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.
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.
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.
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).
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
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".