Slashdot Mirror
Avoiding the Word "Evolution"
jakosc tips us to a disturbing article in PloS Biology on the avoidance of the word "Evolution" in scientific papers and grants. From the paper: "In spite of the importance of antimicrobial resistance, we show that the actual word 'evolution' is rarely used in the papers describing this research. Instead, antimicrobial resistance is said to 'emerge,' 'arise,' or 'spread' rather than 'evolve.' Moreover, we show that the failure to use the word 'evolution' by the scientific community may have a direct impact on the public perception of the importance of evolutionary biology in our everyday lives... It has been repeatedly rumored (and reiterated by one of the reviewers of this article) that both the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation have in the past actively discouraged the use of the word 'evolution' in titles or abstracts of proposals so as to avoid controversy."
"In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation." (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory) There is very strong evidence for evolution between species. As good as the evidence for gravity.
SHE does throw dice.
You are being disingenuous with your meaning of the word "theory".
You are using theory to mean hypothesis or conjecture, which isn't what the Theory of Evolution is, or any scientific theory.
Electricity would have been discovered by the Greeks (Greek). The relationship between static electricity and lightning was theorised and tested by Benjamin Franklin (American). Most of the work in understanding electricity was done by the likes of Volta (Italian), Ampere (French), Ohm (German), Faraday (English) and so on. Most of the work in making electricity useful was done later by people from all over the planet.
Same with lots of other stuff. Much of the basics of how computers work, for example, were done by the likes of Babbage, Turing and a load of other British guys. The software has been developed by people from all over the place, as have the hardware, and manufacturing technologies required to build modern computers.
I'll give you Edison though. And Bell Labs.
However, none of those are products of religious fanaticism. Far from it in fact. They came later, took over the place, and started turning it into a fascist theocracy.
On the other hand, the religious nutters do have a point (if completely unwittingly), since it modern astrophysics contradicts the bible version of creation just has much as modern biology does!
Everyone deep down hopes there is something after death.
I don't, ObsessiveMathFreak. Better fix your set.
Like what I said? You might like my music
Thus the spreading of "more desirable" characteristics is one of the core parts of evolution.
It makes *perfect* sense to say, for example: In many hospitals there are strains of bacteria that have evolved antibiotics-resistance.
searching for 'evolution' in the title of a paper brings back 5,180,000 results...
Here are some facts, you should try using them when you post, It makes you sound more intelligent. The only category the US leads in is budget. ( I'm ignoring the Navy figures, they appear to be including decommissioned ships in their counts, I do not consider a floating museum to be of short term strategic military value.)
Thomas Edison didn't invent the light bulb, Ben Franklin didn't discover electricity ... and computers were invented by and englishman and the first working one built by a german., and if you look around you'll find that Emile Berliner invented the record - the gramophone (as opposed to wax cylinders - phonographs).
There's an excellent documentary on the evolution vs. intelligent design wars called "Flock of Dodos" that covers this very issue -- there's actually a scene with a bunch of leading evolutionary scientists sitting around a poker table, lamenting that they have to avoid using the word "evolution" in their NSF grant proposals if they want to keep their grants. If you haven't seen it, and you're interested in this issue, you should definitely track down a screening in your area.
(Full disclosure: I know the guy who made the movie and am a big fan of his work teaching communications skills to scientists. If you want a second opinion on the movie, here's a New York Times article about it.)
Read my blog.
No, it was put there by christian fundamentalists first during the Civil War on coins and then on paper money during the 50s to try and force the notion upon the nation that it was founded on christian principles (which it wasn't). Read and learn.
Funny how the Founding Fathers, those bastions of christendom that the American Taliban likes to claim, overlooked putting those words on currency when they had the opportunity to do so, no?
Also, as far as the Pledge of Allegiance is concerned, because we all know that will be your next comment, it was developed by a Baptist Minister so that all persons, regardless of their religious persuasion, could pledge their allegiance to both the flag and Republic in a neutral manner. For a more thorough discussion, see this.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Camel may be correct (http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cg i?number=2574&version=kjv) but it has been suggested that it should actually be Kamelos (rope) rather than Kamilos.
I generally believe that it is a literal passage. The Jews, in Talmud, use similar phrases:
"... who can make an elephant pass through the eye of a needle." and "They do not show a man a palm tree of gold, nor an elephant going through the eye of a needle."
"The Holy One said, open for me a door as big as a needle's eye and I will open for you a door through which may enter tents and [camels?]"
Riches are a serious distraction (they can be anyway) it is very easy for one to become more focused on one's posessions than on one's eternal fate.
How the hell do you electroplate a non-conducting surface?
;-)
With difficulty.
Actually, some years ago, I saw a demo by a fellow who was pretty good at such tricks. He had some finished pieces that were gold-plated wood and ceramic. He explained that the material he used were actually (slightly) porous, and had been saturated with salt water. The result still didn't conduct electricity very well, and the plating process was slow. But with gold, you only want a layer that's a few atoms thick. His demo basically consisted in wiring up his pieces of wood and ceramic, which had been coated with wax over most of their surface, and lowering them into his plating solution. You could walk away and come back in half an hour or so, and see that there was already a visible gold layer on the uncoated spots.
It is a lot faster if the core material conducts well. I think his demo was pretty much a display of virtuosity. Gold paint would be a lot faster. And for something like a dome of a building, gold leaf would probably be more practical.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Wow, you must suffer from a complete lack of education. Tell me, where exactly does the burden of proof lie again?
On the surface your argument sounds solid, but you have not taken into account the devastation the 99% of flawed mutations has taken on the remaining population.
No, you have not taken into account the fact that mutations are a rare event, and that the majority of genetic mutations will have no effect at all. When they do have an effect, this effect is usually small. I'm not sure you realise just how much genetic variation there is out there in the wild. Also, I'm not sure you realise how much machinery there is in your body to prevent mutations from happening.
In other words, the "99% of flawed mutations" are only among those (rare) mutations which do have an effect. Meanwhile, "normal", not-significantly-mutated organisms keep breeding happily, perpetuating the "wild type".
What you are talking about (harmful mutations accumulating beyond control) is called "mutational meltdown", or "error catastrophe", depending on the context. It just doesn't happen in large natural populations today, precisely because 1) mutation rates are so low and 2) those mutations which are harmful are eventually eliminated.
Osteogenesis imperfecta ("brittle bones" disease) most certainly does affect reproduction and survival, especially in pre-modern times ! Again, I'm not sure you realise how even a small (but persistent) disadvantage in reproduction is dramatically amplified by the exponential nature of replication.
Thus how can can one random mutation produce (...) eye sight
I can't believe the example of the eye is still being used by creationists. Not only do we have plausible scenarios for gradual, step-by-step evolution of the eye, but we have actually found each of these "steps" in organisms living around us right now. Please have a look at this picture.
One mutation cannot produce the vertebrate eye (or a squid eye or insect eye for that matter). The patient accumulation of small, beneficial improvements (which are kept in the population, precisely because they are beneficial - as opposed to the thousands of non-beneficial small modifications which are quickly eliminated) can.
Executive summary: you are trying to criticise natural selection while not fully understanding it, please read more Dawkins.
No. Did you RTFA? They discusss this point. The terms being used instead of "evolution" are no more technical, like "acquire", even "learn".
" 'Evolution' is a fine word for the masses, but when someone learned is supposed to be specific, a vague word isn't the best choice."
Evolution as used in Biology is hereditable change of gene frequencies through time (from one generation to the next). Consequently, it is technically the scientifically correct term to use when referring to microbial resistance or any other form of genetic change being of compared across generations. It has a precise meaning in Biology, and there is really nothing "vague" about it. Rather, it is your understanding that is vague.
Your assertion that is a "general term" is factually inaccurate when the term is used in a scientific context, although I will certainly admit and as the article points out, it has other more "general meanings". Unfortunately, the general level of scientific understanding of evolutionary theory and use of the term is woefully deficient, even among broad swaths of the scientific community that is in a position to know better. Among the general public, at least the American public, it is practically non-existent. One could only use other scientific terms to describe the change of microbial resistance through time, if one means to imply that it changes through some mechanism other than by evolution (by means of natural selection). It is a well known scientific fact that microbial resistance is genetically based, and consequently, the contemporary consesus view is that changes in microbial resistance should be viewed as evolving in the correct, technical sense of the term.
I fully agree with the thrust of the article. Scientists need to use the term evolution, when it is appropriate. We also need to educate the population about science.
Signs that science education is slipping in America are all around us. Mathematics test scores are dropping because we are largely replacing the educational philosophy of the teaching of understanding of concepts for a policy of "no child left untested". Just note that all the major news feeds lump "science" and "technology", with the writers and editors largely unable to distinguish the difference between the two. Typically, what amounts to an on line advertisement for a new gaming technology or the psychological state of NASA astronauts is more likely to pass as a "SCIENCE/TECHNOLOGY" story than is a story of a science issue. Even, when one looks at stories that should attempt to explain the science behind such topics, they tend to be covered more as if they were gossip columns or curiosity vignettes instead. Just take a look at GoggleNews feeds today, for a mindcheck.
Yes, it is time for scientists to begin to educate with regard to the pervasive evidence for evolution in our lives. A good place to start is at the molecular level, such as microbial genetics, where the public may hopefully be better able to understand the concepts involved and upon which they can build a greater level of understanding to address much more complicated issues, such issues as the evolution of human behavior. The world needs a better understaning of the latter, if we, Homo sapiens Linnaeus 1758, are collectively to evolove in directions other than leading to our own extinction, as the vast majority (>90% of all species) have done.
That's why string theory is called a theory, rather than a law. Presumably they plan to test it eventually (since we might not have the necessary technology now). But it is (theoretically) testable, because it can be used to make predictions.
Similarly, evolution is a valid scientific theory while "intelligent design" is not, because even though it may not be fully proven (if it were, it would be called "the law of evolution" instead), it does make predictions that can be tested experimentally. For example, one could subject colonies of bacteria to different environmental factors and then see if their genetic code changes over time.
In contrast, "intelligent design" is not and cannot ever be a valid theory because it makes no predictions and is not testable. For all we know, it could even be true -- but it doesn't matter, because we can't test it experimentally!
If you want to guess about "Truth," go look at philosophy (which encompasses both religion and science). If you want a self-consistent framework with which to make predictions about reality, go look at science.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Then in 1956 (Thanks, McCarthy), it became a motto of the USA.
Sorry
"And this be out Motto: In God is our trust."
National Anthem - Francis Scott Key 1814
I believe the phrase is even older and Mr. Key just worked it into his poem.