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."
Doesn't this kind of go against the theory of natural selection? I mean, if the mutated gene is hidden, then there really isn't a difference between the inferior and superior versions, so the gene pool won't be improved.
Have you been stalked by Seth today?
According to evolutionary "thinking" there must have been thousands of generations of beetles improperly mixing these hazardous chemicals in fatal evolutionary experiments, blowing themselves to pieces. Eventually. we are assured, they arrived at the magic formula, but what about the development of the inhibitor?
Never trust any arguement that has to resort to putting thinking in quotes! Especially if the word 'god' is on the same page!
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.
This mechanism is so subtle, it is surely proof of an intelligent designer. That being the case, there is no need for evolution at all, so the mechanism itself clearly doesn't exist...
Damn, I appear to be trapped in a maze of circular logic.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
This is ludicrous. Bottle up? This goes nowhere toward explaining troublesome spots for evolution. The bombardier beetle clearly had an excellent designer.
a link to the freakin article?
Is there a link to the direct article? It's not on the homepage.
It's a bit difficult to comment on a story, when the story requires subscription to the print edition of a magazine to view it! That, or wait a week until the story is released to the masses.
This certain protein and hidden mutation is also created because of evolution, and it is as we now know a cruicidal thing in all life to survive a longer time.
A simple proof of evolution is to look at genetic programming (for example here, here and here).
Just look at the classic example of ants collection food. It is beautifully described in John R. Koza's great books (1, 2 and 3) on the subject.
Just imagine adding a fermone layer to freeciv and let the random search for a superior player begin.
Only if you're a creationist.
debunkingOf course, the mutations are also released when your Pokemon hits a certain level (depending on the Pokemon), or is exposed one of several rare stones, or even becomes extremely attached to its trainer.
Shredder has many vials of a substance called "Mutagen" that can also release these mutations.
If you want to be seen, stand up. If you want to be heard, speak up. If you want to be respected, sit down and shut up.
Yes bob, today I mutated my genes in a way that makes me incompatable with the human species. However, don't you fret, because as luck has it there is a woman close by that happened to have the exact same mutation and is in a breeding age, plus is single and attracted to me. Now lets all throw up our computers and flowcharts and they will land as a super powerful cluster that defies any computing power known to this date!
All these examples where the standard theory failed showed the basic flaws of the evolution theory. Now they bring up a extremely complicated theory to get the "standard theory" right. Ironically it contradicts itself the evolutionary theory by such plants and animals with "hidden genes" are more prone to get gene-defect diseases like cancer etc. So that's basically a huge evolutionary drawback which should have eliminated by evolution.
Sorry pals. The standard evolution theory by Darwin is basically flawed. I'm not one of these air-heads who doubt carbon dating etc. But we have record in all older human of a superior alien power interfering which life on this planet. Why should this be in fact wrong ? The acients surely saw something and misinterpreted it, without having much knowledge about the world. However humans are not cracked up such much as they seem to be so it's very unlikely that this is all made up.
You guy defending the evolution theory so keenly are in fact a new kind of religious zealot - you just replaced the trinity with natural sciences.
I wonder when the first fires will burn and the whitchhunts start.
Owner of a Mensa membership card.
How do creationists explain the existence of fossils which carbon dating show to be older than the supposed age of the Earth? Were these placed by [Gg]od also, to trick us? Is carbon dating a joke? How do they explain it?
(I don't usually get in these debates with creationists because my blatent atheism often offends them.)
The whole concept of emergent behaviour.
Greg Bear's Darwin's Radio makes for a good introduction on that subject...
There's no great mystery; all of the chemicals are common, other beetles exist that excrete them separately; and the temperatures and pressures are not really that great (only just above boiling). So what?
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!""Rock and roll your balls."
Ignoring all the people who want to get into a creationist vs. evolution debate, I find this very interesting. (For the record, I'm a Christian who is interested in science.)
I've always been curious about evolution, but have found a problem in it that I havn't been able to get around.
We can see natural selection at work withen a species before our eyes in a matter of generations, but have yet to see any dramatic jump that evolutionary theory supports.
Could this be the answer? Could these stored up Genes have enough in side of them to not only modify a breed of species, but create an entirly new one? I'd love to see more research on this.
If so, we have discovered the final missing link in evolutionary theory.
The Internet is generally stupid
Do any of us read anything not online anymore? Next slashdot poll: How many (print) magazine subscriptions in your home?
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
Here is a link to the talkorigins.org discussion on the bombardier beetle.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html
Two points here:
Even if the destruction of the proteins that help restrict gene mutations were all destroyed. Is it really possible for a mutated gene or even one million randomly mutated genes to have the scientific precision to create the kind of defensive system that the Bombardier Beetle has? I seriously doubt it. It looks more to me that a scientist of sorts has created this insect.
Second point: Isn't it strange that in a world governed by evolution that the fauna here actually have developed proteins to restrict the mutation of genes? It would seem that evolutionary process would revel in the mutation of genes since it advances life?
Sometimes it feels like evolutionists are the Emporer and His New Clothes.
This type of topic on Slashdot always creates lots of posts bashing Creationists. Because of this, I would like to give you a rational, logical expanation about the beliefs of Creationists, to dispel the ignorance displayed here on Slashdot.
What is a Creationist?
A Creationist believes that living things were designed and created by God, rather than a process such as evolution.
So God is a designer and creator?
Yes, this is fundamental to the beliefs of Creationists.
What is God? An old man with a big white beard?
That's just silly. God is everywhere, he is a spirit. You can't see him.
You said God was a designer and creator. Why?
Sorry?
What's he do it for?
Erm. What? Oh I know this one! You mustn't question the doings of God, they are unexplainable by mere mortals?
So this invisible and unexplainable thing you call God created all living creatures, but you can't explain why?
You must have faith.
And you think that's a more sensible explanation of life on Earth than evoluton?
I've got my faith. I don't have to question it.
So what about the fossil record? Did God create that?
[Hands on ears] La la la la la la la la...
I've sifted through their site and been unable to turn up anything. If the article isn't online... is it really all that fruitful for us to discuss the plausibility of a theory we can't get more than a 2 line explanation of?
Where's the beef?
I claim this frosty post on behalf of Tux and all his friends at the South Pole. Please mod me up, pleeeeeeease! Won't you do it for the penguins? Please, think of the penguins and mod this up! NOW!
I'd recommend the creationists and those who have their reservations about evolutionary theory as it stands to read the editorial in that issue of new scientist...you might have to wait a week though
I'm not entirely convinced that the Bombadier Beetle is a good argument against evolution, even before this theory.
There are many organisms that use what would be lethal chemicals to disorient, disable and/or kill their prey and/or predators. If you think of the squillions of beetles in the world (and there really are billions and billions of them), then look at the amount of time they've existed (a very very long time), is it really that surprising that such a feature could evolve?
Something as advantageous as being able to secrete chemicals that predators don't like gives you such a massive advantage over your defenseless peers that natural selection is going to promote that feature very aggressively, then one beetle arrives that has slightly too powerful secretion methods that squirt the chemical rather than simple secreting it onto their exoskeleton. Now you have an even bigger advantage, you can deter your predator before it has you in it's mouth. Again, natural selection is going to promote that quite aggressively because you're less likely to be injured and unable to reproduce further.
I admit that the leap from there to squirting two different chemicals so they meet at a precise point and react is a little greater, but it only has to happen by random chance once, after that natural selection (less other random chances of death) will take care of making it the predominant feature.
Given the incredible amount of specialisation nature displays elsewhere, the bombadier beetle doesn't seem to be too out of the ordinary. I would suggest that something like bioluminesence is equally impressive/unlikely.
Chris "Ng" Jones
cmsj@tenshu.net
www.tenshu.net
The story deals with what happens to the human race when those genes come out for the first time since we took over from the Neandertals. (Probably not the best summary, but God it's early.)
Not a bad book -- I wasn't too compelled by the first half, but now that I'm on the downhill stretch I'm more and more engrossed. A neat idea, and one that looks like it may have some basis in fact. (Scary thought, given the human race's reaction in the book to what happens...)
Carousel is a lie!
All I can say is if the defense mechanism of the beetle was created by an intelligent designer, with blueprints and all, like Slartibartfast or something, S/he/it must be having a ball. "Ok, we/I create these things that eat beetles, but on the other hand lets make the beetle so it squirts hot crap in the predators face so it really has to work for it's dinner!! Won't that be a rip!!! Hehehe. Then let's make these humans have to toil away for their food also, and blame all their troubles on, hmmm, SIN! Yeah, that's the ticket, they used to live a life of eternal luxery in a fantastic garden but because of this 'sin' thing the now have to slave away to get food, shelter and clothing. Then we'll make those who beleive that stuff work against those who are trying to alleviate suffering, yeah, this'll keep those 'humans' hopelessly confused, just the way I designed it!!"
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
You might want to check this for an alternate viewpoint.. I quote:
Much creationist literature gives an inaccurate account of the process. Based on an admittedly sloppy translation of a 1961 article by Schildknecht and Holoubek [Kofahl, 1981], Duane Gish claimed that hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinones would explode spontaneously if mixed without a chemical inhibitor, and that the beetle starts with a mix of all three and adds an anti-inhibitor when he wants the explosion. [Weber, 1981] In fact, the two do not explode when mixed, as others have demonstrated. [Dawkins, 1987, p. 86-87] (Schildknecht did propose a physical inhibitor which kept the mixture from degrading in undisected beetles; in fact, the degradation he saw was probably simply a result of exposure to the air.) Gish still used the mistaken scenario after being corrected by Kofahl in 1978. [Weber, 1981] The same mistake is also repeated in books by Hitching in 1981, Huse in 1983 and 1993, and twice in a creationist magazine in 1990 [Anon, 1990a,b].
You're confusing two different meanings of the word theory. One meaning is of hypothesis or conjecture, as in a suggested explanation yet to be proven right or wrong.
Another meaning is of governing principles as in "theory of operation". I have a book at home call "Loudspeakers: Theory and Design". The author does not offer hypotheses about how speakers work; he has no doubt as to whether they work and how they work. He's not writing conjecture - he's writing science and engineering - the general body of rules governing the operation of loudspeakers, which the author collectively refers to as their "theory of operation". This second sense of the word can be defied.
In the days of Darwin, the word "theory" in "Theory of Evolution" probably may have refered to the first sense of the word, as a hypothetical explanation of the origin of all species, including ours. But talk to a biologist or naturalist today and he'll tell you they have no doubt but that evolution is a fact; how it works, its principles of operation, is something they're still exploring and trying to explain.
This confusion between the meanings is something the Bible-thumbers love to exploit (I'm not lumping you in with them, though). They jump up and down and shout about how evolution is just a "theory" and that their half-baked Creation Science theories deserve equal consideration in the schools. Don't buy it. Evolution is a fact. We're sure of the big picture; it's just some of the details that we haven't worked out yet.
--Jim
I want FPS bots like on CT, or other fps games to start using AI/Genetic programmed bots that 'grow' and get better, but dont act unrealisticly, and aim like the terminator.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
In the description of the bombadier beetle, they make a huge deal about each muscle, and valve that has to be there to have this happen. If you think about it, how many muscles, and valves and widgets do we have inside just so we can rip a good fart? Really, that's not a troll, it's a serious question. They say it like the beetle has to think about throwing switch A, and mixing chem B, when it probably thinks about it as much as you do when you cut the cheese.
The body of problems we don't understand is essentially infinite, so they will keep trotting out this old warhorse indefinitely.
This is the argument they used to use to explain why the sun rises in the morning, why rain falls, and why we get sick with colds. These days they're a bit more thanks to science, and so they jump up and down with glee when they find a weird beetle or some such. But their argument is still the same: "I don't understand something, therefore God exists".
In related news, Ga. school board OKs teaching creationism
;-P
*Weeps*
Is there any way we could just put all of the fundamentalist christians and all of the the fundamentalist muslims in the same room and have all of their mental jibber jabber jibber jabber annhilate each other in a terrible puff of holy smoke?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It's stories like these that show the common ignorance of evolution theory.
a> Evolution occurs when a gene exists, and defines the makeup of an animal, and the gene leads to the animal 1> dieing before it has a chance to bread 2> being superior to others in its species thus allowing those animals with this gene to bread more than those without it. Evolution occurs when conditions change that favor the subset of the species that has the gene and kills of the those that don't. For example, a gene or combination of genese allows a dog to get bigger and stronger. The temperature gets really really hot and all the big dogs die from overheating and frying their brain. The species has evolved into a smaller species of dog due to outside conditions. If genese hide (bigger dog genes), then evolution isn't a factor.
The beatle example.... Just because an animal is complex doesn't indicate it was designed. Imagine you had a deck of cards with a billion cards in it. One card has the old maid on it. For eternity, you pull cards once per hour. One day, 42,000 years later, after pulling 365 million cards, you pull the old maid. Some guy walks by and says, you must have looked through the deck because it is rare to pull that card. That's like in the beatle story, "that beatle must have been designed, "cause an inhibiter and a dangerous chemical comming to be at the same time is rare." (Remember, the world is 5 million years old and beatles have a short lifetime [guessing a month]). It has had 60000000 tries to mutate random mutations, good and bad. The shorter the lifespan of animal, the quicker you will see mutations. Viruses mutate quickly. Bugs not as fast, but pretty quick. Look at all the species that no longer react to insectiside. Humans, with 100 year lifespans evolve much slower. (Evolution comes as a result of random mutations. Note, most mutations are bad. Sometimes they are good)
This isn't the sig you are looking for... Carry on...
"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.
however in extreme environments, such as day before the deadline, the manager process breaks down and all the kludges are released all at once.
If you doubt the theory of evolution just take at your friends (I am addressing geeks on this one). Their bodies are already adapting to their environment:
- the most highly tuned muscles in their bodies are their hands/fingers (how many geeks have "hardbodies"?)
- most wear glasses (what is there to see more than 18 inches away?)
- they do not use vocal speech effectively (excluding expletvies that are equally applied to machines and other humans)
- have you seen the children of real geeks!
Wait! you complain - I know some exceptions to these observations. Of course you do - they are by definition not real geeks, or will be culled from the herd over time.
I can't wait to see what people look like 1000 years from now - extra fingers?, permanent near sightedness?, no legs?
KK4SFV
If the intelligence is already built in, i.e., algorithms are already in place, where is the evolution? These mutations are all previously encoded.. nothing then is random here. To me, evolution is like the marketplace. Someone *creates* a product from the spirit of their mind. Suddenly, this idea/product stimulates other peoples mind to create a very similar product but of slightly different encodings. Now suddenly we have all these similar but differnt products. I mean, don't these scientists really see this? Evolution is just a description for a post creation effect. Sheesh. Let's see, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics was proven mutable, the speed of light is not constant, can't we now just think different? ;-)
jimijon.com
Mind | Body | Spirit | Cash
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.)
The linked article quote Duane Gish, one of the premier proponents of Creationism. Before anyone puts too much stock in what he has to say, it should be noted that Gish has a record of misrepresenting facts.
TheFrood
If you say "I'll probably get modded down for this..." then I will mod you down.
Why does everyone insist on buying into the propaganda that is crammed down their throats by the liberal media and school systems? Someone PLEASE point me to some genuine, hard proof that evolution is reality because I assure you that I have never seen any. 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. Aren't we Americans supposed to be smarter and more responsible than that? How can anyone believe that our existence here is based on completely random events (the Big Bang theory, which seems to be the most popular among evolutionists)? That theory is easily refuted with the following:
If your existence came into being based on totally random events, then your brain also was the result of a random event. How then, can you possibly trust in your own thinking, which is what tells you to believe in evolution? It's kind of like spilling a glass of milk and hoping that it comes out as a map of Alabama. You can't have any faith in your own intelligence if that intelligence was brought about by completely random events. Creationists believe that a perfect God created us in his image. Therefore, our thinking is sound, because we were given the capacity to think by a God that knew what he was doing, not by random events that "just happened" to evolve into a brain capable of thought. It sounds as ridiculous as it is.
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?
"Herbivores eat well cause their food never, ever runs."
You've probably elevated yet another bit of creationist propaganda to the top of google. Of course, most of the Google results for "bombardier beetle" appear to be creationist tripe... I imagine those guys have never read the story of the Babel fish, or they'd stop looking so hard for "proof".
Ho ho.
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
Why couldn't the beetle have started out by just squirting a drop of some chemical when it got upset? Maybe that was enough to give it an edge. Then, perhaps it evolved to squirt its drop of stuff at things, instead of in the general vicinity (like a skunk). Then, perhaps over time other chemicals got added to increase the nastiness of the squirt, including reactants, inhibitors, etc. Perhaps at first this was all much more simple, with just a pressure-sealed orifice that squirted out when the pressure built up enough inside, and the whole "trap door" thing came later as greater pressure wound up creating better squirts and enhanced survivability.
In my opinion, it's WAY easier to come up with a viable evolution story for this beetle than to go off the deep and and talk about some kind omnipotent, omniscient being that specifically and deliberately thinks to himself (Hmm, how about if I create a beetle that squirts super-hot exhaust out of its ass-end at attackers? That'd be good for a laugh..."). I mean, come on, like this omnipotent being wouldn't have something better to do? What about all the critters living down at the bottom of the ocean? Like those worms that feed off super-heated vents in the darkest depths? What the hell would they be designed for? Or the insects that live in your eyebrows? Intelligent design? It's amazing that people assert that the argument from design makes more sense than evolution - I think it makes absolutely no sense at all!
Please Rate my comment (and help support Fre
I'm surprised no one has pointed out the main fault in the argument the Creationists (especially ones using 'complexity' arguments) - they fail to understand time. They're claiming "thousands" of generations is not enough time for 'random' mutations (with selection) to create this mechanism. First, thousands is a number that is entirely incomprehensible to the human mind and second, if beetles have been around *at least* since the dinosaurs, then the number is more like tens or hundreds of millions of generations. I think it points to natural selection as a strong argument for the paucity of differentiation of species rather than, as they argue, the incredible 'abundance'.
creationists like to cite the b-beetle because there is no obvious predecessor. that is, it is hard for evoloutionist to cite a evolutionary parent for the defense system of the b-beetle. perhaps this can be understood in terms of an example to the contrary. the human eye is pretty cool. it is a complex array of very specialized systems. so, God must have created it? well, the evolutionist would just point out that there are many eyes in the animal kingdom that increase in complexity. thus, one can comprehend how the eye may have evolved. the origin of the defense mechanism of the b-beetle, on the other hand, is harder to understand, simply because we do not have a clear predecessor. the predecessor likely died out. so the creationist makes their argument on a lack of data...
If the creationists have troubles accepting something as simple as a bombardier beetle evolving naturally, they surely must understand that I have even more problems accepting something as complex as 'God'. At least until I hear some reasonable theory of where this God came from, and what was there before...
... as a force.
I would say that evolution is not a force. It is simply the result of phenomenons. Saying that evolution would draw towards stronger/better beings and weed out the weaker/lesser beings is in my opinion untrue.
If a being replicates it replicates and by genetics its genes are carried on.
If something is not replicated, no matter how strong or good we might think it is. Its genes will not carry on.
Could Marvel have been right all along!? One bite from a radio-active spider or an accidental explosion in a chemical plant and I can have super powers?
What is a Evolutionist?
A Evolutionist believes that living things were created by chance, rather than an intelligent creator such as God.
So evolution is a designer and creator?
Yes, this is fundamental to the beliefs of Evolutionists.
What is Evolution? A random sequence of low probabilities scattered over a long period of time to make them seem plausible?
That's just silly. Evolution is everywhere, it is a process. You can't see it.
You said Evolution was a designer and creator. Why?
Sorry?
What's it do it for?
Erm. What? Oh I know this one! You mustn't question the doings of Science, they are unexplainable by mere mortals?
So this invisible and unexplainable thing you call Evolution created all living creatures, but you can't explain why?
You must have faith.
And you think that's a more sensible explanation of life on Earth than creation?
I've got my faith. I don't have to question it.
HURR HURR TEH STOPID EVOLUDDOIFHISTSTS THINK TAHT THAYU NOW WAHT GOD SI THENKING!!!!1`1`!one
I MA SO GALAD TAHT YUO CANE STRATEN TISH AL OUT FOR US!!11`1`111`one!!!!1111
...the problem I see with these sort of discussions is that people think that if you don't believe in Evolution, you must be a creationist.
I personally think that Evolution is a load of twaddle, and don't have too much time for creation theory. I prefer to think of the universe as the spewings of the giant heavenly space tuna. And do you know what the funny thing is? My theory stands up just as well as the other two.
Find funky gifts
Too bad Gould didn't live just a few more months to see this. I haven't read the article, but the idea would certainly seem to support Punctured Equilibrium. I would hope that he at least had access to some of the data before publishing.
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."
And it's been a theory for a good twenty years at least in evolutionary biology. It explains why we find a lot of fossils of different species, but very few fossils that qualify as a "missing link" between species. This just gives a reasonable explanation for the mechanism which produces punctuated equilibrium.
Do not confuse duty with what other people expect of you; they are utterly different.Duty is a debt you owe to yourself.
Try it the way it would have statistically happened.
1. Draw card.
2. Check Card
3. Reinsert card.
4. Shuffle Deck.
5. Go to 1
Now, what are your odds of drawing the right card?
The DNA of rocks and chemicals ISN'T stored away...!?!
crazy dynamite monkey
All living systems that employ diploidy (having a pair of chromosomes, and therefore a pair of alleles for each gene) apply dominance relation changes to do this trick.
--- Sigmentation Fault - Comments Dumped
So, does this mean that as I've never realised that I had the ability to mutate, that I can use 22 years worth of stored up mutateability to grow an extra arm or something!? Brilliant! I will be able to type quicker.
Firstly, without reading the article, I took this post to mean that that the potenial to mutate can be supressed, not the actual expression of mutated genes. This would be a clever system, when a species becomes well suited to its environment it can put its evolutionary system on hold.
Secondly, the beetles defense system isn't all that complicated compared to a human brain, so why it seems to be a focal point for creationists to dismantle the theory of evolution is beyond me.
Last, I am no scientist, but could the fact that this system is potentially lethal to the beetle actually have made it quicker to evolve? If a beetle has it wrong, it dies pretty quick, thus more beetles who have a non-lethal arrangement live. This could be just a fluke that these beetles came to such a complex self defense mechanism, maybe if it happened again they would have grown big wings with eyes like butterflies.
Alan.
I've always wanted to believe that a true scientist does not care what the truth is just so long as he knows that he's got it. Find the answer, deal with the ramifications later. I've also liked to believe that any intellegent person will evaluate an idea on its own merits rather than pick from whatever popular ideas are currently available.
Enter evolutionary theory. It seems that to show any skeptisism is to be labled a creationist. Who decided that those were the only options? Regardless of the validity of any other ideas out there, modern evolutionary theory does have trouble neatly explaining some observations. As a result, the theory is continually becoing more complex (There is really not sufficient room to go into detail so I apologize). At some point, skeptisism is appropriate.
Years ago, people widely believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and anyone who didn't think so was automatically labled a heretic. Rather than concede that the Earth was moving, planets were plotted as moving in epicyclic patterns. This was a real mess to explain in the context of known physics. As far as I know, Gallileo was not an atheist yet I believe he was excommunicated for suggesting that the Earth moved.
Now it's the opposite problem. To challenge evolutionary theory is to be labled a creationist, even though evolutionary theory is looking more and more like planets moving in epicycles everyday.
A goal is a dream with a deadline
Note to /. - Please check with real scientists before making big fuss over New Scientist articles ;)
;^P )
:)
:D
Here's why:
They don't always get it right. They also do not cover these subjects in detail. They just take the tastiest bits from a given research-project and make a big noise.
I've noticed that the bigger the letters on the front of the magazine are, the shorter the main-article usually is (:o
(Why am I suddenly reminded of slashd...eh..nevermind
Although I must say that I haven't read the article yet. I'll buy a copy of the magazine and have a peep
(I need a good laugh now and then)
There was another New Scientist article ('life on venus') reported here on slashdot. Read the top-comments. (the +1> comments that is)Ok, ok, I'll assume the article/research is fairly accurate in its findings...now what?
let's get to the really interesting bit
The thing that scares me is this:
What if scientists can figure out how to 'trigger' this sudden evolution? We won't need genetic manipulation anymore...we'll just stress out some plants and animals...sit back and let evolution do the rest. The next step up is of course applying this to human beings...uh...waitholdonaminute...
<pictures cubicle-farms>
stress-testing?
<holds up bottle of blueberry flavour pepsi>
noxious chemicals?
<holds up newspaper article on global warming>
high temperatures?
<runs away screaming>
In an ironic twist, just as we are starting to understand the mechanisms of evolution, CNN.com reports that Cobb county, Georgia's second largest school district, has passed a resolution allowing the teaching of alternate views of the origins of life (aka creationism).
According to Michael Gray, a Cobb high school junior "I had to do a term paper about evolution and there were just things that I could disprove or have alternate reasons for." This is exciting news. This junior in high school can disprove parts of the theory of evolution. Next, we'll have grade schoolers disproving the laws of physics.
I read the article about the bombardier beetle and it made me wonder:
...and to the ecosystem in which it lived? If so, why design a defense against predators when one could just as easily design predators that would not want to sup on our poor beetle?
If this little fellow was the product of intelligent design, would not that same intelligent design extend to the other creatures around it?
Or did the "designer" just want to sit back and guffaw at the pain and suffering inflicted on one of his creations by another?
-Eldurbarn
Couldn't this all be explained more easily (and accurately) if we just said "God makes them evolve when He wants."?
Worker bees die after they sting... perhaps the bombardier beetle lived in colonies as a 'soldier' before they could survive after using the 'weapon'.
I've always read Genesis with an eye towards the original audience. How would YOU describe the creation of the universe to an aboriginal tribe cut off from the modern world and all its scientific understanding?
It seams to me that Genesis really answers the what, not the how. Even the timeline is fuzzy (what is a day to God? How do you measure the length of a day before there was a sun?).
science is a religion
Everyone, please read this article at Scientific American: 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense . It states 15 common statements/questions that creationists pose to try and discount evolution, and answers them all quite nicely.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Did you know you have a blind spot in each eye, where your brain just magically fills in what it thinks should be there? The blind spot is big enough to drive a car through, which is why somebody with an eyepatch is not supposed to drive a car.
Morphing Software
You cannot interpret these finding with the flawed but common view that evolutionary processes "know" where they are going. The cellular process that is trying to protect the mechanisms from going off the track due to mutations does not "know" it is sequestering ammunition for future beneficial mutations. When the population of organisms is then environmentally challenged by some stress, the biological processes go off in all directions, and some combinations of what used to be unproductive or unusable side reactions turn out to contribute to the cell's survival. These traits survive in the population.
It's hard to write about biological systems without anthropomorphizing them - I'm fighting it as I type this. It's how we make natural processes accessible to our understanding of relationships. But you have to be careful not to project desires and motives onto what are after all chemical reactions.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
This Bombardier Beatle "problem" linked to fromt he article is ludicrous. For those who cant stand reading the whole thing, the gist of it s this beatle mixes two extremely volitile chemicals, along with an inhibitor, in its body. When threatened, the beatle shoots them out, sans inhibitor, to create an explosion designed to twart off its puruser. The article then goes on how this is "impossible" to explain using standard evolution.
Bzzt, wrong. How do you know the "inhibitor" didn't dveelop first? Evolution is a complex process, with millions of tiny steps. The "inhibitor" could have developed beforehand, for some other purpose we do not now know about, and which may not even exist in the insect anymore. Only the pre-existance of this inhibitor allowed the other mechanism to evolve. Hence, natural selection.
The rest of the article just goes on and on using this flawed arguement to jump to incredible conclusions, such as "But what would be the motivation for such disastrous, trial and error, piecemeal evolution? Everything in evolution is supposed to make perfect sense and have a logical purpose, or else it would never develop". This is totally wrong, anyone who knows anything about evolution and natural selection knows it is not always totally logical. If it were, then why do humans still have the remains of a tail after X million years? Surely the *logical* solution would be to reject it. However, until that mutation develops, and people gain an advantage from it (I don't see how a person with that little bit less of bone would have any advantage, sexually or otherwise), there will be no changes.
From what I can see, although the first article s interesting, it certainly doesn't "defy" any theory, and the second link is just ridiculous.
I noticed from the article on beetles (http://www.aboundingjoy.com/beetle.htm) that Dr. Gish had some trouble with his argument based on a single word being translated wrong from the original German source. This is no doubt why so many Creationists and others who base all their opinions, world views, and scientific beliefs on the bible are so fluent in Aramaic... :-?
Since evolution doesn't have a designer, how is evolution supposed to "know" what is going to be useful later? There could be billions of possible mutations. How is it supposed to test what is a useful mutation and what is not? And how is it supposed to "know" when to activate the mutation?
Sounds like a few people here on /. Write one mistake and they'll gut you, well unless you're Commander Burrito or something, then its common place.
This SIG pulled due to lack of funding. (This damn war is costing too much!)
Science and creationism are both incorrect. Science is a process that attempts to slowly get closer to the truth, but any GOOD scientist knows that his understanding is incomplete, and will proudly tell you that what he knows is not totally correct: look to Sir Isaac Newton for example. Newton was a genius. His works stood as (and for a lot of terrestrial activities STILL stand) a workable explanation of the cosmos for centuries. He was WRONG. Einstein showed that he was wrong. Does that make Einstein right? Probably not, science will probably deepen our understanding over time, and we will see where Einstein was wrong. Does this make them anything less than the genuises they were? No it does not: they pushed the evelope and enlarged our nderstanding of the cosmos. Creationists on the other hand, claim to be RIGHT. They do not have a process to deepen understanding, but instead look for flaws in science to bolster their claims to "the truth." Their "science" is to resist the advancement of understanding by ascribing the very things we don't understand to some mysterious "higher power." I think I will stick to the path of deeper understanding with the full knowledge that I will never truly understand instead of choosing not to try to understand simply because it is elusive.
It's pretty damn obvious, other plants and animals do it all the time, it's called "I'm poisonous! Don't eat me!" and works very well as a method of helping the species as a whole propogate, so i see no problem with the beetle accumulating one of the chemicals.
Once that's been accomplished, then random mutation can cause it to start producing the other chemical and storing it as well. So what happens when some animal catches the beetle and eats it, crushing the body and allowing the chemicals to mix? "This is great! Now not only am I poisonous, I _explode_ if you eat me!"
So you've now got the two chemicals stored away safely in your body, and a very clear evolutionary advantage for doing so. "Of course, it would be really great if i could actually scare away or injure my attacker without blowing myself up in the process."
So now starts the evolutionary search for a way to safely mix the and eject the chemicals without killing itself in the process. The mixing chamber may have been an intermediate step that was originally used during death throes to insure a proper mix of the chemicals for a final suicide explosion, rather than depending on the chemicals getting mixed up while the animal chewed the beetle up.
It is a difficult process to evolve i'm sure, just not as impossible as creationists make it out to seem. As a rule them seem to have difficulty understanding the benefits of intermediate stages.
Note that there are probably thousands (or tens of thousands?) of posinous plants and animals, but only the one Bombardier Beetle. Anyone know if there are any creatures that have reached the intermediate stage and just explode what they're killed? Finding such a species would pretty much be the death knell to this case for the creationists, unfortuantly finding the right combiantion of chemicals may be so rare that the Bombardier Beetle is the only one currently alive that has accomplished it.
(And yes, i'm anthropomorphizing quite a bit, but that doesn't affect the basic validity of the idea)
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
i would've thought that more important than explaining bombardier beetles' butts would be its relevance to the theories of stephen jay gould and richard c lewontin. sadly, mr gould is no longer among us.
if you want to read more about their theories start here.
...vividly encapsulates that post-Watergate/pre-punk/coked-up moment when you could trust no one, least of all yourself.
And Evolutionism was her method.
The whole of Christianity (or any other religion) cannot be proven...THAT idea is actually a tenet of Christianity (it wouldn't be a religion if that wasn't the case)
I think you're misunderstanding the role of faith in religion here. It's not a tenet of Christianity that it cannot be proven true -- if tomorrow we were to uncover the fact that the decimal expression of pi turns out to be an encryption of the Bible, for instance, Christianity would do just fine.
Most religions simply say that shared, physical proof (or scientific proof) that their religion is true isn't necessary to justify belief. They usually go on to say that this is because they have an internal form of subjective, nonphysical proof (spirituality) which justifies belief. Some religions believe that this spiritual truth trumps mere physical truth, while others (like the apologetics you mention) believe that the two should be in accord.
It's important to keep this in mind, I think, because when you're discussing science and the world with someone who believes that they have access to a separate, higher truth standard that trumps physical reality, you really need to probe how well they're aware of this. Some people aren't, and will find the idea odious upon reflection. Some people will find it right and comforting. Unless you can agree on a standard for truth, there's no point in arguing with someone.
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
I find it hard to believe that any evolutinist would be shaken in the least bit or be sheepish about this argument in the least bit. So much of evolution is fundamentally based on allowing for flukes that are extremely rare, yet extremely useful. If by some slim chance a beetle is born with this highly unlikely combination, that beetle would kick some serious ass and mate, and thus the progression.
Sure it is an unlikely fluke to happen, but so much about every species consists of unlikely flukes. I'm sure every species has a lot of traits which if not developed at the same time would either not make sense or be lethal. To say the inhibitor, for example, could not develop first, simply because it doesn't make sense, is stupid. If it isn't lethal or otherwise impacts selection, then it is a moot trait and would be ignored. Lethal dominant traits are rapidly filtered out, and Lethal recessive traits will persist pretty much indefinitely under nature.
There are many different ways the beetle could arrive at it's final form. Could have all happened spontaneously, it is a valid chance. It could have the inhibitor first for no good reason. If the energy required to produce the inhibitor is low enough to not impact selection, there is no reason why the inhibitor could exist before anything else. Same goes for the delivery system. And as others point out, it could be a gradual progression in amounts, or utilized in different ways before the agent could be released (blowing up and hurting predators helps the species survive, altruism is not too uncommon, especially among insect species).
I don't see why some people think religion and evolution are exclusive propositions. Why wouldn't God start off with a very basic setup and put in rules to let it change and let it go to see what happens, or even shape and work through the system to arrive at the desired vision. The bible may say a week is the period of creation, but also says that time in God's terms and people's terms is entirely different, so perhaps Creationists are more blasphemous for having the audacity to think they are on a level with God in terms of their interaction with time?
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Have a look at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html
"A fundamental tenet of creationism is that all life looks designed, and a commonly cited example of this design is the bombardier beetle. Supporting such a claim requires an examination of the bombardier beetle and of what "design" really means. Upon examination of these issues, however, the bombardier beetle shows evidence of evolution and seriously challenges the concept of design."
I searched all over New Scientist and could not find an article that mentioned the genetic Valet. I really need that article for a paper I'm writing for my Human Genetics class.
Any help would be much appreciated.
The chemicals used by the bobardier beetle are not explosive when mixed. Even if they claim they meant unstable so what, many chemicals are unstable when manufactured outside the human body, but are held stable in the specific conditions under which they are created.
How do they know the beetle never misses, have they watched every one that has ever existed each time it has defended itself?
Attacking flaws in the creation argument is also perfectly acceptable - if their argument is flawed then their so-called science is not correct.
It is simply their lack of imagination that prevents them from imagining a path of mutations that could through natural selection result in the bombardier beetle.
It is an old argument (surprise, surprise the creationists keep bringing up the same ones every time) and it has been shot down repeatedly.
That's one of a million problems I have talking with creationists.
'The water went so deep that it covered the tops of the mountains'
Explain that one for me. Everest is 29000 feet tall. NO WAY IN HECK.
How did Noah GET to ANY other part of the world to gather up the different species and then how did he MOVE them to the ark?
What about shit? They were on this dinghy for 40 days with THOUSANDS of species of THOUSANDS of animals and each and every one of them had to eat and defecate EVERY single day?
-
End of rant.
Basically it comes down to you forcing me and my family to accept the bible as the literal truth, which I will never do. And me trying to get you to understand that given billions of years Evolution is not only possible but probable.
A step-by-step evolution of the bombardier system is really not that hard to envision. The scenario below shows a possible step-by-step evolution of the bombardier beetle mechanism from a primitive arthropod.
1.Quinones are produced by epidermal cells for tanning the cuticle. This exists commonly in arthropods. [Dettner, 1987]
2.Some of the quinones don't get used up, but sit on the epidermis, making the arthropod distasteful. (Quinones are used as defensive secretions in a variety of modern arthropods, from beetles to millipedes. [Eisner, 1970])
3.Small invaginations develop in the epidermis between sclerites (plates of cuticle). By wiggling, the insect can squeeze more quinones onto its surface when they're needed.
4.The invaginations deepen. Muscles are moved around slightly, allowing them to help expel the quinones from some of them. (Many ants have glands similar to this near the end of their abdomen. [Holldobler & Wilson, 1990, pp. 233-237])
5.Some invaginations (now reservoirs) become so deep that the others are inconsequential by comparison. Those gradually revert to the original epidermis.
6.In various insects, different defensive chemicals besides quinones appear. (See Eisner, 1970, for a review.) This helps those insects defend against predators which have evolved resistance to quinones. One of the new defensive chemicals is hydroquinone.
7.Cells that secrete the hydroquinones develop in multiple layers over part of the reservoir, allowing more hydroquinones to be produced. Channels between cells allow hydroquinones from all layers to reach the reservoir.
8.The channels become a duct, specialized for transporting the chemicals. The secretory cells withdraw from the reservoir surface, ultimately becoming a separate organ. This stage -- secretory glands connected by ducts to reservoirs -- exists in many beetles. The particular configuration of glands and reservoirs that bombardier beetles have is common to the other beetles in their suborder. [Forsyth, 1970]
9.Muscles adapt which close off the reservoir, thus preventing the chemicals from leaking out when they're not needed.
10.Hydrogen peroxide, which is a common by-product of cellular metabolism, becomes mixed with the hydroquinones. The two react slowly, so a mixture of quinones and hydroquinones gets used for defense.
11.Cells secreting a small amount of catalases and peroxidases appear along the output passage of the reservoir, outside the valve which closes it off from the outside. These ensure that more quinones appear in the defensive secretions. Catalases exist in almost all cells, and peroxidases are also common in plants, animals, and bacteria, so those chemicals needn't be developed from scratch but merely concentrated in one location.
12.More catalases and peroxidases are produced, so the discharge is warmer and is expelled faster by the oxygen generated by the reaction.
13.The walls of that part of the output passage become firmer, allowing them to better withstand the heat and pressure generated by the reaction.
14.Still more catalases and peroxidases are produced, and the walls toughen and shape into a reaction chamber. Gradually they become the mechanism of today's bombardier beetles.
15.The tip of the beetle's abdomen becomes somewhat elongated and more flexible, allowing the beetle to aim its discharge in various directions.
In people we might call this a cancer risk, rather than furthering their chances down the road.
Contextual example: P53 is the most commonly mutated gene in cancer cells
So if GM foods start creating themselves then what's all the fuss about GM foods right now? ;)
they need to realize that after they die, they will simply be eaten by something else... perhaps the evolutionary Bombardier Beetle!
Please be more careful in future. Also, don't believe anything about biology that you read on Slashdot.
and now were supposed to believe that you came up with the entire theory of religion on your own, right...
:)
or then again, maybe you're not really thinking for yourself
Let's say there was a designer. First off there is no way we can consider this designer perfect - there are design flaws in everything around us. Yes they work, but then so do the things we humans design, but mistakes get made. Furthermore each thing clearly carries elements of other things, often design ideas that should have been discarded. For one thing this means whatever built the world around us did it exactly the way we do it, i.e. build the best thing you can right now and work from there.
And if that is the case then it really makes no difference whether it was some being or what we call evolution, a blind process that builds from what came before. Simplicity means we discard the idea of a being and go with evolution.
The Edge.org has an excellent set of articles written by several of the leading evolutionists. They end up covering most of the major theories currently active in the field. Its well worth the read if you have any interest in the genetics and evolution. Here's the link:
The Third Culture
This is logical since the organism that can change fastest wins.
///Magnus
So store up potential until you need it.
This isn't sensational, it has to be.
And I didn't give a shit.
(Summary of parent post, moderators. Read 'em and weep.)
I'm amused by all the comments boiling this down to a simple creation versus evolution debate (and I appreciate the folks who see it as something more than that). The biggest fault of the evolutionary theory (in my opinion, at least) is that it makes the a priori assumption of naturalism. The argument can be made that anything outside of nature is not science, but I think that's a tenuous argument. After all, science is about knowledge (check a dictionary for the root if you don't believe me). At least, it used to be. It lately seems to be more of a defense of naturalism than anything else.
... looking for patters that intimate that something was intentional.
Anyone who's looked at the intelligent design movement at all seriously will tell you that it's far more than a bunch of six-day literal creationists banded together. Jews, Christians (old-earth and young-earth, to be sure), agnostics, alien benefactors, whatever. The big difference is that they throw out the assumption of naturalism.
William Dembski, for example, uses an information theory approach, comparing some aspects of biology to other disciplines like cryptography and SETI
Besides, if evolution is so perfectly true, what's the worry? They should be able to triumph in any of the arguments that might occur in schools, right? Right?
My question isn't creationism vs evolution but why creationists can only see God working like some Las Vegas magician causing things to pop out of thin air. Why can't they believe that evolution is God's mechanism for creation? Creation didn't stop 7000 yrs or so ago (when bible literalists believe the world was made) but is an ongoing process.
Hundreds of years ago these same people would've been saying that "There's no proof that planets orbit the sun" or that "The surface of the earth isn't slowly moving". As more scientific knowledge comes in they are forced to drop dearly held beliefs and move on to new ones. Eternal "truths" don't work very well when they are based on the current temporal world. Instead of tying their faiths to the physical world they should focus on the philosophical and spiritual worlds where they should've been all along.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
I'm trying to get up to speed on the creation / evolution debate. For now I'm just defining evolution as "a process that occurs over time, which adds complexity to life". Now, even given that these changes could happen all of a sudden -- which appears to be evolutionist's current stance as to why there is lack of evidence of intermediate forms -- how do evolutionists explain the "polystrate" fossils and petrified trees found all over the world?
The trees and animals could not have been sticking out of the ground for thousands (millions?) of years waiting for the next local flood, could they? Surely even they had petrified while sticking out of the ground they would be stepped on, broken, bumped, destroyed by storms, etc. In fact, if evolutionists believe that the bones and trees were preserved between the formation of different layers, then why don't we find lots of bone pieces, tree branches, etc. scattered all over the bottom of each new geologic layer?
Basically it comes down to you forcing me and my family to accept the bible as the literal truth, which I will never do. And me trying to get you to understand that given billions of years Evolution is not only possible but probable.
Funny use of words. I already am pretty sure, as far as the evidence is concered, that evolution is both possible and probable.
That is a conclusion based on logic, despite trying to be 'forced' to belive that it's true (I went to a public High School!).
I don't think I, or anyone else in this thread has tried to force you into beliveing that the bible as a literal truth. You can form your own conclusions.
The Internet is generally stupid
The `standard' theory of evolution identifies natural selection as the primary mechanism for selective filtering of genes into successive generations. Other mechanisms are recognized; they are considered to be of lesser impact.
There is a large a body of evidence, however, indicating that other mechanisms might play a more prominent role than thought previously, if only under certain circumstances.
See this retrospective on one of the most visible debates about Darwinian gradualism (and puntucated equilibrium).
Curious that creationists and other pseudo-science-mongers jumped upon this 25 years ago--as some jumped on the article in question here--as a surrender by science of evolution to the `wisdom' of creation.
Of course, it's obvious to any real scientist--anyone who can read and think for that matter--that this is the essence of science: continual observation, debate and reassessment of data, hypotheses, and theories.
It would be interesting to see if old copies of Genenis use if it is ambiguous in the original text, i.e. absolute references to days vs. ordered references to days.
science is a religion
I'm doing the traditional /. thing and not actually reading the article, but I assume it's the old news on heat-shock and chaperone proteins being shown to be a general case.
This isn't "saving up" mutations. This is a system for supressing aberrant mutations breaking down in stressful environments. The True Believers out there would like to phrase this to illustrate the cleverness of natural selection, but this is the failure of a beneficial system leading to a honking buttload of mutants appearing. Nothing more. Yes, throwing a bunch of random solutions at the problem may find an answer and allow a population to continue living in a stressful environment, but it's a bit assuming to try to say the system has evolved to break down in this manner (though it is a rather elegant failure mode).
As for the bombardier beetle...
Hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide, when mixed, turn brown over the course of a couple minutes and won't taste very good. Various beetles besides the Bombardier Beetle use the chemicals, uncatalyzed, merely for the foul taste. Evolution can work in as many steps as it likes increasing the foulness of the taste without any delightful imagery of exploding beetles occurring to anyone.
Of course the page linked to is slow to abandon such delightful imagery so, while it is kind enough to mention that nothing very exciting happens unless you add a catalyst, it likes to give the impression that without that catalyst (or "anti-inhibitor", if you please) the beetles would die a horrible death in the manner of a piece of popcorn, though not quite as tasty.
Let me let you in on another "secret". There can be huge ranges of activity in classes of closely related proteins. This is especially true of the enzymes responsible for catalyzing naturally occuring reactions between simple chemicals. This is a bit of a problem for the Creationist because their idea of the beetles stumbling across a highly efficient enzyme and blowing themselves to bits for generations is very useful. Having them stumble across a weak version that merely made them taste a little worse than their competitors when an attacker mixed the chemicals together is hardly an exciting idea. Nor is it exciting for this weak enzyme to follow the same path of increasing the foulness of the taste that the parahydroxybenzene glands went through.
Of course, once this enzyme reaches a certain level it does get to be dangerous to the beetles. Chance encounters with learning predators that may have only have caused injury become fatal due to the beetles' own defense mechanism (though, because the added foulness of taste deters predation, this is still beneficial to the species, though not to the individual). Any solution is beneficial, as the alternative is death. The apparent winner is to excrete the chemicals, which isn't surprising as some of the other Brachinus species do this without the fun of superheating. Coevolution of improvements to the catalyst and to the ejection system gives us what we have today.
Unfortunately, answering one set of Creationists' call to provide an explanation is met with catcalls of "just-so-story!" from another set. It's really best to ignore them as a group... which, hey, is what I'll be doing.
Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions
Well, Volskwagen also evolved his original Beetle to the New Beetle in barely 50 years! The Nature required thousand of years to incorporate proper chemical/explosive stocking in a little bug while Volks even found a way to get all that packed in a useful little car. Hum...did Volks was inspired by the Nature to create their products ? ...
1-0 Earth
How many generations of any creature have you monitored? 10? 20? Try hundreds of generations a year for millions of years (insects). Plus you'd have to monitor all of the population, not just one lineage. Even more complex organisms (people, horses, etc) can change over millions of generations, or even faster when subject to critical pressures (ice ages, droughts, disease outbursts). Sudden changes can also occur when species close enough to breed mix (dogs and wolves). Even people can be selectively "culled" by extreme pressures. Some think that polynesians tend to be fat since their ancestors who gained weight easily tended to survive the long risky trans-oceanic trips to new islands (studies of shipwrecked sailors from the air of sail tend to support this theory).
Some processes are too subtle for the limited human lifespan to observe directly. If you need to see something occur during your lifetime then you probably wouldn't believe in plate tectonics if it weren't for the extremely sensitive measuring devices that can show spreading of 1cm/yr of the Atlantic mid oceanic rift. Similar measurement of evolution is limited by the technical challenges (try monitoring every member of that species on earth for a few thousand years).
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
of evolution...
Whenever I start to feel bottled in and no way to escape my bowels start to burn. Unfortunately, it means I have to rush to the bathroom as my ass is nowhere near as mobile as the beetle.
I say, soon as I get this perfected everyone watch out.
Ummm, they probably read most of it when they read the old testament in their Christian Bible. The basis of all of these faiths is the same. That was actually the reason for Price of Egypt. It could be marketed to Christian, Jewish, and Islamic people all at the same time. Kev
What evolution still fails to account for is the huge string of coincidences required for life as we know it to have happened. I won't bother going into it, because I'm sure I'll just be modded down as a troll within five minutes anyway. So, go on, have fun. I'll just be sitting here, laughing my ass off at you all.
I too have struggled against those pointed-headed purveyors of immorality, SCEINTISTS!
While many are familar with thier athiest theory of godless "evilution", others, including many of my fellow creationists!, have fallen prey to their more insidious "theory"(and it is JUST a THOERY!)...
the "Theory" of Gravity.
More like the "Theory of Gravi-Sodom and Gomorrah."
As you all know, the Earth represents our morality. God holds us down to the earth just as he holds us accountable for our actions. Many scientists do not dispute this FACT.
But some(meaning "most" or "all") sceintists don't believe in morality. They think that things "fall" ON THIER OWNwithout an intervention from God.
This THEORY is being tauight in public schools to our impressisonable young people. Thanks to these godless "Gravilutionists", they are being tuaght that God's moral laws just aren't the same everywhere in the universe. They're being taught that morality is "different" on Mars or Venus... and that it SIMPLY DOESN'T EXIST IN OUTER SPACE.
Our children, our future, our most improtant resource, are being told that "Murder isn't okay here, but it is elsehwere!"
This is just part of the gravilutionist conspiracy to take us off God's paradise and into the realm of Satan.
Like my fellow Christians in the Scientific Creationism community, I have attempted to publish papers on this subject, but the scientific establishment has STOPPED me at every turn. They are obviously AFRIAD of what I have to say.
I am not some "crankpot". I hold a doctorate from the highly respected University of Ediacara, but the scientists ignore my obvious qualifications.
But just as sceintists laughed at Galileo, laughed at Newton, laughed at Einstein and laughed at Duane Gish, so they laugh at me. But history will prove me right, just as it proved those brave men correct.
And don't even get me started on the THEORY of "Electromagnetism". THat's just a THEORY too, you know.
I find it interesting, reading these comments. I think a slashdot poll would give me some understanding of where people stand. Here is the poll I would suggest:
We evolved from a random chance under natural laws (No God).
God started the evolutionary process and created the natural laws.
God helped the evolutionary process along the way at various points in time.
God step by step was involved in the evolutionary process.
God created it all without evolution.
It is CowboyNeal's fault.
Every so often, a biological/evolutionary/ecological topic comes up on Slashdot. Now, folks here are mostly engineers of one sort or another, not biologists, and it shows.
:-) As someone who has way more than dabbled in both fields, I can say that a hard engineering mindset does not lend itself to understanding the biological sciences in general, and ecology/evolution in particular.
I have an MS in ecology and population genetics, but have also made my living in the CS field for years (to pay the mortgage, you understand
Evolution (and I've taught college courses on the subject) is not engineering. To understand it, you need to understand ecology, genetics, biochemistry, lots of general biology, etc., etc. There are few topics with more misunderstandings, by people who think they understand it all, and don't. Including some people in the field, har har.
Finally, regarding the Creationists and the "irreducible complexity" thing. As the Theory of Evolution got traction in the intellectual world, the Creationists always pointed out something we didn't understand as proof of a Creator. As more and more became understood, they retreated to the next thing. This was called the "God of the gaps" approach - if we don't understand NOW what's going on, it must be GOD!
That's how I feel about "irreducible complexity". It will be found to be reducible. Well, maybe, mabye not. Where is it written that talking monkeys should necessarily come to understand the Cosmos in all its glory? That's what we are, boys and girls. For all our wonderful accumulated knowledge, there's an infinite ocean of subtlety out there... there's no guarantee that it's all accessible to our brand of cognition or any other computation either.
We return you now to your regularly scheduled trollfest...
some people bashed /. for posting this, but i think it comes at a perfect time. first, because of the recent ruling in georgia, and second, because it's always good to have a refresher of what evolution IS. lots of good posts clearing up the myth that it is just random deformed offspring superceding their parents.
i also want to point out to any highschool kids that even HS texts can get it wrong. i recall in highschool learning that man evolved from chimps, which is totally wrong! now today i know that the book MEANT to say man and chimps shared a common ancestor which was chimp-and-human-like, and we diverged 5 million years ago. just wanted to point out that even with a century old science, textbooks can still blow it! check out this page for more fun fuckups in school texts.
Science Hobbyist Misconceptions
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
I just saw Susan Lindquist (as far as I know, the woman who came up with this whole idea) give a talk on Hsp90 (the protein in question) yesterday. Since NewScientist isn't exactly forthcoming with the article, here are a few alternate resources.
4-star general in a one-man army.
You better back off, or I'll uncork some evolution on your ass!
Almost 500 posts in response to a non-existent (?!) article!
Never before in history have so many said so much about so little.
And anyone that takes the bible literally has a serious problem. Having looked at that website and come to the conclusion that many creationists are complete lunatics I went to the source and looked for some of my own answers.
day 1- Let there be Light-- HAHhahabwahaha Do you realize that God did not create the SUN until the 4th day. The bible says that the earth was created first and that the sun and all the other heavenly bodies were created on the 4th day. Which I must point out was approximately 3 days after the creation of the EARTH. Without a sun the EARTH's surface temperature would be ABSOLUTE ZERO something like -450 degrees fahrenheit. How in GOD'S name could GOD have created the PLANTS on the 3rd day if the SUN was not around to heat up the planet.
I am truly sorry that you have allowed John Morris to have any sway over your belief system. He is a total con artist making a living off of the good-natured people that believe in Christ.
These are just some fairly common arguments made against the notion that natural selection alone is sufficient to explain observations regarding evolution. I fully expected them to be challenged.
-
My opinion is as follows; I agree with the premise of natural selection, I even see it as a necessary factor. However, I do not believe that it is sufficient to explain all observed data.
-
I wish I had time to go into greater detail but, such as life.
A goal is a dream with a deadline
I clicked on this thread, expecting to see discussion about this "burst of evolution" article, only to find just another creationist vs. evolutionist free-for-all. There's not even a link to the original article on New Scientist, just a link to a page that seems designed specifically to set off the ol' flame wars. Does the poster even care about the article he's posting, or just getting another flamefest started?
Any sufficiently simple magic can be passed off as mere advanced technology.
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
http://www.lewrockwell.com/wallace/wallace55.html
The theory came out in the 1930's, and was put forth by Otto Schindewolf and Richard Goldschmidt. It was originally called the "hopeful monster" theory.
Wish I knew what that "tidbit" was. I'm not dumping natural selection. I believe it is a necessary part of evolution, I'm just not sure that it is sufficient to describe all observed data. For the record, they lost me at something called "catastrophe theory". This was the notion that evolution would accelerate given sudden cataclismic (sp?) changes to the environment (I oversimplify, but I have limited time). Since natural selection is just that, a selection process, an explanation should be provided as to how exactly that works. Maybe this stored gene thing is the answer but I'll reserve opinion until the data has been better evaluated.
-
-
OTOH, I think there are four flavors of creationist theory out there right now (literal, day-age, gap, and I forget the other one). Therefore, there is no reason to think they have any special handle on what's going on either.
-
-
My suggestion is as follows; Look beyond natural selection, maybe there is something there.
-
-
A goal is a dream with a deadline
Some time ago Richard Dawkins got in some sort of debate with a creationist on the probabilities of one of Shakespeare's plays spontaneously writing itself from an alphabet soup. The creationist did a computer model that showed it would take trillions of years for the book to spontaneously self-create. Dawkins shot the argument down by applying selection pressures to the text. With selection pressures applied, the creation time was just a few hundred iterations. The point here is, you HAVE to have continual selection pressures on mutations or you are simply dealing with random permutations. Any mutations that are "hidden" from selection pressure by not being expressed will NOT follow an evolutionary development, but will, instead, simply follow random probabilities. So, in the theory presented by this article, the creationist wins his argument because Dawkins can't apply selection pressures to the mutations until, say, 2/3rds of the book is ALREADY complete. Sorry, guys. This is just a re-worked Punctuated Equilibrium and it will be abandoned for the same reasons.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
This is justification of my assertion that you are not separating the philosophy from its abuses.
You are absolutely right. Indeed I was not separating them. Unfortunately, those who follow blindly seem to greatly outnumber those who use reason and logic to discover what it is that they really believe.
Then why construct such a long winded reply? You were talking very much about philosophy.
I suppose we were. I'm glad we could agree on some things.
Religions can be flexible too. I think it was 1998 that the Catholic church pardoned Galileo and officially acknowledged that the earth was round.
Why is it so hard for anyone to imagine that God created life to be capable of evolution? I mean, it's not like the bible says "Then God created the bombardier beetle, fully capable of farting acid."
c-hack.com |
"If random variation is always so good, then why didn't super frogs result from these mutations instead of deformed frogs?)"
Tsk, what a cheap rhetorical tactic.
Evolution does *not* say that random variation is always good. Shame on you!
That's the whole point. It's *random* and there will be *many* mutations which do nothing or are harmful. The harmful ones will quickly die out and thus not hurt the species. The do nothing mutations may or may not survive over time.
Genesis 7 'take with you SEVEN pairs of each kind of ritually clean animal, but only one pair of each kind of unclean animal. Take also seven pairs of each kind of bird.'
clean: cattle, sheep, goats, deer, wild sheep, wild goats,or antelopes--any animals that have divided hoofsAND thatalso chew cud.
unclean: all other animals. specifically camels, rabbits, or rock-badgers. PIGS.
- clean and unclean are from leviticus. Look it up yourself. Although HOW DID NOAH KNOW what was clean and unclean because LEVITICUS was not written yet.
Anybody got a calculator. 14 X 7 for the ritually clean animals = 98 . EACH cow would need 1/2 ton of hay to survive a 40 day sojourn on the high seas. That's 7 TONS of hay. Sheep,and other smaller animals would need less per animal but there are SO many more of them of them it would be wise to assum at least 15 tons of hay for the CLEAN animals.
As for the HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS of other types of animals that would have been on this dinghy from heck, lets say another 100 tons of food for the 40 day journey on the open ocean.
- Can anyone say LOGISTICS?
Birds and lots of them. SEVEN pairs of each type of bird is to be housed on the ARK. Lets say 30,000 indivual birds total. 30,000 divided by 14 birds per species gives us about 2143 different species. There are many more species but lets not fret over them. 30,000 would be quite a bundle to handle. Did they build cages for these birds? How did they feed them? What about the mounds of bird shit? How did they protect the birds from the cats?
-
^^Estimate for amount of hay to keep one cow alive is from a show on PBS called Frontier House - montana 1873 . 1 cow requires one ton of hay to survive a montana winter. So I just divided that amount in half.
~
I have no doubt that there was a flood. No doubt that it was a big one. BUT I will never believe that there was a flood that covered the ENTIRE earth to a level that was SEVEN meters above the highest mountain. NO WAY. Melt all the ice and wring all the water from the clouds and you would not get anywhere near even 1000 feet above the present sea level. Let alone 5000, 10,000, or the incredible altitude of 29,000 feet.
Once again John Morris is jim Bakker all over again. A con man preying on good people's faith in human nature.
How can you put trust in someone who tells "science" tales after having read someone else who translated from a german third ? To me it looks like they just try to grab what they can and turn it into an evolutionist flaw, i.e. a creationist "evidence".
> How is it that now an adverse environment is somehow able to make genes suddenly express themselves?
By stressing the system.
If a species is facing extinction due to gross environmental changes, there are all kinds of stresses (greater disease, starvation, difficulty finding mates, etc.)
Since there is no way to know what kind of environmental change is going to happen, there is no way to tell _what_ mutations will be "beneficial" of course.
So it makes sense for a species to have a means of changing drastically, in a variety of ways. And it also makes sense to suppress such a change so long as the environment doesn't much change.
The problem with evolution is not in the actual mechanics of it. There is sufficient evidence that given the right pressures, life evolves. The problem is that it doesn't have any explanation for the origins of life. There are plenty of theories, but none has been sufficiently proven and anybody who says otherwise is a science zealot.
You know, the religion of evolution just gets more and more complex, demonstrating to me that it is inherently flawed.
I'm not saying believe in creationism, but I for one am getting sick of "scientists" who constantly backpedal and have to change things they stated as inarguable facts just a decade or two earlier.
It seems like it gets more and more ridiculous and frankly, it's pretty clear to me at this point that these hypothesis are not being made based solely upon what's observed, but being made based upon what's observed in order to fit in to the assumption that darwinian evolution is true.
That isn't pure science, it's evolutionary fundamentalism, where observations are colored by a faith like conviction that darwinian evolution is true. This isn't helping anyone, least of all evolutionists.
An animal doesn't just one day decide "today, I'm going to evolve." One post talks about how the Bombadier Beetle could have evolved, but describes the process as if the beetle is making the decisons--"today I'm going to make these vaginations deeper, tomorrow I make this special chemical."
Nathan
I'm still waiting for my likadick to evolve.
With a little love and a little determination the professor said he will come around.
If that doesn't work I'll have to beat him.
(Incidentally, one of the hallmarks of the critical-theory-inspired American intellectual Left is to question all of these. America is just another country, other people's customs are just as valid as ours, we can social-engineer ourselves a better life, etc. Small wonder the conservatives "men are fools but the race is wise" get so angry about this)
Okay, that's the setup. Now here's the part where we make a lot of people Very Angry.
This childhood indoctrination is a good thing. All religions (and every society's unwritten philosophy) basically teach kids to Be Good, Respect Elders, Share Toys, Wipe your Nose, Be A Good Boy and Let Daddy Sleep Just 10 More Minutes, etc. These are good lessons, and are best pounded into tender young skulls. If you ask kids to derive their own moral rules, you'll get a nasty brand of selfish utilitarianism, or at best, a complicated, manipulative game-theory view of how to get what one wants. We get a lot of this in adults as it is, because Being Good is often personally counterproductive. Any kind of community spirit is best taught young, where it becomes an unchallenged axiom.
(gasp)
Any takers?
I am a christian, and believe that God created earth, but have considered thers veiws objectivly and made a conscious choice.
But i also beleive in evolution, in that species evolve and adapt to their enviroment over time, punctuated or otherwise.
For me the biggest question in evolution is the first lifeform. I find it hard to believe that chemicals just combined into living cells, even with the intermediate step of proteins.
Also IMHO the story of creation in genesis is an anology, the fossil record could be interpreted, by a creationist anyways, as that God was expirementing with different types of life and decided that the current setup was the best.
It only links to the front page. I cannot find the fricken article, even typed "evolution" into the finder. Who the hell reviews those dumbass submissions? Give them content lessons with a cluebar!
Idiots!
There's not a single evolutionist scientist anywhere who has been able to show how life spontaneously generates from inanimate chemicals--not a single instance where even in controlled experiments where the dice are loaded in ways never found in nature has this ever occurred. To me the entire notion is a scientific throwback almost akin to the dark ages when such things as spontaneous generation were routinely believed factual.
The theory of evolution is nothing less than the belief that life spontaneously generates from non-life. I find it amazing that such things are believed in, but hardly surprising--after all it was once taught in the world's most prestigious universities that the world was flat. JUst because we live today does not mean that popular science is any more accurate or truthful than the flat worlders.
Everything ascribed to evolution screams "intelligence." Evolutionists play word games and call this intelligence "nature" and ascribe its intelligent results to "Darwinism"--without, it seems, even looking with any depth at the implications. The blind are often blind because they choose it, not because they are. When evolutionists stop acting like priests in the temple and start acting like objective scientists who make deductions based on the data, I might start listening to them.
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.
Ooooh, man. I just realised that I exists!!! :)
What a beutafully thing, it is a lot less boring if there was nothing.
Man, I think I am just going to bolter me through life like a stone rolling down a hill - love you guys. The worlds is fucking beatufull (damn, that word is impossible to spell
this is an interesting article that may be relevant to the discussion at hand..g -rst080102.php
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-08/uo
to quote:
Scientists in the past decade have discovered that remnants of ancient germ line infections called human endogenous retroviruses make up a substantial part of the human genome. Once thought to be merely "junk" DNA and inactive, many of these elements, in fact, perform functions in human cells.
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.
So because the bombardier beetle is hard to explain, the creationsists think that we should instead accept that a omniscient, omnipotent creator-being made the universe and the Earth, and populated it with designed animals, and also with humans who were designed to fail to live up to the standards set by the creator-being. But this creator-being requires his creations to repent of their designed-in flaws before they can dwell in paradise in the afterlife with the creator-being. So the creator-being assumed human form and sacrificed himself to himself, to pay off the "debt" that was owed to himself. This is the alternative we are to accept because evolution allegedly hasn't explained the bombardier beetle's defense mechanism.
Let me tell you something: evolutionary biologists are not the ones who have some explaining to do! Why did the creator-being make creatures that have to eat each other to survive in the first place? If predation had not been established by the creator-being, there'd be no need for elaborate defense mechanisms by the bombardier beetle or any other creature. But creationsists have no explanation for this, except to say "God moves in mysterious ways."
If this is what it comes to, it is more parsimonious to simply assume that evolution works in mysterious ways. If we are to be satisfied with the "mysterious ways" conclusion (I can' call it an explanation), then there is no need to invoke the extraneous creator-being to do so.
Edith Keeler Must Die
Thats why I have NEVER heard of him. Is he as famous as John Morris?
^
What about if we just spend ten minutes reading the first 5 pages of the bible? Would that satisfy most creationists?
Where does creationism END? God created everything. Or would we be forced to listen to lectures about how god watches over and controls every living creature including us on the planet and even the universe?
Where does creationism end? Would it just be in the science class? Wouldn't you also have to move into History class? Or Sociology class?
At what point does a creationist allow 'the bible' study class to end and real science to begin? Couldn't we just end every experiment with the phrase 'And that's the way its supposed to be, because that's the way God wanted it'. Give me an 'A' teacher or I am going to complain to the priest, vicar, or whatever whoever runs your church?
Yow. Here's Cola libre:x .php
http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/copyleft/
http://www.opencola.com/products/3_softdrink/inde
Get it while it's there. OpenCola is getting out of soft drinks in favor of software.
Exceeding the recommended torque is not recommended.
Call me a heretic but...
Who is to say that God didn't create the mechanism of evolution? It goes along with my belief that God wouldn't create a creature that couldn't adapt.
Also, the idea that form follows function fits nicely into the idea of niche.
A definition of niche from AP Dictionary:
the unique position occupied by a particular species, conceived both in terms of the actual physical area that it inhabits and the function that it performs within the community.
It is plain to see that life adapts. To suggest otherwise would be to deny the very truth. The finches on Galapagos are one of the first and most pristine examples of both adaptation and niches.
Furthermore, I believe that many, including myself, study science because it is the search for truth and meaning in the physical world. As such, you could consider it a religion of sorts. As for me, such a scientific search for the truth is merely a parallel path to the search for God, like orthodox christianity, because truth is what God is all about.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
Death is part of life. Just like the fact that you can't be good if there's not a way to be bad, life doesn't mean much if there's no death.
It's interesting to see how the 'evolutionists' believe that they completely understand the 'creationists' and that the 'creationists' couldn't possibly understand the 'evolutionists', because 'creationists' are percieved as ignorant and stupid.
Mind you, labeling 'creationist' and 'evolutionist' is a really trying to divide the world into only two catagories, without any posibility that you could be something other than either a scientist or a bible-thumper.
The problem with your position relative to the Creationist, and his position relative yours, is that neither of you can prove the negative concerning the other's opinion. Therefore, both opinions are necessarily constrained to the area of faith as opposed to scientifically verifiable fact.
Of the two doctrines, I tend to to think evolution is the more dangerous because it pretends to be something it is not--it pretends to be science when in fact it is naught but a philosophy. Creationism on the other hand makes no bones about the fact it thinks the earth and the systems upon it are but the artifacts of intelligent creation, and therefore is clear in its interpretation of the data, at least from a completely objective and scientific point of view.
That's the central problem with attempting to divine evolution from the "fossil record"--as a record it is open to divergent forms of interpretation. Evolutionists would be wise to recall that when relying on such things to illustrate their opinions. A true scientist knows the difference between belief and verifiable fact--a poor one does not. I think that's true on both sides of the issue.
Further to this apparent stupidity is the fact that extreme cases of webbed feet are often associated with skin 'disorders' that result in extremely dry skin that needs to be bathed in water almost continuously.
I'm told that extreme cases actually include (atrophied?) gills.
If, on the other hand, she had been born near the ocean (her father was from Trinidad - an island nation), and had had the skin condition often associated with webbed digits, she might have been forced to spend most of her time at the beach / in the ocean (shades of mermaids???).
In Japan where some villages make good money diving for oysters / pearls, her webbed feet might have given her an edge over other divers (especially so gills, if they had any functionality at all). Although such a person might be initially shunned as 'different', the boon of being able to thrive in the water might have made her rich in a pearl-diving village and thus made her a 'good catch'. Thus, what was a severe problem in Edmonton could be a boon had her family moved to the ocean to care for her special needs.
------
In the bombadier beetle, the combustion chamber might have come about slowly... First would be the noxious gasses... not unlike ink in squid -- it would disuade a predator on it's own. Early versions might have had one chamber which needed to be reloaded on a continuous basis along with the catalyst separately added. The original version might have done external mixing A hardened area around the mixing space would have been an advantage that would evolve over time. -- or it might have started as the venom bay for a stinger.
The catalyst would have been most useful -- but not entirely necesssary. An inhibitor would save resources by removing the requirement to continusously produce the 'unstable' compounds.
It would also be worth pointing out that the description of the compounds as "explosive" is inaccurate. The author even acknowledges so (almost at the end of his very long article). The compounds simply degrade over time. It's the addition of the catalyst that makes the mixture explosive.
BTW: in a pre-inhibitor state, the two chambers (besides being a side effect of biological symetry) would have allowed one chamber to hold a charge while the other discharged and refilled on a rotating basis.
OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
I believe this has something to do with punctuated equilibrium. I think the latest "trend" in evolutionary theory is that evolution isn't gradual, but occurs in what appears to be bursts. Such bursts are thought to occur as a result of dramatic changes in the environment. Perhaps drastic changes cause "pent up evoluiton" to break out for some members of the species, and survival of the fittest takes it from there. Anyway, that's how I would make sense of this, but I'm no scientist.
I'm not too sure about creationist claims that a "devine creator" makes more sense than evolutionary theory. It's like neural networks. You can describe how neural networks work, but when they do amazing things (like learn to fly) you really can't explain what the heck happened. That doesn't mean you just witnessed devine creation either...
---
Open Source Shirts
Jesus H Christ, read the fucking thing, because it directly refutes everything you've said in this entire sub-thread.
JUST READ IT!
Do you remember the drivel coming out of these people's mouth a few years back that they are being treated like 2nd CLASS citizens in the USA?
HAHAHHAHAH+AAHHAHAHAHAHAHhahahahbwuhahah ahahahahahah
2nd class citizen? You mean you could not vote? You mean you had to sit in the back of the bus? You mean you had to use the 'creationist restroom'? You mean you had to sit at the 'creationist tables' in a restaurant?
~
YOu people are seriouly deluded. So screwed up that it is sad? Admittedly the atheists have had entirely too much sway with out school systems and government lately but the creationists really make me laugh.
~^
How about I try to get prayer back into the schools? Would that take the pressure off of your seriously overworked brains?
The point that is being missed in these discussions is the size of the beetle population. Any one who works with genetic algorithms knows that the larger the population size you start with the more likely you are to reach a given evoultionary point in a given time. Thus if the population size is large enough then the simulatanoues evolution of all three chemical is very probable. Also it is equally likely that the inhibiter evolved first and liad dormant....it neither hurt nor helped the evolutionary line. Thus by not harming the line it is improbable that this same set of gene sequences would re-mutate....These now brings the siumultatneous mutation down to two gene sequences...which if the population size is large enough is not only likely, but probable.
what?
beneficial.
The fact that I have brown hair, and you have black hair, and that a friend has red hair are not necessarily reproductively beneficial, they're still mutations, passed from parent to offspring.
My personal opinion on the origin of the species is that evolution worked HAND IN HAND with creation. The reason for my belief is that there really are evidences of evolution in nature (age of dinosaurs, adaptation, survival of the fittest etc) yet aside from these there exist irrefutable proof of God's existence (the beginning of everything, missing links, miracles, etc)
Despite all these, a lot of questions still remain and we probably will never know the answer. However, we can always ask, like we always have....
Take off every 'sig'!
All your 'sig' are belong to us!
By forming my own conclusions would I not be sentencing myself to an afterlife of HELL and DAMNATION? Yes I can choose to believe in evolution, BUT by doing do I guarantee that my soul with never go to heaven. Instead I will be forced to listen to Hip-Hoprapcrap and Brittany albums for the rest of time.
Two things, really....
1000 years from now? hmmm, I wonder what people 1000 years ago looked like. Oh yeah, there are paintings, etc. from 1002. And they looked pretty much like us!
And also, the geeks are hardly going to be the driving force in evolution, since they would first have to find someone to mate with them. An unlikely occurrence, don't you think?
evolution itself was part the universal design of things. i am not going to say a peep about where the universe came from or why it is the way it is but however it got here it does show unmistakeable signs that by its very design life will exist. the way solar systems form and the chemicals that make up all life being natural products of physical events in the universe. would it be a stretch to say that evolution does happen but certain traits of life are preprogrammed into the way the chemicals that comprise life react?
i think this idea of stored up evolution just points more in that direction. the importance of which being that there are other worlds in the universe like ours, and more importantly on those worlds are lifeforms very similar to our own. i bet all of our higher level classifications could still fit all the life we might find on an alien plannet. and i bet "humans" (or at least other intelegent life in the same family) do exist elsewhere, why? because it is by design.
i think the evolutionists will eventually find that evolution is a function of mutation, but that these mutations, although determined largly by probability, are not totally random.
(* Programming itself implies, no, requires a programmer. So I ask you, who did the genetic programming? *)
While genetic programming does *not* provide a complete, perfect simulation of the first living thing clear up to humans (or whatever you consider the pennicle), it does show that selection alone can increase complexity. The *resulting* complexity was *not* put in by a human programmer.
This is something that creationists have denied is possible. IOW, "only an intelligent creater can create or increase complexity".
Yes, human programmers "primed the pump" if you will in these experiments, but selection alone *increases* complexity. Agreed, it did not go from point A to point Z, but maybe from say H to L.
IMO, genetic algorithms may not "prove" evolution in it's entirety, but do knock some important bricks out of the creationists wall. It shows that at least some of their traditional but heavily used arguments are weak or broke.
Survivle and/or reproductive selection alone *can* increase complexity. This is what GP and GA have shown.
(I hope this does not degenerate into a debate about the definition of "complexity".)
Table-ized A.I.
By the way, since pi is a supposedly infinite string of numbers, somewhere in there you will find the Bible.
Obviously, you make a good point here, although infinite and non-repeating are not the same things.
This does bring up an interesting question, though: what other forms could a scientifically grounded proof of Christianity (or Islam, or any other religion) take? Fulfilled "prophecy" doesn't cut the mustard, since it may be self-fulfilled.
It seems to me that the only way would be to find some sort of message encoded in one of the fundamental constants of the universe, but are there any other ways?
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
I'm ashamed to admit it, but sometimes I'm too lazy on Saturday morning, and I don't have cable...
The Monkeys on Typwriters is a poor analogy for evolution for at least two reasons:
1. There is no feedback mechanism. If a monkey comes close, it is not rewarded nor has more children then a monkey that keeps missing.
2. It assumes just *one* "proper" solution. The jillions of life-forms all about us show that there are multiple "solutions" to life. There may likely also be multiple solutions to "intelligent life".
Table-ized A.I.
I can't say I'm surprised with the way the comments turned out on this story. There are a lot of smart people who post here, that's why I visit so often. I enjoy the insights into other areas of life and science that I don't know that much about. I've learned a lot about the world around me, and the computers in my home. Really, it's a very impressive thing that's going on here.
A problem that I've observed is that a lot of people seem convinced that the body of scientific knowledge, as it stands, is irrefutable. Along with that, religion seems to be widely derided as a crutch and/or a dangerous thing.
I personally don't think science is a bunch of bunk, I believe we have a good grasp of the world, and most of my family makes a living off of it. But I also believe that we don't know 1% of everything there is to know. By the same token, I realize that some people do use religion as a crutch, and that religious sentiments have lead to many wars and deaths - but also that it has probably saved and bettered more lives than it has ended. I also think it should be noted that many people use religion to improve themselves, and not to think for them.
Where am I going with this? I just wanted to say, after all those disclaimers, that I wish that more respect was given to religious sentiment here. I got "you believe in God?! (snicker)" from several posts at higher ratings than I would have expected. There are intelligent people who believe in God and science both, and have good points to make. I think many are intimidated by the atmosphere here, and subsequently don't post. The rest may not get modded up to more than 2, but they're out there.
That all said, I've tried not to imply any disrespect with my post, just to make a point. Thanks for reading.
Yeah, I have a webcomic...
how do evolutionists explain the "polystrate" fossils and petrified trees found all over the world?
Read the ploystrate fossil FAQ
This goes some way to explaining examples that are considered to defy standard evolutionary theory, such as the Bombardier Beetle."
Yet another example that defies evolutionary theory, Cmdr Taco
I am far more interested in the analyzing the geosocial implications of people who say "Ready, Steady" instead of "Read, Set" (or vice versa).
[o]_O
(the possible apocryphal Haldane quote)
Does this explain the Troll Gene?
Table-ized A.I.
There appear to be many design mistakes in current humans. These include:
1. Testicles that need to be on the outside of the body to be cooled. Other animals have solved this with different chemistry.
2. Urine tube passes through the middle of the prostrate instead of around it. This blocks the flow of urine if the prostrate swells.
3. Improper regulation of weight when food is plentiful.
4. The blood vessles in the eye are on top of the retina rather than behind it, limiting our vision and requiring "muscle wiggle". Octopuss eyes did it right.
5. We don't really need seperate toes and toenails. (This is not the same as not needing seperate toe bones.)
If the creator is perfect, he must have been drinking a little too much sacramental whine when making us.
Table-ized A.I.
God is an invention of Man.
So the nature of God is only a shallow mystery.
The deep mystery is the nature of Man.
- - Nanrei Kobori, Abbott of the Temple of the Shining Dragon, Kyoto.
Thank you, oh prolific trolls for giving me something to think about.
"One touch of Darwin makes the whole world kin." George Bernard Shaw
Enterprise encounters a race of hostile humanoids who have evolved explosive farts.
Don't laugh it off, it would make a great show IMO. Sure, some would cringe, but they are probably not the kind of people who watch Trek anyhow.
Give "strange new lifeforms" a more literal interpretation for once.
Table-ized A.I.
I wonder of these bugs are related to the bugs on StarShip Troopers ??
*--- Sometimes a majority only means that all the fools are on the same side. ---*
The New Scientist article is (presumably, I haven't read it) referring to the observation that when a stress-related protein called Hsp-90 (Heat-shock protein #90) is turned off or otherwise knocked out of whack, "cryptic" genetic variation is made non-cryptic. Hsp-90 basically buffers the development of an organism, making sure that, say, a fruit fly can function as a fruit fly even if there are a bunch of small errors (caused by genetics or the environment) in the development process. So if Hsp-90 functions, a fly can have a large number of mutations in various proteins, but those proteins will still function as normal. That is, you can have a large amount of DNA sequence variation that doesn't actually cause any outward ("phenotypic") change in the functioning of the organism.
So the basic idea is that, as long as Hsp-90 is working, the organism can build up genetic variation without paying any cost in the face of natural selection. If Hsp-90 gets shut down or loses effectiveness, all that genetic variation then leads to phenotypic variation. Since the circumstances under which Hsp-90 fails are also likely to be circumstances under which the organism needs to be able to respond rapidly to selection (because Hsp-90 only fails under extreme conditions), all this genetic variation gets converted to phenotypic variation exactly when it's needed.
That's the idea, anyway. At this point, the evidence is pretty good that removing Hsp-90 really does convert "cryptic" genetic variation into non-cryptic variation. The argument that this is actually adaptive (i.e. that Hsp-90 and similar proteins have been specifically selected to shut down when the organism needs to respond to selection) is not supported at all.
This is not the same as punctuated equilibrium, contrary to someone's assertion above. It could be seen as a possible mechanism for PE, but it was never proposed by the originators of the PE idea. In fact, the basic idea harkens back to work by CH Waddington 40-50 years ago.
Consider in this moral setting the question of abortion, which causes more human suffering? The death of a blastocyst of some level of development, or an unwanted child? Hmm, because we know unwanted children always get the best of care, and they always come out perfectly healthy, both physically and emotionally. They never get abused. Oh no.
Hmph protecting the helpless,Tell me, what would you do in the following situation, which is intimately related to abortion. Your best friend is dying, and he is in horrible agony, you have the power to kill him, and its what he wants, what do you do? The moral answer is that you end his suffering, not that god says no so you get to be in agony. Abortion is moral because it heads off the same kind of problem in the most painless way possible. You allow it because of the suffering otherwise caused to mother and the baby.
And ethics? ethics is at best tangentially related to morality. Ethical concerns are those related to money. Rules like: Don't screw around with your secretary. Why? because its threatening to your pocketbook, it also has the potential in certain situations to cause moral complications, but primarily that's all the reason anyone should need.
I think that any mention to Creationism in a discussion about Evolution here should be modded as a trool. We have wasted enough time and /. have wasted enough space and bandwidth to this particular form of ignorance.
Just a term of comparison, think about someone posting claims that the Earth is flat to any discussion about space missions. I believe the same moderation should apply to other supertitions.
I never understand the bile spewed over this debate. Someone/something 'designed' the Bombardier Beetle by making the particles, atoms, molecules, DNA which 'evolved' into the Bombardier Beetle.
Saying it 'evolved' is not saying it wasn't designed, because evolution is God's way of designing life. There is no schism between "intelligent design' and 'evolution', not even 'creationism' for that matter (though these people make me shudder).
If you believe in God, then DNA and evolution is how God 'designed' life. Look for yourself. Grab a microscope, go to school and use the lab. God put his 'designs' right in front of your eyes.
It takes incredible arrogance to try to tell God how he made life. Don't put limits on what God can/could do by imagining ridiculous alternative ways that God 'created' or 'designed' everything when the evidence is right in front of you.
Intelligent Design = Evolution
All you're arguing about is what tools he used to make it.
While there may be many bible thumping nerds... I'm not one of them, nor do I appreciate being shown some religious fanatics dumb ass web page. That bit about 'evolutionary 'thinking'' really turned my stomach, not only that nerds would comment on this article, but that there are still idiot creationists out there that try and use science as a means of debunking science.
Perhaps this concept of JITE (just in time evolution) could be used to explain this article:
9 99 92844
.
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns
Then again, its kind of hard for me to tell since The ORIGINAL ARTICLE is for SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
Slash-DUH
I can take this one. It comes down to a definition of the word force.
Natural selection is not a "force" in the same way that gravity is. It is an abstraction we use so that we can write mathamatical equations and sentences that humans can get their brains around. [Gravity is also an abstraction, but less dramatically.]
Discussions of evolution often get muddied, because people use different types of discriptions at different scales. The audience doesn't always know what scale is being used.
Nature is a reinforcement loop. We often describe this reinforcement as an active process. We use verbs to describe things hapenning and visions of forces interacting. We do this because it helps humans build an image in their heads. When we change scale and start to talk about individual events, we have to stop using descriptive images and equations and settle down to gritty statistics.
For any individual, there is no shaping. There is nothing which ensures that a more fit individual is not going to be hit by a bus. The feedback loop works on distributions of statistics. [Fewer people who looked both ways died in the presence of busses. No buses no difference.]
The truely problematic statement is the last one "What works is more likely to survive." This is not strictly true. Better would be "What has survived is more likely to have worked."
Think about the evolution of microcomputer architecture. The micro-channel architecture. The alpha processor. MIPS vs ARM. BeOS. Are these "better?" Well, did they survive?
When you change scale you can confuse cause, effect and a descriptive abstraction. That was the point jgerman was trying to pick on. It's a sore point in evolution circles because the abstraction is pretty and the day to day grit is litteraly murder.
Corned beef on rye anyone?
This is not a political statement. This is not legal advice. It's a frick'n Slasdot post. However: I'm Running For
"This brings up a fundamental question (which is the one I am asking you): Where do evolutionary theorists say life started?"
It's not a "fundamental question" for evolutionary biology, the theory of evolution begins with the first species & explains how other species evolve from that species. How that first species got there is a question for a different area of research & theory (abiogenesis).
It is interesting how often folks confuse evolution with cosmology or abiogenesis, obviously schools are not doing a good enough job of explaining the differences.
Seriously, that's why this site has such a bad stigma. How the fuck are stories still getting posted without links to the actual articles. I mean c'mon, with the exception of book reviews and JonKatz rants, this site is basically link propogation. And as I'm typing this I notice I don't even get a copy of the story above the typing space. What the hell? And why the hell do I need to know the username associated with an email I used to register to get back into an old account. The one I want to get open was registered with a now defunct email address. So it's locked permanently. Why doesn't it retire old usernames or at least send the username and password for the email I specify? Goddamnit that's stupid. And finally, why is the interface so clunky, ugly, and confusing? You have to scroll to the bottom to perform a search. You have to click on "older stuff" to view stories that aren't front page. In fact that whole list of links on the left looks like a big mess. Why is their "advertising" and "supporters"? Why isn't "hall of fame" spelled out? God this site is stupid.
> I think I understand GAs at least as well as you do, thanks.
Uhh, the point was that GAs do not explain Evolution, they merely use some of the features of evolution, and show that those features work as expected.
Now how much time have you spent working with real genetics? How many years investigating how actual organisms act in the field and/or lab?
it is = it's
No, the reason evolution is such a hot-button issue is because it conflicts with the Christian explanation of human origin. (Or, to be more specific, it conflicts with a literal interpretation of that origin.)
It's not science that's on trial here. Most Christians believe in and even support the scientific method in areas where it does not actively conflict with their doctrine.
I sympathize with Christians who feel that they must make a choice between their religion and science, but I wish they'd find the strength of character to admit to themselves and to others what they're doing: denying the most workable, parsimonious scientific theory we have for explaining our origins because they're afraid it's true.
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
And you're explanation is?
Including me.
A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.
I belive in evolution, but I also belive in divine intervention. Perhaps (insert name(s) of your favorite diety or dieties here) layed out some cirumstances under which life could evolve, and then just gave it a little nudge occasionally to keep things on track. Maybe this was in the form of actually causing genetic mutations, or perhaps it came in the form of climatic changes.
You can choose to belive what you want, that is your choice, but never force the illusion on yourself that you have only two choices.
"[One in 10^190] is the chance against happening to hit upon haemoglobin by luck.....l ution .htm
Check it out at:
www.theory-of-evolution.org/Introduction/evo
Oh come ON... don't tell me I was the only person who saw this article and immediately thought of the speech given by Patrick Stewart's Xavier at the opening of X-Men: "Every so often, evolution takes a giant leap forward" or something like that... :)
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
Very few animals are going to die of high blood pressure before they read breeding age.
/.) leads to lower general health, which leads to worse DNA repair, which leads to more mutations, which leads to greater variation, which leads to a greater chance of a new pattern emerging that can survive in the aftermath of the environmental change.
Even the many stress related diseases that kill humans don't generally turn deadly until the late 30s-40s.
By which time (in the natural course of things) we would already be done reproducing anyway.
In any event, in context, environmental stress (I mean like asteroid strikes, not like your boss maybe catching you reading
& Yeah, of course gross environmental 'stress' does tend to kill off most animals prematurely, that is one reason why we have mass extinctions when the environment changes dramatically.
Evolution happens to the ones that survive the stress...
There weren't any bombadier beetles before the 1950's. Its all a big scam as part of the giant conspiracy.
We all know from previous articles that there was no moon before this time, its just a giant hologram or cardboard cutout.
"Dinosaurs" are most likely the buried remains from secret dodgy genetic experiments. The same experiments that were being conducted by governments throughout the world to make bombadier (and similar) beetles.
If it can't be explained rationally, it must have been created by a secret government agency.
Think about it.. Fire ants running around being pyromaniacs.. assasin bugs in the frontline, killing off any leaders before they get a chance.. "Ghost" moths, spying on everyone before the revolution. Lightning bugs causing untold electrical damage to golfers everywhere.
;)
When are you all going to realise whats going on out there huh?!
The objective of modding down as trolls all Creationist comments is twofold:
a) Let people exachange ideas freely without have to deal with/respond to crackpot pseudo-scientific garbage.
b) Make all Creationist folk see the Slashdot users as a hopelessly intolerant scientific-minded group, so the Creationists will find other sites to drop their nonsense.
Yes, I believe it may even work.
It should be noted that the link provided for info about the bombardier beetle points to creationist propoganda, containing many non-facts (such as that the two chemicals produced will EXPLODE without an inhibitor).
For a more factual account of the beetle, try, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html.
Forget the fern, the amoeba has over 3000.
"That's how I feel about "irreducible complexity". It will be found to be reducible. Well, maybe, mabye not. Where is it written that talking monkeys should necessarily come to understand the Cosmos in all its glory?"
Actually, Evolution is reducible to a process that could be replicated on a universal computer (a turing machine), and our minds, made of neural nets, can mimic a turing machine program. Therefore, theoretically, given enough time, yes any mind capable of running a turing machine can also run evolution and a good deal more.
-Ben
Well... WRT evolution, there are actually three basic world-views:
- It was organised accidentally (evolution)
- It organised itself (Gaia/pantheist)
- It was externally organised (creation)
Within those, there are divergent views (e.g. punk-eek vs gradualism, old-earth vs young-earth). I'm pleased to say (born stirrer that I am) that there are many observations for which all extant theories are unmistakeably inadequate (-: yes, including all of the tinfoil-hat ones that I know ofVery true, and amazingly opaque to most people.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
The choice to make is not between science and religion, but between dogma and data. Evolution, ironically, is the dogma in this case. I can show you many data which completely cross evolution as an idea IF you don't start with materialist assumptions that would prohibit you from accepting the data as they stand. As soon as you reinterpret the data, you have left the realm of science and entered the realm of philosophy, and it doesn't matter whether that philosophy is Atheism, Gaianism or Christianity, it is still philosophy.
I can also show you data that scare both long-age gradualist Atheists and young-earth creationist Christians. (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
The following text was pasted in to bypass slashdot's braindead lameness filtering, but hey, it's informative as well: Talk.Origins is very hard to target-a fact that may be so by design. For example, if a person disagrees with TO on the 'fact of evolution', these people will employ a definition of evolution ["Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time"] that makes it impossible to disagree and, if one does argue, then that person comes across as being uninformed or irrational or fanatical. This might be acceptable if only it remained right there. But it doesn't! That statement about evolution (which happens to be accurate, i.e., genetic characteristics of populations do vary over time) is subsequently modified / extended throughout TO's many articles and feedback responses so that not only is the person to accept the (empirically corroborated) fact of change, but also that this change is the sole causing agent for the diversity and complexity within an organism (internal organs, cellular structures, etc.) as well as outside of the organism including Earth's entire flora and fauna. The metaphysical extrapolation of the data that is required to accomplish this feat is somehow missed by TO-either by ignorance or by design. What's more, if we are to remain exclusively within the natural (material) realm then the term 'evolution' must somehow be further extended to include life from non-life, i.e., the emergence of life itself must also be accounted for by the ever-stretching definition of evolution. There's more. The origin of the basic materials that make up all objects (living or not) must also somehow be accounted for so yet other forms of evolution enter the scene-chemical, stellar and planetary. In fact, the universe itself must also be accounted for by evolution. Thus, whether they hypothesize a Big Bang, a quantum fluctuation, aliens from another dimension or some other natural explanation, the universe began and has 'evolved' to what it is today. Few would argue with the notion that 'things change.' But to take the step from 'things change' to 'and therefore, that's how it all got here' is a leap of blind, irrational faith that would send even the most fanatical snake worshipper reeling. The bottom line to all this is that the fundamental concept of evolution is clearly a manifestation of a metaphysical-not a scientific-worldview and, just as with any other religion, the facts must continually be interpreted and adjusted to fit with this belief. We return you to our regularly scheduled program.
No it doesn't. It bullshits its way around the issues, step by step. And I quote:
Said invaginations, as well as collecting poisons, would also collect pollution. This would have multiple effects, including blocking of any putative ducts (insect suffers infection, and/or pollution encourages parasites, and/or dilutes/osmoses out the poisons), increasing the risk of epidermal rupture, increases the risk of adhesion or impalement causing direct damage, makes the insect easier for a predator to hold.
Yeah? How? It's all very well having a slowmo movie in your head of that happening, but what prompted it? What caused them to get deeper and not shallower? What drove the `deeper is good' message into the genes? What decided that deeper `was' good?
Oh, yes, `appear'... again, out of thin air? How many different possible chemicals can a mutation produce without killing or impairing the insect? Wouldn't a mutation be far more likely to smash the existing mechanism than to refine it, or add a whole new mechanism to make a different chemical without touching the existing mechanism?
So... which came first, did the unnecessary channels soak up valuable resources for aeons, or did cells produce poisons first but no way of safely transporting them?
What here distinguishes between common design principles and gradual development?
Here we go `appearing' again. How? Did the beetle wave a wand? Stop in at a GE lab and ask for a batch of those new catalase cells, please?
...and up to this point, the unfortunate beetle just goes `pop' when it lights the blue touch paper, and spreads itself all over the landscape? In an earlier stage, it might have got away with burning it's own backside off.
No, they didn't. The entire page is just a flight of fantasy! Nowhere is any driving mechanism explored, nowhere is any reason given for any of these things.
Only when wearing your heirarchy-coloured glasses. Anyone taking an unprejudiced look would see a matrix of features, rather than a heirarchy.
Classic example: microbats have a completely different vision system (eyes, brain, the whole nine yards) to macrobats, yet share identical wing structure. Macrobats have a vision system like that of rats, or us. An evolutionist is forced to cry `parallel evolution' (i.e. the miracle of furry flight squared) but really the evidence says that there are overlapping features, incompatible with a heirarchical development schema.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
That link? You must be joking.
I can show you many data which completely cross evolution as an idea IF you don't start with materialist assumptions
If you have to discard materialism, it's not science.
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
If I saw a giant vision of Thor or Osiris in the sky, I'd be more likely to think someone was trying to trick people into believing in Norse or Egyptian mythology than I would be to fall down in worship. And Revelations, I think, is too vague to be proven by coming to pass. There are too many possible interpretations. (What does it mean, for example, to say "the moon became as blood"? It turned red? I saw one of those last weekend, at moonrise.)
If the Rapture happened, I'd find that worth investigating, but it would depend on the evidence. Do we have people on camera disappearing? How many? Did they know each other? Hoaxes aren't anything new.
Ultimately, I think events just aren't strong enough for me. They can almost always be faked. Even if astronomers saw John 3:16 spelled out in clouds on Jupiter, I'd still need something that couldn't be faked, even by people smarter than we are. I'd need that message in one of the fundamental constants of the universe. Maybe not everyone would, but I would.
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
What irony, something braindead posted to bypass something braindead.
For example, if a person disagrees with TO on the 'fact of evolution', these people will employ a definition of evolution ["Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time"] that makes it impossible to disagree and, if one does argue, then that person comes across as being uninformed or irrational or fanatical.
That IS the definition of evolution, no matter how much you want to extend it to anything and everything under the sun.
What's more, if we are to remain exclusively within the natural (material) realm then the term 'evolution' must somehow be further extended to include life from non-life, i.e., the emergence of life itself must also be accounted for by the ever-stretching definition of evolution. There's more. The origin of the basic materials that make up all objects (living or not) must also somehow be accounted for so yet other forms of evolution enter the scene-chemical, stellar and planetary. In fact, the universe itself must also be accounted for by evolution.
This is completely idiotic. That would be like saying that quantum mechanics has to explain ballroom dancing because they are both natural phenomena. Evolution is a biological observation, nothing more. The various theories about evolution are attempts to explain the apparent diversity and progression of biological organisms, nothing more. Abiogenesis, stellar formation, and the beginning of the universe are completely independent of evolution. There is no reason for evolution to have to explain those things because evolution is still valid no matter what explanation for those things is correct.
But to take the step from 'things change' to 'and therefore, that's how it all got here' is a leap of blind, irrational faith that would send even the most fanatical snake worshipper reeling.
Yes it is, fortunately no one is making it. Rather what they are doing is going from "things change" to "this may be how and why things change" and that is not a blind leap of faith because it is based on evidence and there are competing theories, such as natural selection vs. punctuated equilibrium.
The bottom line to all this is that the fundamental concept of evolution is clearly a manifestation of a metaphysical-not a scientific-worldview
Yes, but it is a worldview that you are injecting in there as a straw man, not something inherent in the theories of evolution.
Yeah? How? It's all very well having a slowmo movie in your head of that happening, but what prompted it? What caused them to get deeper and not shallower? What drove the `deeper is good' message into the genes? What decided that deeper `was' good?
A mutation doesn't have to be "good" to stick around, it just has to be neutral. It could even be slightly harmful, as long as it wasn't harmful enough to cause it to be selected out before a mutation that was beneficial but dependent on the harmful mutation came up. Whether or not that specific mutation actually is neutral or better is a different question, and as I am not a biologist, it is a question I cannot answer.
For the entire post you seem to believe that mutations need a reason (other than the physical reason for the change in the DNA, such as radiation or whatever) to occur. I don't know how you got this ludicrous idea, but a simple examination of it shows it is obviously false. You also don't seem to understand that the proposed chain of mutations is only one of the many chains of mutations that would have been happening in the beetle population. In short, you have completely failed to understand evolution, and I don't blame you for not believing in it.
Animals on the Ark
General Flood FAQ
General literal creation answers.
Specific answer to your question.
I think it was around chapter 6 of "A River out of Eden" that Richard Dawkins provided a kickass model for the gradual evolution of wasp-mimicking flowers, which everyone said were as big a problem as bombadier beetles seem to be. I wonder if it's not the same thing here.
Also, these little buggies produce a lot of young, all the time (relative to, say, vertebrates) . With that many potential mutations, in that many generations, don't the odds for evolution seem a little les ridiculous?
I realize that this is supposed to be a joke, but there is an important point to be made here.
Your theory is unscientific (though not necessarily wrong in a philosophical sense) BECAUSE it can't be proven wrong. There is no experiment that can show it to be true or untrue. Thus, your theory is unscientific and not worth consideration. That is, unless you can show that the universe is covered in Great Green Snot.
This goes for all allegedly scientific theories. In order for the theory to be taken seriously, it has to be useful, that is, it has to make accurate predictions about the universe. The Great Green Arkleseizure (and God for that matter) are not a part of the Universe, thus are not within the purview of science. Thus, scientists are not inherently anti-God, they just don't have anything useful to say about Him (strictly as scientists, that is).
My belief is that after our first mistake of eatting of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Man that sentence uses "of" a lot) we can never go back to the blissful ignorant innocence of our childhood as a species.
What I don't really understand (well, I can see some of the argument but not the logic) is how the action that allowed for the rise of sentience and a knowledge of good and evil (the beginning of morality) can be considered a "mistake" or "original sin". Who thinks that being an ignorantly blissful child is a superior mode of existence?
+&x
Plain, ordinary degeneration falls under that definition. What you're saying is that if a colony of rats take up residence on a toxic waste dump, and they start to be born with defective or missing limbs, patchy hair, blindness etc, this is evolution; this is progress.
And before we start writing off the example against, say, the fossil record... you'd need to explain how `changes' like Trilobite -> Crinoid represent progress, since Trilobites generally precede Crinoids (generally precede most things) in the fossil record. Trilobites are extremely complicated and well-developed animals, yet they appear right near the start of `progress'. You coud argue that Trilobites degenerated, but you would still have to show how they arose in the first place, and why other species did not degenerate.
Um, no?
Ballroom dancing is not a prerequisite of quantum mechanics, nor vice versa. Actually, we might be close to the key to your abberration: ballroom dancing is not natural. Ballroom dancing is highly stylised and artificial. If you can regard it as natural, it seems certain that you will have mistaken other artifacts as natural too.
Mr Montag, are you having a lend of me? Where has biology observed evolution? Can you name any situation in which genuine developmental improvement has been witnessed, let alone witnessed to be a result of evolutionary processes?
Wrong, and I quote:
No, it isn't. It's based almost entirely on surmise, and what evidence is available for its support is invariably better explained by a competing perspective. Not only that, but you started off with `things change' as an axiom, and it's a pretty useless axiom unless it carries the riders `by themselves' plus `and become increasingly complex'. IRL, they degrade and degenerate. That is an observation, not an inference.
Er, what? Because they compete, one of them must be factual? Come off the grass!
Snake worshipper theology competes with Sun worshipper theology, therefore at least one of these cults must be right? Wanna buy a bridge?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
They certainly do. Every mutation has a price. If a mutation is to survive, it must propagate. Propagation implies competing with nearly identical organisms that don't have the mutation. What that boils down to is that for every mutated survivor, a non-mutated creature must die - unless you postulate unlimited resources, which we don't have and have never had. What motivation does nature have to pay this price? Is not the tendency of mechanistic nature toward survival? And if so, why? If nature is truly impartial, an organism has no more motivation to live than to die.
On top of this, the vast majority of mutations are highly destructive, so they kill off the organism (in some situations, the entire species), and there is no principle to counteract this destruction in mechanistic science.
Finally, unlike in frauds like Mr Dawkins' weasel, selectivity is very weak, and the natural tendency observed in biology is for novelties to become de-selected again rather than to propagate.
Selectivity, as you are so careful to point out, has no real idea of what to select for. Naturalism's watchmaker isn't just blind, he's deaf and has no sense of touch, and no brains. Good luck keeping the time.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
What the deuce is it to me? You say that we go around the sun. If we went
around the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or my work.
-- Sherlock Holmes, "A Study in Scarlet"
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...