Evolution Named Scientific Achievement of 2005

lazy_hp writes "The BBC reports that research into evolution's inner working has been named rtop science achievement of 2005 From the article: 'The prestigious US journal Science publishes its top 10 list of major endeavours at the end of each year. The number one spot was awarded jointly to several studies that illuminated the intricate workings of evolution. The announcement comes in the same week that a US court banned the teaching of intelligent design in classrooms.'"

Comments

Hmm...

[gorzek]

Not that I support Intelligent Design (I think it's hokum, personally), but I can't help thinking this decision is politically-motivated. Doesn't mean it's not deserved, but it sure is convenient, coming on the heels of the ID court decision.

Aw, what do I know?

Re:Hmm...

[MightyMartian]

There have been some pretty big developments, particularly in comparisons of chimp and human genomes, which is going to give us an enormous understanding of just what, at the genetic level, makes us human. That being said, I do think the victory of reason over Medievalism in Dover (though a limited one), has played a part.

The saddest part is that no matter how vast our understanding of evolution becomes, there will always be those who, for religious or logically unsound reasons, or just out of plain ignorance and misplaced incredulity, will reject it, and there will be those that wish to misrepresent or out-and-out destroy science simply to prop up their too-deeply held superstitions.

Re:Hmm...

[gorzek]

What I find saddest about the ID movement is that they have the wrong-headed idea that evolution rules out an Intelligent Designer. Nothing about evolution implies it is random and undirected. While each generation is certainly full of mutations that have no purpose, over the long run all species evolve traits that assure their survival, a form of genetic "intelligence" itself.

ID proponents would be better served examining how evolution *validates* their viewpoint. Just because evolution doesn't specify an Intelligent Designer doesn't mean there isn't one, just that we can't prove one scientifically. For some reason, being unable to prove something scientifically means, to some people, it just doesn't exist.

I'm not a Christian, and I don't have a firm belief in any kind of God, but ID supporters are clearly looking at evolution the wrong way.

Re:Hmm...

[gorzek]

But ID and evolution are not equivalent. One *assumes* an Intelligent Designer. The other does not. That evolution doesn't *require* such a Designer doesn't mean one doesn't exist, only that the theory does not rely on one.

Your argument actually collapses on itself, because you have essentially said ID does nothing but add a layer of complexity to evolution--a layer that is unnecessary, does not aid our understanding of the evolutionary process, and does not alter observational results.

That is exactly why I oppose ID being taught as an "alternative" or "replacement" for evolution. It is not, it is simply an ill-conceived modification designed to inject monotheistic dogma into a realm where it has no place.

Re:Hmm...

[MightyMartian]

The root problem with Intelligent Design is that it is compatible with all possible observations. Or, to put it another way, it has no explanatory power. In that alone it is meaningless to science. If you can't make predictions, if you can't formulate tests to falsify it, if any data gathered or potentially to be gathered, fits within the model, then you really don't have a model at all. ID was formulated intentionally in this manner, because it's part of the Big Tent strategy that the Discovery Institute and its allies have formulated. It's a political and legal strategy to get as many diverse groups whose only real commonality is "God did it" (where "it" can mean anything from special creation to theistic evolution).

Re:Hmm...

[MightyMartian]

If you read the Dover ruling, Judge Jones mentions this, and points out (and this applies to Kansas as well) that evolution is singled out for this sort of "just a theory, got holes" treatment. No other aspect of biology, no other scientific theory is forced into the same corner. The argument that there are holes in theory of evolution is correct, but then again, all theories have holes in them; unanswered questions, some data that doesn't fit neatly and the like. So it goes directly to motivation. The only reason that evolution is singled out is because those trying to get these stickers put on textbooks and those wanting pamphlets read in science class are trying to undermine the teaching of evolution. If this was an issue of intellectual and academic honesty, then every bit of science taught in a public school would have its own sticker or pamphlet explaining that there are holes in said theories. But as this is a religously motivated attack, evolution is singled out.

Re:Hmm...

[hesiod]

> So how can it be "sad" if the people who believe in [x], are happy believing in such?

If one finds happiness in slavery, is he still a slave? Is it still wrong to treat him as a slave? Even if not "wrong," is it still sad?

Re:Hmm...

[CastrTroy]

This is where ID really fails in my mind. They say that because we don't fully understand evolution, and because of the gaps, that it must of been an intelligent being who did it. This sounds a lot to me like Mercury dragging the sun accross the sky in a chariot as an explanation because we didn't understand why the sun moved accross the sky. Just because we don't understand something fully, does not give any proof that an intelligent being was at work. This explanation has been used throughout history for things we don't understand, and it has been proven wrong. Unless there is real evidence that an intelligent being is doing something, which there never is, then you can't say that something is happening because of the intelligent being.

Re:Hmm...

[smooth wombat]

You claim that ID is not predictible- but since it predicts the exact same outcomes that evolution does,

Er, no it doesn't. ID makes no claim other than an unidentified supreme being started the ball rolling. However, ID doesn't even provide evidence to support that such a being exists. It starts by assuming a being does exist. That's not a prediction. That's a statement of fact unsupported by anything.

Further, if one is to believe what ID supporters say, "Things look they were designed", then that is patently false. Just because something looks like it was designed does not mean it was. I submit for your viewing pleasure the underwater rocks of Bimini.

For decades people assumed that they were a road from a long ago civilization. However, once the rocks were tested they were found to be naturally occuring phenomenon.

ID makes no testable predictions. Even the Discovery Institute, the driving force behind this farce, provides no evidence to support their claim. None. All they do is try to point out supposed flaws in evolution, flaws which are repeatedly answered and shown not to be true but they keep spouting the same lies in the hopes the public is too stupid to realize they're lying.

In fact, you do the same thing. You keep saying there are flaws yet provide nothing to support your claim. That's not how the scientific method works. If you think your idea deserves attention you have to provide evidence to support your claim. To date no one, and I mean no one, has ever provided any evidence to support ID. They immediately turn around and say, "Well evolution doesn't provide evidence for 'X'" where X is whatever the flaw of the week is. Trying to poke holes in a current theory does not make your claim valid.

ID isn't science. Get over it.

Re:Hmm...

[gorzek]

The other assumes an Unintelligent Designer instead- Random Chance.

Most mutations are the result of damage caused by disease, radiation, and transcription errors. Combining genes (as in sexual reproduction) can also produce unexpected effects. None of these rely on a designer, and "randomness" is an essential feature of our universe (per quantum mechanics).

And yet, the way it's been taught in the last 50 years- it does rely on one. It relies on random mutation as a driving creator. So does ID by the way- except in that case it's God doing trial and error testing. Without a creator, intelligent or unintelligent, pushing change- both ID and evolution would find a stable state and the changes would simply stop.

Except randomness is not an agent, it's a concept. It implies someone with intent is responsible for our evolution. Natural processes have no intent.

And why would God need to do trial-and-error testing to begin with? I should think He'd already know what to do.

Evolution never stops because the environment is not stable. Natural selection occurs in response to an ever-changing environment. If a group of people were isolated in an environment devoid of any change--in terms of population, knowledge, climate, anything--they would only evolve to optimally survive in that environment, then stop. We do not live in such a world.

Nope- because God is no more complex than the concept of a random and indeterministic universe. The two concepts are equally complex.

But randomness is observed, as we see the lack of a pattern. You can't observe God, which makes the idea useless to science.

Incorrect- without that motivating layer, whether intelligent as in ID or random as in evolution, there's no way for natural selection to happen. Life in the universe as we know it would reach a steady state- and never again evolve.

See my statements above about constantly-changing environments.

Then the idea of a random, indeterministic universe, which is ALSO a monotheistic, or maybe a better word would be ANTI-theistic, dogma, should not be injected into that realm either- in which case you can't teach evolution. The basic theory *does* require a motivator- the only argument is over what that motivator is.

I don't understand how the lack of mention of God makes something anti-theistic. At best, it makes it agnostic--it does not know if a God exists, nor does it attempt to prove one.

The burden of proof is on Intelligent Design to show us why evolution could only have happened with the aid of a Designer. ID proponents have yet to provide such evidence, while evolution has demonstrated amply that random mutation results in natural selection, without the need for a higher entity guiding the process.

As I said before, ID assumes a being with intent. Natural selection does not. And don't confuse random input with random output. The results of evolution are anything but random, which is the whole point of natural selection.

Re:Hmm...

[Hiro Antagonist]

Too bad your argument is a strawman.

Evolution says nothing about the origin of life on Earth. It does provide for the possibility of abiogenesis, and there are many theories as to how this work, but they aren't part of evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory simply tells us that organisms change (because their DNA changes) over time in response to their environment, and that the primary two mechanisms of this change are variation and natural selection.

Thus, evolutionary theory *is* testable, even in a lab -- you can take a fast-breeding species like the common fruit fly, apply artifical selective pressures, and watch the allelle frequencies[1] shift in real time compared to control groups. Dog breeding is another example; humans use a the natural mechanisms of evolution, but add in their own constraints in the selection and variation departments.

If you could prove, experimentally, that some other mechanism accounted for this; or even that it wasn't the combination of selection and variation that prompted observed shifts in allelle frequencies, then you would easily be able to disprove evolutionary theory as it currently stands, and would open up new realms in modern Biology.

Intelligent Design, on the other hand, says absolutely nothing about any of this; instead, it makes a claim about the origin of life that is by definition unfalsifiable, as it is vacuously true. Beyond this, discussion of ID as science is moot, because falsifiability is a prerequisite for ANYTHING to be considered a scientific theory. Want to prove me wrong? Give me a test scenario where ID can be invalidated through experimental results; after all, I just gave you one for evolution.

[1] For the non-genetically inclined reader:

Allelles are, if you will, defined points on the strand of DNA. Each group of allelles governs a set of physical traits, and each group of allelles can be populated by different genes, giving rise to different traits. For example, a single allelle governs the RH factor of your blood, so depending on what gene gets stuck in that allelle, which is determined by your parents' genetics, you are either RH+ or RH-. Since these points are well-defined, and produce physically observable characteristics, it is relatively easy to see the genetic change in a population over time, and link that change back to changes in the way the allelles are populated.

To the genetically inclined: I know this is a simplistic explanation, but I think it's adequate for the purpose of this post.

Re:Hmm...

[gorzek]

Replacing one religion with another doesn't help a bit. Quantum Mechanics is not predictible, and thus fails at the test of being a science by your own rules.

I'll assume you don't know much about quantum mechanics. QM tells us that while the motion of particles is random at a certain scale, their interactions ARE predictable. In fact, that is what QM does: it describes the interactions of particles. (I'll avoid a tangent discussing the school of thought that there is no such thing as particles, but rather a universe of intricate power-relationships. Google is your friend.)

A lack of intent is as much a theological concept as having intent; logically the two are completely equivalent. They do carry an emotional difference however, which is my theory on why the disparate concepts arose.

Lack of intent is not theological, it is observational. The randomness we have seen implies a lack of intent. If we saw patterns, we might assume intent. But the inputs to evolution are random. More specifically, they are random variations of a pattern. Natural selection culls disadvantageous mutations.

I think the real reason people get so hot and bothered about evolution is that it indicates we're Just Animals. There is no miraculous proof of a Creator. Evolution essentially tells us we aren't special, just lucky and adaptive. Some people can't deal with this, and have to believe in invisible men in the sky to give their lives meaning. I have no problems with people doing that, as long as they don't try to make everyone else believe the same way.

Evolution, as it is now, ignores theistic issues. Is there a God? Is there not a God? Evolution doesn't care, and doesn't attempt to prove it either way. This is the point IDers miss. Apparently, they can't leave well enough alone, but feel injecting a Higher Power into it is necessary. I don't think it is, and neither does most of the scientific community, or the US federal government.

Why would he know how to be a parent any more than the rest of us? That's a pretty big assumption you're making as to the definition of the word God.

I assume you're talking about other than the Judeo-Christian God, then. In which case, I might ask you to define "God" as it pertains to you.

Well, that's the other half that drives natural selection certainly. But that doesn't mean you can get rid of the first half. I don't understand that statement. Care to clarify?

Neither can you actually observe randomness, since a random spot is indistinguishable from a larger pattern.

That is actually a worthwhile point. The only way we can deal with that is to continue gathering data until we begin to see a pattern. For the time being, though, we don't see one, so we don't assume one. That's science: explain what you can prove, keep looking into what you can't.

Useless because it fails to identify the cause of the change- it's just another theological argument.

What cause have we failed to identify? If you want to talk about causes, then what caused God?

But that's the problem isn't it: it does attempt to prove the lack of existance of one.

No, it doesn't. The only implication is that God is not required to understand the explanation. Do you need God to understand how gravity works? Do you need God to do trigonometry? No. So, why do you need God to explain the evolution of life which, while we like to romanticize it, is essentially the cooperation of numerous chemical machines toward their mutual survival? I know most people like to wax poetic about what life is, but in terms of physics and chemistry, life may be complicated, but it is not impossible to comprehend by any means.

Too bad random mutation is in and of itself a higher entity, or else by occam's razor that would be true.

Only because you seem interested in anthropomorphizing it, which is a mistake. "Intelligence" itself is a construct. You have to get beyond such things.

Re:Hmm...

[RespekMyAthorati]

The point is that ID brings nothing to the table. It explains nothing.
And so it is nothing but a waste of time in science class.

Re:Hmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

It is fundamentally impossible to not have evolution if you have genes + mutation + time. Most people have accepted genes that pass down through inheritance, most of those people accept that those genes can on rare occasion change seemingly spontaneously. Time is much less well accepted by those of fundamentalist religious persuasion. But, that is why it is taught, generally, as fact. I ask the question. How much genetic similarity is necessary in two obviously different species for fundamentalists to break down and say there is much commonality? Chimpanzees exceed 95% genetic match with humans. Can you really say we are not in some manner related?

As far as Galileo, I am unaware of any "evolutionist*" zealot that have locked up and threatened to kill Michael Behe if he did not stop his assertions.

As for myself, I cannot say that I believe in evolution. I say I hold the opinion of evolution. And frankly, those stickers are absolutely redundent as suggested. It is a shame that the real principles of scientific inquery are not better taught.

*Evolutionists -- Perhaps I should get on the horn with some slick term maker and start calling a section of the population "Evolution-deniers"

Re:Hmm...

[MightyMartian]

A big reason that this one is picked out, or picked on, has to do with the way it is being taught. As a parent (in Kansas, no less), I can tell you that evolution is usually not taught as theory, but as fact.

Observed phenomona often are. We observe heritable traits in populations changing over time. Do you also wish to have the Earth circling the sun taught as a "theory". Beyond that, the whole Kansas stunt demonstrates a purposeful attempt to confuse two usages of the word "theory". How is a bit of propagandistic wordplay a legitimate expression of the nature of a major scientific line of inquiry?

For any other science that I know of, if you have data that doesn't fit your theory then you have to go back and rewrite your theory.

Maybe someday you ought to vist PubMed and look at the abstracts. Evolutionary theory, like all theories, is in constant development. Why would you think differently?

The school systems often put forth the argument that high school students are not grounded well enough in the ideas of scientific theory to be able to grasp the nuances of evolutionary theory.

Which is in and of itself rubbish. The basic outlines of the Modern Synthesis are far less complex to outline than the intracies of the cosmology.

The truly sad part is that people like yourself are so narrow minded (and you have the gall to talk about how narrow minded religious groups are) that you would rather kids were taught old and outdated evolutionary theory, rather than opening up the discussion to other ideas.

Even if your accusation were correct, Intelligent Design isn't science. It does not mean any of the requirements of a scientific theory. It is a legalistic stunt meant to sneak Creationism past the Establishment Clause. There is no research program into ID. It offers no predictions, no means of testing. The single known publication in a journal was through a nasty little editorial trick. In short, no scientists are doing any research into ID. Not even Behe is submitting ID to any journals, and most of the "work" on ID is in fact, oddly enough, being done by people who aren't scientists at all.

So you're right, I don't want my kids taught a rewording of Paley's old watchmaker argument. There is nothing new in ID, so even in that part of your argument, you get it wrong. As Judge Jones recognized, ID is nothing more than a restating of Creationism. Hell, even the only actual ID textbook was simply a search-and-replace of Creationism with ID.

Tacky, tacky

[Otter]

Shoehorning a bunch of legitimately interesting work into "Evolution!" is just heavy-handed politicking, that cheapens both science and Science. What they don't seem to get is that the ID people have no long-term investment in science and don't care if they bring the whole thing down; scientists need to be careful about drawing the line between research and politics.

And, hello -- how about the HapMap?

Re:lol. political awards anyone?

[LurkerXXX]

At some point in time an intelligent being had to be involved.
The elements that created everything had to come from somewhere.

Where did the Intelligent being come from? The elements that comprise the being had to come from somewhere.

Whatever you reply to this "he always existed" or whatever, is the same reply I'll give you to you about where the elements came from. It's just as logical as yours.

Re:My fellow Christians: Strategize

[Sponge Bath]

"I think the planets should be renamed because they're named after fake gods."

You are free to call the planets whatever you wish.
But clearly what you really want is the power (through government dictate) to force others to use names that are approved by your particular religion.

I hear a lot of Christians complain about how oppressed they are.
In the end the complaints turn out to be about wanting the power to control others.

Politics and academia

[Douglas Simmons]

This is an instance of a decision being made over something that has nothing to do with politics intrinsicly based on politics. The same kind of thing happened in 1973 when homosexuality was removed from the American Psychological Association's big book of diseases. This decision wasn't made because the members of the APA decided homosexuality suddenly did not meet the definition of diseases (which it did, as it is still in the book thinly-veiled under the name Gender Identity Disorder), rather the APA buckled under tremendous political pressure from an aggressive homosexual movement.

Maybe that was a Good Thing, but should decisions like identifying the Best Scientific Achievement of a year and medical decisions of vast importance be something we leave open to the whims of politics? I realize that in this case there was no "buckling" from pressure but it apparently was intended to reflect political shifts of our time. Whatever the case, it just doesn't sit well with me.

Re:Slashdot Under Siege....

[Control Group]

Are you deliberately feeding the fire, or are you genuinely that close-minded?

Why is it scary to you that so many geeks might actually believe religion? An awful lot of brilliant math and science has been performed by people who firmly believed religion...does that terrify you, too?

Or do you just assume that, if someone believes in religion, they're supporters of ID and incapable of rational thought?

I don't understand the anti-religous crusade so many people seem to take on as their own little holy war. Why the hell can't you leave me alone? You believe what you want, and I'll believe what I want. I won't teach your kids to believe what I do, and you can just stay away from mine.

If you want to talk about testable hypotheses, we can do that. You produce evidence contrary to my understanding of the universe, and I'll change my understanding. I'd hope you could do the same thing.

But if you want to get into a contest of faiths, don't even bother. And don't think that atheism isn't a faith: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You can prove to me that we as a species evolved, ultimately, from a tiny pile of organic slime clinging to a rock in some antediluvian sea. Check. You can't prove to me that no god exists, any more than I can prove to you one does.

Your railing against religion (and everyone else's) as a whole (as opposed to railing against statements made based on religion that are demonstrably false, which is, of course, appropriate) is no better than any other zealot demanding that his religion is right and everyone else's is wrong.

Re:Evolution? Scientific Achievement of 2005?

[arevos]

Who are they kidding anyway? Evolution hasn't been scientifically proven. How can it be named a scientific achievement?

"Scientifically proven" is an oxymoron. No scientific theory has ever been proved. Ever.

Re:Slashdot Under Siege....

[ahodgson]

Why is it scary to you that so many geeks might actually believe religion? An awful lot of brilliant math and science has been performed by people who firmly believed religion...does that terrify you, too?

I don't think we're scared so much as confused. Why would someone intelligent believe in an invisible and all-powerful being for whom no evidence exists, and whose existence is so incredibly unlikely? How could someone intelligent, who would would presumably be well-read and therefore be aware of the incredible range of (blatantly silly) things people have professed belief in throughout history, not simply place modern religion in the same category? How can intelligent people, who dismiss out of hand many other superstitions, believe in the most outlandish things? Is it really that hard to get past childhood indoctrination?

Religion is so clearly a means for uneducated people to explain the world around them, as well as a way of wishing the world was not as it is (ie. denying mortality), that it is very hard to see how someone smart could fall for it.

That's what confuses us.