Slashdot Mirror
Predicting Evolution: A Beginner's Model
Silance writes "According to ScienceDaily , Scientists have developed a method of accelerating evolution in the lab that accurately mimics natural evolution. Drug-resistant E.coli strains from the 1940's that were subjected to the evolutionary speed-up process indeed followed the same evolutionary path as their natural bretheren. It is believed that the process could be used to predict the future monkey-wrenches that evolution might lob our way. Neat-o!"
Then we can have viruses and plagues that are more evolved than us.
I also wonder what evolution we would have "naturally" gone through.
) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
With every paper like this one, the case for evolution gets stronger (not that it needed it), whereas the pesudoscientists falls apart (not that it hasn't already).
Warning: Some ideologies on the Net are smaller than they appear.
Notes:
:)
:)
1. I have to rant about Darwinism only pertaining to microevolution. There's not been much evidence where ecological diversity (large scale speciation) is caused by Darwinism. In fact, Stephen J. Gould's punctuated equilibrium theory breaks neo-Darwinism as the principle mechanism for macroevolution.
2. This sort of discovery however, is interesting in that this sort of technique can be termed 2nd order GM. Where GM as we normally see it is usually mimicking rapid breeding by horizontal gene transfer instead of waiting for the organism to acquire them through generational breeding, this discovery allows us to use the patterns developed from accelerated breeding (or GM) to create new things.
3. "In the quest to create the cure-all of the 21st century, a nemesis was created" MI:2 anyone?
4. "Unknown to the public and even its employees, the Umbrella corporation primarily conducts research for the military in areas such as genetic engineering and viral warfare...." ResEvil anyone?
but which is the more perfect God?
The One who builds a grand machine starts it running and enjoys the show?
Or the One who continually needs to tune it up?
Did God create the universe? Is solely a question of of religion. How does the universe work? Is the domain of science, but most importantly, not answered by the first question. A fact lost on most creationists.
sadistic.
"You can introduce a lot of mutations in the lab," explains Hall. "In effect, you can take millions of copies of this gene and give each one a different mutation." Those mutated genes are introduced back into the cells, "and then you ask, can you grow on lactose now?"
So basically you screw 'em up somehow and then torture them. I know that they're just microbes but it still... if you prick them do they not bleed? The process is still, "Ooh, you still alive, *zap* how 'bout now? Still kickin'? *zap* how 'bout now? Nope? *zap* how 'bout now?" Perhaps I have too much imagination but just picture this with fuzzy animals... not funny "ha ha" funny strange.
[signature]
I'm not sure if this source is accurate, but if the e-coli bacterium has more than 4 million base pairs... damn, isn't that a lot of combinations? a lot of possibilities for mutatiions? How can you simulate such mutations if each mutation occurs within the next day (maybe even hours) or so??? I don't know where my logic failed, but this seems to me as an awful lot of computation and experimenting if you want to look at the development over a period of 40 years...
i reccon that must amount to at least 40*365.25=15 thousand reproductions, multiply this with 4*3 million if you want to change (not cut one out, add one or anything) just 1 base pair per reproduction and it starts to become a mind boggling big project.
And sure, there are a lot of paths that won't result in viable bacteria, but still..
can someone tell me how they do this and where my calculations go wrong?
else it is a very interesting idea, researching all possibililities... i wonder when we will be able to do this with human genes... just to find out what kind of creatures may evolve from our genome in due time.
"We live in our minds, and existance is the attempt to bring that life into physical reality" Ayn Rand
Check out the article on artificial societies from the current (April 2002) issue of Atlantic Monthly. I was thinking of submitting it to Slashdot anyway, but it particularly relates to this discussion too. The header blurb is:
The article goes on to discuss many applications of this technique. None of them are specifically about genetic evolution, though one does analyze the settlement patterns of a pre-Columbian society in the American southwest, and the computed simulation, given information about climate patterns and so on, does roughly mimic what the archaeological record suggests really happened to the Anasazi.
The interesting thing is that the simulations, including this one, are really not much more sophisticated than Conway's famous "life" AI experiments -- they take a couple of crude populations and set up trivial rules, and then run with them until a pattern emerges. In spite of how crude these simulations are, the parallels to the observed world can be striking, suggesting that such simulations can be used to understand evolution, historical trends, racism, genocide, economics, etc.
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
We all know that micro evolution occurs, quite often sometimes.... No debate there. However... as for macro evolution, thats a completely different story.
"...Evolutionists don't want the weaknesses of evolutionary theory to be known to the public. In fact the negative effects of engaging in a debate with a Creation Scientist is so bad that evolutionist, Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education, Berkeley, California, says, "Avoid Debates. If your local campus Christian fellowship asks you to 'defend evolution,' please decline....you probably will get beaten"
Don't get me wrong, creationists' theory seem a little strange... but I still find the lack of evidence for macro evolution quite compelling.
Just my $0.02
# fuser -v
#
an E.Coli evolves into say, a cat, I don't see how this proves anything. BC
Natural selection is obvious, it's visible to all. And micro-evolution is the clear outcome of it, things like antibiotic resistance. But in most cases that's due to a loss of genetic information. Think about it - if you have your limbs removed you're resistant to handcuffs. But you lost something to achieve that.
That's why once the antibiotic is removed the population drifts back to the norm - the un-selected bacteria are more fit, have more diversity to draw on, in other situations..
Yet another headline that is a bit over the top
Got Wisdom?
An ostrich with its head in the sand can find nothing that contradicts its belief that the sky tastes like dirt.
isn't evolution dependent upon what can survive..therefore unless it is all pre-determined this experiment is bs..no way they can make more evolved stuff because the way things evolve depends upon thier surroundings..so unless u get a time machine and send these things into the future, then bring then up to date this is usless..
The Truth: There is no string:)
Actually, it's not a BS experiment. If you can see how bacteria can evolve around potential treatments for them, you can see how long they will be suceptable to the treatment, and by what evolved mechanism they are able to survive. You could then use that information to develope a drug that delivers an initial punch while also preventing the predicted evolutionary escape route.
If two previously interfertile strains lost the ability to interbreed, then that's a LOSS of genetic information - not a gain. It's a feature only in the sense that a blue screen of death is a feature.
They are all still fruit flies. They just diverged in the way their mutational losses accumulated to the point where they have less diversity and less ability to cope with new environments and situations. This is the pathway to extinction, not growth.
So from the bit of information you mentioned, it's clear that there is no genuine new species; just a new sub-species. We're not seeing some new ability or anything, just a less capable branch.
Or to put it more succinctly, they are all still the same kind. This is how so many "species" were on the ark - actually there were less varieties in those days (zebra/horse/donkey were probably one, wolf/coyote/dog/dingo as well).
Even the Pope who I disagree with on a lot of things accepts eveolution. Or do Catholics not count as Christians?
Can we use this to find out new information about the human race? Obviously the technology can only operate on bacteria right now, but can it be adapted to work on organisms? We could see how long it would take for monkeys or dolphins to gain sentience; we could see how long it takes for pigs to be able to fly :) ; we could see how long it takes for humans to be able to fly, or have some kind of telepathic powers. That could really bring some ethics questions into the equation...
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
Ah, the broad acceptance and tolerance of diverse viewpoints you exhibit in your brief post warm the center of my being:
/. was for ppl w/ at least *slightly* higher intelect than most..get the fuck out of here you moronic creationist.."
"i thought
When was the last time you really looked in to the facts instead of reciting a mantra of unreasoning hatred?
Go read Ham, Morris, Gentry, Dawkins, Gould, Behe, Humphreys, Wells, Sarfati, Woodmorappe etc. and open your mind just a tiny bit. You could really learn something and perhaps even make a reasoned, factual, intellectual comment next time.
True, the answer to the second question does not necessarily follow from that to the first, but this is not the sole argument of the creationists. IANAC (well, actually I am, but not in the way they are), but I'm pretty sure they would quote a scripture or two to support their views of how the universe works beyond "b'reishit bara elohim et ha'shamiim v'et ha'aretz" (--'cause if you're not going to cite His words the way He said them, your citation can't be taken for Gospel). Let us take the example of Adam as representative: that God created the universe does not mean that He took from the earth and molded Adam, breathing into him; we need another line of scripture to show that. Creationists would argue that we have that line, and thus is the root of their belief.
~~~~~~
under-paid karma whore
It seems the citations you offer, particularly about Gentry, are quite easily refuted if you just look into the source material.
/. comment.
First, you claim that Gentry has never published a rebuttal. That is an inaccurate claim. He did not publish in the same journal as the source materials for his refutation, the same journal as published Odom and Rink, Science.
If you read Gentry's book, you can see (pages 327-330) the letters from Science where they refused to publish either of rebuttal papers Gentry offered to Odom and Rink's 1989 paper, despite the fact that the rebuttal was based on papers previously published in Science. The anti-creationist bias in their refusals is clear.
Gentry's answer, which was refused publication for clearly specious reasons, was based on his 1968, 1971, and 1974 papers in the exact same journal. He had already foreseen that counterpoint and had experimentally disproven it. Of course when the originating journal (Science) refused to allow him to answer, he chose to publish in an alternative. The answer had to be made - it was certainly not his choice to do it in an alternate.
In addition Odom's letter to Gentry (which you can also read in Gentry's book), dated 10/27/89, clearly states that he did not have a Po halo. Odom additionally mentions that he has only two Al halos. So you're basing your counter-argument to Gentry's decades of exhaustive research on the interpretations of someone who has not even observed what Gentry's research is all about! That is far from, to use your word, Gentry's theory being "supplanted". If you are open to investigating this for yourself, I suggest you read Gentry's articles or his book for yourself, don't rely on the summaries done by others such as the link you provided.
Why did Science refuse to allow the rebuttal to be made in their pages (they as a rule do allow an author to answer a counter-paper)? Can you say "bias"??? When Gentry wrote in Science and Nature in the 60s through early 80s, he did not advertise his data as supporting a creationist view. Once he started to do so, the journals started shutting him out.
Your statement that you weren't attacking him personally, but then including a link to a site which does so, does raise some issues, left as an exercise for the reader to interpret.
As to excess He (not hydrogen as you stated), the issue again is thoroughly dealt with in Gentry's published research. It was published in Geophysical Research Letters, Vol 9, No. 10, Pages 1129-1130, October 1982, and was co-written with Glish and McBay, scientists at the analytical chemistry division of ORNL. A paper was also published in Science about it. Your bold assertion that he did no more that show the levels were "just right" for evolution doesn't make it so; the amount of He in deep zircons is far higher than billions of years allow. Again I suggest you read the original papers.
Now to K-Ar dating. Let's just ignore the seabed case - there are still the Mt. St. Helens and the Mt. Etna data to look at. Those two provide hard evidence that in at least those two cases that K-Ar does not work as a reliable dating method when the age of the rock is known. I'm sure lots of theories could be advanced as to why (and may have been), but the bottom line has to be: when the age of a rock is known, the results aren't what was predicted. So why then accept the results when the age is unknown? What unforeseen events could make dating anything else with K-Ar magically more accurate?
I find it so interesting to see you cite index fossils as proof of radiometric dating. Particularly since if you ask geologists, you'll usually get an answer that dating is done in a layer by looking at the fossils. Then ask a biologist and he/she will tell you that the dating is done by the rocks in the strata. Round and round we go, where we stop, nobody knows - circular reasoning, anyone?
As for the U-Pb, Ru-Sr, and isochron dating methods, if you are really interested, I suggest the book "Mythology of Modern Dating Methods". It's a ponderous read, but does a far better job of addressing your concerns than I could ever do in a
So I stand by my comment that it takes more faith to believe in radiometric dating, index fossils determining age, and billions of years than it does to accept the hard, unrefuted evidence of things like Po halos and admit the earth is young, not old. Believing something in the face of contrary facts, such as thinking that K-Ar is reliable as a dating method, has to take a huge amount of faith. I don't say there's anything wrong with faith; I just wish it would be admitted that evolutionism is as much a religious viewpoint (look at the vehemence of its defenders!) as creationism.
May you be as happy in your faith as I am in mine.
Got Wisdom?
As far as i can see, this has nothing to do with real evolution. You can compare it with lifestock: if you select ie cows for reproduction on the amount of milk produced per individual, you can say that the physiology of the offspring favors a high milk-yield somehow. The somehow consists of a slightly different gene somehow influencing milk production. For Antibiotics its even easier. For many of them, the effect on the microbe is known, degrading specific cell wall proteins for instance. It's not hard to conclude where the 'evolution' should take place to overcome the antibiotics effect.. To predict the exact location of a mutation to have effect is a little bit more difficult, but because most antibiotics have been studied extensively, the exact place shouldn't be too hard to find.
Conclusion: yes, it's a sort of evolution predicted, but it doesn't shed any light on predicting 'normal' evolution. That's a random process resulting in possible advantages spanning (thousands of) years, not an overnight process to overcome a factor that, until now, wasn't limiting for the survival of the species at all.
The important issue here is that pharmacologists have ways now to predict certain strategies by microbes to overcome the potential danger of an antibiotic.
You do not exist. Go away.
The kooky literalists aren't the ones who pain me. They've lost, they've been voted out of the mainstream and may recieve their consolation prizes in the event of a Jehova approved Armaggedon.
:)
Personally, I have a little bit more of a problem with the "intelligent design" brand of kook. It's pretty clear their only motivation is to wedge their God into other people lives under the guise of empirical truth. Funny how similar people legislated God into the pledge of allegiance in a naive and embarisingly futile attempt to push back the clock to a Ward Cleaver ideal that never really existed. Maybe such pledges for children too young to understand them are the fine line between nationalism and fascism. Maybe it's even a good thing that people who invested too much faith in a magic guy in the sky, rather than personal responsability, added those little words that didn't belong and got it kicked out of schools. Although, perhaps not all. But I think there is some value giving kids a sense of national identity. These are the people affecting change. And never for the better. The people trying to find Noah's Ark, they might make the news, but never a difference, and as such, they're pretty harmless.
I would bet that every state has its properly apportioned share of state representatives that are trying to get a mandatory intelligent design curriculum state wide. Enough time is wasted in our schools as it is. We don't need to be inventing worthless garbage that will be competing with the little bit of useful information our educational system disseminates.
In short I find the AC +2 insightful as well
And at least you're a professional karma whore, I'm still an unranked amature.
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
Natural selection is obvious, it's visible to all. And micro-evolution is the clear outcome of it, things like antibiotic resistance. But in most cases that's due to a loss of genetic information. Think about it - if you have your limbs removed you're resistant to handcuffs. But you lost something to achieve that.
There is no fundamental difference between micro- and macro- evolution. Since we are into analogies, believing in microevolution but not macroevolution, is like saying 1 + 1 = 2, but 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 doesn't equal 5.
That's why once the antibiotic is removed the population drifts back to the norm - the un-selected bacteria are more fit, have more diversity to draw on, in other situations..
Likewise any population which has a evolution pressure removed, will no longer evolve in response to the pressure. Quite elementary, and hardly a critism of evolution.
Yet another headline that is a bit over the top
Given that evolution is the action of natural selection on random mutation, antibiotic resistance in bacteria, is a excellent example of it.
Warning: Some ideologies on the Net are smaller than they appear.
The bare minium requirments of a scientific publication are too differcult for Gentry to achieve so his going to take his toys and go home.
To which I can only add; don't forget to shut the door on your way out.
Warning: Some ideologies on the Net are smaller than they appear.
Addition is addition; changing the terms only shows that it is symbolic in nature. Wrangling words to make micro-evolution the same as macro-evolution is not going to happen just because that's the orthodox, establishment viewpoint. One is easily observed, the other is speculation. One is easily proven, the other is not. Selective breeding in dogs makes it pretty unlikely that a Chihuahua will interbreed with a Great Dane, although it is biologically possible, it's not awfully realistic. Both breeds have lost some genetic information to get into that situation.
But that is not evolution; it's a loss of genetic diversity and information that happened.
Got Wisdom?
Please explain what the fundamental difference between macro- and micro- evolution?
Macroevolution is simply micro- evolution with a bit more time.
One is easily proven, the other is not.
Wrong. Both are easily proven to the satifisation of the scientific community. It's just that one is harder for pseudoscientists to deny.
Warning: Some ideologies on the Net are smaller than they appear.
Proven because it's the establishment, orthodox position?
A proven scientific theorem, which it appears you are claiming macro-evolution is, has by convention a requirement that it provide not only predictions of outcomes of repeatable experiments, but also a parameter or set of parameters by which it could be falsified. For example, Einstein stated in his relativity papers that if light were not bent by gravity, that his theory would be shown false. But of course the eclipse of the sun showed that light was bent by gravity.
So what are the repeatable experiments you can cite for macro-evolution?
What are the falsifiablility criteria?
Got Wisdom?
Evolution is not pre-programmed, at least not according to the commonly held theory. The claims at the top of the page would require this to be so and would be a huge leap in evolution theory---a leap down the drainpipe disproving it. Evolution represent adaptation to the environment by individuals based on random mutation, pre-programming would be a sure indicator of a Grand Plan.
I suggest the poster misunderstood the article.
So what are the repeatable experiments you can cite for macro-evolution?
Given that macro- evolution is evolutin above the species level, all that I need to show are experiments which have been repeated which show speciation events. You could try Newton and Pellew (Genetics, 1929, 20:405-467) or perhaps Rice and Salt (Evolution, 1990, 44:1140-1152).
What are the falsifiablility criteria?
* Had DNA studies not found close relationships between humans and great apes, with these relationships falling off with a greater age of common ancestors, it would have been falsified.
* Likewise for other related species.
* A lack of vestigial structures would harm the theory of evolution.
* If human biochemistry was substantial different to the biochemistry of other animals (in particular, the great apes), evolution would come a cropper.
* If evolution failed to explain modern biochemisty, then likewise evolution would fall apart.
* If young fossils (by this, I mean species that were thought to have evolved recently) were found in old rocks without a logical means of them getting there, then evolution would be falsified.
* If the dominant theory had of inheritance in Darwin's time stood the test of time (ie. no Mendel), then Darwin's theory of evolution (not evolution itself) would run into trouble.
* Evidence for a young earth wouldn't falsify Darwin's theory (it could still occur, but just hasn't been given the time to interact in a meaningful way.
* If a series of proto-human's fossils hadn't been found, the theory of evolution would have to be considerable revised to account for the lack of fossils.
* If the rate of genetic change observed in the lab was less than what it appears to be in the fossil record, then evolution would be wrong.
* If the creationist misintrepetation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics was correct, then evolution, along with life would be falsified.
Can you do the same for creationism? That is provide references to repeatable experiments and falsifiable criteria?
Warning: Some ideologies on the Net are smaller than they appear.
first off I saw a couple different conversations pop off from the original about a e.coli lab culturing/testing. Religion was one that I don't see how it got tied in. I guess some people equate evolution as anti judeochristian when really religion is a tool to explain things which cannot be explained or a replacement to that part of blind faith. Humans and human thought are based upon logic noone I know personally can explain the roots to human your and mine or just my existance which always leaves the door open for people that want religion. It is faith just like science nothing is 100% provable except for the selfs existance no matter what.(other than some human logics but that is dependant on social concepts that are just confusing but still denialble and improvable due to lack of solid base i.e. logic concepts such as math and language... iconical thought blah blah blah)anywho that was one thing I saw from the evolution stem just wondering isn't evololution the result of phyisical and psychological enviroments.. aswell as social stems from thost physical and psychological enviroments... if this is so wouldn't you have to reproduce the effects and affects of these conditions.. since the future is for the most part inpradictable? (more so as able as past is known)then wouldn't the ability to map future such happenings be imposible or atleast improvable unless of course we can map the state of timespace at several points and find a pattern. So with the bacteria having the physical changes mapped ... is it posible to map more complex species or have other baterial cultures been tested aswell or is this one a fluke that under all conditions supporting survival it will have the same changes. Well I got bored of writing and its getting late hopefully someone found something in this productive. Anyway I think its neat that they recorded the state of bacteria back then down to a cell makeup level... maybe they made e. coli back then to set up the argument today...... someone also said something about maybe everything was designed or something like that.. the whole creationistic thing... duh! take a look in the mirror either yur mind or someone else..(ultimately your mind)made you...! funnel it back as far as it goes or till your head hurts and hopefully you'll either relize I don't want to take responsibility for this or you'll relize I think there for I am regardless you and I are both here just like the rest of the world I'm going to bed...
hmm sooner
DNA studies are really fascinating. You cite them as evidence, but counter-examples are rife. If you would like I can produce them (I'm not where I can get them at the moment). Amusing things like humans are closer to flowers in some things than to apes. And there are cases of similar homology (forearms/forelegs) that look quite closely related that are actually on completely different genes in different species.
Vestigial structures - yes a lack of them does harm the theory of evolution. Did you know that 186 vestigial structures were thought to be in the human body in the late 1800's - and that every one of them has now been shown to have a significant role in life. The appendix, for example, the classic case cited by evolutionists in time past, is now known to be a major help to the immune system. Yes you can live without it, but you can also live without your eyes. Doesn't mean they're not real useful.
Of course biochemistry is compatible across species - if it weren't, we couldn't all eat the same foods, live in the same world, breath the same air.
As to fossils - how about frozen, unfossilized dinosaur bones? They should not exist, millions of years or not. Yet they do, in Alaska and Siberia.
I think you may be mixing neo-Darwinian (Mendelian genetics mixed with natural selection) with pure Darwinism. I can't parse the rest of your statement about Darwin; could you rephrase?
True, neo-Darwinism could indeed still work with a young earth, point well taken. However nothing much would have happened in the short time frame, so it wouldn't matter a whole lot.
Proto-humans. Ignoring the mass amounts of fakes (Piltdown, Nebraska, Java, etc.), we get to things like Neandertals. Did you know that they are just heavily arthritic, very old people? An orthodondist examined the fossils and found that their maxillofacial development is just an extended version of what happens to us now. Kind of like humans that lived to be hundreds of years old. Not proven but interesting.
The rate of genetic change in the lab is, sadly for evolution, only in the negative direction. No new organs, enzymes, or structures have come forth - only damaged genes.
I don't hold to the second law of thermo way of saying evolution doesn't happen, I personally think that's a weak argument. I don't disagree with you on that.
Realize one thing please - I don't ask you to believe in creationism; I just ask that you consider that evolution is broken as a theory. Something better needs to replace it. Time to move on and admit it's over. Science has done that in the past, always after a long period of denial. It was 50 years after the speed of light was measured as roughly correct (by timing Io's eclipsing around Jupiter) before it was accepted. If something as easily repeated as that took that long, then evolution will take longer I fear.
Got Wisdom?
Could you please produce evidence (peer reviewed, of course) for these claims.
You seem to be using a whole heap of selective evidence. Perhaps you show check out this post from talk origins, from a ex-creationist on his use of selective evidence.
For example, your paragraph on proto-humans is extremely misleading. You when you ignore the fakes (incidently both Java and Nebraska men weren't fakes), you don't get to Neandertals. The source of your information is being highly dishonest. Perhaps you are unaware of Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis, Kenyanthropus platyops, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus garhi, Australopithecus aethiopicus, Australopithecus robustus, Australopithecus boisei, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, Homo antecessor, and Homo heidelbergensis. For a very good reference source check out this page. As for your orthodondist (could you also please supply a citation to his peer reviewed report), my girlfriend has studied archeology and biology under both Colin Groves (very famous evolutionary biologist) and Alan Thorne (discoverer of the Mungo Man), and from her, I am well aware that the researchers take into account bone diseases. Plus your claim that Neandertals are just heavily arthritic old people is proved false by mitochondria DNA studies, which show them to be very far removed genetically removed from "mainstream" humanity (Check out here and here, as well as Krings M., Capelli C., Tschentscher F., Geisert H., Meyer S., von Haeseler A. et al (Nature Genetics, 2000, 26:144-6) for more information).
Your other points are just as weak as the human evolution one detailed above. If you want, I can go into detail on them.
As for rephrasing the Medal and Darwin comments; when Darwin first proposed his theory, the common held view about genetics (that traits where blended, ie, the child of a small person and a tall person would be of a medium height) provide a theoretical barrier to evolution (at least of the theoretical model of evolution provided by Darwin), this lead to the Darwin's predicting that the genetics was wrong. The answer to this problem came from Medel's work on peas, while this was done in Darwin's time, it was largely unknown (ironically, Darwin had a large book on genetics which included Medel's work, but never made the connection between Medel's peas and his own theoretical problem). This problem was solved by a variety of researchers who combined Darwin's theory with Mendel's, the synthesis of the two being call neodarwinism, which is the currently accepted view of how evolution occurs.
Warning: Some ideologies on the Net are smaller than they appear.
Oh please, this has gone on far enough. Nebraska man was a figment; starting from a tooth an entire fantasy was concocted. Only it turned out it was an extinct pig's tooth. Even your favorite site admits that. If you're going to be that sloppy, it's not worthwhile to continue this.
If you're going to continue, let's get back to Gentry, the topic that started this thread. Otherwise it's not going to get anywhere.
Got Wisdom?
Wow, completely ignoring my post... Morton's demon seems to be in more than one place.
Nebraska man was a misintrepreted bone. You stated that it was a fake. This is totally incorrect.
If your going to dismiss reality because it doens't fit with your worldview, that nice, but I've never lost so much respect for a person so fast. I agree, there is no point carrying on these posts. Have a good day.
Warning: Some ideologies on the Net are smaller than they appear.
Though this looks like a great experiment with a lot of potential benefit, I hesitate (I do hesitate because I really don't want to give the "wrong people" the idea) to mention that this technology could be used to develop antibiotic-resistant bacteria by terrorists, probably tuberculosis. The technology, from all accounts seems rather simple. Am I an unthinking total schmuck for mentioning this concern in a public forum? I hope not. I hope it can be more of a warning than advice to terrorists. BTW, if anybody is in the security community, please keep this possibility in mind.