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.
debunkingThe 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.
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.
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!
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
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
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.