Study Explains Evolution's Molecular Advance

pnewhook writes "The New York Times is reporting that 'by reconstructing ancient genes from long-extinct animals, scientists have for the first time demonstrated the step-by-step progression of how evolution created a new piece of molecular machinery by reusing and modifying existing parts. The researchers say the findings, published today in the journal Science, offer a counterargument to doubters of evolution who question how a progression of small changes could produce the intricate mechanisms found in living cells.'"

Comments

The truth shall set you free.

[Ckwop]

Once again, Science tightens the vice on God. God must be feeling pretty claustrophobic inhabiting the ever smaller gaps of science. We already know God is a totally incoherent concept. Here's why:

Theorem: An all powerful God is impossible.

Proof:If God is all powerful that means he can perform any action, this however is absurd. Can God create a stone so heavy he can't lift it, if he can, he's not all powerful because he can't lift the stone, if he can't he's not all powerful because he can't lift the stone in the first place. God could also create married bachelors, square circles and honest politicians.

At best, God could be as powerful as allowed by the laws of logic. However, so can we. Through technology we have mastered what the ancients would have thought impossible: Flight, light at the flick of a switch, devices that allow us to communicate seamlessly over thousands of miles.

A common defence is to say God doesn't adhere to logic and therefore we can't judge him by it. That may be true, but it means we can't say anything about God whatsoever. Any logical contradiction in a system means that every statement within that system can be proved. God would be rendered meaningless. And besides, this is incompatible with Christian theology because God created man in the image of God. If man is logical, then by extension so is God.

Theorem A God that knows everything is impossible

Proof: A subset of knowing everything is to know every true statement. The question then becomes whether it is possible to know every true statement - or more precisely, can we even construct a complete set of statements that are true. The answer, as you've probably guess is no.

To prove this, first assume that we can construct a complete set of truths. Take the power-set of this set. The power-set of any set is bigger than the original set, even for set of infinite sizes, however, there is now a truth associated with each set: Is truth x in a given power-set. This is a contradiction, so we know constructing a set of all truths is impossible. By extension, it is impossible to know everything.

I could go on, the point in that God can be discounted with reason alone. We don't even have to get ourselves involved in Biology or Physics. I don't pretend that all human suffering is derived from religion, but a disgraceful amount of it is. Let's step beyond the God myth and try and make the world a better place.

Simon

Re:The truth shall set you free.

[pikine]

You never know, there are creative ways to get out of a paradox.

In the old testament, God mandated laws that people should follow and specified punishments for breaking the laws. However, if that is the end of the story, we would be extinct by now. Humans just can't follow the laws, but God wants to give each of us a chance to redeem and be forgiven. Yet God does not logically violate the axioms that are laws he set to stone.

Here comes Jesus, the son of God representing God himself, who takes the responsibility of all our sins and crucifies for us. The only condition is that we believe he is authorized by God to alleviate our sins.

Theorem An all powerful God is impossible.

To break out from your first paradox, if I were God, I would create a stone, specifically not to lift it myself, and create a being authorized by me to lift the stone. Since I'm able to designated a being to lift it for me, I am able to lift the stone indirectly, and still satisfy the conditions set forth by your proof.

Your other examples, such as married bachelors, are inherently inconsistent in the definition, so in order to keep the logic consistent, these definitions cannot be admitted. But again, there may be creative ways to break these paradoxes.

Ever wonder why computers, a being created by humans, is strictly logical but is not creative?

Theorem A God that knows everything is impossible

Breaking out of this paradox is similar to breaking out of Russells paradox. You simply need to restrict the domain of "everything."

More over, there is a hole in your proof. We cannot assume the powerset of any infinite set is bigger than itself. We know that for any set A, powerset of A has the cardinality 2^|A|. Consider A to be a set where |A| is a tower of 2's, that is, |A| = 2^(2^(2^...)), then |P(A)| = 2^(2^(2^(2^...))) = |A|. That is, powerset of A and A are the same sizes.

article

[Anonymous Coward]

fuckin new york times

Genes from extinct animals

[Adrian Lopez]

The scientists have managed to reconstruct ancient genes from long extinct animals. Does this mean that we are one step closer to having pet dinosaurs?

Yay!

How many? None!

[pbhj]

>>> "How many thousands of generations of people lived and died over the millennia so that we might be where we are today?"

None.

Only I exist.

But it intrigues me that I generated that bit of sense data. Perhaps it's not just me?

Re:Waiting...

[kimvette]

AC, Let me introduce you to bugmenot. Bugmenot, meet AC. I suggest you two get acquainted! :D