Slashdot Mirror
Ready, Steady, Evolve
Stront writes "New Scientist is reporting that plants and animals can 'bottle up' evolution until they need it. A certain protein 'hides away' mutated genes acting like a genetic valet, however in extreme environments, such as high temperature or noxious chemicals, the cleaning process breaks down and the mutations are released all at once. This goes some way to explaining examples that are considered to defy standard evolutionary theory, such as the Bombardier Beetle."
You can't "defy" a theory. That's why it's called a theory. Theorys "evolve" (heh) until they finally fit all the available facts, and then we can be fairly sure that that is what is really happening.
Only if you're a creationist.
debunkingProgramming itself implies, no, requires a programmer. So I ask you, who did the genetic programming?
While natural selection makes some sense, and can clearly describe extreme survival abilities (for instance the common example is bacteria and antibacterial agents, and the eventually immunity thereof), in a lot of natural cases it doesn't offer a complete explanation. I'm not a man of religion myself, but I do find there to be some giant "leaps of faith" in the belief of the current explanation of evolution, and many of those who fervently put it forth as the one-true-way are no different than cultists.
Mind you this "pent up evoloution" really doesn't make sense for non-reducable systems: If evolution is trial and error, then how would evolution know what to queue up? It could be a queued up sequence of disastrous changes. Or are we to believe that evolution queued up random delta logs in every creature, and an infinite number of changes leads to the Bombardier Beetles defensive system as one random lucky draw?
The basic process of producing enzymes from the DNA/RNA is just a simple chemical process, i.e. the laws of the nature (which are due to quantum effects if you want to go all the way, as far as we know it today anyway).
As for genetic programming, you are right, someone has to provide a set of common rules, building blocks, whatever, but a random process actually reaches a solution through selection of the fitest, which I find nice...
Natural selection doesn't work on genes, it works on phenotypes - the expression of those genes. If a bunch of mutations are "hidden" for a time, but then suddenly expressed in a time of "need" (i.e., rapidly changing environment), selection can then do its thing.
This finding in no way goes against natural selection.
" If evolution is trial and error, then how would evolution know what to queue up? It could be a queued up sequence of disastrous changes."
Evolution most definitely does NOT know what to queue up. And yes, it might queue up disastrous changes. A lot of natural selection takes place very early in embryonic development, and the real disastrous changes are eliminated right then and there (reabsorption, miscarriages, spontaneous abortions).
That said, as an ardent evolutionist with an MS in population genetics, I sometimes have to wonder about things like the bombardier beetle. The genome has its own "grammar", and the simple model, while a decent big picture, doesn't (yet) cover the incredible complexity and subtlety of what's going on.
We've all heard that a million monkeys, banging on a million typewriters, would eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare.
So, as soon as you throw a moderator on that equation (survival) all of a sudden you have a learning algorithm that throws away anything that isn't any good.
Sorry I couldn't help myself. =)
Fear trumps hope and ignorance trumps both
To date, there has been no observed beneficial mutation. Clearly then, organisms that receive a mutation are less likely to survive than (already healthy) organisms that don't, so perhaps this is just a mechanism to protect the organism against mutations.
And I think the protein breaksdown under the conditions stated simply because not many creatures have evolved to live in volcanos or toxic waste dumps.
Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to we
I particularly liked "Everything in evolution is supposed to make perfect sense and have a logical purpose" Says who? The whole freaking point of evolution is that it is a choatic process with an ordered outcome. I expect there were lots of little beetles blowing themselves up at some point. Guess what? Those beetles didn't produce any offspring, and thats why you don't see any. The ones that didn't blow themselves up produced offspring. Oh look, more beetles.
The fear of evolution is partly based on the idea that man is perfect, and then from that the fear that a perfect being could have evolved from chaos.
The flaw is believing that man is perfect.
"This goes some way to explaining examples that are considered to defy standard evolutionary theory, such as the Bombardier Beetle."
OK, I'll bite. Time to feed the Trolls...
The bombardier beetle never defied standard evolutionary theory. It may have defied belief, but that's a different matter entirely. If anything, the bombardier beetle, and countless other amazing species, show the awesome power of something as simple as random mutation and selection.
I am a Karma Library.
Of course it could also be used to explain why there is a missing link... The climate changed drastically and a rapid number of changes occurred that won't readily be in the fossil record because the rate of change was too fast.
Maybe, maybe not, I wasn't there, but I could believe it. The problem is, I couldn't read the article, don't know much about genetics, and not knowing how the research was done, they could have been trying to massage facts for a theory to reach the same conclusions. I.E. torture the facts until they say what we want.
Yeah. Creationists are always quick to point out
what they percive as "intelligent design".
On the other hand, they completely ignore that nature is far more abundant with "unintelligent design" - especially at the molecular level.
Intelligent design would be to use the same enzyme in all animals. Today, you have the same enzymes, but they have differences, not in function, but in all kinds of non-important ways.
Strangely (for the creationist), these differences are larger between, say a human and a bacteria than between two different types of bacteria.
Oh, and that beetle example is bulls**t. Read some non-biased information somewhere
instead of that pseudoscientific creationist crap.
(someone linked to a faq at talk.origins, probably a good place to start.)
This is the problem with trying to argue these points when science and religion collide. Both sides believe that they are correct based on their own dogma. The religious side is correct because the bible is correct - end of argument. The science side is correct because this is the prevailing paradigm.
There is one interesting piece in the article:
We should remember God's admonition to Job, 'Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?' (Job 38:4).
It is interesting to note that this argument cuts against both sides!
You are incorrect about the standard atheist argument: "I don't understand something, and I will TRY to understand it. Furthermore I will do myself and humanity a grave disservice but ascribing what I don't understand to an unknown god and failing to try to understand."
If your existence came into being based on totally random events, then your brain also was the result of a random event.
...a brain capable of thought...
Yes, it was. You're doing well...
How then, can you possibly trust in your own thinking...
Because my imperfect brain, with its chemical and electrical interactions, has created a stored pattern of electrical impulses that causes a chemical reaction due to an external or internal trigger. It makes me believe its own delusions. My reality is not your reality.
You can't have any faith in your own intelligence if that intelligence was brought about by completely random events.
See above. I don't need to "have faith" in my intelligence, as I know full well that what I know as "inteligence" and "creativity" are simply a product of a chain reaction caused by various triggers. It all makes sense to me, though, as the outcomes themselves are triggers which....so on and so forth. Essentially, my brain doesn't need to justify anything to itself.
What is thought? Now you're getting down to the crux of it. A Creationist will tell you that thought is a product of a soul. I will tell you that thought is simply a product of a trigger and a feedback loop, which causes eletrical and chemical changes, which feed back into the loop.
If it's a fact, then I'm sure you can provide at least one controlled experiment showing one species evolving into another species. You can't?
Okay then, I'm sure you can provide at least one historical example of one species evolving into another species by showing each of the actual intermediate fossils between the two. No examples at all?
Apparently the Theory of Evolution is, like any religous text, sacred unto itself! No proof required. Check your skeptisim at the door and open Darwin's Origin of the Species (The Revised American Edition) to chapter 3 verse 12. Everyone say Amen.
Most of us have thought for ourselves; hopefully by reading some material from both sides of this argument and deciding based on the evidence presented whether they too believe in the theory of evolution or not.
The thing that draws most scientifically minded people to evolution is the scientific observations presented to back it up, and the difficulty in refuting it for the most part. Christianity on the other hand, while having the difficult to refute part down REALLY solidly, has only a series of assumptions based on "faith" for its defense. No offense to anyone's religion, but religion not only is not equal to science, but it doesn't even WANT to be like science. You're not SUPPOSED to test your God. You're just supposed to believe. Nothing wrong with that, but when you start putting up faith in the face of scientific data, it's a bit silly.
Your philosophical argument about thought is very interesting, but I don't need faith in my own intelligence either. I believe what I see with my own eyes; i.e. thinking for myself.
Let me preface this by saying that I do believe in God (after thinking everything through and deciding for myself)
:) ). This was all because I felt a bond to my common man, not because I feared reprisal in the afterlife. How were my morals any less real than the morals of those who 'do right' because their God tells them to? Belief in God in no way equates or even implies morality or ethics. Look at the Sept. 11th hijackers. They most likely believed very strongly in God. You could argue that they didn't follow God's teachings, but the point is that they believed they were.
Just because evolution was taught as truth in high school and college, and it allows you to live your life any way that you want without concern for life after death or accountability to a higher power doesn't mean that you should buy it.
It upsets me that so many people who believe in God imply that simply because someone does not believe in God they cannot have any true morals or ethics. I did not believe in God through most of high school and college, yet (I believe) I was a very moral person. I did not drink, did not do drugs, worked hard, tried not to lie (though I was somewhat less successful in that regard
I realize that this is going to get modded down, but it frustrates me that so many people who pull this "I'm an intellectual therefore I believe in evolution not God" crap are actually simple drones of the left. Think for yourself, will ya?
(Note, I have moderator access, but I think responding is much better to this than modding down)
I am sure there are just as many drones on the right who simply believe in God because it is easier. Most Christians (the majority of religious people in America) have not read the Torah, Koran or Bhagavad Gita. Why is this? Is it because they know after reading the Bible that nothing else can possibly be correct? They may say that to themselves, but I doubt it is the truth. I find it much more likely that the Bible is what they were brought up with, and it is simply easier to follow what they already know as opposed to working to figure out what they can truly put their faith in.
I find it perplexing that many people take the time to diligently study the religion they were brought up to know, yet few take even scant moments to study the countless other religions in this world. Well, no, it doesn't really perplex me. It saddens me.
--David
That's like saying I looked at my plant and looked at it again a second later, but it hadn't grown, I don't think plants grow.
Come back again when you have been observing nature for a few million years.
This is the fundamental problem with the creationists, that they simply cannot even begin to fathom the timescales involved here.
The bombadier beetle's boiling water mechanism is irreducibly complex. Any of the parts of the system that would have evolved would have been useless and arguably detrimental without the other parts of the system.
Sounds like you didn't read the refutation. Many of the parts of that system do exist in other beetles. "Irreducible complexity" is a myth creationists invented because the big words made their ranting sound scientific.
Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
Actually this new theory/evidence just provides a little extra bang to punctuated equilibrium. It could already be explained based purely on natural selection. In that case, the triggering factor is also stress - a form which had been favorable and therefore selected for in an environment is no longer so favorable when the organism's environment changes in some way, at which point natural selection starts weeding out that species, unless a series of mutations occurs that gives it an edge. Of course, such a major change in a species will itself have a marked effect on the environment, thus triggering changes in other species, and so forth. An evolutionary domino effect. The more dramatic the change, the more dramatic the effect. One of the most pronounced examples of this was after the dinosaurs were killed off, when mammals rapidly evolved in response to so many empty ecological niches.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
Well put. Creationist Science, much like Christian Science*, is NOT a science. So much of the "Creationist Science" rhetoric seems more like academic attrition than any science at all. They look for increasingly hard to explain phenomena, with no regard for the larger, more patternistic (or evolutionarily "behaved") systems out there, then refute the entire theory of evolution by pointing wildly at their red herrings.
Their inappropriate use of the word "science" maligns the reputation of legitimate science for academics and researchers everywhere.
P.S. you didn't miss much in the article, its repetitious, involves lots of exploding beetles, and eventually resorts to name calling (an ad hominum attack as a result of ad hominum attacks),
* I have nothing against Christian Scientists. It is a legitimate religion. Additionally, all the Christian Scientists I know agree with the sentiment that their faith is indeed not a science.
This is where I get my recommended daily allowance of "Foot in Mouth."
Religion is only part of the equation for a "good person." In many religions, zealotism breeds people who are immutable to outside suggest, and often hostile towards those who do not share their beliefs. In other cases, indeed in many cases, they simply view themselves are "better people".
This is not to say that relgion does no enhance life. I see many religious people who do good things for the world/community based on their beliefs.
I've also seen many non-religious people who also do a lot of good, not out of any believe in heaven or an afterlife, but simply because they believe in doing good. The contrast to this is ina a few people I know, we can take a few friends of mine.
Friend 1: Found little point in life, was quite constantly depressed. Verged on very drastic negetive consequence. She became "Christian" (though many other religions are good as well, I won't say Christian is the best) and was embraced by her church, found love and certain amount of peace in herself. She seems a lot happier lately
Friend 2: Was raised as an athiest, by athiests. She has not only no religion, but also background reason for life, or a strong basis for doing anything. She seems wholly unsatisfied at most times, and care little for many of her actions. This isn't to say that she's done strong harm to anyone else, but she lacks a fundamental goal in life, doesn't believe in having children (world sucks too much to raise them in), and often enough has a "what's the point attitude."
Friend 3: Has no real religion. Was raised by a supportive and loving family. Believes she has a future, and wants to propogate children. She often helps others, and is a caring, giving individual.
I've met a lot of other people who are quote religios" but do wholly bad things. They tend to have a good regard for their church circle but little for those outside.
My point. Relgion doesn't always define a meaning in life, but it often helps. The fundamental teachings and upbringing behind it are what is essential. If a church is teaching you how to be a good person, and not teaching you intolerance of others, then the church is doing a good job. If your parents raise you with the same values, then your parents are doing a similarly good job.
Often, it's the basic teachings (play nice, be a good boy Vs care for others, be a good Christian/other) that are important.
I have no name for my believes. I disagree with a large part taught by my family's religion, but agree with many of the basic tenets of goodness towards others. I also believe in evolution, but also in a higher power, and yet don't find a conflict. I'm definately not a bible banger, but I'm happy in my own purpose in life, which is what I think really counts.
Contradictions and agreements are welcome, but remember to think before you post - phorm
I have no real idea when PunkEek got all sexied up and people got the idea that it's evolution occurring in some fundamentally different way from the methods we already know. The "mechanism" that produces punctuated equilibrium is population size.
In a nutshell:
If Organism A has 5 offspring in a population of 100 those offspring represent 5% of the population.
If Organism A has 5 offspring in a population of 1000000 those offspring represent 0.0005% of the population.
Thus, evolution occurs faster in smaller populations.
Not very exciting, is it?
The controversial bit comes from pointing out that the fossil record, while it has great temporal coverage, is rather poor geographically. So, unless we devote ourselves to systematically strip-mining the planet looking for fossils, we will probably never find the small areas where the speciating populations did their thing. We only see the old species, then the appearance of the new species as they migrate in and displace the old. If the small population we'd be interested in had a perverse disregard for future paleontologists and were callous enough to die in areas with conditions that don't produce fossils or inconsiderately chose a site that would be destroyed by erosion before humans could evolve and dig them up, it's quite possible there actually are no "missing link" fossils to be found.
Kinda hard to get grant money for digs when you talk crazy like that, though...
Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions
God and the very concept of absolute, objective truth are inseparable. If objective truth exists, it can only exist because it is embodied in the nature of God.
Science doesn't claim "objective truth", at least not in the philosophical sense you mean it. Scientific truths are never claimed to be anything more than theory informed by repeatability. I'm comfortable basing my worldview on that. In fact, I'm not only comfortable, I feel that it's the only secure ground to stand on.
I can't follow the rest of your argument because it's a non sequiter. You go from objective physical truth (which science doesn't claim, but does investigate) to objective moral and ethical truth (which science doesn't claim or investigate).
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Christian Science is an actual religion started by Mary Baker Eddy and is based around the idea that there is no need for modern medicine because of the belief that all healing can be accomplished through requested divine intervention. This is in no way related to the idea of a scientist who happens to have a Christian/Creationist perspective in his research.
I think religions who use the word science (i.e. Christian Science, Scientology (well, Scientology is not really a religion, but an evolved pyramid scam Click Here)) in their titles tend to confuse and mislead people. A true scientist does not try to force conclusions on people, but explains his theories in a rational manner that makes sense; this is true for all scientists, no matter what you believe. I myself am a Christian, and if I decided to become a scientist, it wouldn't instantly make me a follower of Mary Baker Eddy; I would just be like any other scientist, except I would be pursuing the answers to the questions of the world from a different perspective--and that's not a bad thing.
I hope this has cleared up things a little. Personally, I believe that living creatures have the ability to adapt and survive in changing environments, but that there also was definitely some sort of intellegent thought that went into creating all of the vastly complex things that dot the marble we roam around today.
"Witty Phrase."
The poster mentioned:
"Most people (Christians included) have little problem with suggesting evolution is the path by which the world, as we know it, was created."
The theory of evolution doesn't cover how the world was created, it simply covers how species evolve from other species.
There has to be at least one species already there before the theory of evolution has anything at all to say.
Guys...
Don't give us believers a bad name, okay? This creation science stuff is just embarrassing.
This is God's universe, He can do whatever He wants with it.
That includes building a mechanism whereby critters can change and evolve. A lot of folks get indignant because they don't want to be related to monkeys. Hey, God loves monkeys too. "Not a sparrow falls", eh?
To the Bible: remember the audience. The ancient Hebrews didn't know jack about DNA, they couldn't handle an explanation of evolution. You can.
God gave you a brain, He expects you to use it. Most reasonable Christians today see Adam's naming of the beasts as a symbolic mandate for science to understand God's own world as best we can.
There shouldn't be any conflict between religion and science, anyway. Religion explains Why We're Here, science explains How We Got Here. In the past the Church has ignored this, and suffered for it.
So get with the program: Try to understand the world God put you in; accept that God made you out of an ape, not clay, and that this is a PROVISIONAL promotion if you're not careful; admit that you ARE a monkey's nephew, if not uncle; and don't waste people's goodwill towards Christians on this stupid argument.
Please explain *exactly* what irreducible complexity is, and *why* photosensitivity meets your criteria.
I'm not holding my breath for ananswer though. Unlike biologists, you creationists never seem to be interested in answers beyond "goddidit".