Slashdot Mirror
Evolution in Action
An anonymous reader writes "A new species of plant came into existence about 30 years ago. It is a fertile hybrid which cannot breed with either of its parent species."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
~~~(fscking 20" timer, cost me FP!)
First advantagous adaptive mutation!
How are you going to keep them down on the farm once they've seen Karl Hungus?
Take that, short-sighted creationists. Now at least you'll have to accept that even if God *is* evolution (seeing as he practically *is* the universe, since every instant in the universe happens through his will, according to christian doctrine), evolution as a mechanism is correct. Finally we can go and tell the buggers to shove it next time they come up with their stupid "but it's never been observed" crap. Weepee! :-)
Daniel
Carpe Diem
The discovery of the York groundsel shows that species are created as well as made extinct, and that Charles Darwin was right and the Creationists are wrong.
This is the part where I imagine Anthony Browne, the columnist, doing a little dance, and thumbing his nose at those bad ol creationists. News Bulletin to Mr Browne, this can be construed as further proving the validity of an already accepted idea in Evolution theory, but finding a weed, no matter how genetically shiney, in a field does not disprove the existance of God, nor the notion that the universe was created by the afforementioned entity.
"Inattention makes clowns of us all" -Bean
about 30 years ago
I know Slashdot is usually the last one to post news headlines, but this is getting ridiculous.
where do i start? animals cha
oh forget it
The evolution model:
1. Bacteria
2. Fish
3. Monkeys
4. Humans
5. ???
6. Profit!!!
Somehow I missed the "engineered through human intervention" part of the article. Which part said that again?
It even says in the Holy Bible
if you believe everything you read, you must spend a lot of time shopping..
BUY NOW
Fuck you bich. I got my Bible froam a 5 discunt.
wel thaen thiatz okey. souriey two trubbel yo.
According to the research, it has now spread to spread to several sites around York, but only ever as a weed on disturbed ground.
/. spread from /. to the times...
Duplicating things has spread from
Keep your packets off my GNU/Girlfriend!
It is a fertile hybrid which cannot breed with either of its parent species.
This is not all that impressive.
I know a whole bunch of people that are in exactly that same category.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
For example, Yeah, right. There are probably dozens if not thousands more; the only way to prove this statement is to catalog every single living organism in Britain. It may be the first new species known to have been created by unintentional hybridisation. It shows nothing of the sort. There are many flavors of creationism, and some believe that creation is ongoing through divinely ordained natural processes such as hybridisation. Further, Charles Darwin believed that women were mentally inferior to men - how exactly does this new plant species prove or disprove that part of his belief system? No, new species typically are created in a single breeding cycle. Think about it, does the first member of a new species stay in the womb for millenia? The generally accepted doctrine of "Punk Eke" or punctuated equilibrium (for which the late S.J. Gould can claim half of the credit) states that species evolve in rapid bursts due to strong environmental pressures such as geologic upheavals, overpopulation, human destructiveness, population isolation or mass extinction events, etc. etc. etc.. This bit about "creation of new species taking thousands of years" is straight out of Darwin, and it's one of the things that this discovery could be said to disprove.
No, hybrids are often sterile, and many of those that are not often de-hybridise and revert to parent forms in the wild. Nonetheless, fertile hybrids abound.
Most "scientific" articles written for non-scientists sacrifice some precision for accessibility. But this article has more false statements than real information, by a rather large margin.
--Im an oven mitt, not an engineer! (SLArbys Radio Commercial)
Well, not really. Depends on who you're talking to. If you're talking to a strict fundamentalist who has no science background, then yes, it does disprove his breed of creationism. It doesn't, however, disprove Dr. Michael Behe's breed of "creationism".
What it does disprove, though, is that speciation is possible, but that's rather obvious to anyone who looks at the genetic/chromosomal make-up of, say, chimps, gorrillas and humans.
If you're truly interested in this debate, then I would recommend a book called "The Science of God" by Gerald L. Schroeder. He's a physicist who is also a creationist, but with a rather different take on the whole thing. He maintains that God did create the world in 7 literal days, but that it also took roughly 13.5 Billion years. Has to do with the theory of relativity of time... He's also Jewish, and has an incredible grasp on the Hebrew underlying the English in Genesis, and brings to light several key verses that could have either been translated better, or simply lost something in translation. Great stuff.
As a creationist who also has a degree in genetics and did research under an evolutionary geneticist, I've seen both sides of the spectrum. both sides extremes have their intellectual/theological bigots who aren't willing to budge simply for spites sake. However, those that are willing to at least listen generally can have very unique viewpoints.
When I read the phrase 'Evolution in Action" I think of suicide. From the book _Oath of Feality_ by Jerry Pournelly(sp).
zenray
And exactly how did nature create city councils and people whose job it is to kill weeds? Kind of puts a kibosh on the whole environmental movement, don't you think?
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
I mean, isn't it a little far out to presume that we have cataloged every plant species known to man? For all he knows somebody took a trip to Costa Rica, tromped around the jungle for a while collecting weed seeds in their shoes and socks, and then left them in the dirt on their way back home. Who's to say what plants are left to discover in the rain forests/jungles?
I'm not saying it's not possible that it's evolution, but I would contend that it's not enough justification for the self-righteous back-patting of the author.
As a skeptical scientist who tends not to fully accept anything which cannot be demonstrated -- even the much-vaunted theory of evolution -- I find this speciation evidence very interesting. It would appear that macroevolution has a valuable missing link in this new plant.
But does this new weed, or any others like it, demonstrate any unique functionality? What can it do that its parents could not? The article is obviously not in the right forum to provide such details. Nevertheless, I'm curious, because I feel that the "irreducible complexity" argument remains to be answered until such a new functionality can be found.
Now if they found a weed that can breathe fire, I'd be sold!
The problem with the "creationists" s/he is talking about it that they confuse science with faith, as you are doing now. You may want to re-define what "creationist" means for your context, but you would be altering the definition for the context which we are in. Basically, if you want your god, science has no problem with that, just keep your chocolate out of my peanut butter--but if you want your god to be involved with science...well, first tackle philosophy and then we'll talk. Otherwise leave your god out of it.
Also, lay off the violence buddy! How Christian (or whatever your variation) is that?
What do you think?
uncatalogued plant in wasteland next to the York railway station car park in 1979
How many people saw this little gem:
t em_crash/system_crash_resources.html)
2 ) this calculation assumes a uniform creation of new species all over the (productive) land area of Earth. One would assume areas with more speciation would experience more growth.
"It is a very rare event -- it is only known to have happened five times in the last hundred years" Dr Abbott said. It has happened twice before in the UK -- the Spartina anglica was discovered in Southampton 100 years ago, and the Welsh groundsel, discovered in 1948. "
The "It" is not explicitly defined in the text, but it appears to refer to a new species occuring: one which cannot breed with it's parent species. (Or to be more precise, a new genetic mutant occuring which, by not being able to breed with its parents, yet being able to breed with like mutants, qualifies as a new species.)
So this is not the first new species (?) to have evolved recently. Apparently, there is some evidence that 4 (or 5?) other species have come into existance recently - and 3 of 5 (or 3 of 6 - sorry the article is vague on this point) have occured in England. One would assume this is because lots of people stare at plants in England, and that the flora species are well known. But imagine the potential for large numbers of species to be evolving all over the world all the time.
A simple calculation could proceede as follows:
* Assume we found all new species in England. 3 per 100 years. The land area of England is 12.7x10^6 hectares.
The total land of Earth (which is productive) is about 3278x10^6 hectares (source:http://www.upstarts.net.au/site/ideas/sys
Now multiply the rate (3/100 years) by the fraction of surface area of the Earth England occupies and we get: 7.7 species per year.
Two notes:
(1) there are *large* numbers of species going extinct per year (estimates range from 10,000 to 100,000 per year! Source: http://www.whole-systems.org/extinctions.html)
(
a war on terrorism? How can we end a war on a method?
That new species can form is a fact. It's been observed. Get used to it.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
It is exactly these sorts of discussions that give me pause to think about the universe in general. Specifically, how magnificently large it is. How it can be so infinite in scope and possibility yet, it is finite in its existence. For instance, we know the universe is expanding without bound or limit. We know that it is filling a void (imagine what the edge of the universe must look like and where it is going). Does that void have a real existence or can our consciousness and physical being not exist beyond the confines of the physical universe into that void?
We also know that all physical material that is in the universe was there when the universe was created. Most scientists speculate and theorize that this was the case at the singularity that existed prior to the Big Bang. I often find myself wondering where the singularity came from and why it existed? I also wonder in what the singularity existed. It couldn't have been nothing, because it is impossible to create something out of nothing. (To take it a step further, is it even possible for us to imagine what existed prior to the Big Bang? Perhaps our understanding of reality is limited by our connection to the physical universe). Unless of course, human beings cannot exist beyond the confines of our universe, in which case the argument becomes "meta-physical".
I find it amazing that the Earth formed at just the right distance from the Sun, with all the necessary stellar material, at the right time in the Sun's life cycle on the main sequence to allow for life to develop. Of course the most amazing component of that thought, is that the stellar material existed in the correct quantities to provide a useful biosphere.
I must admit however, that I don't believe evolution to be a science as is biology or physics. Rather, I believe it is a mechanism, a procedural system much like an assembly line. You provide it raw material inputs, a working model of its environment, and it provides you with output in the form of biologic change. I also don't view religion as a science. Rather, I see it as a framework of beliefs. Is it wrong to have a religion? I don't think I, nor any other individual can answer that question. Right and wrong are relative terms and are often tied to the framework of beliefs that are prescribed in a religion. Does the existence of God depend upon the non-existence of the Theory of Evolution? No. The two are mutually exclusive. One is argued to be the Creator, while the other is argued to be the tool of creation.
To know is to have knowledge....to understand is to be enlightened.
> As a skeptical scientist who tends not to fully accept anything which cannot be demonstrated [...]
I wonder if you would elaborate on the scientific concept of "demonstrated". For example, has it been "demonstrated" that nuclear reactions power the sun? Has the existence of quarks been "demonstrated"?
And if these things have not been "demonstrated" to your satisfaction, how skeptical of them are you?
> But does this new weed, or any others like it, demonstrate any unique functionality? [...] I'm curious, because I feel that the "irreducible complexity" argument remains to be answered until such a new functionality can be found.
The IC argument has been demonstrated to be nonsense even without this discovery. The IC argument merely rules out the most direct path of evolution for a structure or system, and then jumps to the unwarranted conclusion that no path exists. IC, like the rest of the "Intelligent Design" movement, is just pseudo-science offered up to give the uninformed and/or uncritical thinkers a reason to keep believing that their God had something to do with something.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
This is completely true... don't know why the grandparent was modded insightful in the first place.
That nuclear reactions power the sun can be largely reproduced in a laboratory. The notion that quarks exist certainly appears to hold given the experimental evidence, inasmuch as any quantum particle can be said to "exist." Both of those notions are testable, therefore demonstrable. There are many other such physical questions which are not directly testable in an experiment -- the existence of black holes, for example -- and I claim the right to reserve judgment on any such theories. I can make a statement as to their plausibility, but my standard for truth ("Black holes exist") is high. It doesn't have to be your standard, but I work in quantum chemistry, where semantics can confound you in a nanosecond.
I agree that irreducible complexity is mostly an argument by induction. But the fact remains that this plant we are discussing is largely a transgenic creature which happens to be capable of reproducing itself. Such organisms can be constructed in the laboratory, and I surmise, given enough effort, could be constructed to reproduce only with their own kind. In fact there are already efforts to do this sort of thing IIRC. No new complexity has been added; this plant operates like countless other plants. If, instead, it had developed some ability heretofore unseen in its phylum, then I would withdraw my objection.
It is up to the proponents of a theory, any theory, to provide evidence not only of A and Z, but all points in between if they want their work to be held up as law. The burden of proof is theirs, and the motives of their detractors is irrelevent. Though, for the record, I am not a creationist.
(You will please note this post, nor any other post of mine, will ever include "nonsense," "uninformed," or "pseudo-science." Such pejoratives should not be necessary if the strength of the argument is behind you.)
> That nuclear reactions power the sun can be largely reproduced in a laboratory.
So can the mechanisms posited by the theory of evolution.
[Re-read that sentence carefully before replying.]
Moreover, reproducing something in the laboratory doesn't necessarily mean that that's what actually happens in nature. Whence the acceptance of what happens in the laboratory as a "demonstration" of what happens in the sun, while rejecting the same for evolution?
> I agree that irreducible complexity is mostly an argument by induction.
You're too kind. As I pointed out above, it's an argument by bullshit. I'll be happy to repeat the argument if anyone needs to hear it twice.
> But the fact remains that this plant we are discussing is largely a transgenic creature which happens to be capable of reproducing itself. Such organisms can be constructed in the laboratory, and I surmise, given enough effort, could be constructed to reproduce only with their own kind. In fact there are already efforts to do this sort of thing IIRC. No new complexity has been added; this plant operates like countless other plants. If, instead, it had developed some ability heretofore unseen in its phylum, then I would withdraw my objection.
So do you recommend that all creationists now withdraw their objections to speciation by the mechanisms proposed by the modern theory of evolution?
Also, notice that the notion of "complexity" does not seem to be well defined for a discussion of evolution. What should we look for if we want to observe an increase in complexity, and how should we measure it?
> It is up to the proponents of a theory, any theory, to provide evidence not only of A and Z, but all points in between if they want their work to be held up as law.
You misunderstand what science is all about. The theory of evolution isn't required to give a complete history of every species any more than the theory of geology is required to give a complete history of all the pebbles in my garden.
Behe and his cronies are claiming to have demonstrated that the theory of evolution doesn't explain what we see in nature, but the simple fact is that they haven't demonstrated it. If you want to claim that "X can't produce Y" it is not sufficient to show that one path from X to Y fails: you must show that all paths fail, or you simply haven't made your case. And there's absolutely no need for anyone to defend a well established theory against a case that hasn't actually been made.
Behe, Dembski, et al. are simply dressing up the traditional argument from incredulity in some obfuscating pseudo-scientific jargon so that interested but uninformed people will not see through to the underlying nonsense. I suspect that they are doing it dishonestly, but it may be the case that they are merely incompetent as scientists. (I can't read their minds, so I'll leave it to the reader to choose which rope to hang them with.)
> You will please note this post, nor any other post of mine, will ever include "nonsense," "uninformed," or "pseudo-science." Such pejoratives should not be necessary if the strength of the argument is behind you.
I only find them necessary when following a policy of calling a spade a spade. Creationism is nonsense. IC & ID are pseudo-science. People who support any of it are either uninformed or else dishonest. I make no apology for calling those spades spades; indeed, I feel like it is my civic duty to do so, since the Discovery Institute is at the forefront of a movement to destroy apolitical science and science education in the USA.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I find your evaluation of Behe's argument completely misguided and wholly disrepectful. Behe is a respected scientist (perhaps not by you) in his field. It is not just to dismiss his arguments as mere "bullshit." To do so only paints yourself as disrespectful and doesn't further your cause any. Instead of trying to insult him and those who agree with him - or at least entertain his theories as containing some truth in them - I suggest you calmy and clearly lay out why you disagree with him and why he is wrong without using derogatory words such as "uninformed" or just labeling him as "pseudo-science". Physicists thought Albert Einstein's relativity postulates were just pseudo-science, but it turns out he was right.
I may or may not agree with Behe myself, but I at least give his arguments merit and I feel I have to address them completely. You may feel that you have done so, but I disagree:
If you want to claim that "X can't produce Y" it is not sufficient to show that one path from X to Y fails: you must show that all paths fail, or you simply haven't made your case. And there's absolutely no need for anyone to defend a well established theory against a case that hasn't actually been made.
I feel that Behe has raised a valid objection. While I would agree that it is not enough to show that only one path from X to Y is not possible, I think that his critics should show how alternative paths may be not just possible but likely to happen. He has shown that the most direct and (previously assumed, by many, most plausible) path from X to Y could not happen. That still gives me pause when I consider evolution as we know it. So using logic similar to your own, merely showing that there is a path from X to Y is possible is not enough. You must show that that particular path is plausible and likely to happen. And the mere fact the Y exists is not enough to show that it came from X, as creationism itself can explain the existence of Y with no problem.
Bottom Line: It would be nice to read other people's arguments charitably. To start with the assumption that those who disagree with you are automatically wrong is not a good position to take. Just because you disagree with his arguments is no reason to attack him personally and professionally as a scientist. If you do so, then people will fail to take you seriously as well and then disregard your opinions.
> > That nuclear reactions power the sun can be largely reproduced in a laboratory.
> So can the mechanisms posited by the theory of evolution.
*sigh* It may be that I'm uninformed, but I have not yet seen an evolutionist produce demonstrable evidence of speciation that would explain the formation of apes from amoebas as easily as one could posit the formation of iron from helium in nuclear reactions. The reason for this is precisely the question of process. I would imagine that the process happens naturally over such a long period of time, such that it would be difficult to provide such evidence. But kindly point me to the contravening evidence if it exists, because I really would like to know.
To suggest a mechanism that follows observations provides it plausibility and a measure of respectibility. But 1 must be followed by 2, 3, etc. as clearly as the spallation equations are before I would accept the theory of evolution as a law and ridicule those who would question it.
Whenever there is room for uncertainty, there is room for questioning. "Consensus," ad hominem, and generating arguments-by-number out of the Defending Evolution handbook hasn't convinced me of anything in the past, because to carry a scientific argument to its conclusion it is necessary to cite the relevant evidence. If it's really as devestating a position, the support behind it should be more than "I shouldn't have to defend this" and oblique references to anti-education initiatives.
That's what my science has always been about, anyway.
You couldn't be more wronger. (-:
There is no theory which postulates differing processes for the origin and development of life. Before biological evolution there must have been chemical evolution, else biological evolution doesn't make any sense.
However, it really doesn't matter. The plant in question is a crossbreed, no new-and-improved information involved. Whoopie-doo. How original.
Mutation destroys, it does not build up or organise or improve. Mutation in action is like hitting a Lego display with a .303 shot. Is the resulting Lego improved, no matter how carefully you compare and select pieces (in itself, a non-random act)?
The same objectively observed and measured principles which account for abiogenesis being ridiculously impossible also account for mutation-and-selection being a consatnt downhill slide, not a glorious march to universal self-improvement.
We still lack an example of evolution in action. We also lack any substantial results from studies into possible routes for abiogenesis, and any substantial commitment to studying Creation. If the billions which followed Miller and Urey's cul-de-sac experiments into oblivion had been spent on testing Creatiojn as an hypothesis instead, there would no longer be doubt in any civilised country - which is, of course, why it didn't happen. Creation does indeed imply a Creator.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Materialism is also a fundamental religious belief.
Why do you believe that what you see is all you get? What evidence have you that this is so?
And really, you don't even believe in that, 'coz you believe in - for example - electricity, quarks and dark matter, yet you can't touch or see any of them.
I got off easy; many years ago a witchy friend of mine got me exposed, several times and in completely different ways, to some physical effects which were literally impossible to explain by any means besides rank stupidities like `mass hallucination' (coordinated how...?), and this opened my mind to the possibility that I might not know everything, might not be seeing everything, there might be more.
And there is.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
How can they be certain that this plant has not been around for long time and it just got noticed?
It's a *fact* that you're uninformed. You've already said you're a chemist. A good scientist would recognise his/her boundaries and limitations and not answer authoratively outside his/her field of expertise. You are arrogantly claiming that evolution isn't a fact despite this not being your field of expertise. That makes you either a liar or a bad scientist.
The fact that biologists who ARE experts in this field and ARE very informed claim that evolution is a fact seems to have escaped you. The fact that 14 Nobel Laureates wrote a brief to the Supreme Court saying that evolution is a fact is also apparently beneath you; who are the Nobel Laureates to dispute... bardencj (122074)?
Also note that I despise the argument to authority but I felt the need to beat you into the ground when you raised your own "credentials" before claming that evolution is not a fact.
> I find your evaluation of Behe's argument completely misguided and wholly disrepectful.
As a matter of fact, I don't respect him. He is either dishonest or an idiot.
> Behe is a respected scientist (perhaps not by you) in his field.
Funny, alumini of Lehigh University sometimes report embarrasment over the fact that he has tenure there.
> It is not just to dismiss his arguments as mere "bullshit."
Actually, it is always just to call bullshit "bullshit".
> Instead of trying to insult him and those who agree with him - or at least entertain his theories as containing some truth in them - I suggest you calmy and clearly lay out why you disagree with him
I already did.
> Physicists thought Albert Einstein's relativity postulates were just pseudo-science, but it turns out he was right.
"They also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
> I feel that Behe has raised a valid objection. While I would agree that it is not enough to show that only one path from X to Y is not possible, I think that his critics should show how alternative paths may be not just possible but likely to happen. He has shown that the most direct and (previously assumed, by many, most plausible) path from X to Y could not happen. That still gives me pause when I consider evolution as we know it. So using logic similar to your own, merely showing that there is a path from X to Y is possible is not enough. You must show that that particular path is plausible and likely to happen.
No, Behe is trying to disprove the sufficiency of a theory. Either he has disproved it or he hasn't; a partial argument doesn't count. In this case he hasn't disproved it, because all he has offered is a partial argument.
Notice that biologists do not claim that the theory of evolution tells them every detail of the history of life on earth. We simply have a mechanism that appears to explain the evidence we have. If someone wants to make a claim that the mechanism doesn't explain some of the evidence, then they need to actually support their claim rather than waving their hands and offering an argument that will appeal to the uninformed masses.
> And the mere fact the Y exists is not enough to show that it came from X, as creationism itself can explain the existence of Y with no problem.
Yes, because as I said earlier, creationism is compatible with any observation.
> Bottom Line: It would be nice to read other people's arguments charitably. To start with the assumption that those who disagree with you are automatically wrong is not a good position to take. Just because you disagree with his arguments is no reason to attack him personally and professionally as a scientist.
The problem with Behe and his ilk isn't his opinions, but the fact that he continues to peddle them even after they have been shown to be wrong. That makes him a pseudo-scientist.
> If you do so, then people will fail to take you seriously as well and then disregard your opinions.
I am quite accustomed to having creationists disregard sound arguments. I am posting for the benefit of any lurkers who might think Behe's credentials guarantee that anything he says is valid. (Lurkers may also want to read up on Behe and the wedge strategy.)
In science, bullshit walks. Behe isn't publishing this crap in biology journals because he can't make a case for his beliefs. That's why he groups with Bozo rather than Einstein. I'll be happy to welcome into the fold of scientists when he starts doing science instead of religious politics.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> I have not yet seen an evolutionist produce demonstrable evidence of speciation that would explain the formation of apes from amoebas as easily as one could posit the formation of iron from helium in nuclear reactions. The reason for this is precisely the question of process. I would imagine that the process happens naturally over such a long period of time, such that it would be difficult to provide such evidence.
It is also difficult to provide the kind of gapless evidence you want for evolution when studying the life cycle of stars. Do you reject the astrophysicists' model because you accept nuclear reactions but haven't seen the whole life of a star from beginning to end?
> But kindly point me to the contravening evidence if it exists, because I really would like to know.
Assuming that "contravening" isn't the word you intended to use, the evidence for the tree of life is the fossil record and the genetic record.
> But 1 must be followed by 2, 3, etc. as clearly as the spallation equations are before I would accept the theory of evolution as a law and ridicule those who would question it.
The theory of evolution isn't "a law"; it's a model that explains the evidence. It only fails for the in-betweens if you make the completely unsupportable claim that "I can get from 1 to 10 by iteratively adding one, but I can't get from 10 to 1000 that way." The Intelligent Design theorists are indeed trying to make that argument, but every claim they make is full of leaks. Ergo, they haven't actually made that argument. There simply isn't any reason to believe that stepwise change cannot lead to vast differences.
> If it's really as devestating a position, the support behind it should be more than "I shouldn't have to defend this" and oblique references to anti-education initiatives.
You miss the facts that (a) I'm not so much defending anything as pointing out that Behe is drawing grand conclusions from a flawed argument, and (b) the attack on apolitical science education is an observable phenomenon, which curiously goes hand in hand with creationism and "Intelligent Design".
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
>You are arrogantly claiming that evolution isn't a fact
Re-read what I said. Re-read it very carefully. Note the absence of any statement affecting anyone but me. You may choose to call it a fact. I call it a plausible syndrome of various hypotheses that conform to what we know at this moment. I would not disagree with calling it a "model," as Black Parrot has offered. The only reason I made mention of my profession was to offer a flag of truce, really; I innocently wanted someone to respond to my question with something I hadn't heard before instead of throwing me in with the young-earth zealots.
I buy microevolution. I buy much of phylogenetics. I buy speciation of the type given in this article. I want to believe, nathanh, help thou my unbelief! You don't have to fill in the gaps yourself. Just point me toward your favorite tract on punctuated equilibrium. I'll take a look and decide if it's really as compelling as you think it is.
Ultimately, my contrarian viewpoint stems from the fact that evolutionary biologists as a rule react to all criticism with vitriol and derision. In the field of astrophysics, the example suggested by Black Parrot, there are still a great many things that have not be explained. If some new evidence comes forward that modifies the timeframe somewhat, say the disputed age of a quasar, and I ask an astrophysicist about what it does to his theories, he would be frank about the adjustments that need to be made. Physical scientists, at least, are not threatened by the idea that they may not know it all. In fact, we're pretty sure we'll never know it all. In quantum mechanics, we talk about particles and waves interchangably, the nonsensical electron "spin," and orbitals that don't exist except in the hydrogen atom. When that knowledge percolates into the general population, some of those epistemological details get lost, and people begin speaking in absolutes about things which are not.
Evolutionary biologists may have hard hearts and heads from arguing with the inarguable (creationism), but that doesn't excuse their behavior with other scientists. Us chemists have a long-running joke about how you don't really need to have a conversation with those guys, because their response will always be "Of course! How could it be otherwise, because it obviously confers/doesn't confer an evolutionary advantage!" Even when the data directly contradicts a previous study.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encycli cals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generi s_en.html
:)
A quick google search for the terms "evolution" and "species" on the site "vatican.va" turned up this link. My favorite part is where they try to equate evolution with communism.
If all the world's a stage, anyone who says they want better lighting spends far too much time in a dark theatre.
Obviously we disagree on Behe. So I have a simple request of you. Could you point me to a peice of literature which actively addresses Behe and discounts his theories and answers the questions he asks? I do not, in any way, mean to imply that you cannot do this - nor that this literature does not exist. I honestly just want to read and review the opponents of Behe so I have a more accurate understanding of not only your argument, but of Behe's as well. The best way to understand an argument is to understand the objections to it.
I'd prefer something that was published on paper - just point me to whatever journal its in, and the issue number, or the title and author of whatever book it may be. A website will do if you don't know of any paper publications off-hand. The only strict requirement is that it directly addresses ID and irreducible complexity.
Thank you in advance for doing me this favor. Who knows, you may change my mind about Behe.
I don't know whether or not you'd call me an extreme evolutionist
No, I wouldn't call you that. You don't seem to have the knee-jerk reaction I would expect from one.
But, here's something for you to consider. if I could show you a way that a literal interpretation of the creation event in Genesis (as in 6 days) could line up with the age of the universe (roughly 13-15 billion years old), and that the order of creation would match the evolutionary "branching", would you be interested?
Then you're a bad scientist. You don't judge the theory based on evidence or logic or data. Instead you dismiss the theory based on your personal dislike of the scientists.
I disagree that religion can be used to gain knowledge, unless you want to invent such a thing as "spiritual knowledge." Scientific knowledge has a purpose, it can be used to make predictions that can subsequently be verified. I understand of the assumption of "spiritual knowledge" can alter human behavior. How many "martyrs" have "known" their place in paradise was assured. How do you verify that any of them had any knowledge?
I don't recall asking why they would be a bad mix, but I did wonder why they can't co-exist.
They can't co-exist because they are contradictory. Religion is the statement that the physical laws that govern the universe are arbitrary and subject to change at any time. Science is the statement that there exist a set of immutable rules that govern all physical processes. To quote Scotty, "Ye canna change the laws of physics." If we ever find a way to change the charge of an electron, it will be because the laws of physics allow it. There is no room in science for the phrase "I believe." There is only, "the evidence shows" and "according to the predictions of this hypothesis."
I also feel that trying to answer religous questions with science is a farce.
Of course, but then again the definition of a "religious question" would be "one without a valid answer." The answer to most of them is "what makes you think there would be an answer to that?" At some point we, as a species, have to realize that the universe isn't a story about us. I don't think we'll survive for long without coming to that realization.
Support SETI@home
I've read through your arguments below, and there's a point that neither party seems to be making.
To answer your original question: this hybrid organism lacks the capability to reproduce with either parent, yet it can reproduce with other plants that share its mutation. By chance its DNA mutated enough to change its reproductive options. No other organism has these specific reproductive options. This mutation is not as glamorous as a firebreathing thistle, but by definition this is all it needs to be something new to taxonomists.
See the definition of species, provided by Dictionary.com. If you disagree, switch disciplines and take up your point with Oxford, Webster, and the general field of evolutionary biology.
Get off my virtual lawn, you damned virtual kids!
Those who believe in evolution and in creation are obviously both trying to come up with guesses based on what they have observed in the world! The only difference is that their experiments are not simple but based on an entire lifetime of observations. I do not see evolutionists changing their mind every time a discovery is made that seems to go against evolution. Why? The same reason a Creationist doesn't -- An entire lifetime of observations.
Historically, science has not limited itself to the idea that there is no possibilty of God, outside forces, etc. Newton was sure of his theories only up to the point that God or outside forces could be working. It was not until the last hundred years that the scientific community has assumed the nonexistance of God in scientific theories. (This doesn't mean that they took a stance saying there is no god, but that the assumption that no gods can be interfering with the "laws" of the universe is required or else nothing can be determined to be always true.) While this idea makes some sense, it also means that what you are calling SCIENCE CANNOT BE USED TO DISPROVE GOD OR ANY OF HIS ACTIONS! Any scientific theory that is not assumed to be accompanied with the phrase "Unless there is an unseen god or "force" extrenal to the universe" is BY ITS VERY NATURE CIRCULAR REASONING. This means evolution is a valid theory as long as the hand of God (or some other intelligent "being") played no part in species development. Even if a new species is observed today, does that prove that a god did not have an unseed hand in creating the mutation?
The idea that God created all species in a progression is a perfect answer to what is observed in nature, but is not considered a scietific explanation based only on the modern definition of science.
I doubt if you'll find much in journals as Behe's work on irreducible complexity is published in popular books and not journals, but several good discussions of IR and ID are found at Talk.origins.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
Thanks! I'll be sure to read this.
Oh, and just for the record - I am not necessarily an adherent of Behe's. I found his work interesting, but if it is not as grounded in firm science as is suggested by this thread, and I do find good reason to question it.
However, I am still a creationist - and I hold it true that creationism and evolutionism are NOT mutually exclusive.
I do however, resent being attacked personally for my beliefs.