Worst Jobs in Science: Year Three

mmoyer writes "Popular Science just published their annual rankings of the worst jobs in science. Highlights of this year's list include a human lab rat, orangutan pee collector, and, surprisingly, a NASA ballerina. Think your science job belongs on the list? You can nominate your job as well. Slashdot also covered the worst jobs in science in 2004 and in 2003."

Comments

Worst Science Job, EVER

[ackthpt]

6. Volcanologist When the earth heats up, they head in

Volcanologist? Can't take the heat, get out of the crater? Sounds like a dream job, just get my Indiana Jones get-up on and grow a good 5 o'clock shadow and the babes will be swarming like deerflies! w00. "Danger is my middle name. Unfortunately my first name is Melvin and my last name is Blortman."

3. Kansas Biology Teacher On the front lines of science's devolution

*snort* This has initiated so many flame-wars on USENET lately, yeah, that's gotta suck having to face extremists and dum-dum board members. The irony is 'Intelligent Design' is an Evolution of Creationism :)

2. Manure Inspector The smell is just the start of the nastiness

Reminds me of Farley Mowat in his cabin in Never Cry Wolf. All those wolf turds and then the water came in...

1. Human Lab Rat Must read slashdot for research lab. aaiiiieeeee!!!

Re:Worst Science Job, EVER

[sedyn]

"3. Kansas Biology Teacher On the front lines of science's devolution

*snort* This has initiated so many flame-wars on USENET lately, yeah, that's gotta suck having to face extremists and dum-dum board members. The irony is 'Intelligent Design' is an Evolution of Creationism :)"

What ever happened to the good ol' days when a teacher was apethic towards their job? They just went in, did whatever the board told 'em to, and used the Nuremberg defence to ease any ethical issues. Or was that prozac?

I want to return to the time when this noble profession was all about the money.

Yeesh, if people can democratically decide what the facts are, then I move for a petition to strike down gravity, because it just keeps bringing people down.

Re:Worst Science Job, EVER

[Anonymous Coward]

whoah, people still talk on usenet?

here i thought it was all binaries!

Re:Worst Science Job, EVER

[Anonymous Coward]

Human Lab Rat

I run the AMAZE agen today but Algernon stil finish befor me I dont thnk dr Nemurs going to lik it.

Re:Worst Science Job, EVER

[Alex P Keaton in da]

3. Kansas Biology Teacher On the front lines of science's devolution...
This could be a great job for the right person. I had a couple science teachers who were really, really, really articulate, and I think they would have done well in this enviornment- they would have seen it as a challenge.
Backwards places nees the best teachers sometimes- because the people there have the most learning to do....

Re:Worst Science Job, EVER

[Anonymous Coward]

The irony is 'Intelligent Design' is an Evolution of Creationism

I thought the real irony is how unintelligently designed 'Intelligent Design' is.

Re:Worst Science Job, EVER

[notthe9]

In Korea, old people talk on USENET.

Re:Worst Science Job, EVER

[avronius]

Gravity is a myth - the earth sucks!

Re:Worst Science Job, EVER

[Ced_Ex]

On that note, how easy would it be to score 100% on the Intelligent Design tests?

Question 1: Identify and describe the method in which humans obtained stereoscopic sight.

a) With binoculars.
b) God, the designer himself.
c) Crazy Theory of Evolution.
d) All of the above.

Question 2: Identify and describe the method in which humans obtained opposable thumbs.

a) Double jointed.
b) God, the designer himself.
c) Crazy Theory of Evolution.
d) None of the above.

Re:Worst Science Job, EVER

[rdoger6424]

An english teacher I once had grew up in Texas. Back then her school district (the one she grew up in) did not teach evolution in science. When she went to college, she bombed science, and had to make up for lost time.

Re:Worst Science Job, EVER

[chrismendez]

why does the nasa video look like it was done in the 80's?

Re:Worst Science Job, EVER

[anonymous cowherd (m]

Two words: Graduate student. I'm looking at 6 years of indentured servitude all for that lovely piece of paper that says "Doctor of Philosophy" on it. At least I'm not paying for it.

How About Avian Sex Partner?

[conJunk]

Ha! Great story.

A few years back, I knew a fellow (he had the unfortunate name of Willie Williams) who'd been involved in the re-introduction of pergrine falcons to the canyon lands of south texas. The problem was that the birds wouldn't breed in captivity. The answer: artificial insemination.

This dude's job was to collect the sperm from the male falcons. He'd go in to their enclosures wearing a special hat with a very-anatomically-correct model of a female falcon on it.

Re:How About Avian Sex Partner?

[P3NIS_CLEAVER]

Is this funny, or informative?

Re:How About Avian Sex Partner?

[ackthpt]

This dude's job was to collect the sperm from the male falcons. He'd go in to their enclosures wearing a special hat with a very-anatomically-correct model of a female falcon on it.

Ha! There was something like this in the news earlier this year.

My sister had a job for a while cleaning cages of lab animals. She didn't like it much.

Re:How About Avian Sex Partner?

[conJunk]

have you got another link? that one seems to be AWOL

Re:How About Avian Sex Partner?

[DrEldarion]

It's funformative!

Re:How About Avian Sex Partner?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would think that any job where you get absolutely no respect for having it and working hard is a "bad job". And with that in mind, that pretty much covers the whole of every scientific endeavor in America.

It's still pretty much actor, guy in a band, sports star, independantly rich (not just wealthy), doctor, lawyer - then everyone else.

Re:How About Avian Sex Partner?

[ackthpt]

have you got another link? that one seems to be AWOL

Probably the cache of it, but look for Rebecca Loos and a pig mentioned together.

Re:How About Avian Sex Partner?

[moviepig.com]

This dude's job was to collect the sperm from the male falcons [via] wearing a special hat...

Anyone would have to be f**ked up in the head to do that...

Re:How About Avian Sex Partner?

[conJunk]

good lord! that thing has balls bigger than my head... a third of litre!?!one! good grief.

Re:How About Avian Sex Partner?

[-Grover]

Bravo sir!

      Your comment instantly had the 4 people at my office who sit near me pop their heads over the cubes to find out what was so funny. I think we've got 4 new /. readers thanks to your wonderfully crafted comment. /cheer

Wow

[jandrese]

Have you watched the NASA ballerina video yet? It's hot.

Re:Wow

[anandpur]

NASA Ballerina link if www.popsci.com give up

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/mpeg/115084mai n_ballerina.mpeg

Re:Wow

[P3NIS_CLEAVER]

I think i saw the second half of that video on a 'www.extremedildo.com'.

Re:Wow

[sconeu]

That is rather a... suggestive... video, isn't it?

Re:Wow

[frank_adrian314159]

It's hot.

Yeah! And the ballerina ain't bad, either!

Re:Wow

[Anne_Nonymous]

That was a pretty funny use of my tax dollars compared to most of the crap they spend it on.

Re:Wow

[Overzeetop]

So, if she would have encircled the "sensor" with her arms and moved them from the base to the tip, would it have jerked back and forth rapidly? Aside from the obvious imagry, I'm guessing the result would have been about what we expect. It was clearly a bit "confused" and the motions erratic (two "r"s and an "a", keep your mind out of the gutter) is serveral areas where the dancer was close to multiple sensor areas.

It is quite difficult to believe that the scientist didn't manage to see the problem with the form of his "sensor".

Re:Wow

[Alejo]

This is for the new website. They expect to fund a new shuttle program with registrations from geek pr0n seekers.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to object. That was most certainly not ballet. It was modern dance. Someone at Popular Science needs to spend 2 seconds doing some research!

Does programmer count?

[matr0x_x]

Can I nominate my job as a computer programmer? Technically computer science is a form of science.

Re:Does programmer count?

[Tiger4]

They say Political Science is science too. Lets go experiment on some politicians...

Re:Does programmer count?

[MurphyZero]

Secretary: "Sir, The political science majors from the local university are here and have waited the mandatory hour. Shall I send them in?"

Politician: "Give me two minutes for my aide to leave by the back door and to zip up my pants."

As the students enter, Politician: standard politician greeting meaning absolutely nothing.

Prof: "Thanks for agreeing to meet us. It will help my students learn so much. They will set up everything and then we will begin."

Politician: "What are all those things?"

Prof: "Well, my students rarely have an opportunity to examine a politician and do a dissection. We couldn't pass up the opportunity. Students, please prepare him."

Politician: "Wait! Wait! Noooo!"

can you hear me now? YES!!

[krelyk]

I nominate this dude for the worst job in the world - the guy that replies 'yes' to verizon's (tm) 'can you hear me now?'
movie url -
http://www.compfused.com/directlink/950

Maybe network admin for a site being /.ed

[neologee]

That's gotta be pretty rough.
Pop. science's holding up !

Question for biologists...

[LeonGeeste]

(would have said evolutionists there, but that would have started a tangential flame war).

This is a quote from the "Kansas Biology Teacher" article:

"At the heart of ID is the idea that certain elements of the natural world--the human eye, say--are "irreducibly complex" and have not and cannot be explained by evolutionary theory. Therefore, IDers say, they must be the work of an intelligent designer (that is, God).

The problem for teachers is that ID can't be tested using the scientific method, the system of making, testing and retesting hypotheses that is the bedrock of science."

Now, if someone tells you that the eye cannot be explained through evolutionary mechanisms, do you respond that, well, ID can't be tested through the scientific method, so you're wrong? Because that's exactly what this article makes it sound like. If there's a response to the argument that the eye could not have arisen through the incremental changes posited by evolutionary theory, this article sure doesn't give it.

Is there a response? What incremental, random changes produced an eye such that each step conferred an evolutionary advantage? Or did it happen all at once? Can scientists reconstruct the formation for an eye through an accidental interference with the DNA? And, most importantly, does even asking these questions imply that I'm an anti-science ignorant hick?

Re:Question for biologists...

[bowronch]

From http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_0 11_01.html

Evolution of the Eye:

When evolution skeptics want to attack Darwin's theory, they often point to the human eye. How could something so complex, they argue, have developed through random mutations and natural selection, even over millions of years?

If evolution occurs through gradations, the critics say, how could it have created the separate parts of the eye -- the lens, the retina, the pupil, and so forth -- since none of these structures by themselves would make vision possible? In other words, what good is five percent of an eye?

Darwin acknowledged from the start that the eye would be a difficult case for his new theory to explain. Difficult, but not impossible. Scientists have come up with scenarios through which the first eye-like structure, a light-sensitive pigmented spot on the skin, could have gone through changes and complexities to form the human eye, with its many parts and astounding abilities.

Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary history -- and the human eye isn't even the best one, from some standpoints. Because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision. So, the evolution theorists say, the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an "intelligent designer" doesn't hold water: If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design.

Bilogists use the range of less complex light sensitive structures that exist in living species today to hypothesize the various evolutionary stages eyes may have gone through.

Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.

Re:Question for biologists...

[Atzanteol]

Just because something can't currently be explained by science does NOT mean that God/Aliens/Ron Hubbard is involved.

This is such a stupid argument that it should not be responded to, but rather scoffed at and laughed at.

Re:Question for biologists...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes

Re:Question for biologists...

[Anonymous Coward]

Evidence 2354612 against "intelligent design": You and your post. :)

It's one thing to question something, another to say, well since we can't be completely certain, it must be god. If not sure, then gotta be "god"?! How do you make that jump? Can you even explain what you mean by "intelligent"? I'd love to see the description without the inevitable, direct or indirect, invocation of "god" notion.

Re:Question for biologists...

[Buzz_Litebeer]

Its not falsifiable, you can never prove it wrong, its faith. You cant PROVE it either.

The fact that you cannot prove something, does not make another thing you cannot prove true.

Evolution deals more in generalities, it is postulated that humans evolved through a series of events because genetics and bones etc... help us come to that conclusion.

How evolution created the eye, or even a cell for that matter, is still a part of the mystery, and if someone could make an example cell from parts then that would help on the way of showing that some random event could have as well.

The main difference is that if someone did come up with a theory for the development of eye cones in humans, then other scientists could take that model, scrutinize it, and determine whether it would or would not work.

Even if it was accepted for 20 years, scientists could come back at a later time and with new information find out that i was wrong using new techniques and knowledge.

Since ID is a non falsifiable, and non provable philosphy (without a time machine, or the ability to meet God) it simply cannot hold up, since you cannot assume something is irreducibly complex, or meets any of the other ID specific buzz words.

Because all of the buzzwords are subjective. If we wanted to find out if something was "irreducibly complex" 100 years ago, then many of the things we know of now would be moot.

Go back further predicting how the sun and such moves accross the sky accurately may have been irreducibily complex, with the knowledge of the time.

Of course, intelligent design must have been popular because of that, because people beleived in a SUN God back then.

So, even though ID has been popular since the dawn of man, doesnt make it science.

Re:Question for biologists...

[LeonGeeste]

WTF... this is precisely the thing about defenders of evolution that drives me nuts. Nowhere did I advocate "Intelligent Design"! All I said was, the article mentioned a problem with evolutionary theory, and then dismisses it by saying ID is bad science. It's totally unresponsive.

And yes, if evolutionary theory can't explain some development, that is a problem with the theory. You can't just say, "well it's not like God did it or nothin" and expect people to count it as a valid defense of the theory.

Re:Question for biologists...

[idlake]

Is there a response? What incremental, random changes produced an eye such that each step conferred an evolutionary advantage?

It's well understood; the progression is roughly: light sensitive cell, opaque pigment in back, retreat into concavity, formation of pinhole camera, transparent covering, fixed lens, adaptable lens. Each of those has distinct and individual evolutionary advantages, sometimes related to improved predator evasion and sometimes merely related to improved protection of the existing structure. It seems to have happened several times in evolution, so it's not even anything unusual; if we ever encounter aliens, they probably have eyes, too.

The problem for teachers is that ID can't be tested using the scientific method, the system of making, testing and retesting hypotheses that is the bedrock of science.

That's false. ID can be tested (in the same way astronomy can be), and the answer is: there is not a shred of evidence to support ID. Every single test of evolution has come down on the side of evolution (mutation and selection) and against intelligent design (interference of an intelligent agent in the development of different life forms on earth). ID has the form of a scientific theory, but it happens to be an incorrect scientific theory according to overwhelming evidence.

Re:Question for biologists...

[Anonymous Coward]

But ID doesn't explain anything either. It's worse, it just sits back and says wow, this is complex, must be 'some power'! Let's go home!

Re:Question for biologists...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is such a stupid argument that it should not be responded to, but rather scoffed at and laughed at.

Riiight, because dismissing and laughing at a theory that you can't disprove is very scientific.

Re:Question for biologists...

[chihowa]

ID can be tested (in the same way astronomy can be)

Huh? Telescopes searching for God? Please explain what you mean.

Re:Question for biologists...

[Anonymous Coward]

I amazed that you have not heard of Rattle snakes and Pit vipers. Ignornace has no boundaries.

Re:Question for biologists...

[TCQuad]

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight.

I'd be careful with this point, because it is not as simple as it first sounds. A change should, but does not have to, confer an advantage. It could be a neutral move, with no selection for or against it. However, these neutral moves could result in the availability of new potential advantages. So, when arguing the point, it is not the thinner openings were greater than the larger openings, but rather they were at least as efficient for the task they were used for and provided the potential for further development (cemented by the actual eye development).

Re:Question for biologists...

[dgatwood]

If so, I'd like an example-- because I've never heard of a creature with a deep, light-sensitive pit in its body.

Google search terms: "light-sensitive pit bacteria".
First entry: http://www.corante.com/loom/archives/2005/02/15/ey es_part_one_opening_up_the_russian_doll.php

The closest invertebrate relatives of vertebrates fit nicely into Darwin's predictions. Amphioxus, which looks like a sardine with its head cut off, lacks a true brain or camera eyes. But the front end of its nerve cord is slightly swollen, and is built by many of the same genes that build a human brain. What's more, they grow a pit lined with light-sensitive cells which they seem to use to navigate through the water. The genes that build this pit are nearly identical to the ones that build our own.

The fact that Aphioxus has such a simple precursor to the vertebrate eye might suggest that this organ evolved from scratch. Yet eyes can be found on many other animals--which was how Darwin first figured out what a precursor to the vertebrate eye might have looked like. Eyes can found in insects, squid, and many other animals. Did they evolve independently?

Next?

Re:Question for biologists...

[Atzanteol]

As opposed to arguing against a fallacy? Stupid questions need to be shown for what they are. Would you try to answer "have you stopped beating your wife?" No. Instead you'd point it out as a bad question.

Re:Question for biologists...

[smooth wombat]

And yes, if evolutionary theory can't explain some development, that is a problem with the theory.

Then apparently there is a problem with the Big Bang Theory as well because it can't explain where all the matter in the universe came from let alone how the actual bang itself started.

So I guess by your measure God did create the Big Bang.

Theories do not have to explain every nuance of an event. They only have to make enough testable predictions to cover most of the bases. No one has ever said that Einsteins theories predict every instance of what they try to explain and because of that lack of evidence should be ignored.

And yes, ID is bad science. Using a supernatural explanation for a natural event is not science. You know what drives me nuts about the IDers? They never answer the question: how do you test for a god (or intelligent being as the semantics are now used). Instead, they turn around and try to point out flaws in evolution. That's not how science works. You think your idea is better than someone elses, you provide the evidence and let your peers decide.

To date not one person in the creationism/ID camp has ever put forward any evidence or test to show that an intelligent being could exist. Instead, they start with the premise that such a being exists and move forward from there.

That line of thinking is bad science incarnate.

Re:Question for biologists...

[Zathrus]

Being as most creatures don't come with light-emitting organs as standard equipment, this speculation falls short of an explanation.

Ah, so being able to see the shadow of a predator wouldn't be advantageous? Or, inversely, the shadow of prey?

Although, frankly, the more likely explanation is that the organism wasn't trying to avoid a predator, it was trying to increase its energy intake by moving toward the light (or, in the case of a predator, move to an area that's more likely to have prey because of the light). We know cyanobacteria have been around for billions of years and they can do this.

No, just narrower. A disadvantage, like tunnel vision.

Um, no. Being able to refine your visual capabilities is generally an advantage. The previous mutation just said "light/dark". Now you can say "light/dark in THAT direction". You don't think that's an advantage?

Oh, and tunnel vision isn't necessarily a disadvantage. In humans it literally focuses your vision on the threat at hand (and yes, I've had it before). In other animals, such as birds of prey, it's an evolutionary advantage that allows them to concentrate on finding and killing prey.

Re:Question for biologists...

[shawng]

Clearly whoever at PBS wrote this has read nothing of what Intelligent Design proponents have said about the human eye. In his book Darwin's Black Box, Michael Behe argues that it is the light sensitive cell itself which is irreducably complex. Therefore, the evolution of the eye as described in the PBS article (and in Darwin's Origin of Species) could not be correct. He diagrams the complex biochemical structure of a single light sensitive structure and argues that even it could not have evolved by chance. I encourage everyone to read his book, even if you disagree with it, it is an interesting education on biochemistry. If people want to debate ID, fine. But I just wish they would read the ID arguments before attacking them.

Re:Question for biologists...

[Azreal]

"Only if the predator has a FRICKIN LASER BEAM on its head! Being as most creatures don't come with light-emitting organs as standard equipment, this speculation falls short of an explanation. Maybe there were large populations of electroluminescent bacteria a hojillion years ago."

Imagine a fish, swimming fairly close to the surface of the ocean or in a pond. The sun shines through the surface. A light detecting organ might be useful for a sudden shadow cast through the surface of the water. Or possibly it could be useful for the same thing in the thick foliage of a jungle. Or a creature that would prefer to stay either in the light or out of the light for various reasons.
Please excercise the product of evolution that resides between your ears once and a while.

Re:Question for biologists...

[bombadillo]

Surely you must be trolling....

Only if the predator has a FRICKIN LASER BEAM on its head! Being as most creatures don't come with light-emitting organs as standard equipment, this speculation falls short of an explanation. Maybe there were large populations of electroluminescent bacteria a hojillion years ago.

Iguanas have a rudimentery third eye on the top of their head. It can sense changes to light and not much else. It's also known as parietal eye. This is pretty basic stuff. Didn't you pay attention in biology/anatomy. I guess not since you believe in ID and creationism.

Re:Question for biologists...

[saider]

According to ID, everything that happens, happens because God wills it. Our experiments show that God usually lets things run according to "science", but that the almighty can step in anytime and do whatever he wants (Raise the dead, etc.). Since there is no way to predict what God is going to do, there is no way to test any human theory.

The funny thing is that if you look up "delusion" in a psychiatry book, they will tell you that it is a belief in things, despite evidence to the contrary except religion. Religion is delusional behavior on a grand scale to the point where we have diagnosed it, but we cannot come to terms with the diagnosis.

Trying to talk logically to people who believe in myth and superstition is not logical. It is like trying to fit 0.5 into a bit.

Re:Question for biologists...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Being as most creatures don't come with light-emitting organs as standard equipment, this speculation falls short of an explanation. Maybe there were large populations of electroluminescent bacteria a hojillion years ago.

Hmmm, a predator swims by overhead temporarily blocking the light of the sun, some creatures with a basic light sensor learn to dive when this happens. It makes sense to me. Even really basic sight is better than no sight.

No, just narrower. A disadvantage, like tunnel vision.

Well, technically it is directionalizing the light detection, which may be an advantage or disadvantage, depending upon the degree of directionality and the number and configuration of light sensitive "eyes." Additionally this would serve the same purpose as our eye sockets do now, to protect this sensitive spot from damage.

Again, the creature's eye become LESS useful until it reaches a point where the aperture narrowed enough to focus the light onto the "retina", instead of in front of or behind it.

Not so. Eyes would initially have been useful for spotting movement, since that is the type of light change most needed for survival. Assuming the direction they are facing can be changed, this may well allow a creature to detect the direction of an incoming object. Have you ever seen a one eyed person judge distance. Most compensate for their depth perception by constantly moving their heads a little bit. This could easily have worked in the same way.

I'd like an example-- because I've never heard of a creature with a deep, light-sensitive pit in its body.

Other posters have already given you a few examples.

Re:Question for biologists...

[conJunk]

Although, frankly, the more likely explanation is that the organism wasn't trying to avoid a predator, it was trying to increase its energy intake by moving toward the light

also helps with reproduction, when everybody's heading toward the same place... a sort of bacertiological singles bar

Re:Question for biologists...

[Anonymous Coward]

  WTF... this is precisely the thing about defenders of evolution that drives me nuts. Nowhere did I advocate "Intelligent Design"! All I said was, the article mentioned a problem with evolutionary theory, and then dismisses it by saying ID is bad science. It's totally unresponsive.

You were addressing a part of the artcle whose context takes ID advocacy (as a scientific competitor to evolution) as the central issue. It's in fact addressing ID advocacy rather than the theory of evolution, and it is spot on, not unresponsive at all.

Your post makes reference to that part of article and therefore is taken in that context. If you were addressing the theory of evolution in a different context, you should have made it clear/explicit.

Btw, I'm not defeding evolution. I am mocking advocacy of ID as a scientific theory.

And yes, if evolutionary theory can't explain some development, that is a problem with the theory. You can't just say, "well it's not like God did it or nothin" and expect people to count it as a valid defense of the theory.

Yes, that would be a lousy defence of the theory of evolution, but it's a good rebuttal to those advocating merits of irrelvant "alternatives" like ID.

If a theory having some unexplained holes is a problem to you, why single out evolution? All scientific theories are work-in-progress and they all have holes.

Also, I read that the theory of evolution doesn't try to explain "creation" of life, rather it tries to explain its evolution (hence the name :-). It is not the Grand Unified Theory, and even that one won't explain "everything". If a theory behind toaster design doesn't explain the workings of the internal combustion engine, is that a problem of the toaster theory?

Re:Question for biologists...

[smellsofbikes]

One thing to consider is that eyes have apparently evolved multiple times. Spiders have several sets of eyes, that serve different purposes, none of them very similar to mammalian eyes. This guy writes about one type of crustacean in which males and females have different numbers of eyes, and different types, which seem to have all evolved independently of one another. I've read some estimates that there are 20 different eye families, with separate evolution backgrounds. What the ID people consistently fail to realize is that 2 billion years is a long, long, long, long, long time. Since they deny that life's been around for 2 billion years, they can't comprehend how many generations, and how much evolutionary change (aka 'progress'), can happen in that much time. Fifteen trillion generations of bacteria, given some (probably lousy) assumptions, can generate a whole lot of complexity, including eyes. Michael Behe has much more of a chance with bacterial flagellae, but even that isn't 'irreducibly complex'.

Re:Question for biologists...

[hublan]

Only if the predator has a FRICKIN LASER BEAM on its head! Being as most creatures don't come with light-emitting organs as standard equipment, this speculation falls short of an explanation.

Eh? I'm assuming you studied physics in Kansas too. Here's a simplified version of how it works:

1. Sun emits photons (within the correct energy range, also known as light). Photons enter earth's atmosphere.
   
2. Photons bounce off of creature.
   
3. Bounced photons land on other creature's light sensitive patch.
   

See? That wasn't so hard. No lasers involved, just a gigantic nuclear furnace. Already accepted by most major religions.

If so, I'd like an example-- because I've never heard of a creature with a deep, light-sensitive pit in its body.

They're called flatworms.

Re:Question for biologists...

[Bullfish]

Even if there isn't a response right now, it doesn't mean there won't be as right from the beginning there were a lot of unanswered question regarding evolution. Many of them have been answered, and many questions will yet be answered. In reality, evolution is a theory in name only. Not one piece of evidence has come up to refute evolution. Evolution is an important principle of biological science.

On the other hand, all the evidence has refuted creationism. Simply removing the word "god" and then trying to remove evidence like continental drift, fossils etc, is not science. In fact, by that very criteria of eliminating evidence (in the instance given) makes ID anti-scientific. Science is a process of getting data, analyzing it, testing it and then coming to a conclusion. The creationists are not about science, rather they are about eliminating information that conflicts with their beliefs.

Re:Question for biologists...

[Anonymous Coward]

Reminds me of the old joke . . .

Scientist builds a supercomputer and enters the question "Is there a God?". Computer blinks and buzzes for a while, then replies: "There is now!"

Re:Question for biologists...

[Phisbut]

also helps with reproduction, when everybody's heading toward the same place... a sort of bacertiological singles bar

Except that bacteria reproduces by itself... doesn't need a partner.

Re:Question for biologists...

[VJ42]

Don't tar all religion with the same brush; I happen to be a hindu, I believe in evolution, there's nothing in my religion that goes against any science that I know of (even if there was I would probably come down on the side of science). This is probably because hinduism is such a flexable religion that it accomodates almost anything. However I have many christian friends who believe in evolution, they, as I, rationalise their religion as a metaphor. Take genisis for exaample, if you don't take the word 'day' literally, but take it to mean a period of time most things happen in the correct order, first light, then water, then animals, then humans. Think of religion this way:

Early man: how did light start?
god: About 5 billion years ago I gathered dust and particles of hydrogen and helium
Early man: (interupting): huh? What's a billion, and what are hydrogen and helium?
god: A billion is a big number hydrogen and helium are elements
Early man: can you show me some hydrogen and helium, the only elements i know are fire, water air and earth
god: *sigh* light happened because I just put it there, OK?
Early man: sounds good, I'll write that down.

Re:Question for biologists...

[greg_barton]

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight.

This is a common misconception about evolution. The only thing "necessary" is for the organism displaying the trait to reproduce. Nothing else. The trait can confer absolutely no advantage, and even cause disadvantage, as long as enough organisms with the genes for that trait reproduce. The trait need not even be expressed, as long as a gene that creates it is passed on. (Big example: recessive genes.)

So, to recap, every change did not have to conver advantage. The gene for that trait merely had to be passed on.

Re:Question for biologists...

[greg_barton]

If so, I'd like an example-- because I've never heard of a creature with a deep, light-sensitive pit in its body.

Don't know about light sensisive, but pit vipers have heat sensitive pits. (Heat being another form of electromagnetic energy...) These pits tell the snake about direction and intensity of a heat source.

Re:Question for biologists...

[teratogenicbenzene]

The statement about the eye being poorly designed because it is "backward" has been shown to be wrong here> .
<br /><br />
The basic fact is that the rods and cones in our eyes require a massive amount of blood to operate properly. There is a literal lake of blood that the light-sensitive cells must sit in, both for nurishment and quick replacement (they actually "burn out" rather quickly). The blood vessels in <i>front</i> of those cells are probably necessary for dead cell removal and for supplying additional and necessary vascular function.
<br /><br />
The human eye is a multi-layered and incredibly complex piece of hardware. Although certain aspects of its design are shared in "lower" lifeforms, there are many aspects that appear miracously (at least from a developmental biologist's aspect). My personal theory is that these advancement were the result of design, but I can test that hypothesis by actively <i>looking for</i> intermediate organisms. If it can be explained via developmental biology, fine. But so far, explanations for many (if not most) of the more advanced components of our eyes (and higher chordates) have not been forthcoming.
<br /><br />
Many people have faith that science will one day be able to explain systematically how complex organs like the eye evolved from (currently undiscovered) precursors, and that's fine. I'm willing to allow that there might be another explanation. That doesn't stop me from looking, however, and if anything it makes me a better scientist.

Re:Question for biologists...

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Awkward explanation, let me be of assistance:

First, a note on the language used. "Tunnel vision" is a negative way to describe a light sensor at the bottom of a pit. You'd say that if you were trying to minimize the usefulness of the adaptation. It's like saying "redundant appendage" if your purpose is to minimize the usefulness of a second arm on your torso.

Anyway, instead of tunnel vision, the appropriate language would be "directional vision". The light sensor at the bottom of the pit confers some directionality to the sensing direction. Even a minimum amount of thought enables you to realize that knowing if a threat is coming at you from the left or the right is a tremendous advantage, because when you flee, you have a 100% chance of fleeing away from the threat, instead of just a 50% chance.

Re:Question for biologists...

[greg_barton]

That's false. ID can be tested (in the same way astronomy can be)...

Really? OK. Give me the definition of intelligence upon which you could build such tests. And, remember, your community of researchers all must agree on this defition.

I mean, if you're going to test the predictions of ID, you have to know the nature of intelligence, right?

And, I haven't even asked about "Design" yet...

Re:Question for biologists...

[lgw]

Chlorophyll is light-sensitive. The more light, the more energy, to a limit. A very significant percentage of all the world's cells are therefore light-sensitive. People do read the ID arguments before sucessfully attacking them. Then the ID arguments change. Every year. You can always invent some story.

Re:Question for biologists...

[NeutronCowboy]

Now, if someone tells you that the eye cannot be explained through evolutionary mechanisms, do you respond that, well, ID can't be tested through the scientific method, so you're wrong?

That's actually not what the article is saying. What the article says is that since ID can't be tested, it has no place in a science class. Instead, the proper place for ID to be discussed is in philosophy class. Unfortunately, US public schools don't seem to have that class anymore.

Re:Question for biologists...

[Profane MuthaFucka]

There's nothing magic about a light sensitive cell. Many chemicals have photovoltaic properties which can be directly sensed by a nerve cell. Those chemicals even have other uses besides just light sensing in an organism.

Behe's arguments are a failure of imagination. He can't imagine how something could come to be, so he says that it's impossible. Then later, we figure out that it was possible, and Behe was wrong.

The latest example is Behe's flagellum motor. Turns out that a very slightly different protein is a potent toxin that some bacteria produce. Behe's flagellum motor turns out not to be composed of useless component parts (like his mousetrap) at all. It was simply a failure of his imagination.

All of Behe's arguments will fall to increased understanding eventually. The biochemical components of a light sensitive cell are no different.

Re:Question for biologists...

[WhiplashII]

how do you test for a god

There is actually an answer for this: you compare your happiness before (belief in God/Following God's plan for you) and after (belief in God/Following God's plan for you). That answers the critical question, is it better to believe or not believe. (Technically not a test of God's existence - but why do you care? Newtons laws aren't known to be factual, they are merely helpful). This test is best performed individually, because the answer is highly personal.

I believe the evidence for God is larger than the evidence against, BTW. Mainly because there is circumstancial evidence for, and no evidence against.

Re:Question for biologists...

[Anonymous Coward]

A quick run down of the Scientific Method. Any real "science" should be able to fulfill the following general steps:

Define the question
Gather information and resources
Form hypothesis
Plan experiment
Do experiment and collect data
Analyze data
Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypotheses
Communicate results

the problem with ID comes in the "Plan Experiment" and "Collect Data" sections.

#1, you can't really plan an experiment that will test if ID is occuring or has occured in the past. Something that is untestable is just not part of science.

#2, Furthermore, the collect data stage seems to be find holes in other theories. Just because Evolution theory has some holes or does not have data to support something is NOT data that another theory is true

Could ID be science? Could ID be correct?
Yes on both accounts

Is ID currently a science? Should ID be taught along side science?
No

Until ID can produce something better than "Darwin didn't explain this case", I wouldn't even call ID a theory. Its a belief which is at best a untested Hypothesis

Re:Question for biologists...

[idlake]

I mean, if you're going to test the predictions of ID, you have to know the nature of intelligence, right?

No, you don't always need a precise definition in order to demonstrate that something is not intelligent. We don't have any trouble, for example, agreeing that a piece of rock salt isn't intelligent. You need precise definitions only in the borderline cases, but the mechanisms that evidently produce biological diversity are so far removed from intelligence that there is no question.

Re:Question for biologists...

[elmartinos]

Here I present you The only debate on Intelligent Design that is worthy of its subject

Moderator: We're here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution versus Intelligent Des---

(Scientist pulls out baseball bat.)

Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?

(Scientist breaks Intelligent Design advocate's kneecap.)

Intelligent Design advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU BROKE MY KNEECAP!

Scientist: Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly, all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I am holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a mere preponderance of evidence doesn't mean anything. Perhaps your
kneecap was designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current situation that are inexplicable according to the "naturalistic" explanation you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating pain that you are experiencing right now.

Intelligent Design advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN!

Scientist: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this hypothesis implausible --- it just is. Your knee must have been designed that way!

Intelligent Design advocate: YOU BASTARD! YOU KNOW YOU DID IT!

Scientist: I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain? Frankly, I think we should expose people to all points of view. Furthermore, you should really re-examine whether your hypothesis is scientific at all: the breaking of your kneecap happened in the past, so we can't rewind and run it over again, like a laboratory experiment. Even if we could, it wouldn't prove that I broke your kneecap the previous time. Plus, let's not even get into the fact that the entire universe might have just popped into existence right before I said this
sentence, with all the evidence of my alleged kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.

Intelligent Design advocate: That's a load of bullshit sophistry! Get me a doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we'll see how that plays in court!

Scientist (turning to audience): And so we see, ladies and gentlemen, when push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe. When it comes to matters that hit home, they prefer evidence, the scientific method, testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations. In fact, they strongly privilege naturalistic explanations over supernatural hocus-pocus or metaphysical wankery. It is only within the reality-distortion field of their ideological crusade that they give credence to the flimsy, ridiculous arguments which we so commonly see on display. I must confess, it kind of felt good, for once, to be the one spouting free-form bullshit; it's so terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by empirical
evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue, then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid you adieu.

Re:Question for biologists...

[Now.Imperfect]

Personally, I always thought eyes were a bad example

How about wings? At one point the soon-to-be-wing would be impossible to use, with fingers that are waaaaaaaaay to long, I see this as a direct disadvantage that should have died out quickly.

Second, sexual reproduction. How in the world would sexual reproduction come about?
1) Why advance past cellular fission? It works, why change?
2) Gestation periods are rediculous, it is totally the opposite of what SHOULD have evolved.
3)Animals in "heat", again, another pointless "advancement", what advantage does this have to anything?

Also.. how did trees evolve? what do plants actually gain? I mean... plants don't have any sort of survival instincts.

And just a side question, what stopped our evolution? Why don't wee see anymore advances? Even slight? Also... no known mutation is good, Sure people like to point out sickle cell anemia, but that seems to be considered a disability.



I would just like to point alot of people towards Cardinal Ratzingers "In the Beginning", it basically changes my mind set, and most people don't realize the sort of things he says in there.
Basically, for a Catholic, evolution is a theory, thats all it should be for anyone. Catholics are "allowed" to believe what they want, what we *must* believe is that how ever creation came about it was God's design. Hell, we don't give a shit if it's evolution.

Anyway, for me it isn't evolution or creation, it is creation and *cause*. But to me evolution has too many holes, the few above are just examples that I've come across in my studies. I don't believe it is not a sufficient cause. Personally, I don't believe we've exactly nailed the cause of everything, .ersonally, I don't claim to know the cause for everything, i just hope people are open to debate about these "theories" so we can gain a deeper understanding of their implications and build a "Grand Unified Theory of Creation"

Re:Question for biologists...

[Anonymous Coward]

Intelligent Design is a theory now? Please, describe it.

Re:Question for biologists...

[greg_barton]

But in this case you do need a precise definition. You need a testable defition. If we are to posit an intelligent creator we must know what we are positing. Otherwise the assertion os meaningless, and any subsequent assertions based on it are meaningless. (And thus not testable.)

Look, by saying "I know it's wrong" you're playing right into the hands of ID proponents. You're falling for their game. Don't.

Re:Question for biologists...

[raoul666]

That's false. ID can be tested (in the same way astronomy can be)

I either don't understand what you're saying, or you meant astrology. I think that's the fairer comparison.

Re:Question for biologists...

[greythax]

I am not going to debate your first paragraph, as it is probably one of the most lucid descriptions of how and why one should address their personal religions I have ever heard.

I will, however, take a shot at your last two sentences.

I believe the evidence for God is larger than the evidence against, BTW. Mainly because there is circumstancial evidence for, and no evidence against.

The problem with this is that their exists a whole lot of anecdotal evidence for all manner of things, with no real way of disproving them. Faeries, trolls, the yeti, psychic healing, UFOs, military intelligence, etc.

After all is said and done, they call if faith for a reason. You are going to have to understand that you can't prove, or disprove belief. You can only try to prove scientific hypothesis. The two are ultimately incompatible.

Re:Question for biologists...

[WhiplashII]

Basically, you seem to be saying that circumstancial evidence is not really evidence - which is totally correct, of course. I was merely pointing out that in the absolute absence of anything else, you might as well use circumstancial evidence.

(This is not true of ID vs Evolution, for example, but I don't really get all out of shape over such things)

Re:Question for biologists...

[VENONA]

Elmartinos, thanks for the post, (which needs a +5, moderators) and above all the link to http://abstractfactory.blogspot.com/. It's easily one of the best blogs I've seen. It's gotten a bookmark and been added to aKregator.

Re:Question for biologists...

[smooth wombat]

That answers the critical question, is it better to believe or not believe. (Technically not a test of God's existence - but why do you care?

Your idea, while interesting, doesn't answer the question, as you admitted to. All you are testing for is a persons chemical state when they believe there is a god compared to if they don't believe. After all, that is what happiness is. A chemical state. One could be just as happy not believing as believing and your test would be just as valid.

As far as why do I care, because that is the crux of the matter. ID says that an intelligent being must have created things but some things seem to be too complicated to be natural.

If the ID supporters go around saying this or that of evolution isn't proven then it is a perfectly valid question to ask of them, prove that an intelligent being exists.

As I said in my original post, the ID supporters start with the presumption that such a being exists and then try to prove that existence through observation (and only observation I might add) when in reality one would start with the end result and work backwards to find a cause.

Newtons laws aren't known to be factual, they are merely helpful

You might want to rethink that. I would direct you to this page which gives an easy to understand definiton of what a hypothesis, theory and law are along with examples. Newton's laws are about as factual as one can get.

Mainly because there is circumstancial evidence for, and no evidence against.

And what might that evidence be? Again, you're stating that there is some evidence to support the idea of a supernatural being but you never say how you arrive at that conclusion. You are doing the very thing that I mentioned above: you're starting with the conclusion and trying to make things fit what you believe.

Re:Question for biologists...

[Dimensio]

My personal theory is that these advancement were the result of design,

How would this "theory" be falsified?

Re:Question for biologists...

[rmstar]

If you believe in god, you are not a good scientist. You cannot be.

That thing religious people call "Faith" is nothing but the act of fooling yourself. You cannot be a good scientist if you have the habit of fooling yourself.

Re:Question for biologists...

[Breadly]

A view that i've always held but rarely seen represented --> genesis of complex organisms by means of evolution from less complex organisms (or even inanimate material) would constitute a very intelligent design indeed....

Re:Question for biologists...

[Seraphim_72]

there is not a shred of evidence to support ID

Really? ... are you sure as a scientist you want to make that statement? Nothing was intelligently designed? I am sure the boys at Monsanto would disagree with your view of thier geneticists level of smarts.

Seraphim

Re:Question for biologists...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, i'm not sure if you're just a troll or not, but some quick rebuttals might be in order:

Concerning wings: There are several species today that have gliding but not flying ability as I'm sure you know. There are gliding frogs, gliding squirrels and even the so-called flying fish. At least to me, it is not unreasonable to think that this gliding ability have an advantage when it comes to escaping predators, and that wings in their first stage might've been some sort of gliding aparatus.

Concerning sexual reproduction: Because sexual reproduction gives a -much- higher rate of change in a population? Look at the way that bacterias evolve resistance to antibiotics by exchanging plasmoids of dna. Doesn't that resemble sexual reproduction a lot?

And gestation periods are very, very necessary. They give the offspring a chance to develop without having to be exposed to the environment, while at the same time giving relatively little survival disadvantage to the female. This period inside the mother thus gives the species a slight edge in the evolutionary arms race, since they have a longer period in which to develop "advanced" features.
Animals in heat are also easy to explain. If a bear,for example, gets pregnant in summer, the cub will get born in winter and die. regulating when the species is fertile is a way of increasing the efficiency of child production.

Not sure I get your tree question. Plant a tree and a bush next to each other and see who survives. The tree have a large advantage when it comes to collecting sunlight and water, so in a forest it would survive in the long run. However, in a place where sun or water is no problem, the bush would probalby have a disadvantage. So the tree eolved to better fit an environmental niche would be my answer.
Finally, our evolution haven't stopped, just slowed down, due to a fairly low environmental selective pressure. However, an example that springs to mind is the prostitutes in Gambia (I believe) that was found to have a gene confering a certain amount of resistance to HIV, which in the long run would give them a clear advantage.
Evolution in action!

Re:Question for biologists...

[jbf]

And how is this a testable hypothesis?

Neither creation/ID nor evolution as theories on the origin of life are testable hypotheses.

Re:Question for biologists...

[idlake]

We don't need a definition of intelligence. We can reject ID for, say, the evolution of the eye because there is no evidence for any mechanisms influencing its evolution beyond those that make up evolutionary theory; arguing about whether nonexistent mechanisms are intelligent is pointless.

But while there is no complete agreement on what intelligence is, there is a common understanding that it must be an information processing system that shares some aspects with human information processing not possessed by animals or inanimate objects. There is no evidence for the existence of such entities, which is another reason why it is unreasonable to postulate that such entities have been responsible for tinkering with evolution.

Re:Question for biologists...

[greg_barton]

We don't need a definition of intelligence.

Right. So why did you try to define it later in your post? ...it must be an information processing system that shares some aspects with human information processing not possessed by animals or inanimate objects.

So, the quest to create artificial intelligence is pointless, then? It would be composed of inanimate objects, you know. As are we, if you hadn't noticed. And the boundry of where intelligence resides is a bit more fuzzy than "We've got it, nothing else does." Parrots posses verbal ability. Apes can master sign language. Both can carry on conversations. Are they not intelligent?

And, besides, your definition is self serving. Saying intelligence is a trait of humans, and thus no non-human entity exists that could be an intelligent creator, is a tautology. Come on. You can do better.

Re:Question for biologists...

[Handpaper]

1) Why advance past cellular fission? It works, why change?
As somebody posted above, mutations do not need to be improvements. Change happens, mutations are random and do not require reasons.

2) Gestation periods are rediculous, it is totally the opposite of what SHOULD have evolved.
The more developed an organism is when born, the greater its chances of survival. Humans seem to buck this trend by being virtually helpless when born, even after a long gestation. An explanation for this is that the full development of the brain takes a long time, but the end result is worth it.

3)Animals in "heat", again, another pointless "advancement", what advantage does this have to anything?
Conceive the next generation at the same time and they will be born at roughly the same time. It's curious how often this coincides with the greatest availability of food.

Also.. how did trees evolve? what do plants actually gain? I mean... plants don't have any sort of survival instincts.
Prick yourself with a splinter of Greenheart, pick some nettles or go eat some deadly nightshade, then tell me plants have no survivalist tendencies. The surviving mutations in plants are those that increase the chances of the plants' survival. In the game of natural selection, survival is the only prize, and the competition is never over.

And just a side question, what stopped our evolution? Why don't wee see anymore advances? Even slight? Also... no known mutation is good, Sure people like to point out sickle cell anemia, but that seems to be considered a disability.
Where did you get the idea that evolution has stopped? It's running as fast as ever, maybe faster if you believe everything written about climate change. The reason you can't usually see it is that it is slow[1]. A thousand generations may not be enough to produce noticeable changes.Advances do happen, see here for an example. This also handily disproves your assertion than there are no good mutations. Sickle cell anaemia is a double edged sword, but still interesting. It is possible that further mutation could retain malaria (?) resistance without the debilitating effects normally present.

I would just like to point alot of people towards Cardinal Ratzingers "In the Beginning"[....]
ITYM Pope Benedict XVI:).

[1]A noteworthy exception is bacteria, where a thousand generations can pass in a fortnight.

Re:Question for biologists...

[mysticwhiskey]

What, like Galilei, Copernicus, Newton, Descartes, Faraday, etc? The flaw in your argument is defining faith as "fooling oneself". It is possible that one can measure & investigate the physical world around us without having one's faith interpose.

Re:Question for biologists...

[idlake]

Right. So why did you try to define it later in your post? [...] And, besides, your definition is self serving. Saying intelligence is a trait of humans,

I made an informal statement about what people generally agree on intelligence means. For a formal definition, I would have had to be more precise about what I mean by "aspects" and "inanimate objects". That's why I didn't give a definition, and you shouldn't split hairs about whether my non-definition is mathematically precise.

So, the quest to create artificial intelligence is pointless, then? It would be composed of inanimate objects, you know.

Quite to the contrary: artificial intelligence has already delivered artificial systems that "share some aspects with human information processing not possessed by animals or [generic, natural] inanimate objects". Of course, that doesn't mean that AI is done, since those systems are still far away from human intelligence.

There is not a shred of evidence for the existence of intelligent entities other than humans or machines created by humans. Furthermore, there is no evidence for any influence on evolution that falls outside the standard biological processes that make up modern Darwinian theory, which makes the question of "intelligent design" irrelevant--there isn't even "dumb design" or any kind of "design".

Re:Question for biologists...

[greg_barton]

There is not a shred of evidence for the existence of intelligent entities other than humans or machines created by humans.

At the moment, I'd be inclined to agree. I hope you don't also assert that the existence of such beings in impossible. Also, before 1905 (and for several decades afterwards) there was incomplete evidence to support special and general relativity. Doesn't mean it wasn't (and isn't) a valid theory. So trying to argue against ID on those grounds is useless. You must attack it in a way that is productive. I'm trying to show you how, but you're one stubborn mutherfucker. I wash my hands of ye.

Re:Question for biologists...

[rmstar]

The flaw in your argument is defining faith as "fooling oneself"

What is it, then?

Re:Question for biologists...

[idlake]

At the moment, I'd be inclined to agree. I hope you don't also assert that the existence of such beings in impossible.

It's quite likely that there are intelligent beings somewhere else in the universe, but they won't have been tinkering with our genetic code. The existence of the kinds of intelligent beings that ID seem to have in mind, however, seems to violate physical laws; however, to determine that for certain, ID proponents would have to be more specific about what kind of "intelligent beings" they are postulating.

Also, before 1905 (and for several decades afterwards) there was incomplete evidence to support special and general relativity. Doesn't mean it wasn't (and isn't) a valid theory. So trying to argue against ID on those grounds is useless.

No, that analogy is wrong. GR was an untested theory until it was tested and its predictions were found to be in agreement with experimental results. In contrast, the predictions of ID have been thoroughly tested, and the result has always been the same: there is no evidence for the kinds of effects ID predicts.

Re:Question for biologists...

[mysticwhiskey]

My facetious comeback: I don't have really have the answer, since I don't subscribe to a religion. Nor do I have an agenda to convince others I have the ultimate secret to life, the universe and everything.

Yet, I would like to make a distinction between "unknowable" and "unknown". Faith would appear to be an acceptance of the unknowable, whilst the unknown is there for the learning.

Shit, I'm beginning to sound like Donald Rumsfeld, so I'll stop right here ;)

Re:Question for biologists...

[operagost]

Why does the iguana have a third, nearly useless eye on top of its head when it has two perfect good and relatively sophisticated ones?

Re:Question for biologists...

[operagost]

1. Seeing "light" and "dark" doesn't help much if you can't see motion. Which way do you go?
2. That page says nothing about any light-sensitive pits on flatworms. I'll assume you're correct, but that they're infrared sensitive, which makes them useful, but not eyes. After all, I can sense heat with good old-fashioned nerve endings. Does my hand "see" a hot kettle?

Hold on a second...

[Pichu0102]

A NASA ballerina? Looks like our tax dollars are going to work in the right places!

Re:Hold on a second...

[P3NIS_CLEAVER]

Yeah the used part of the "foam-support funding" for that.

Re:Hold on a second...

[dr_dank]

It's given them a new senNASA's new motto is : Nobody puts baby in the corner.

#11

[Anonymous Coward]

11: Slashdot Administrator

Re:#11

[Anonymous Coward]

Hah, everyone knows that slashdot doesn't have administrators. Next thing, you'll be telling me there are editors too.

Quality Assurance

[webappsec]

Even though the 'developer's' code is busted and they lack the time to fix it, you get all the blame for it not being fixed when the product is released.
Technology is a science.

Re:Quality Assurance

[jferris]

If you work at a company that releases code that is knowingly "broken", the problem is in management and has nothing to do with either the developers or QA.

Additionally, if you don't have the say to fail a release that has critical and known errors, it is time to find a job with a company that actually knows what they are doing.

hey, cant find the list for 2004...

[xunling]

...the linked page is dead, someone correct it plz

Awesome...

[Karma_fucker_sucker]

and thanks!

I was looking for something like for some of the Crea..ID proponents here good 'ol Cobb County Georgia.

Re:Awesome...

[Anonymous Coward]

don't forget to bring up..

the appendix, no known use

wisdom teeth (evolution in progress, the number of teeth people have is slowly declining as the jaw gets shorter and we also eat more processed (cooked) food).

While on teeth: vestigial canines. No real use in humans also in decline.

While on the topic of vestigial: male nipples. No known use.

If you look around you will find a host of things that also fit the bill for coming back at ID loonies. Evidence for what I like to call, 'Doofus Design'. Sure there is 'designer', but that designer is a real doofus :)

Re:Awesome...

[Gilmoure]

While on the topic of vestigial: male nipples. No known use.

They server to break up the monotony of the mail chest.

Re:Awesome...

[Herkum01]

While on the topic of vestigial: male nipples. No known use.
They server to break up the monotony of the mail chest.

I never noticed nipples on my mail box, but to each their own...

Re:Awesome...

[eechuah]

My nipples are offended by your comment.

Re:Awesome...

[Gilmoure]

D'oh! Tiem to server my nipples from my chest in shame.

Re:Awesome...

[mysticwhiskey]

Server them? No! They'll just get slashdotted to oblivion!

Job Listing

[LukePieStalker]

Don't like your science job? There is a new opening for a scientist at M.I.T.

Warning: not work safe!

[Flying pig]

Before you look it up, you should know it shows a half naked woman writhing around what looks like an enormous yellow penis. You couldn't make it up. But what the heck? The researcher has just got more publicity than he probably ever imagined. And his next funding offer might come from highly unexpected sources - the sort of people who need huge server farms and wide pipes to, ah, service their clients.

Re:Warning: not work safe!

[Anonymous Coward]

Half naked? If she gets half naked, then I must have only download half the video, because all I saw was a fully clothed dancer in ordinary ballerina attire.

Human Lab Rat

[cwtrex]

Actually, I've kinda wanted to be a Human Lab Rat in those experiments where they add to your brain matter. I've always wanted to be telepathic! On a more serious note, I've also thought that perhaps people in prison with life or death sentences should be able to opt to be a Human Lab Rat in order to reduce their sentence while furthering our medical research.

Re:Human Lab Rat

[parking_god]

Wasn't that the premise behind Doom? Of course, I don't think Patient Zero was a volunteer...

Re:Human Lab Rat

[magicchex]

And if all the inmates are taking my lab rat jobs how am I supposed to earn beer money from Pfizer Research (which happens to be one block from my apartment)?

Re:Human Lab Rat

[iamacat]

Yeah, and then somebody will just step up war on drugs or charging people on skimpy evidence whenever the pharmaceutical/pestiside lobby needs more subject. The society shouldn't get any benefits from incarcerating people other than keeping dangerous criminals locked up. On the contrary, the disadvantages should be emphasized and in our faces.

Here's one.

[scholzie]

I'm an Intel Engineer. How's that?

Re:Here's one.

[Anonymous Coward]

not anymore

Re:Here's one.

[Anonymous Coward]

Correction: This is regarding worst science jobs. Intel has nothing to do with science, even close. They are manufacturing workhorse. They don't even do good research either. So yes I am sorry for your job anyway, more if you have a phd as well.

Re:Here's one.

[scholzie]

Right, because it takes no science at all to create 500 million transistors at 65nm on a piece of silicon no bigger than your thumbnail. None. It also takes no science whatsoever to overcome the limitations of conventional lithography and be the first company to ever use 90 or 65nm technology. Man, thanks for opening my eyes! I'm going to quit RIGHT NOW and go work for Transmeta, because they have their act together!

Re:Here's one.

[Anonymous Coward]

While it does take science and thought to put 500 million transistors at 65nm on a piece of silicon the size of my thumbnail, it totally sucks when management tells you to design it to have a high clock rate and power consumption for less performance. Any engineer told to specifically design a deliberately inferior design should feel embarassment from releasing such a product.

At any rate, we can truly blame marketing for that one.

Misquote me thinks

[It doesn't come easy]

1. Human Lab Rat [...] Dudes, I was in a double-blind Viagra trial! And I got paid!

I would have thought the emphasis would have been on laid ...

Re:Misquote me thinks

[igny]

He was probably in the group which was taking placebo.

Re:Misquote me thinks

[Red Flayer]

"I would have thought the emphasis would have been on laid ..."

No, no, it was a double-blind study... Everyone knows that it's not getting laid that makes you go blind.

I myself participated in the follow-up, which was a double-hairy palm study.

Re:Misquote me thinks

[pipingguy]

Both of you please update your Slashdot-customized spell checkers:

"laid"= layed
"paid"= payed.

Thank you.

i am a NASA ballerina!

[Anonymous Coward]

and i find my placement in this poll to be very insulting. it is a job which is rewarding on MANY LEVELS, both personal and professional!

Re:i am a NASA ballerina!

[vena]

you forgot to say "you insensitive clod!"

mosquito food

[Khashishi]

I'd hate to be the guy who gets bitten by mosquitos for some photo or research purposes.

Re:mosquito food

[ChodeMonkey]

Like this person?

Re:mosquito food

[igny]

for some photo or research purposes.

You don't need the human victims to take pictures like this

Mine is worst

[Anonymous Coward]

Im a Java Programmer. This by far the worst job.

Re:Mine is worst

[Anonymous Coward]

It said "science", not playing monkey.

Mod mistake here!

[Karma_fucker_sucker]

I read the parent three times and I can't fathom why it was mod'ed as "Troll". I found it to be quite informative and helpful for me when I have to deal with the ID folks.

This country (US) is drifting more and more away from science and more towards superstition (It's not only the ID folks, there's other equally unscientific view too) and magical thinking. We're headed for trouble economically, culturally, and politically if we don't stop this nonsense.

Re:Mod mistake here!

[brainstyle]

Indeed. To mark the OP a troll is to suggest the question isn't worth asking. It is, it's a valid quesiton, and it turns out science has a good answer, a much better one than creationism has. We on the science side of the debate won't win in people's hearts and mind if we just mark people trolls and refuse to respond to them.

Re:Mod mistake here!

[Karma_fucker_sucker]

Carl Sagan's responses "Demon Haunted World"

In that book, folks would ask him about "healing crystals" and many other things both religious and "New Age". His response was something to the affect of "...there's no data that supports that belief." I found that response to be respectful to the person asking and at the same time putting forth that idea that maybe they should question their own beliefs. Of course, there's always going to be people who are completely happy relying on faith. I have no problem with that as long as they don't legislate their beliefs on everyone else.

Re:Mod mistake here!

[millennial]

See, this is what I dislike about fundamentalists. Nobody has any right to teach a faith to someone who doesn't want to learn it. It's aggressive and hurtful, and gives a bad image to all people of faith.

Re:Mod mistake here!

[ChuckleBug]

I read the parent three times and I can't fathom why it was mod'ed as "Troll". I found it to be quite informative and helpful for me when I have to deal with the ID folks.

There are creationists here who I think go looking for articles that criticize creationism/ID and rate them Troll. A while back, I wrote a testy but not uninformative article that got the same treatment:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=70547&cid=6407 629

I admit I was kind of pissy when I wrote it, but it wasn't a troll. It had good information in it. I've seen this in every creationism/evolution debate I've read here. But we've got evidence and reason on our side, while all they have is: "I can't figure out/imagine how this happened, so god did it." That really is the sum total of what they want us to teach as science. They add a lot of verbiage to make it sound like more, but they always come down to:

1. Honest mistakes
2. Lies
3. More lies (I want to believe these guys are sincere, but there are so many wrong statements from creationists that have been clearly shown wrong, yet they keep repeating them.)
4. Nonsense - often a subset of 1. (e.g. "If we came from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys?" That question is such a tangled morass of wrongness, I don't know where to begin.)

It does get discouraging at times, which is why I get cranky about this.

YIAAST.

Re:Mod mistake here!

[pipingguy]

Yeah, and like it's some kind of coincidence that the planet happens to have the exact mixture of gases that we need to breathe...

Re:Mod mistake here!

[Nefarious Wheel]

You have to permit a little mysticism now and again, just don't let it in the bedroom without a bath. It's one of the pathways to imagination that adds a bit of human colour to the clinicism of science. Remember also that a lot of physics started out as metaphysics, too -- read Bacon's "Novum Organum" which was considered in it's day to be the height of medieval occult mysticism. Within the covers of the book, you'll find an early treatise on the scientific method -- experiment to prove theory, the requirement for independent corroboration of results, the use of formal, syllogistic logic. Mysticism or science? We moved a long way forward after we scraped the mud off that pair of boots.

Re:Mod mistake here!

[sfjoe]

This country (US) is drifting more and more away from science and more towards superstition.... We're headed for trouble economically, culturally, and politically if we don't stop this nonsense.

"Headed for trouble"? Look around, friend - we have arrived.

Worst Job Ever

[Anonymous Coward]

Scatologist hands down! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scatology

declared troll -- little bill gates

[middlemen]

Q: Name the worst jobs in science ?
Little Bill: Steve Jobs ?!
</Troll>

What no "Grad Student?"

[forand]

Almost every one of the top 10 has one thing in common, if there is an even crappier aspect of the job it is being done by the grad student on the project!

I just want recognition for something! I will have to be happy with getting my Phd if I can't get on the crappiest job list.

Re:What no "Grad Student?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Norm MacDonald wants his "Crack Whore Assistant" joke back.

Re:What no "Grad Student?"

[tsunamifirestorm]

they had med students in the list for 2003

Re:can you hear me now? YES!!

[langelgjm]

Insightful?! WTF!

ET Says...

[perdu]

Anal probing all those dumbass humans...

true story

[nanojath]

every time they run this thing, it takes me back to this crap job I had years ago entering data from documentation in huge class action court cases into searchable databases for teams of attorneys. Lab results from animal fertility experiments crossed my desk and I must have looked at the phrase a dozen times before it occured to me what it meant to extract semen from dogs via "digital manipulation."

Re:true story

[sunwolf]

Holy shit, I just got finished with inputting my cases. I wish I had something as exciting as dog semen though...

Re:true story

[temojen]

I'm sure there's a website out there that caters to your tastes.

Re:true story

[snuf23]

Red rocket! Red rocket!

One up on ya:

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a vendor at Intel so I have to put up with all you whining, ignorant, pompous a-holes and your "holier-than-thou because I have a PhD AND work for Intel!" attitudes!

SO THERE!

Daily grind

[squoozer]

I spent a full year as a PhD student doing basically nothing but grinding up and heating mixtures of various metal oxide powders to make fuel cell components. That has got to be the most boring job ever. The lab didn't even have a window to look out of.

Nuclear-Weapons Scientist

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I just cant believe they included "Nuclear-Weapons Scientist" in the list. I mean, what could be even cooler than that.

Re:Nuclear-Weapons Scientist

[Anonymous Coward]

On a bad day, just about anything.

I can imagine

[CiXeL]

it's not so bad. Living right by the everglades natl park in south florida i can tell you if you get bit by enough of them your body stops responding by making those little red itchy bumps.

Earlier this year the mosquito season started early and they didnt have the budget to begin spraying so they just let people tough it out until it got enough press to actually have to take action. I was getting bit three times a day just on the way to the car which is about 7 ft from my front door to the car space in front of my condo. After a number of weeks of this my body simply stopped responding. I could get eaten alive by 20-30 mosquitos and maybe 1 or 2 would itch but all the rest would become a very small welt for 20 mins and then disappear entirely except for a slight knot you could feel in the skin that would eventually disappear in a few days.

Apparently for Everglades workers if youre working in a high mosquito prone area (almost every place in the everglades in the summer) they give you an injection made of mosquito saliva in the gut that makes you immune to mosquito bites for 8-9 months.

Your body won't respond at all but the only way to get the shot is to work for the government or fork over 10,000 dollars for a single shot. Apparently the technology was invented for use in vietnam.

But i've probably already given you far more information than you ever possibly could've wanted.

DRE?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and a Digital Rectal Exam would tend to conjure up visions of an MRI of your rump, until you realise that digital has nothing to do with computers in this case.

collector of waste water

[Cmdr-Absurd]

When in college, I worked in a lab analyzing waste water produced by local industry. part of the job involved collection of samples. Some of the man-holes were nice (like at the brand-new CD ROM manufacturing plant.) Others..... One was at a plant that made pet food. The waste from that process was mixed with the normal sewage one would find coming out of a building with lots of humans. Need I say more?

Snake Pits

[ReverendLoki]

If so, I'd like an example-- because I've never heard of a creature with a deep, light-sensitive pit in its body.

The example that comes immediately to mind are the heat-sensitive "pits" found on pit-vipers and pythons. They detect infra-red light in almost this exact way.

Re:Snake Pits

[operagost]

As I posited to another poster, why does this creature have a third, nearly useless eye when it already has two complex ones?

Re:Snake Pits

[ReverendLoki]

If you are referring to these pits, snakes that have them have 2, between the nostril and te eye, on either side of their head. This should allow for some stereoscopic like interpretation, making the data directional.

If I recall correctly, the complex eyes of a snake see close to the same visible light range that we humans do. The pits "see" the infrared range. For a cold-blooded animal, this is far from useless - this specialization helps them find the warm rock to bring up their body temperature, or pick out the extremely warm-blooded mouse hiding in the cold shadows under a rock.

We honestly don't understand all of the uses for these pits yet, but the above are just some of the possible uses we have observed evidence towards. Other hitherfore undocumented uses may well exist.

Continental Drift?

[mr100percent]

First, a history lesson. In 1999 a group of religious fundamentalists won election to the Kansas State Board of Education and tried to introduce creationism into the state's classrooms. They wanted to delete references to radiocarbon dating, continental drift and the fossil record from the education standards. In 2001 more-temperate forces prevailed in elections, but the anti-evolutionists garnered a 6-4 majority again last November.

Radiocarbon dating and fossils, I suppose they thought it contradicted the bible. Continental Drift? Who would dispute that?

Re:Continental Drift?

[Control Group]

Anybody who wants to cling to a young earth.

Continental drift, after all, presupposes a time line about four orders of magnitude greater than that of young earth "theory." Hence, if you believe continental drift, you have a very hard time simultaneously buying into young earth.

Re:Continental Drift?

[Quaoar]

It's for same reason that they didn't like a solar system model that was heliocentric: The Earth is described in the Bible as being completely static and unchanging. Plate tectonics kinda go against that...

Re:Continental Drift?

[hackstraw]

Continental Drift? Who would dispute that?

People that live here.

Re:Continental Drift?

[rnelsonee]

To be fair, I don't think any of us have been sitting around and observed any continents drift, so that puts in the same ballpark as the other two. And even if we were witness to events like earthquakes, we'd only suspect something like continental drift has occured because scientists have told us what's going on.

Now, I'm playing devil's advocate here, I'm a science nerd and would really like all these IDers to just shut the hell up. But anywho, to their point, I also have never seen a virus, nor Pluto, but I still believe that they exist.

It comes down to how willing people are to trust other experts and what their theories are. Some people are raised in environments where all the 'big' questions (how old is the earth, what is our place on this planet, how does life come into existence) are the domain of the bible - it's in there, and supposedly the word of God, so that's all you need to know. Obviously, this is a bad environment to come out of, but that's just how it is.

Re:Continental Drift?

[BlogPope]

The Earth is described in the Bible as being completely static and unchanging. Plate tectonics kinda go against that...

Tides go against that too. I guess there's limits to what they can deny? Or perhaps that one of gods miracles, pushing the unbeliever into the sea?

Re:Continental Drift?

[scottyokim]

The usual passages cited are Psalm 96:10 (ESV): Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns! Yes, the world is established; it shall never be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity." and Psalm 104:5 (ESV): He set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved. (This is the same passage used against Galileo.)

Re:Continental Drift?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is the scariest web site I have ever seen. (Shivers)

Re:Continental Drift?

[zippthorne]

Indeed. finally some rational addition to the discussion. It does not matter if your high priests wear vestments or white labcoats. If you believe without question, it is faith.

Science does not argue that you should believe without question, so the knee-jerk reactions from the evolutionists to anything questioning their faith is a bit confusing to me.

Similarly, ID is an abomonation. It attempts to introduce faith to the field of science where it does not belong. There should be no facts in science where we cannot say, "This is what we believe at this time to be true, and here is the evidence which supports it."

Evolution on the other hand has an equivalent struggle. The claims it makes cannot be verified in a human timescale.

Neither "The big bang," evolution, OR ID should be included in a science textbook. Those subjects belong in a cosmology class with pre- or co-requisite philosophy instruction. the principle of "natural selection" should be in biology courses so as not to hamstring their instruction, but the question of whether or not we are apes should not yet grace the pages of science text.

Re:Continental Drift?

[lgw]

The thing is, you're not supposed to just take the scientists at their word. Everything is supposed to be backed up by evidence and reason, and open to challenge from new evidence. Religious faith: not so much.

Re:Continental Drift?

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard stories in science textbooks that the Atlantic Ocean grows an inch wider per year, and every so often an underwater transcontinental telephone cable snaps because of it.

Re:Continental Drift?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ranks high up on the list of ignorant hate sites.

Re:Continental Drift?

[Anonymous Coward]

"That is the scariest web site I have ever seen. (Shivers)"

Be forewarned: "Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."

Brother I'm really concerned for your soul, please, please, don't join the dark side!

Re:Continental Drift?

[rnelsonee]

Oh, definitely. My point is just that some things, modern observations and theories for the most part, can't be verified by utilizing the resources available to the average person. Which means that a lot of us devotees to science/evolution have to trust scientists, as well as their processes for validating theories (submitting theories to peer-reviewed publications, having theories validating by other scientists and experiments... etc) to get our views of the world.

For example, utilizing GPS measurements, we now know that England is moving away from the US at two meters every 100 years - which supports the idea of plate tectonics (which only gained acceptance as late as the 1950's after much reluctance, particularly in the US). But you and I don't have that type of equipment so we're relegated to trusting what the geologists say. It's no problem if we trust in the whole hypothesis -> observation -> conclusion -> verification system, which almost everyone does. But some people, namely the IDers, simply don't trust this method for something with as much magnitude as where humans came from.

Clearly, this doesn't explain why they trust their faith so much. It does seem odd that people don't trust scientists and their findings (even when their findings are presented in a style suitable for the public like as in a magazine article), but they trust a 2000 year old mythology book based on oral tradition.

That robot arm looks like...

[FunnyLookinHat]

a giant penis. Anyone else think that was strange, watching a ballerina caress some strange robotic penis?

Probably not a ballerina

[Animats]

Ballerina? She moves more like a modern dancer.

Actually, that's not a bad dance job. Pay, benefits, reasonable hours. Ask any working dancer. It's a tough life, and you burn out young. At the higher levels, the injury rate is very high. New York City Ballet used to have the highest workmens's compensation premium in the state.

The "robot touch avoidance" demo has been done before, several times, both with mechanical switches and a short-range microwave system. The IR distance measurement system came from a Stanford project in the 1970s.

Re:Probably not a ballerina

[Tomato Salad]

RE: Ballerina? She moves more like a modern dancer.

It's getting too hard to tell the difference anymore, everyone expects modern dancers to have so much classical ballet training these days.

This would have been a more appropriate job for an old-school Alwin Nicholais/Murray Louis dancer from way back when. Those guys were the alpha-nerds of modern dance. And they could knew how to communicate with a prop -- none of this pussyfooting around and over-reliance on arm and leg gestures.

I can speak with authority on this, having passed Intel's extensive dance history exam to win the honor of wearing the gold lame bunny suit.

Worst job overall?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tie between...

Furniture repairman for Ballmer
or
Janitor at MS who attempted to make MP3 player makers bundle WMP and then got caught.

They forgot one.

[soundvessel]

#200 - Compiling and publishing data on what the worst jobs in science are.

Peh, this is the REAL worst science job!

[lasmith05]

Animal Sperm Collector: http://www.talkingcock.com/html/article.php?sid=22 5 Choice Quote: "I never thought I'd be giving an orangutan a hand job every morning," he said somewhat ruefully. "And Ah Meng is the worst. He expects to be kissed first."

another bad science job

[jjeffries]

The number of cattle with windows into their stomachs is, surprisingly, non-zero. And what good is a cow with a view if you don't do this on a regular basis?

Here is the list..

[kurt_ram]

For those who dont want to RTFA
10. Orangutan-Pee Collector
9. NASA Ballerina
8. Do-Gooder
7. Semen Washer
6. Volcanologist
5. Nuclear-Weapons Scientist
4. Extremophile Excavator
3. Kansas Biology Teacher
2. Manure Inspector
1. Human Lab Rat

Boring list...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll stick to watching Dirty Jobs.

You do get some stories

[dptalia]

From number 7, Semen washer:
"The hardest part is explaining it to friends," Schillinger says. "But we do have stories." Like what? "Like the donor who was in the room for the longest time. We had a big discussion about who was going to check on him. Turns out he thought he had to fill up the entire specimen cup."

Oh I want him to father my kids!!!!!!

Digtal Stimulation Jobs

[SeanDuggan]

One of my friends does this job with cows. She once shared with me the story of the time she got back from lunch and was shoulder-deep before she realized she'd forgotten to put back on her glove. That was one shirt she never wore again...

Re:Digtal Stimulation Jobs

[hetairoi]

Um, you don't extract semen from cows. That would be bulls. And I don't want to know why your friend had her arm up a bulls ass. ;)

Re:Digtal Stimulation Jobs

[Idarubicin]

"I'm sorry. We didn't know your cow was sacred".

So, were you thinking about your sig at all when you posted that last comment? :D

Re:NASA ballet

[Dj Superfly]

What is that, the dance of the friendly phallus? It moves so expressively!

Outright sewage collector

[2short]

One collection location had raw sewage? Bah.
I had a job collecting samples from the inflows of sewage treatment plants. Drive around to six obsolete, decrepit plants, swapping out the collectors in the automated samplers (How many will have overflowed today?) Take them all back to the shiny new plant that will get all the sewage after you're done. Mix the samples in exacting proportions, and decant into various containers. (This will involve spilling; skin contact considered very bad) Pack them up in a cooler and ship it to a lab across the country which will see how well it kills fish. Take a bath in rubbing alcohol.
The upside was that you'd be done at around noon, and the job was in Puerto Rico. The downside was, this study was being done to figure out how much treatment and dilution would be needed before the stuff could be dumped in the ocean, and since you were still doing the study, not even that was happening yet... So you didn't much feel like going to the beach.
For the record though, the industrial waste was actually the nasty stuff. The air at the plant that served an industrial area would make your eyes burn and skin itch. The mostly human waste plants were bearable once you put on big rubber gloves, a filter mask and stuffed something up your nose.

Maybe eyes HAVEN'T evolved multiple times

[smellsofbikes]

There's a good Science News article about eye evolution that indicates that there have been many independent developments of the physical hardware supporting an initial light-sensitive patch, but the patch itself might be fairly unique. (Including some groovy stuff about a gene that stimulates spontaneous eye generation all over insect bodies: at the tips of their feet and such.)

This guy agrees, claiming that the light-sensitive patch genes are pretty conserved.

However, this crowd seems to think that although opsins are remarkably well-conserved across different phyla, the controlling genes that the abovementioned people were obsessed by control many other gene families, besides eye development, so it's still possible that there are different complete eye evolution families.

They talk a bit about fish and squid eyes: I didn't know that squids and octopi have inverted (compared to mammals) retinal structures. They must be *very* good at low-light conditions.

Tick collector

[akepa]

About 10 years ago I worked as a research assistant on a study of tick ecology. During hunting season I had to travel to collection stations (where hunters bring in their deer to be registered, weighed, etc) throughout southern New England and collect all the ticks I could find from each dead deer with a pair of tweezers. By the end of each day I was usually covered in blood - fortunately I was never pulled over for speeding ("Honestly officer, it's deer blood! Where's the deer? Well, you see.."). I spent the next few months counting all the samples and segregating them by species and sex.

Re:can you hear me now? YES!!

[ifwm]

Informative?! WTF!

The New Kansas Cirriculum

[rdoger6424]

Of course it's a myth... Haven't you heard of intelligent falling?

Re:The New Kansas Cirriculum

[sumdumass]

Well, gravity probably isn't a myth but is what we think that causes gravity a myth?

Dolphin semen collector

[Abies Bracteata]

I know of someone who worked at a marine-mammal research facility. One of his tasks was to obtain semen samples from the male dolphins. (I won't go into the gory details).

As it turns out, dolphins are quick learners, and he quickly became *very* popular with the male dolphins. Any time he would show up at the dolphin tanks, the dolphins would immediately begin splashing around and chattering with excitement!

So next time you go to Sea World and take in a dolphin show, don't assume that the dolphins are performing all those neat tricks just for fish!

Today's news?

[Kerbo]

The issue this was in came out weeks ago. Good thing internet news is giving way to print media.

what's so hard about the sensor skin?

[Wilk4]

I'd like to know what's so hard about covering something with a lot of simple sensors, then programming the array with simple commands to move away. Looks like it only has 2 axes of motion too. Sounds like an undergrad (or high school) science project to me.

Incompatible?

[millennial]

I'm not so sure 'incompatible' is the right word, since there are many scientists with religious beliefs. Perhaps 'unconnected' is better. Otherwise, I agree.

Fill the cup

[javamann]

I always fill up the cup. (#7)

Evolution and The big bang have strong evidence

[technoextreme]

Evolution on the other hand has an equivalent struggle. The claims it makes cannot be verified in a human timescale.

Actually you can if you use a computer. From there it's just developing a model that is the hard part. There are books written on the subject.

"The big bang,"

Actually there is evidence supporting the big bang also. Namely we have created a form of matter that was theorized to exisist thirty microseconds after the big bang. It's weird stuff because it is a perfect liquid (No viscosity).

Re:This is news?

[Anonymous Coward]

...and this matters why? It doesn't change what he did in the past, or what he does presently...it's just more information into his private life. It doesn't matter.

Re:This is news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm, I know, I was being sarcastic.

"Ewww" not "Wow"

[glengineer]

That video has go to be one of the creepiest things I ever saw, almost as bad as that bunny one on Ebaum's World.

Semen Washer, and standards

[JPriest]

I like this part: "The hardest part is explaining it to friends," Schillinger says. "But we do have stories." Like what? "Like the donor who was in the room for the longest time. We had a big discussion about who was going to check on him. Turns out he thought he had to fill up the entire specimen cup."

So does the sperm bank still give guys like that the $75 and have some unsuspecting woman birth his offspring?

I can't help but wonder if there isn't a little kid somewhere that always seems to fill in EVERY little dot on multiple choice exams with his #2 pencil.

Re:can you hear me now? YES!!

[Omnieiunium]

Interesting?! WTF!

inevitable

Re:can you hear me now? YES!!

[Jacob96]

Interesting?! WTF!

In Soviet Russia..

[Lotharus]

In Soviet Russia, USENET talks on you!!