Slashdot Mirror
Resurrection Ecology Gives Life to Old Eggs
Ant writes "ABC News reports that scientists are bringing the past to life by hatching eggs once thought to be dead and producing colonies of animals as they existed decades ago. They are calling it 'resurrection ecology,' and it's a whole new field that quite literally allows scientists to observe evolution as it occurred, using animals that were quite different than their kinfolk today."
Not exactly. There have been experiments which, for all intents and purposes, have been solid arguments for evolution. The evidence at this point is overwhelmingly present. However, many do not accept it despite the evidence.
I mean, this will still not prove it for most creationists, since it will only show what can happen under closed, controlled conditions. It's never realistic enough to change the lives of the people to whom absolute, totally undeniable proof of evolution would be a faith-shattering experience.
There will always be room for another Scopes Monkey Trial, even today. There are still creationist education groups. It's not like the evidence will be easily accepted by them, either. It will take more than just some simulated ecosystems.
The startling point is that we're talking about only 100 years. Given the number of generations the Daphnia can manage in that time, I guess I shouldn't be so surprised.
But think: if you can get that much useful change in such a short amount of time, how much more can occur over hundreds of thousands of years?
This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
This should probably be phrased as: "Can this possibly be used to show that evolution is more than just a theory?"
What more is there to be than "just" a theory?
Evolution is "just" a theory because, although a theory is a statement of what we think something to be like, that includes in itself an inherent understanding that we can't know more than that, that we could always possibly be wrong . . . so evolution has trouble standing up to things like Creationism and it's masquerade/reinvention as "Intelligent Design", which offer eternal and proclaimed truths at their core. They have the gift of certainty; and unreal concreteness is often more persuasive than truthful equivocation.
I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
Yeah, i agree.
It's just stupid evolution has to be dragged into every single discussion about something biology. When biologists say that they have a scientific consensus about the validity of evolution that means its the same when physicists say this about gravity.
The people denying evolution are not lacking evidence, they are lacking education.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Just wait till researchers bring back a disease that that has been laying dormant for millions of years that wipes the entire human race out.. lol, but i do think what they are doing is cool. I'm sure alot will be learned.
The thing that bugs me about creationism being portrayed as real science is that it has a priori conclusion motivated by a priori beliefs. Do non-religious creationists even exist? (believing in a creator does not require being religious IMO) In practically every discussion I've had with a creationist, they often fast-forward from the "evidence" to plugging their religion. That bothers me, because they seem to be glancing over a whole realm of possibilities even if their initial claims are true.
To me, that indicates a lot of bias on their part... certainly much more than a biologist who studies living creatures much more closely than any of us does. Creationists are inherently more biased since (from their view), being right means potentially having an eternal life. For them, there is much more at stake.
You are right in a sense about the scientific method: scientists are always looking for ways to improve or replace theories. We hold on to theories because they provide the best possible explanation and (quantifiable) prediction of phenomena. If a better theory comes along, that doesn't mean previous ones are entirely invalidated. Usually (as with the theory of relativity), you will see that they are more accurate in certain ranges (e.g. very high speeds). You can still use Newton's theories for a whole range of applications.
How much do you actually scrutinize the holy book of your religion? Crucial events described in your book are rather vague or conflicting. Who are the authors? How did they come by the information? Can they be trusted? Who controls the exact translations and makes sure their (subtle) meaning stays intact? That's just some examples of critical questions you could ask if you weren't so eager to accept the conclusion.
To come back to the non-religious creationist thing: even if you can make a scientific case that things were designed by a super-natural force, that still does not mean that this force is the same as classical views of deities dictate, but rather an entity or group of entities outside our reality. Whether or not this entity is directly involved in humanity or its destiny is then the next major hurdle... and maybe even a bigger one. Certainly one that a true critical thinker would be interested in.
I'm interested in hearing your view on these points.
see a Text Widget
Given a belief in God and creation what is more likely given the evidence: that God created everything according to the literal interpretation of the bible, but made all this evidence of evolution to [trick us|force us to have to take the bible on faith], or that God created the mechanism of evolution more or less as science describes it and that the bible [should not|does not need to] be taken literally?
In my mind, the later seems more elegant and, following the principle of Occam's Razor, more likely. And surely a creation that essentially creates and evolves itself from the beginning is far more divine than a creation that is designed to last detail? But it's very much a question for religious, not scientific debate.
From my vantage point it appears that evolutionists are often hellbent on wrecking people's faith.
Oh really? As far as I know, no one is trying to force Sunday Schools to discuss evolution. But many religious groups throughout the country are trying to force science classes to teach creationism.
Which pink unicorns you worship is your business. When you try to force those unicorns onto others, it becomes a problem.