationsism and simply ignore it, just as you can look at proof of evolution and simply ignore it.

Both are built upon faith. They are just faith in diferent things. Although, I have to say that you are ignoring what it is to be a Christian, if that is your religion. Because, Christians follow the teachings of Christ.

Jesus, was known to consort with anyone and taught people to refrain from judging people. So, by judging the belief and people that have faith in evolution, you are going against the teachings of Jesus. You have no right to do that, you simply have no right to judge.

Only GOD could judge a person by their actions, you proclaiming otherwise puts you at odds with GOD. So, if you dislike the idea of evolution, simply do not believe in it. I am not judging you, simply stating the facts.

A real Chrisian would never judge a person, because that is what Jesus taught. I think he said something along the lines of, "Let he who has never sinned cast the first stone."

I am not a Christian, simply someone that my family is attempting to convert. I only know what information they feed me and that is one thing that they really stress to me.

--
.sig seperator
--

Re:Both are theories...

[Ivan Raikov]

The same way that you refute the proof about evolution can be used to refute the proof of your religous beliefs.

No, because science and religion are two different things -- there's the philosophy of scientific reasoning (outlined in Karl Popper's works), and there's religious faith. People who mix science with religion or religion with science are equally wrong.

Both are built upon faith.

And that's precisely what's wrong with Darwin's theories. He observed certain phenomena in nature, and based on what he knew about artificial selection, he speculated that similar processes must occur naturally.

However, he didn't know and didn't have the means to discover the mechanisms underlying the hypothesized natural selection. That's why his theory is not scientific -- it's a pure speculation, but it doesn't provide mechanisms, which can be falsified experimentally -- something essential to modern science.

For example, if I declare that natural selection is governed by some process on molecular level, describe the process and design an experiment which shows whether my hypothesis is correct, I'd be following a perfectly scientific route of reasoning. But all this Darwinists are not doing. What they are doing is mixing science with their beliefs. And this is wrong, m'kay?

Re:Stereotypes on /.? Never....

[gdyas]

Intelligent conversation and discussion can only occur when you throw away all your stereotypes before stepping up to the table. Some
philosopher talked about this once, but basically, you are supposed to try your best to approach the situation without making any
assumption about the person/people with whom are you discussing, how it will benefit you, etc.

I believe quite the opposite. Because of science and its ability to give us solid facts, it's wrong to give all views equal credence at the starting line in a scientific discussion. Of course the idea appeals to us because most of us believe in democracy, equality, etc, and in a purely philosophical question like ideas of right & wrong, aesthetics, etc, you'd be in the right. Science, however, is by no means democratic, by which I mean that any idea MUST match known facts. Discussions on evolution are thus NOT philosophical in nature, because they seek to project facts to formulate an idea about the past. The theory being contested is that animals, including ourselves, developed over time through natural selection. Whether this is true, for a scientist, can only be demonstrated and proven with facts. Creationists OTOH choose to use science when it suits them and discard it when it contravenes their religious beliefs.

This leads me to another argument of yours, that creationists are in the majority. That may be so, but the facts do not rely upon consensus, only on veracity through experimentation. Also, the silly pretense that creationism isn't a religious belief is belied by the fact that it relies on a sort of de novo, deus ex machina placement of life on the planet by a higher power, an inherently religious phenomenon. One could argue in response as Richard Dawkins does, that the idea of the development of man over millenia from more basic organisms is infinitely more awe-inspiring than being plopped here by the almighty about 6000 years ago.

Creationism is to some worthy of ridicule, and understandably so. It's a relic of a time when humans looked up at the sky and thought the stars spoke to them, when we didn't understand why the ground shook or the sun turned dark in mid-day. While I don't agree with bashing people's religious beliefs, when they want to use those beliefs to create public policy, or mandate the passing of those beliefs on in schools, in science classes no less, it's only my duty as a scientist and someone true to simple fact to oppose such stupidity, here and anywhere else I see it.

This isn't what it claims to be

[wberry]

Bias Disclosure: I am a Christian and Biblical Creationist.

The article opener claims that this finding can explain how sea creatures could evolve into insects. That isn't what it explains at all.

... the scientists show how mutations in regulatory genes that guide the embryonic development of crustaceans and fruit flies allowed aquatic crustacean-like arthropods, with limbs on every segment of their bodies, to evolve 400 million years ago into a radically different body plan: the terrestrial six-legged insects.

So they change a key gene or two and the shrimp lose some legs. SO WHAT? As useful as this may prove to be for gene therapy and all, this does not explain away the Creationists' argument!

To my knowledge, no evolutionist claims that insects were the first land animals. An animal that can survive in a marine environment just cannot migrate to land, no matter how many legs it has.

To explain away the Creationists' argument, not only does a candidate mechanism such as this have to be found, but there must be a detailed explanation of which changes occurred, to which species, in what order, and how the resulting creatures could survive in either land or water.

The evolutionists still have a lot of work to do. If a shrimp loses legs and gills, and absorbs oxygen through the skin, can it still survive in water long enough to go ashore?

Whenever I get in a discussion with evolutionist types, they often respond with an attitude of over-skepticism. Stuff like, "I won't even consider this belief system without absolute proof!" Are those same people now criticizing Creationists for not bowing before this non-proof?

Now as for myself, I have very little knowledge of Biology (just high school level), but I'm no dummy. I know all about the black and white moths, and the drug-resistant bacteria, and the Galapagos finches, and all that. No one I know, Creationists included, doubts that variations occur over time. But I for one reserve the right to doubt an idea like evolution, that if true would completely invalidate my world-view, without more evidence than we currently have.

NOTE: I did not say that I have no doubts about Creationism. I have quite a few, not the least of which is the "Starlight & Time" problem. But that's another topic.

My point in summary: Lots of you Slashdot types love the stance of universal skepticism, but everybody believes something they can't prove. Evolution may be yours, or atheism, or astrology, but Creationism is mine.

Re:This isn't what it claims to be

[gdyas]

Excuse us scientists for only being able to get pieces of a 5-6 billion year-old puzzle. We're really doing the best we can. Here goes.

So they change a key gene or two and the shrimp lose some legs. SO WHAT? As useful as this may prove to be for gene therapy
and all, this does not explain away the Creationists' argument!

First, I don't see how making an animal lose a pair of limbs helps for gene therapy. That aside, nobody's claiming that this is the final piece of evidence, only that it's another nail in the creationist coffin. A common argument of theirs has been that entire organs & limbs can't simply appear or disappear through simple genetic changes. Well, genetically, scientists have made that happen, and showed that on that score creationists are wrong.

An animal that can survive in a marine environment
just cannot migrate to land, no matter how many legs it has.

Walruses. Penguins. Hermit crabs. Mudskippers. Etc. I know they're evolved (oops), but these are all animals that in their daily lives, apparently, do the impossible. With all these animals doing it every day, is it so impossible to believe that it might have happened at some point in the past, with or without legs? And who said legs were a requirement to move to land?

To explain away the Creationists' argument, not only does a candidate mechanism such as this have to be found, but there must be a
detailed explanation of which changes occurred, to which species, in what order, and how the resulting creatures could survive in
either land or water.

Glad to get down to brass tacks with you. The mechanism is natural selection, which we're constantly seeking to describe more thoroughly in our work. We're also seeking all the factual evidence we can to mount atop the mountains of it we already have. While it's difficult to reach through the millenia of the fossil record, we're working on it, based on facts, as we go along.

Now I'd like to require the same factual rigor of you. Please provide factual proof of a God's existence and his influence in placing living things on this planet. I want a candidate mechanism and a detailed explanation of what changes occurred and how. Again, we'd like facts and not bible quotations please.

The evolutionists still have a lot of work to do. If a shrimp loses legs and gills, and absorbs oxygen through the skin, can it still survive
in water long enough to go ashore?

This comment is pointless, as there's no reason a shrimp would have to either lose legs or gills to come ashore. There are gilled fish that can survive for a time ashore as well as gill-less marine mammals, as are there many legless and multilegged animals that can do so.

Are those same people now criticizing Creationists for not bowing before this
non-proof?

The difference is that our evidence is based on a preponderance of facts, developed through repeatable experiment, and leading us in a direction toward a theory that has withstood almost 150 years of scientific scrutiny, despite concerted effort from your camp. Yours is based on mythology, as written by a group of middle-eastern tribesmen under Roman rule between 100 & 500AD. Again, the extraordinary claim that we were placed here by a God requires the extraordinary proof of being provided evidence of God's existence and his influence in worldly affairs.

I have very little knowledge of Biology

This is possibly the most needless statement I've read on Slashdot ever. Congratulations.

I for one reserve the right to doubt an idea like evolution, that if true would completely invalidate
my world-view, without more evidence than we currently have.

We all have the right to persist in a comforting delusion, despite the facts. It's when creationists push for that delusion to be the basis of other's lives through law and forced creationist teaching in public schools that I get indignant.

Lots of you Slashdot types love the stance of universal skepticism, but everybody believes something they
can't prove. Evolution may be yours, or atheism, or astrology, but Creationism is mine.

Ah, yes. You forgot to say "I'm OK, you're OK".

Re:Creation vs. Evolution debate at my university

[osgeek]

I don't disagree with the basics of your statements. The Creationist's argument is mostly emotional, so he uses the tactics of throwing out numerous nice-sounding but false claims, in the hope of staying ahead of a rigorous analysis of those claims.

However, it's ironic that you still have this in your sig:

The court ruled it legal to fuck the voters by running out the clock, and demonstrated how to do it.

A rigorous analysis has shown that in some ways of counting votes, Bush won. In some ways of counting votes, Gore won. From a more neutral perspective, the Florida Supreme Sourt screwed up by not taking control of the process when they had the opportunity to create the perception of an honest vote count. Instead, they allowed numerous abuses by the counting methods of Democrat operatives to go unchallenged. So, the US Supreme Court kept them from allowing a legally conducted election to be overthrown by questionable vote-counting methods.

In the end, it was just a power struggle between two political parties, and had nothing to do with the voters getting "fucked".

Viewing it in some slanted light isn't about facts, it's about religion.

Being Scientific often means forgetting the fact that you have a horse in the race for a bit, and instead evaluating the evidence from a neutral perspective. It's the reason why Science has brought us so far in the past few hundred years, whereas Religion accomplished nothing of the sort in the hundred thousand years before the Scientific Method was even postulated.

Re:Troubling

[Kwil]

Bullshit. Belief always comes into it, unless you happen to have run all the tests yourself. Case in point, you believe that this "evidence" about evolution that you've heard is true and correct.

Creationists, on the other hand, believe it is misinterpreted, wrong, or outright lies.

Sooner or later, evolution, like *every* scientific theory, falls back to a set of core beliefs. For a long time, a core belief was everything was newtonian, and there was scads of evidence to prove it. Until we started getting the evidence that there was something more.

Please remember that it is still called "Evolutionary Theory", and that 99% of what science has proven, science has later proven to be wrong.

Does this make it any less true? Maybe not.. but to say belief never comes into it is simply not being critical enough -- which is the exact same mistake that people claim Creationists are making.

Re:Not "what evidence"

[Anonymous Coward]

atheism is the absence of belief in deities

Naw, atheism is the belief in absence of deities. The word itself could mean either, athe-ism or a-theism.

What is a theory?

[cnelzie]

A theory is an idea or belief that has been concocted by a scientist to explain a portion of the universe. Until this theory can be wholly proven or wholly disproved the scientist and others that believe in that matter have faith that they are correct.

The same can be said for people of religion. They have faith that what they believe in is the truth of existence. However, there is very little that can be proven. Many of the theories simply are untestable by our current levels of technological advancement. Does that mean that we will never be able to test religous theories? No, we may one day be able to test those theories and prove or disprove their truths.

The Pope himself has stated that evolution is a very good theory. He followed that up by saying that God started/created evolution. This was decreed by the Pope only a few years ago. Look it up, or choose to ignore that actual fact, like many Christians do.

Who is to say that the Pope is wrong? It is very possible that evolution was created by God, it is possible that evolution simply happened through ways we have yet to be able to fully explain. The major difference is that we have better prove of evolution than we do of God.

Once again, that does not mean that there is no God. It is just something that we currently are unable to prove or disprove. The faith in the existence of God is to great to simply dismiss. We just need sound methods or proving or disproving God's existence.

One way that would prove that God exists is for him/her/it to show up on international TV and simply say, "Hey, I am God. Check this out..." (Waves hands) "Here is a new species." Until then, people simply have to have faith that God exists. One day, we may have another method of proving whether or not God exists, right now that is all we can hope for.

Believing in something can be a strong thing and simply cannot be denied. Whether that is the theory of God or the theory of anything. Until it is proven to fully be truth and is more than simply words, all you can have is faith in what you believe.

I am not claiming either as being fully correct or fully incorrect, I am merely sharing my beliefs on these subjects.

--
.sig seperator
--

The big picture

[CgiJobs]

The preponderance of the evidence leads me to an obvious conclusion -- changes in individual living things occur from generation to generation. Enough time and changes occur, and you have this thing called evolution. In some ancient businesses, it's just called breeding.

There are very few "creationists" who would argue that evolution in the sense of adaptation or survival of the fittest does not occur. The big question is, can something as complex as a human being really evolve from a single celled creature in the mud, no matter how much time. I agree with PingXao in the sense that it has always seemed odd to me that evolutionary scientists get so bent out of shape by creationists. There is a lot of irony in that. Not to mention it is not very scientific.

Re:Evolution WILL happen

[Cato the Elder]

"So we will stop being wolves and start being domestic dogs."

We are already domesticated. A key indicator of domestication is neotany--retaining the characteristics of youth. The flatter human face with the bulging skull makes us look much more like babies, and also giver room for a larger brain. The human jaw is shrinking, and canines becoming much blunter than in ape. (Generally--mine look like a baboons, which is a real pain if I bite my lip)

"Intelligence creates material success, which is a prize factor for breeding."

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. People who are wealthier tend to have fewer children, later, than people who aren't. True, this is a cultural trend, and will probably reverse itself. Otherwise we'll end up in Kornbluth's world of the _Marching Morons_.

"Human beings will continue to become ... probably taller"

I could be wrong, but I don't think people are evolving to become taller. I believe that all the increases in height (fairly recent, and much to rapid to be evolutionary) are due to better diet. This is an environmental change allowing a fuller expression of genetic potential for height, not a genetic evolutionary change tht will be passed down to our descendents.

Don't show creationists cameras

[circletimessquare]

Wow.

All of this creationism hot air. But on Slashdot? Isn't this a technodweeb's paradise? A science geek's home?

Whenever a debate on evolution springs up on the net, does some appointed sentinel of the far right ring the clarion call of Christian Fundamentalism and call forth a vanguard of babbling halfwits running to the scene of the crime to proclaim The Truth?

I'm really sorry. Mod me troll, mod me flamebait. I know it is no good to throw a pail of water on the idea of commentary on a website devoted to comments. But this is Slashdot, isn't it? We believe in science and tech here, no?

Look, some guidelines for non-creationists, as I see it, for whatever it is worth:

Don't talk to them.

PLEASE! Don't take the bait! They only relate babbling pits of tomfoolery to your mind. You can not reason with them! Every pound of logical heft you hurl in their direction will be replied with immediately by 10 pounds of so much clangityclank of the brain that you will only be left dumbfounded by the psychology of it all. The point is to not engage them. Because engaging them will not allow their ideas to die the ignoble historical death their ideas deserve. The dustbin of history must not be disturbed, as it is already disturbed enough as it is. The more you try to persuade them to reason, the more you breathe life into a sinking ship. Your pleas for reason will only be replied with with flim flam.

They mean well, and that is their problem. But they can't get their brains past a bad idea. They must justify it, by any means possible. So the harder and harder you blow against them, the harder they hold their cloak of belief. Stop blowing, let time and solitude relax their grips on their insanity.

I hear some primitive tribespeople fear having their pictures taken because they think the camera steals a bit of their soul. So if they don't see a camera, they don't get excited. And when their backwards beliefs are not challenged, they live peaceful, harmless lives. In other words, don't show creationists cameras. Get it?

After all, Al Qaeda is nothing more than a Muslim Fundamentalist backlash against the "decadent West." New ideas are dangerous. Progress is disturbing to some people. Some do not accept new, and better ideas. They instead cling to old, crazy ones and get very defensive about it. They frame it in absolutes, that evolution goes against God, for example. Evolution does not go against God. Science is not allied against religion. Any forward-thinking religious person can incorporate evolution into their world-view without evolution challenging their beliefs. It will, in fact, enrich their understanding of the world, deepen the mystery of life by making more clear the complexity of it all, and therefore, eventually, reaffirm their belief in God. But all of this assumes an open mind. Unfortunately, there are a lot of closed ones.

Don't show creationists cameras!

Leave them to their strange ways. Left in peaceful backwards isolation, they will eventually go the way of the Dodo, no irony intended. Right now their numbers are too large and the voraciousness of their passion too disturbing in the USA to be considered harmless. They are quite harmful, to the education and intelligence of all of our children. Give it time, many years, and they will fade away into history. Someday, decades from now, creationism will sound almost cute and harmless, like we laugh at the Spanish Inquisition in Monty Python skits.

Until then, they are just a massive pain in the ass. Please, ignore them! Here on Slashdot, and in the rest of your life. Your intentions are good in trying to challenge them in honest debate, but please, just walk away from them. There is no winning, just lots of hot air for you to inhale. ;-P

But...

[kosh_003]

What are the chances of two such mutations happening in a complex organism that needs another organism to reproduce? NOT GOOD!

Re:Two versions of Evolution

[JAZDaddy]

Good points, AC, though the question of the "science-ness" of a subject is a matter of the approach -- the methodology used to analyze the evidence -- rather than an arbitrary standard made simply because one position finds its roots in religious thought while the other presupposes that no non-natural causes can ever lead to observed effects. I do, however, believe that in the realm of scientific study, we must be careful not to simply leap to the conclusion of divine intervention. But we must also not invent constructs and call them factual if they are not supported by the evidence. What is called for here is a standard of intellectual honesty to which all sides in this discussion must adhere.

What I think we should see in schools, personally, is a class (or course unit) devoted to teaching the basics of logic and scientific reasoning. After these skills are mastered, then follow with an open and honest evaluation of the extant evidence related to origins (fossil evidence, geology, anthropology, basic genetics, the basics of microbiology and biochemistry, etc.). The presentation should highlight what is solid about the evidence, what isn't, and how this relates to the theory of evolution and the here-termed "creation hypothesis" (and other mediating positions), either positively or negatively. Giving students the tools to think in clear terms about the matter rather than being spoon-fed one idea or the other would both put the discussion back squarely on the data and how to interpret it and help kids learn to apply good logic to other areas in their lives.

After all, shouldn't our public schools focus on teaching how to think instead of what to think?

Re:Well done lads, collective pat on the back

[Wavicle]

Except, of course, for Newton's laws, which have been around for 300 years.

Um, you do know that Newton's laws aren't quite right, right? They are only a good approximation at low speed and manageable mass.

Incorrect. Survival of the fittest is a speculation made by Charles Darwin. He does not propose a way to disprove his statement.

For starters it was a speculation popularized by Darwin. And if you cannot think of a way to disprove his statements, you are in serious need of a basic science course. Science doesn't require you to publish how something can be shown false, only that an educated person can.

Gravity is a phenomenon initially observed by human beings on the planet Earth

What a coincidence! Evolution is a phenomenon that was also initially observed by human beings on the planet Earth!