Butterfly Unlocks Evolution Secret

Anonymous Coward writes "The BBC has an article about a dramatic discovery in the quest for understanding evolution. From the article: 'Why one species branches into two is a question that has haunted evolutionary biologists since Darwin. Given our planet's rich biodiversity, "speciation" clearly happens regularly, but scientists cannot quite pinpoint the driving forces behind it. Now, researchers studying a family of butterflies think they have witnessed a subtle process, which could be forcing a wedge between newly formed species.'"

Comments

Wasn't this obvious?

[nokilli]

Mutations occur, and when they occur in parallel for members of the same species, and those mutations survive into succeeding generations, you achieve speciation. End of story. What am I missing?

Now, if you want to talk about butterflies and evolution, then answer for me how it is that butterflies could have evolved in the first place. You're talking about a two-stage organism here, one stage does nothing but eat, the other stage does nothing but procreate. Which came first?

If it was the caterpillar, how is it that it suddenly figures out how to create a cocoon, lay dormant for a winter, then emerge as a completely different creature? They obviously had the means for procreation on their own, so why bother becoming a butterfly?

If it was the butterfly, why even bother with the caterpillar stage? If you can already fly around and stuff, why bother crawling?

People cite all these other examples trying to bring down evolution, and to me they never succeed, it's obvious to me for instance how eyes evolved. But caterpillars turning into butterflies still boggles my mind.
--
Why didn't you know?

Re:Wasn't this obvious?

[Got Laid, Can't Code]

No, it's non-obvious. You missed the point--the cohabiting species have special marks which allow them to choose to mate only with their own species instead of interbreeding. It isn't chance, it's choice.

As for the caterpillar/butterfly thing, it is mysterious, but I'd like to point out that some of the simplest animals on earth go through life stages. Jellyfish, for example, hydrae, and many other invertebrates go through various stages of life. Amphibians do this as well.

As far as I can tell, the reason behind it is a reproductive strategy. The butterfly, and other insects, has hundreds of offspring, only a few of which will survive to adulthood and then have hundreds more offspring.

Humans do not go through such dramatic stages as a butterfly, but a butterfly might be amazed to find out that humans survive for 13 years before reaching reproductive age!

Re:Wasn't this obvious?

[iamplupp]

"If all offspring have the same number of genes as their parents, and all species on earth are evolved from one original life form, shouldn't all creatures have the same number of genes? Are there any theories out there regarding how genes are added or subtracted over time?"

There are many mechanisms for adding, changing, and subtracting genetical information (translocations, mutations, deletations, insertions, non-disjunction etc etc. In the vast majority of cases the results are death for the offspring but in a rare few cases it results in viable and even rarer, a better adapted offspring. For an everyday example: People with Downs Syndrome have either an extra 23rd chromosome or a robertsonian translocation with pretty much the same added genetic material as a result. That means they have roughly 2 percent more genes than other people...

Re:Wasn't this obvious?

[Orozco]

I believe you mean the 21st chromosome. The 23rd chromosome is the sex chromosome, and the effects of having an extra one depend on the resulting genotype. The possibilities are XYY, XXY, and XXX (gasp!). If I remember correctly, the XYY variety typically dies very young (it may not survive to birth.) The XXY flavor results in Klinefelter's syndrome, which causes sterility (the person is male, but during puberty the testicles do not fully develop) and slight deficits in speech and motor learning (which can be overcome by playing sports and having good teachers). I can't remember what happens with the XXX variety. So there's more than you ever wanted to know about Trisomy-23. To make this reply relevant to the post, trisomy typically happens through nondisjunction, in which two copies of a chromosome do not separate from each other during meiosis (this happens in the sex cells of on of the parents.)

Re:What the hell...?

[Seumas]

Zonk has evolved. Duh.

This seems like half the story

[gadzook33]

Maybe I'm missing something but doesn't the question just now become, "Why don't the butterflies want to breed with butterflies that look slightly different?" In speciation through geographic separation, the answer is clear: they simply can't so there's no choice to be made. In this case the tendency to make that choice must be the result of evolution as well. This may make sense but it certainly isn't as clear cut as geographic separation. The snake seems to be eating its tail here.

Race Mixing?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, what does this study mean?

After reading this article I got the impression that butterflies developed a natual mechanism to discourage inter-breeding with genetically distant butterflies (and to encourage breeding with only closely related butterflies) to promote the retainment of traits beneficial to that particular subgroup of butterflies and to promote forward evolution.

How does this translate to humans? Is this basically saying that race mixing is inheritly deviant to nature or to natural evolution?

Re:Dogs

[NineNine]

There is no evolution going on in dogs any more. Breeding is (generally) very controlled. Dogs are simply genetic toys that people like to play with. Hell, chihuahuas should not even exist. They cannot be born naturally... a cesarian section is required because the dogs' heads are too big for the birth canal. Dogs are genetic toys, and since breeders aren't geneticists, [purebred] dogs are getting sicker with each passing generation. Mutts, on the other hand, are a different story.

Re:I'm a born-again evangelical christian

[CSMastermind]

Hold on here. I'm not going to in any way turn anti-Christian here but there are some misconceptions I'd like to clear up, not with your post but in general since you brought up the topic. First of all, evolution exists. Every year humans slowly but surely get taller. It happens. Evolution is a varifiable fact. Second, it's exactly like you said. There's no reason religion and science need to clash with eachother. If you view genetic mutation as the will of God, everything works out just fine.

I don't mean to seem condesending but I taught a class for my chruch's bible school this summer. I was teaching 6th and 7th graders. The material I was supposed to present to them would have easily been disproven by any 4th grade science textbook (well maybe not one from Kentucky). The worst part was that the kids were clueless. I asked how long ago they thought Jesus died. One of them in all seriousness thought Jesus died 30 years ago. Yeah that's right, we love Jesus because he stopped Hitler!!! I told them Jesus was a Jew and they didn't believe me till I got a Bible to show them. I'm sorry. I don't know if it's bad parenting or what but if we're to have an open discussion on evolution or any other subject that's touchy for the chruch we need to have some basic understanding about religion itself.

Re:Dogs

[Anonymous Coward]

Dog aren't doing the selection of a mate, the humans are. If given the chance, the dogs would breed themselves into mutts and given the time and lack of human pressure, might breed themselves into a more wolf-like state. I think dogs also show that, for them, visual layout must not be very important for mate selection. Radically different visual breeds will eagerly mate with each other. It must be sounds and smells that matter for them, and humans aren't doing much selection to change those traits.

Re:Yes!!!

[recoiledsnake]

It has been repeated again and again that theory of evolution discusses how evolution works, not if evolution takes place or not. Kind of like the theory of gravity, which does not discuss if gravity exists or not since we can see it all around us, but how gravity works.

Similary there is a LOT of evidence for evolution all around us. The theory part is just how it works and this is a new step in that direction

Also, I meant 'undisprovable theory of intelligent design' not 'unprovable'. Evolution is easily disprovable, just find human remains in a dinosaur, or humans at the same level and dating in the ground as a dinosaur before the supposed advent of primates, or find highly advanced related creatures all which lived at the same time in earth's crust. In other words, dig dig. But how the hell would one go about disproving intelligent design?

And racism?

[mcrbids]

I wonder if this has any impact on the view of racism?

Racism is a *very* touchy subject, and I may get flamed just for bringing it up, but doesn't this sound like butterfly racism? If this were, in fact, a provable, natural, biological mechanism, then, wouldn't we, as biological organisms, be falling prety to much the same effect? Isn't racism a social form of speciation?

What impact would this have on the ACLU? Hiring quotas? The civil rights movement in general?

I'm not suggesting that racism is good. But, might these be related?

Re:And racism?

[Randseed]

Of course it is. A human "race" is simply a group of people who, for whatever reason (ideological, religious, geographical, etc.) mated within their own group. This allows mutations which occur within that group to stay there, rather than get folded over the entire genome. Continue this for long enough, and some of those mutations will result in situations where members of different races can't reproduce with each other.

As an ass-backward example, consider sickle cell anemia. The sickle cell trait (Ss), whereby an individual has one copy of the gene but one copy of the non-sickle gene, conveys a bit of immunity to malaria. So there was environmental selection for people who are Ss. People who were ss (two normal genes) died at higher rates from malaria. The catch is that people with two copies of the gene (SS) die from sickle cell anemia, often before they reproduce.

Let's say that for a particular gene locus, you can have one of two versions of a gene. People with XX live fine. People with YY live fine. People with XY drop dead. If 90% of, say, Asians have YY, and 90% of, say, blacks have XX, then you have a very high probability of getting XY in a resultant offspring. In effect, you're speciated. These two races of people can't reproduce with each other at a reasonable rate.

What was necessary for survival in, say, Africa, was entirely different than what was necessary in England. As a result, there was divergent evolution with people in each area subtly specializing in different things. Now, this didn't stop, say, the Saxons and the Africans from being able to reproduce, but it easily could have. It just happens that humans apparently have more redundancy than a butterfly does, which is why simpler organisms are studied for this kind of research.

That doesn't in any way excuse racism, of course, which was the point (I think) of the parent. However, it does raise questions about things like intelligence, athletic performance, and everything else. (Nobody balks at someone putting forth the idea that blacks tend to be better athletes than whites, for example. Change 'athlete' to 'quantum theorists' and everyone blows up. It's the same thing, just a different trait. And yes, this is just an example.)

Re:And racism?

[mr.mighty]

Skin colour used to have an advantage, when everyone lived in their respective regions and walked around half naked. The further you got from the equator, the less UV protection you need. The closer you get to the equator, the more UV protection you need. Unfortunately, melanin blocks the light needed for vitamin D production. But if you live near the equator, you're getting plenty of direct sunshine anyway. If you live far from the equator, you need to let in as much sunlight as possible since most of your skin is going to be covered with furs.

Now it doesn't matter because we have sunblock and vitamin supplements. The effects of those, and clothing, will far outweigh any genetic advantage to skin colour.

Re:Reproductive Isolation?

[dustmite]

Different races probably would have eventually evolved into different species if they'd been and remained isolated for another million years or so (unlikely), but the amount of "intermingling" is now dramatically on the rise, and seemingly set only to increase, so it seems unlikely that it will ever happen now. But no races have ever really been truly isolated anyway ... global trade and travel etc. have been going on all the time for thousands of years.

Non-Mutation Split

[DrWho520]

In higher order animals, such as Orcas, behavioral differences can bring about the separation into two species. There are two distinct groups of Orcas, those which hunt fish and those which hunt seals. These two behaviors are fairly different, as fish hunting Orcas herd schools of fish to make consuming them easier. Seal hunting orcas are know to "dive" several feet onto ice flows to catch seals. They also thrash seals around in the water to subdue them. These two groups do not mix as their learned behaviors and sub-environs are different. It is easy to imagine that these two groups are slowly diverging, as they engage in different diets, breed within their own groups and engage in different physical activities.

Of course, I am a physicist and a mathematician. All of my bio-knowledge comes from The Discovery Channel.

Re:Non-Mutation Split

[Boronx]

Another difference between the two groups is that fish hunting orcas are always chattering amongst themselves, but mammal hunting orcas are very quiet, because their pray is smart enough or has ears enough to pick up on the yammering.

Re:Non-Mutation Split

[anagama]

Or that the seals can distinguish between the fish eaters and the seal eaters. This was in a recent National Geographic (last few months I believe) -- but the seal eating orcas look a little different and the seals flip out when they see them (understandably).

Re:Non-Mutation Split

[AJWM]

Well, besides the fact that they dont geographically overlap at all.

Historically they do. I don't recall if there were ever tigers in Africa but there were certainly lions in Asia (and indeed in Europe). However, they prefer different habitats (forest vs grassland), and have different hunting patterns. Which came first (habitat preference or hunting method) is an interesting (and probably unresolvable) question.

The point isn't that tigers and lions would interbreed in the wild, the point is that tigers and lions are so genetically similar that their branch point from a common ancestor isn't that long ago, and the branching (and speciation) occurred because of the different habitat preferences and because tiger ancestors preferred to mate with tiger ancestors rather than lion ancestors.

(The fact that tigers and lions can mate and produce not only viable but occasionally fertile offspring throws a wrench into the usual definition of "species". Many of the anti-evolutionist arguments boil down to semantics rather than biology, so it's worth noting where these definitions break down.)

Re:Dogs

[Xtravar]

There is no genetic diversity once a 'breed' is established, I would imagine. They are bred to have the same physical and mental attributes each and every generation. They are bred to be the same as they have been established, which means no more diverging from the main K-9 line.

On a side note, this sort of in-breeding and gene stagnation has negative evolutionary consequences. Although the dog might be 'fit' to reproduce now since humans do the selecting and breeding, it is less and less fit to survive. For example, bull dogs are starting to have heads that are too large for them to even lift. Daschunds have extremely long backs that easily have problems. Cocker spaniels have ear infections because of their long ears. Most major breeds have bad allergy problems as well. Mutts are usually healthier animals since there is more genetic diversity, but nobody wants a mutt.

I forgot what the evolutionary term is, but there is a certain point when a limited population becomes extremely dangerous for the survival of a species. Apparently the cheetahs just got by after we pruned off most of them. You need a fairly large gene pool to get a new species. This in-breeding thing is pretty dangerous.

The same thing is happening with all of our domesticated fruits and vegetables. Bananas are more and more susceptable to fungi and other pests. I read an article a few years ago about how bananas as we know them will eventually become extinct.

Which brings us to an even more interesting question: how is selective breeding and modern medicine degenerating the human gene pool? Are we going to be muscle-less blobs that can't survive without robots? Are we going to be so stupid that we need computers to run our lives? Or is that only going to be the Slashdot population, and the 'beautiful' people will become more cosmetically disfigured by gigangic breasts and other such desired features? Is that how human women got such big titties in the first place, at least in certain lineages?

Markings in "domesticated" animals

[JordanH]

I've been wondering at something for quite some time that might be related to this discovery.

Why is it that animals that are "domesticated" or mostly live in close cooperation with human societies, like pigeons, develop highly variegated markings?

Think about it, cats, dogs, chickens, pigeons, cows, all of these exhibit wild variation in marking and coloration when they live with humans. Even humans themselves seem to have more variability when compared to other primates.

Perhaps human ecosystems and breeding have removed other pressures so the marking variations are more likely to express? I dunno. Just an observation. Any geneticists or evolutionary theorist out there have any ideas about this?

Re:Markings in "domesticated" animals

[Oscar_Wilde]

Think about it, cats, dogs, chickens, pigeons, cows, all of these exhibit wild variation in marking and coloration when they live with humans. Even humans themselves seem to have more variability when compared to other primates.

It's just because of selective breeding. If you let different dog breeds mate then after a few generations then they tend towards the "basic dog" type.

For a more detailed and accurate description take a look at the Wikipedia article on mixed-breed dogs.

Re:Creation

[Freexe]

I thought you were kidding at first (I really hope you still are). Look at these http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&c2coff =1&sa=X&oi=scholart&q=genetic+algorithms+patients and tell me who created these ideas?

Over millions of cycles things change, if they happen to be better, then we tend to keep them, if they are worse we dump them. Evolution is just a method to take 'intelligence' out of that selection, so you can think of ourselves as our creators.

Intelligent Design, explained Intelligently

[Wandering Wombat]

I am half-ashamed, half-impressed to say that this book, actually, although not entirely, converted me to the camp of "Intelligent Design".

Calculating God

Although, naturally, the aliens are pure speculative fiction, the things that the aliens and humans discuss are actually true, and the first half of this book, before the terrorists, is very well-designed, and converted me, an apathetic Deist, to someone who does not dismiss Intelligent Design, and actually argues it with his more "chemical chance" oriented friends.

Good book, highly recommended for ANYONE, even people who won't be swayed.

Re:Intelligent Design, explained Intelligently

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, how about this:

Wave two pencils in front of a person, about 30cm apart. Then, have them cover one eye and step away slowly, while looking at one pencil tip, until they can't see other due to their blind spot.

Now, ask a squid to do the same thing.

Guess what? Squids have no blind spot, because the optic nerve and blood vessels connect to the eye without interrupting the potosensitive cells.

An intelligent designer (when hypothesizing that the designer was the same for both) would not have produced a defective eye for humans when they designed it properly the first time (only the day before).

Of course, not only humans have a blind spot; all vertbrates do. Likewise, many creatures other than squids do not suffer from blind spots-encumbered vision.

You can easily disprove intelligent design, because both "intelligent" and "design" (not to mention the other attributes of the particular designer that most folks seem to have in mind) imply certain conditions that their designs would have to exibit relative to other designs by that same author.

Re:Intelligent Design, explained Intelligently

[Anonymous Coward]

Deliberately missing my point, of course, but never mind.

Anyway, if a designer creates such-and-such a design on the fifth day, and then on the sixth day that design is substituted for an obviously inferior design, then there is a logical problem somewhere (especially if the designer is supposed to be omnipotent and omniscient).

Of course, that supposes that the designer is the same for both; that the designer is neither lazy, nor forgetful, nor otherwise having any reason to pick what seems to be an inferior design to what has already been successfully implemented; and several other premises beyond the scope of this discussion.

No-one says that, to be intelligent, one must be perfect. But if you are perfect, why wouldn't your designs be? The particular designer that we are talking about here is not supposed to be imperfect!

As for your catch-all argument; if an Intelligent Design proponent says "That's not proof - it was part of His master plan!", then why can't you reply "Yeah, well evolution was His plan too - are you going to argue with His design choice? Do you think that He could not produce a system where things evolve the way He intended them to all along? Do you imagine that you know more than Him about His own plan"?

The reason is beause it is only the unscientific that claim to understand the innermost workings of the universe without feeling that they have to prove it to anyone else.

Re:Intelligent Design, explained Intelligently

[ultranova]

We know for a fact that we can intelligently design organisms (or that at least it is not impossible for us to do so with sufficient practise).

Actually, no we don't know that. We assume that we can, but until we've actually done so, we don't know it for a fact.

A clarification: I'm assuming we're talking about designing and building organisms from scratch (nonliving material), not simply breeding dogs or the like. Selective breeding is certainly something we can do, and in fact have done, for thousands of years.

Anyway, our assumption of being able to create life is based on the assumption that life is nothing more than matter arranged in a complex pattern. This may be true, but we don't know it for sure; for all we know, there might very well be a nonmaterial component - life force, mana, soul, whatever - that's needed to make a hunk of matter alive. So, until some sanity-challenged scientist actually shouts "It's alive !", our presumed potential ability to create life is just speculation.

Sorry for the rant, we now return you to your regularly scheduled religion-bashing.

Re:Intelligent Design, explained Intelligently

[Jim_Callahan]

Cause, you know, the fact that the people the argument is directed against are being overly stiff in their belief completely excuses the fact that the 'squids have better eyes' example is rather dumb argument based on twisting the definition of 'better' to suit a premade conclusion.

Re:Intelligent Design, explained Intelligently

[anothy]

IMO, the true scientist witholds judgement until the experiments have been done and the data is in front of them.

bolderdash. so folks like einstein don't qualify? he was famous for jumping to conclusions well before data from experiments was available - well before we had the technology to even conduct such experiments. arguably, the ability to form "judgments" and then figure out what experiments or data would be needed to back it up is an important difference between a principal researcher or brilliant scientist and a lab tech.

Re:Creation

[burns210]

(And, as awful as it is for many that subscribe to other faiths or no faith at all, millions may perish one day soon).

Yea... Millions... Except, more.

There are, roughly, 1 billion Christian/Protestants in the world. Ther are, roughly 1 billion Christian/Catholics in the world. Now because of their tradition and some more unique views (Catholics believe in 'good works', etc vs modern protestants believe more in a pure faith.. And mormons, that have added significantly to the base religions(a whole new testament))... we can roughly say that 2 billion "Christians" exist, but in reality, 1 prostetant's more techincal faith contradict with anothers. The way Catholics believe they get to heaven is not the same as other denominations, though the core belief is generally the same.

Ok, so yada yada, 2 billion christians.

Now, there are 6.3 (and growing) people in the world. Assuming that every "christian" is saved, that they have a clean slate, are not liars or "sunday christians" and are on the up-and-up with regards to Christ, that leaves 2 out of every 3 people not even having a CHANCE at salvation.

2 out of 3. Just one of the many things to think about.

PS: During the end days, 7 year tribulation, etc, there are likely to be converts (if the way I have heard the book of revelations is remotely accurate, given how metaphorically it was written). So this number could surely increase, but only by so much.

Many billions of people will like be sent to hell, not just millions.

Obvious questions should go straight to Google

[Tau Zero]

If

1. all offspring have the same number of genes as their parents, and
2. all species on earth are evolved from one original life form,

shouldn't all creatures have the same number of genes?

Premise #1 is false. One common way for plants to speciate is to double their chromosome count (not individual genes, entire sets of chromosomes). Humans are diploid (two sets of chromosomes, one from each parent); some plants are quadruploid or hexaploid (SIX sets of chromosomes, three from each parent).

Are there any theories out there regarding how genes are added or subtracted over time?

Then you have crossover mutations. When chromosomes are duplicated in mitosis, the two new DNA strands are wound up with the originals and have to be untangled. This is done by enzymes which snip one strand pair, allow the other to pass through the gap and repair the bond afterwards. Sometimes this process isn't perfect, and a DNA strand pair gets part of the other's chromosome or loses a chunk. Entire genes can be lost or duplicated this way. Duplicated genes allow one of the pair to mutate and take up new functions, and it turns out that a whole lot of biological "inventions" come from genes which appear to have come from other, older genes.

Then you've got tandem sequence repeats... which is a whole 'nother story, but they are very susceptible to DNA copying errors and you can evolve e.g. a very different curve of a dog's snout in a century by selecting for different lengths of tandem repeats.

Yes, all this stuff is on the web. Everything you need to completely and authoritatively refute every argument made by creationists (the "intelligent design" brand or the traditional) is on the web.

(Okay, who's the Slashcode nitwit whose filter cancels the <i> tag when a list is started?)

Mississippi Burning

[nathanh]

The team, from Harvard University, US, discovered that closely related species living in the same geographical space displayed unusually distinct wing markings.

These wing colours apparently evolved as a sort of "team strip", allowing butterflies to easily identify the species of a potential mate.

Hrm. I watched Mississippi Burning last night and one thing that struck me dumbfounded was the irrational hatred towards blacks shown by the white protagonists in the film.

That article makes me wonder whether racial hatred is in part inspired by this "team strip" concept in the butterflies. In other words, the white protagonists are acting on their animal instincts to use "reinforcement" (as the article calls it) to encourage speciation.

I'm aware there are countless other factors involved in racial bigotry, including the fact that the white supremacists are a bunch of pathetic losers, but I'm always interested in scientific rationales for seemingly irrational behaviour.

Neoteny

[Gibbo]

The "permanent juvenile" characteristic is known as neoteny. It's also been suggested that homo-sapiens is a form of simian neoteny. This is discussed quite extensively in writings by Steven Jay Gould for example.

The next time...

[Hangin10]

Someone tries to discredit evolution by saying it's just a theory ought to get a nuclear weapon dropped on them. Special relativity is a theory too. Doesn't mean it doesn't work for what we've been able to experimentally see.

Species are plastic

[grikdog]

The niches natural selection forces the raw goo of speciation into are sometimes formed by the predilection of the participants. In other words, big antlers get bigger because females prefer them. There is something similar in human linguistics; that is, regional dialects emerge because high-status women speak that way. The same cause may easily select for race -- a trivial variation, genetically speaking, with major importance for those who play the game.

Re:OK...

[vga_init]

Having been a biotechnology student for many a year, I can't honestly say that I believe speciation occurs within the human race.

I believe this because of the size of our population, the structure of our society, and the fact that there seem to be no more completely isolated groups of human beings.

Human beings have really made things their own way. We have a system that sort of throws nature out the window, and it messes up a lot of natural processes. Do you even see a need for biological change? Our population is growing at an alarming rate, and it doesn't follow normal mammal cycles or anything. I'm pretty sure whatever conditions that tend towards the evolutionary process we've broken out of a long time ago.

That's just my opinion, though. For all we know speciation is occurring as we speak. It takes a VERY long time, though. But, honestly, what two groups can it arise between? I think HG Wells offers the only plausible theory when he takes into account social class. It's a good bone for both marxists and non-marxists alike: the social class. Will it become a biological divider too? Unlikely, I say, but a fascinating concept.

Re:Non-Mutation Split in humans?

[Deflatamouse!]

I know your comment is more of a joke and less a serious comment. But just want to point out something I've read before. Beauty is actually average... that is, people with average measurements - distance between the eyes, facial features, etc., etc. are perceived to be more beautiful than those with un-average features. Perhaps being average also means you are the most healthy and there are exceptions of course. Because of this, it's possible that ugly + ugly = beautiful, especially if the two ugly's are on opposite ends from average.

Re:Yes!!!

[fireboy1919]

You're absolutely correct. Given an infinite length of time, a finite number of monkeys with an finite number of typewriters will type out the complete works of Shakespeare (and for the more dimwitted among you, monkeys=universe, and Shakespeare=sustaining life).

The trouble is, that given our prediction of the size and age of the universe, these metaphorical monkeys have hit upon the right answer WAY sooner than makes sense from a probablistic point of view. So one of these must be true:
1) there are more monkeys than we think
2) they've been at it longer than we think
3) this miraculous coincidence has happened
4) the error in the probability determination is huge
5) it's all horribly wrong

To me, that big of an uncertainty moves the theory from "scientifically tested, probably correct" to "wild speculation." Could be correct, but I don't trust it.

Re:Yes!!!

[sim82]

These are valid points, and it would be, from a scientific perspective, very interesting to know what did make 'the monkeys type so fast' or let us underestimate the number of monkeys or what ever (Iff sustaining life is really as unlikely as you stated, given the current scientific knowledge).
That is, as I understand science, exactly what science (physics, biology, mathematics...) is about.
But in now way should arguments like those be used to explain the need for some higher instance, whose existance can not be explained or doesn't even need further explanation.
I don't say that you want to do that, as 'not trusting' based on profound arguments is part of good science.

Re:Stop a moment and observe..

[Steeltoe]

You are confusing dogma, spirituality and science.

You see, religion is like a banana. It tastes good and does good. Our western modern society is actually based on this banana. However, in time people have thrown the banana and kept the skin. This has been an awful waste, because the skin is not edible and gives a stomach ache. But this makes people hold on to the skin even more, because now they've lost the banana! They even start arguing what part of the skin is "the best"..

Basically, "the skin" is symbols, traditions, flags, icons, etc. It's just a wrapping paper. You unwrap the package, and then throw away the wrapping, not the other way around.

Spirituality is what this banana consists of. It is based on direct experience. Everybody has some spirituality, even if it's just to accept that they have a daily life where they go to work and party on weekends. You cannot argue against somebody's direct experience..

Science is trying to make everybody agree on the same reality. Sadly however, in the process, science has thrown away much of the banana-core too, confusing it for the skin..

Basically, our whole "modern" society has thrown away the banana. The result is higher rates of depression, cancer, stress, suicides, etc. This is because of lack of spirituality and roots in this world. A feeling of alienation and that we don't belong here.

So you see, I accept both spirituality and science as complentary, thus my world is bigger than if I had just accepted one or the other.

What is needed at this time, is to globalize spirituality. Find a set of human values we all agree on and nurture and cultivate that, and cherish each other's different worldviews. Otherwise, the negative trends will just become worse.

Re:Remember, evolution is just a theory.

[VolciMaster]

More correctly, evolution is not a theory, it's a philosophy. Evolution requires an enormous amount of faith. Just as much as believing in creation.

Your point about lions and tigers being the same except for trivial differences, and even the opportunity to interbreed them is close to the mark. What you neglected to point out is that when they are bred together, the offspring is infertile.

The only reason there are different breeds of cats and dogs and pigeons, etc, is that humans have looked for specific traits, and then selectively mated only parents who had those traits, over and over again. However, if you stuck 15 different dog breeds together for a few generations, you would see, not continued exclusivity in breeding, but a return to the basic dog.

Macro evolution is just a meaningless creationist term to wave away the mountain of scientific evidence that they can no longer deny.

Your point dies here. There is no mountain of evidence supporting macro evolution. If anything, the mountain supports creation by a supreme being. Too many simultaneous changes must happen in multiple specimens that then decide to interbreed in order to achieve evolution.

Every true species (and German Shepherds are not a different species from Chihuahuas) has unique aspects to it that do not line up with other species, even though overall they share similar traits. An extreme example is the similarities between hummingbirds and emus. They're both birds. But hummingbirds are a definite, separate species. Getting an emu and a hummingbirds out of the same original bird doesn't make any sense. Just like getting housecats and lions out of the same original cat is irrational.

And what about all the animals out there that serve no purpose, like the hippopotamus? Hippopotami eat vegetation, the males fight for control of the pod, and a few parasitic animals live off of them. But they serve no purpose in life. Certain fish glom on and eat the dead skin off their hides, and others follow them to consume their dung. Another example is the rhinocerous. Rhinos are in the business of eating and making new rhino babies. Occasionally they fight some other animal away from their territory, but they serve no purpose beyond that. They're not food for anything but the eventual carion eaters like buzzards and hyenas.

There are far too many holes in the naturalistic philosophy of evolution to believe without tubs of faith poured in. There are no holes in creationism. While we can't determine why the hippo exists, we know an intelligent being put it there.