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."
Resurrection Ecology Gives Life to Old Eggs
;-)
Maybe this will put an end to those viagra emails I keep getting too.
Can this possibly be used as an argument for evolution?
How does this demonstrate evolution? Don't they know the eggs were planted there just to fool them???
Just KNOWING that creatures an be a hatched after that long stalled period makes you wonder about what life really is.. Offtopic, but this seems to help imply that death and birth don't really have beginnings or ends. Kind of scary to me at least.
(\_/)
(O.o) This is Bunny. (> <)
More SEA MONKEYS!
http://ut.water.usgs.gov/shrimp/ "The life cycle of Artemia begins from a dormant cyst that contains an embryo in a suspended state of metabolism (known as diapause). The cysts are very hardy and may remain viable for many years if kept dry."
As the article says (in the headline, at least), scientists made dormant eggs hatch by putting them under the right conditions. "They found that eggs that had been trapped beneath the sediment years ago had never hatched, but miraculously, were still alive."
It may be a landmark - I have no idea - but it's not resurrection.
Most eggcellent!
Physicist, consultant, science communicator
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!
Slashdot poster brings back memes thought to be dead and produces jokes as they existed decades ago. He calls it "resurrection karma".
Unfortunately, no good can come of it, as those memes are the same ones we have today.
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.
for samples of microorganisms from Lake Vostok
I refer you to http://www.birdsaustralia.com.au/aoc/ , in the 2001 conference, paper 61 "Evolutionary Isolates and Cryptic Species in Australian Birds, Basis Nature: What to call Species" for a reasonably recent discussion of this issue.
However I was first aware of this in 1992, I can't recall the original source, but it was fairly well known in Population Ecology Circles in Australia at the time.
I can also refer you to www.geocities.com/pb56_au/mtbuffalo/ student/activities/speciation.PDF which illustrates the debate on this issue. Note that the species in central NSW have vanished, so in the map in this document imagine varieties that filled the concave side of the curved range shown.
You are of cource correct that my "definition" was too lax, and I'll accept your correction on this. It doesnt dilute the point I was making however.
Just because gravity isn't a force doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Things fall to earth, mass is attracted to other mass and we call that phenomenon "gravity". The curvature of space-time is an explanation of gravity and the behaviour we see.
GR, and SR, are really good in certain circumstance, but break down in others. Certainly scientists are looking to both test relativity in the places it works (like the recent satalite frame dragging experiments) and come up with new theories where it breaks downs, ones that will explain both quantum and macro level behaviour.
Evolution isn't like GR, it doesn't have a equations, it is a much more general observation. In fact, it's more like gravity, stuff falls, animals evolve, the interesting science is in figuring out how and why. Scientists aren't looking to replace evolution but refine it and figure out the specific details.
The discovery of DNA had a huge impact on evolutionary theory. There is research into how much impact spontaneous mutation has vs gradual section, and is evolution slow and steady vs sudden bursts.
While you can certainly believe in God and be a scientist, you can't be a Creationist and a (good) scientist. If you reject the outcome of the scientific method because of faith or dogma, you aren't doing good science period. Of course if your area is nothing to do with biology it isn't going to intefere with you science. I'd seriously question the statement "Many scientists are creationists" though.
We appear to be having one right now.
Aren't biologists looking for a better theory than evolution to replace it one day
No, not at all; there is not even the slightest hint that Evolution needs replacement; it is simply a very general and succesful a principle. All that is being done is filling out the details.
Creationism [...] doesn't try to explain the origin of the diverse creatures
Uh, last time I looked, it did. For instance:
Believers of creationism [...] accept themselves as created in the image of God as children of God
You appear to be trying to explain Man's origin right here.
Many scientists are creationists
Do you work in science ? I have been working in science (lifesciences) the last 15 years, must have met hundreds of scientists. Only 3 or 4 of them believed in creationism, none of them biologists, and none of them at professor level. It may be different in the U.S., though.
Do you see how evolution doesn't even really enter the argument for creationists
Most creationists (and you appear to one of them) are hellbent on 'disproving' evolution and 'proving' 'Intelligent Design' (newspeak for Creation) using nothing more than the bible (itself a text of debatable origin).
Grow up.
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
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.