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."

Comments

What do you expect?

[skinfitz]

This is what happens when you pander to religious fruit loops - it started with the 'In God We Trust' rebrand of the US (in particular, on money) which was the thin end of the wedge and now we have a situation whereby scientists cannot even discuss things properly.

All the major organised religions seem to want is lots of uneducated children who think they are going to go to 'heaven' when they die.

Re:What do you expect?

[Bob Gelumph]

Hang on a second.
The resistance does emerge or arise.
It is the microbe population that evolves.

Re:What do you expect?

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

The state and the Church have always been partners. The state keeps the people poor, the Church keeps them ignorant.

Re:What do you expect?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Thirdly, everyone deep down knows that there is something after death.

Everyone deep down hopes there is something after death. Some people hope so much that they become very upset when other people don't hope in exactly the same way. The reason they get upset is because, even deeper down, they know their hope is just blind desperate hope, and they're afraid.

Well tough shit. I'm afraid of angry religious hive mind mobs coming to burn me out of my house, but you don't see me on TV campaigning to ban thoughts and theories contridictory to my own. I may laugh at them, but that's not going to create chilling effects.

Re:What do you expect?

[dbIII]

All the major organised religions seem to want is lots of uneducated children who think they are going to go to 'heaven' when they die.

You are confusing the radical anti-intellectal groups that like to call themselves conservative with those groups that don't actually think God hates poor people and actually do charity work. Christianity-Lite does not like the few books at the front of the Bible that they actually read to be questioned in any way. I'm not religeous but I seem to recall reading that the Catholic Church accepted evolution before 1950 and they were the last mainstream Christian group to do so.

Re:What do you expect?

[Siener]

Everyone deep down hopes there is something after death

Not everyone. Some of us are perfectly OK with the idea that this is the only life we have and therefore we have to make the most of it.

Re:What do you expect?

[Conanymous Award]

It's The Land of the Free(TM), as long as you don't mess with God(TM). Sad. I thought we had already passed the Dark Ages.

Re:What do you expect?

[h2g2bob]

I'd like them to replace "In God we trust" from banknotes with "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle..."

Re:What do you expect?

[c6gunner]

That was one of the stupidest things I've ever read on here. The fact that it got modded insightful proves that people don't need religion to keep them ignorant.

Re:What do you expect?

[Dr. Manhattan]

...everyone deep down knows that there is something after death.

And what is your evidence to back up this statement? I know a counterexample pretty intimately...

Re:What do you expect?

[MysteriousPreacher]

Personally, I believe science is simply a material extension of the spiritual. I enjoy science and I'm fascinated by it's discoveries, but science is not absolute and in no way affects my personal spiritual beliefs.

Do your spiritual beliefs affect your understanding of science though? What do you do when your spiritual beliefs say that God created man in his current form yet science provides compelling evidence to suggest otherwise?

Science is not a religion, if you believe that then you don't understand what science is about. If science is a religion then so are Algebra and football.

A religion, or faith to be more precise, is belief in the absence of facts. Science is fact based. Don't mistake a passionate belief in the scientific method with blind faith in the supernatural.

Re:What do you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Scarcity is a construct of capitalism. In reality, there's plenty to go around for everyone.

Re:What do you expect?

[Rob the Bold]

So what, pray tell, would be the religion that keeps the people of Cuba and North Korea ignorant[?]

Personality cult.

Re:What do you expect?

[Dan Ost]

You've got it backwards. Capitalism is a method of handling scarcity.

If there was no scarcity, there would be no need for any sort of economic system.

the role of science...

[User 956]

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

The role of science is not to manage public perception. It's to find out how things work. Unfortunately, receipt of grant money is often tied to public perception (positive, or negative).

It IS disturbing...

[nebaz]

When I get in an argument with my creationist friends, no one disputes what they call 'micro evolution'. The idea that single cells can mutate to become resistant to bacteria, and those are the only ones that survive. Where people have trouble is with something they call 'macro evolution', that these mutations can over time create entirely new species, organs, and reproductive behavior (sexual vs asexual). I believe it because I think people don't understand exactly how many years we are considering here in the long haul. If the scientific community is not calling 'evolution' what most people agree actually takes place, how can they expect to be taken seriously on more controversial aspects of science?

Re:It IS disturbing...

[Dogtanian]

I'm NOT talking about natural selection, which makes perfect sense, but evolution; ie beneficial mutation

The ratio of beneficial to non beneficial mutation is hugely in favour of increasing disorder. What exactly is that supposed to mean? That because most mutations are not beneficial, everything should fall apart in the long term?

This is the same flawed argument that people who say stuff akin to
"The chances of all these evolutionary steps are the same as picking out the queen of hearts from a shuffled pack seventy times in a row" (or whatever)
It's wrong because it (a) disregards natural selection, i.e. all the less beneficial mutations won't survive and (b) the mutated organism does not automatically replace all its non-mutated siblings, i.e. if the mutation is a failure, they get to try again.

Re:It IS disturbing...

[StrawberryFrog]

Your friends are being stupid, deliberately or not. There is no distinction in nature between microevolution and macroevolution. Macroevolution is just larger quantities of macroevolution over much longer times.

It's like saying that there's "microwalking" which is what I do from the car park to the office every morning, and down to the shops on weekends, and that can result in changes of my location over time on a small scale; but the idea that people, over tens of thousands of years walked out of central Africa into Europe, then over to Asia, across to North America and into South America - that's "macrowalking" and it's impossible. God must have put them there.

Re:It IS disturbing...

[Theolojin]

Your friends are being stupid, deliberately or not. There is no distinction in nature between microevolution and macroevolution. Macroevolution is just larger quantities of macroevolution over much longer times.

There *is* a distinction between microevolution and macroevolution. In macroevolution, an organism gains new features, such as wings. In microevolution an organism gets stronger arms. This explains how it is possible for the Watusi of Burundi to have an average height of over six feet and the Mbuti in Congo (they live 100 miles or so apart) grow to an average height of four and a half feet or so. This is microevolution. This is the enhancement of certain characteristics that already exist within a single species. The Watusi and the Mbuti can marry and have children. Their children would likely vary greatly in their height (though they do not intermarry; they loathe one another). If the Watusi and Mbuti had experienced macroevolution, one tribe would have wings and the other would have venom and fangs.

I understand the theory that lots of small changes over an incredibly long time period equals larger changes. In the above example, macroevolution teaches that stronger arms eventually become powerful wings. Microevolution acknowledges that stronger arms can become a dominant feature in a species. The genetic code, however, is not present for those arms to produce feathers.

The difference between micro and macro is the former is the enhancement of features already present while the latter is the addition of features not formerly present.

It's like saying that there's "microwalking" which is what I do from the car park to the office every morning, and down to the shops on weekends, and that can result in changes of my location over time on a small scale; but the idea that people, over tens of thousands of years walked out of central Africa into Europe, then over to Asia, across to North America and into South America - that's "macrowalking" and it's impossible. God must have put them there.

The ability to walk is not a new feature. It is a present characteristic similar to my illustration of an organism developing stronger arms. It is merely an enhancement of an existing feature: the ability to walk farther. The ability to *fly* from Africa into Europe would be an example of macroevolution.

Re:It IS disturbing...

[StrawberryFrog]

There *is* a distinction between microevolution and macroevolution. The difference between micro and macro is the former is the enhancement of features already present while the latter is the addition of features not formerly present.

A lizard has four limbs covered in keratinious growths. So does a bird. No new features there.
The distinction is in your mind, not in nature. Evolution is all about gradual change in function, arms to wings by gradual change of shape.

Re:It IS disturbing...

[banditski]

"If the Watusi and Mbuti had experienced macroevolution, one tribe would have wings and the other would have venom and fangs." Did you read the parent post? The difference is time. To go back to his walking analogy, he's saying they've walked in opposite directions for 30 seconds and are 20m apart. If this continued for a million years - well they'd be a lot farther apart.

The current difference in their height is equivalent to the 20m in walking distance. This is rather small in both scope (as you agree) and in the time taken to evolve (I don't have any numbers but likely not more than a few thousand years, if not MUCH less). If there was no gene flow between the two tribes for millions of years, you would see *differences* equal to wings and fangs at the end of that time.

Are we still in the middle ages?

[s1oan]

Are we still in the middle ages? Can I say something about the Sun being on the center of the solar system without being totured till I accept that the Earth is the center of the whole universe? This is so sad...

Re:Are we still in the middle ages?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Are we still in the middle ages?"

No.

"Can I say something about the Sun being on the center of the solar system without being totured till I accept that the Earth is the center of the whole universe?"

The earth still is largely the center of our known universe because of our point of perception. Why do you dare suppress that information? Why do you still consider our petty solar system so damn important anyways?

"This is so sad..."

The whole damn thing is FUD and is simply an anti-religion bent that the scientific community is riding on. This paper is really what people should be afraid of--scientific info and data is less likely to be suppressed these days (research will just go overseas or published independently), but the perception of suppression is now being used as a larger scare tactic to point to suppression as a political end (look leftists and progressives! research is being forcibly changed! come to your brothers aid and we shall redeem the white scientific pillar!).

The use of those 3 words has very little to do with avoidance of the 1 word evolution because of political or religious implications. It has more to do with those papers concentrating on non-evolution aspects and the minimal impact of the results as to focus readers on the outcome and implications, not hinging their results to proof of a larger theory as that is not pressured from outside sources but simplicity.

Rather, it is so sad that when researchers actually say arise, emerge, or spread, it is now meant to indicate that they were pressured against the word evolution, instead of, gee, actually MEANING arise, emerge, or spread. Worse, the sorrow is great that use of the words arise, emerge, or spread is now used as evidence of information suppression; that's hardly the case.

I was always told to write titles and abstracts to be as simple and straightforward as possible. Evolution implies something greater or larger happening; my results do not show that, I don't care about the evolution step from one generation to the next, I care about the actual damn change that occurred because of the point mutation I induced with UV, X-rays, some mutagen, some selective pressure.

To put another way, this is more like saying something is untrue, in error, or a mistake is to avoid calling someone a liar or something said a lie; there is an innate boundary to state the minimum, not to overstate some vast conclusion, and use of those other words is not indication of a vast conspiracy but human nature--it is more likely because calling someone a liar means that person deliberately did something false, which you as an observer do not really know or can't prove on that scale. Similarly, evolution may just be "avoided" because the paper's efforts don't prove evolution; it has little to do with information suppression and more to do with keeping to minimal simplicity, keeping with straightforward data.

Finally, I don't see what the fuss is; there are tons of evolution papers being published and to which have been published on the exact subject. I wouldn't use the word evolution if I was doing molecular biology work, because the point of my papers isn't to prove evolution, but to describe a biological mechanism. Not a reason but an implication to maybe focus this discussion a little, imagine the confusion of searches and tags if evolution was used as the authors suggest; every pointed evolution paper would be buried in mounds of molecular biology stuff.

Re:Unfortunate?

[Scarblac]

Why is this unfortunate? Evolution is a theory.

Gravity is a theory. Are you saying physicists discussing rocks falling to the floor should avoid mentioning it?

It happens that science is the process of systematically improving theories. You're telling swimmers to avoid water.

Who came up with this?

[physicsphairy]

"antimicrobial resistance is said to 'emerge,' 'arise,' or 'spread' rather than 'evolve.' "

Could this possibly have something to do with the fact that the latter terms are used when they are more scientifically accurate?

If you're talking about antimicrobial resistance spreading, then it would be absolutely wrong to say that it was evolving: the bacteria has already evolved and the spread is just the increasing domination of that new line. If they have lumped all those words together than that alone could account for their conclusion by itself, although I would also argue that the other harms have certain preferable contexts for description.

The reserachers did not bother to do any actual pyschological research in their psychological study: they only looked at frequency distributions of the terminology. Apparently this is enough to infer the motivations of the medical patois. I don't suppose it's even remotely possible that the simple fact that evolutionary biologists study evolution could explain the increased frequency of 'evolve' in their personal vernacular? Perhaps if medical scientists spent all of their time researching, reading about, and writing about evolution, the word "evolve" might be as much integrated into their writing.

Regardless, it is absurd to suggest that incipient trends in word usage should in any way be a concern of either medical or evolutionary scientists. I might expect some outcry if people were being coerced (perhaps that is why there was no psychological investigation in this--not enough drama) but if you are going to throw a fit because a certain word isn't used as often as synonymns which say the same things but aren't as directly referential to your pet issue, I would say you are as much a culprit in politicizing science as any creationist school board.

Rhetoric == politics. Research results are not changed by the linguistics of the writeups.

A Tough Problem

[spoonboy42]

This same issue came up on a recent episode of NPR's Science Friday (look towards the right side of the page for an mp3 download link). Essentially, biologists were being encouraged by well-meaning people at the government agencies who sponsor them to avoid the word "evolution" so that their research remains uncontroversial and doesn't run afoul of any anti-science policy makers.

This latest article raises a good point, though. By trying to cloak discussion of evolution in other terms, anyone with a grasp of basic evolutionary biology is able to understand what is meant and how the process of natural selection applies to the problem at hand. Politicians and non-scientific observers not familiar with biology, however, don't see that evolution is explicitly referenced and so they don't raise a ruckus over it.

The problem is that this can help feed the general lack of understanding about evolution that creationists exploit. On the one hand, because most schools don't teach a rigorous curriculum on evolutionary biology, creationists can argue pseudo-scientific fallacies (e.g. that the second law of thermodynamics rules out evolution of increasingly complex species. Incidentally, this is false because the second law only applies to closed systems, and Earth's ecosystem continuously receives new energy from the Sun's light and heat). Additionally, because the fact that natural selection, as the basic organizing principle which has guided research in biology for over a century, isn't emphasized in new research reports that come out, many people don't realize that the huge advances we've made in our understanding of life on Earth over the past century, and the great medical breakthroughs that have emerged, nay, evolved from that understanding would not have been possible if we didn't understand evolution. Indeed, many things that we know to be true about biology simply couldn't be true if evolution weren't at work. That's not to say that it's a perfect theory, but like many good scientific theories it is revised and its precision is sharpened as new evidence becomes available (for example, we now know about cycles of punctuated equilibrium in the fossil record, and about patterns in human and other animal genomes, which Darwin didn't know about), in the same way that Einstein's relativity built on and refined Newton's laws of motion.

As loathe as many scientists are to do anything with public relations, I think that we have to do a better job of emphasizing the basic scientific theories behind today's research. So I encourage researchers out there to not be scared of using the word evolution, as it will hopefully contribute to people understanding that it is pervasively important to biology.

Re:Sorry Skinflute.. We are a Democracy.

[moz25]

Yes, and according to similar polls, 34% believe in ghosts, 34% believe in UFOs, 29% believes in astrology, 25% believe in reincarnation and 24% believes in witches. With other words: a sizeable portion of the population will just believe whatever they come across without much, if any, criticism.

Re:Sorry Skinflute.. We are a Democracy.

[mastershake_phd]

Actually we are a Republic not a Democracy. Also, the separation of Church and State and other laws are to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

Read your own history, mate

[aepervius]

I'll stand on a leg and not assume you are wanting to get modded +3 funny or +1000 sarcastic and your answer is serious.

First at all you founding father were mostly deist, with some being atheist. So if you place any value in what they produced (constitution and all) or their idea, you should be aware of that little fact.

Furthermore you are NOT living in a democracy but in a republic.

Next, you know where this lead this "we live in a democraty, so the majority decide" ? Aside this litle fact about freedom of speech, Well this lead to stuff like persecution of minority. Do you even remmember why the USA had this "freedom of religion" in the first place ? Religious persecution in Europe anyone? And yes non-religion is one form of belief (or rather non-belief in anything). Suppress the freedom of it, then next the cathos will ask the protestant to be muted, the calvinist will ask the last day adventist to be gagged, and the mormon will ask all other to shut up. And in the end nobody open his big mouth because there is always a branch of christianty which is pissed of at another.

I could add more, like the "in god we trust" coming from the darkest era of Mccartysm, but hey, that is not my country so fuck it up as much as you wish, as long as you keep a sane foreign policy of "hand off"....

Re:Read your own history, mate

[Carewolf]

Actually the US is both a republic and a democracy. The concepts are not as mutually exclusive as the two-party system would like you too believe.

A democracy just means that all power derive from the people in some form, and republic means you have president.

To be a republic without being a democracy you need a autocratic president, like Iraq under Saddam Hussein; and while the George Bush might be bad, he is not quite Saddam.

Re:Adapt is driven by the adapter

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely, my friend is a biology teacher and it drives me mad when she says that organisms adapt. That implies some form of intelligence - as if the organism choice to change to its environment.

Organisms don't adapt, they mutate (which may or may not confer a positive advantage to survival) and the ones where the mutation has a positive effect are able to reproduce more.

Re:Unfortunate?

[jandersen]

Evolution is a theory. In science, it is better to focus on the known facts (as it seems is beginning to happen).

On the contrary. Science is about researching the unknown. This is why we scientists have theories - we are trying to learn the truth, acknowledging that we don't know it all and probably never will. The only things that are 'known facts' are observations, like last time I let go of a stone it fell down, not up. Nobody knows that it will do the same next time, strictly speaking, but we have a very well researched theory that says it will. Theories are the basis for everything around you: the computer you use was developed using such a theory as quantum mechanics, which is far more speculative than evolution. After all, the theory of evolution is based on fossils you can see with your bare eyes, whereas quantum mechanics deals with things we can't see. It is quite possible - likely even - that our idea about what fundamental particles are like is only a poor approximation to reality.

So if you can accept quantum theory well enough to use computers and other modern electronics, why not evolution? As for facts - we can see that evolution has happened; the fossils are there, and just like a line of footprints on a beach tells you that somebody has walked there recently, the fossils tell you that life has evolved. There is no reasonable doubt about that, and 'evolution theory' is not about that. It is about how it happened.

Re:Storks!

[L4m3rthanyou]

Let's not forget the alternative creation theory of the Flying Spaghetti Monster ;)

Re:Some quotes. Including one from Darwin:

[Lucky_Norseman]

To assume that the science of evolution is only based on Darwin is like assuming that physics is only based on Newton.

Like Newton, Darwin has been improved upon by his successors.
That is one of the differences between scientists and prophets.

But isn't it more accurate?

[Punto]

As far as I know, things don't usually evolve right in front of our eyes. Sometimes, the strains that already existed (and which took millons of years to evolve) become dominant for whatever reason. I assume that's where you use "emerge".

What we need is religion vs religion

[Hektor_Troy]

I don't mean crusade/jihad or anything that bad, just that science vs religion won't ever work.

BUT - if we somehow manage to get an islamic movement to try to ban teaching the ideas of evolution as being against the teachings of the prophet Mohammed and thus the word of Allah, then I'm pretty sure we'd see these religious wack jobs get off their pedistals mighty quick.

Can't try to promote something that those "awful muslims" promote, can we?

In fact - next time friends, relatives or people you meet bring up the idea of not teaching evolution in schools, just add in "oh, you mean like the Taleban? They didn't want schools teaching evolution either."

Playing the "terrorism" card for a GOOD cause for once!

Re:Sorry Skinflute.. We are a Democracy.

[TorKlingberg]

"Republic" and "Democracy" are not mutually exclusive.

Re:Sorry Skinflute.. We are a Democracy.

[cheater512]

How the hell do you electroplate a non-conducting surface?

Re:Sorry Skinflute.. We are a Democracy.

[mcvos]

Actually we are a Republic not a Democracy.

Being a republic is irrelevant to the question if the US is a democracy or not. Many republics are very democratic, others are not. Many monarchies are also democracies. Few are not.

Evolution, with numbers.

[zCyl]

You would be right, except that's precisely what selection takes care of. Yes, most mutations are NOT beneficial, but this does not matter because the non-beneficial mutations die off quickly, and the rare beneficial ones survive to spread expontentially.

Imagine a species has 100 million members, and lets say it is a large-sized species which experiences a generation turnover every 20 years or so. Lets say there is a low mutation rate of perhaps 1% of offspring having some mutation. Let us also say that 99% of mutations are harmful, or perhaps even fatal, and a mere 1% are beneficial. Now we do the math:

If 1% of the population experiences a mutation, that means 1 million will experience a mutation per generation. If 99% of these are harmful, that means 990,000 will die or fail to procreate, or 0.99% of the total population. If 1% of the mutations are beneficial, that means 10,000 will have some superior trait.

At the end of this cycle, there are still around 100 million members, but 10,000 of them, or 0.01%, have a beneficial mutation. Now by definition of a "beneficial" mutation, from an evolutionary perspective, this means that those 10,000 are more likely to survive and procreate than the other 100 million or so.

Lets say each beneficial mutation is only beneficial by a very tiny amount, such that a pair of members without the mutation can have an average of 1.95 children survive to reproduce, while pairs with the mutation can have an average of 2.05 children survive to reproduce. In this case, within 200 generations, or 4,000 years, the members of the species which have received at least one beneficial mutation from the first generation of mutations will outnumber the unmutated members of the species by 2:1.

Feel free to tweak the numbers however you see fit, and you will see that it will still work out, and the only thing you will change by tweaking numbers is how long it takes. Evolution does not require the balance of the numbers to be in its favor, because the process of mutation and selection is intrinsically in favor of improvement, even when the beneficial changes are extremely rare.

Re:Evolution, with numbers.

[labnet]

Thank you for your well reasoned argument.

I think there is a fundamental flaw in your reasoning. 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.
Most mutations will not cause death, and will not effect reproductivity, but will cause entropy in the gene pool. The 99% overwhelms the 1%.
For example, I have osteogenesisimperfecto. Inherited from my mother and a 50% chance of passing to my children. It does not effect re productivity and has negligible mortality. Yet it is a clear example of non beneficial mutation that would have started with one birth hundreds of years ago.
So the 99% overwhelm the 1%.

Another is irreducible complexity. Most functions are highly complex interdependent systems. Thus how can can one random mutation produce blood clotting, eye sight, hearing which are very complex machines.

The 99% overwhelms the 1% (and in real life, I think the ratios would be much poorer)

Re:Evolution, with numbers.

[QuantumG]

Great, now remake your argument without assuming that all "harmful" mutations effect procreation. What about them, huh? This trivialization of evolution is what is doing so much harm to public perception of science. It shocks me that less than 2% of Darwin's On The Origin Of Species is taught.. and virtually none of the rebuttals and refinement of the theory since Darwin are taught. Most of the defenders of evolution don't even know the theory they are defending.

Here's a challenge for ya: I claim general relativity is hoppycock, quick, make an argument that it isn't! A sensible reply is recognise the absurdity of trying to argue such a complex theory with a layman and tell them to come back when they have some specific arguments.

Re:Unfortunate?

[gsslay]

There should be a new law. No-one is allowed to discuss evolution, in any way, ever, until they have the correct, scientific definition of the word "theory" beaten into them.

Re:Sorry Skinflute.. We are a Democracy.

[TapeCutter]

I highly recommend Carl Sagan's book Demon haunted world. It should be compulsory as an intoductory text to high school science and the misunderstood skill of "skepticisim" (ie: critical thinking), putting a "just philosophy" sticker on the front of something that "just works" would be a small price to pay.

Re:Sorry Skinflute.. We are a Democracy.

[spectrumCoder]

The fact that the USA has by far the largest military on earth isn't necessarily something to be proud of.

Re:Some quotes. Including one from Darwin:

[mcvos]

Interesting.. Darwin didn't consider his own theory "true science".

[In a letter to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology, Darwin wrote:] "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."--*Charles Darwin, quoted in *N.C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (1979), p. 2 [University of Chicago book].

You do realise that Darwin lived 150 years ago, do you? A lot has happened since then. A lot of predictions by the theory of evolution have been proven to be true. The mechanism that encodes the inherited traits that Darwin speculated about (DNA) had been discovered. Predictions that weren't true, have lead to refinements of the theory that made more accurate predictions. Many "missing links" aren't missing anymore. In Darwin's time there was plenty of room for doubt, but now, 150 years later, there simply isn't anymore. It's as scientific and well-supported as relativity and quantum mechanics.

But *THAT* is the problem....

[hummassa]

Hang on a second.
The resistance does emerge or arise.
It is the microbe population that evolves. No, it does not.
It changes.
It becomes more resistant to some antibiotic(s).
But it does not "evolve". It may not become better; as a matter of fact, it may become worse. (An example are the Ebola-like killing viruses: if they were less fatal, they would be more effective -- because they would give more time for the carriers to spread them.)

Now, there are two problems here:

1. Religion guys loathe the "evolution" word because it reminds them of Darwin.
2. Real, hardcore, scientific guys will dislike the word because it implies that every changed population is somewhat better than the previous (unchanged) generations, which is absolutely not true.

The writer of TFA (no, I'm not new here, but yes, I've RTFA) is worried about problem #1, but (s)he is forgetting about problem #2: "evolve", "fitness", and even "adapt" are not real relevant terms, at least not all the time: they are used to describe (maybe) a final result (that the bacterial culture is, after all, evolved-more_fit-adapted WRT the specific in casu antimicrobial agent(s)) but not the process (survival rates + reproductive advantage)

my R$ 0,02 -- HTH

Re:But *THAT* is the problem....

[Conanymous Award]

"But it does not "evolve". It may not become better; as a matter of fact, it may become worse."

"Real, hardcore, scientific guys will dislike the word because it implies that every changed population is somewhat better than the previous (unchanged) generations, which is absolutely not true."

Real, hardcore, scientific guys know that the word 'evolve' does not imply objective betterment of the organism/population in question. The idea of evolution as a process of constant improvement is a common misconception among laymen. Organisms just evolve, ie. they become different from their ancestors. Whether this change makes them more or less fit (depends on the conditions) doesn't change the concept of evolving.

Re:But *THAT* is the problem....

[ioshhdflwuegfh]

Real, hardcore, scientific guys know that the word 'evolve' does not imply objective betterment of the organism/population in question. The idea of evolution as a process of constant improvement is a common misconception among laymen. Organisms just evolve, ie. they become different from their ancestors. Whether this change makes them more or less fit (depends on the conditions) doesn't change the concept of evolving.

Does this mean that whatever happens to organisms/populations is an evolutionary process?

What is then "the concept of evolving" according to these "real, hardcore, scientific guys" whose knowledge you know so well?

Your message reminds me of the Popper's objection to evolution: it is impossible to disprove it since whichever way organisms turn out is fine from the evolutionary standpoint. He concluded then that evolution is not a scientific theory according to his definition.

Re:But *THAT* is the problem....

[jc42]

Does this mean that whatever happens to organisms/populations is an evolutionary process? ... Your message reminds me of the Popper's objection to evolution: it is impossible to disprove it since whichever way organisms turn out is fine from the evolutionary standpoint.

Nah; it's only "evolution" if it affects the distribution of genes in the next generation. Of course, Darwin didn't know about genes, since genetics was still in the future. People knew that offspring inherited characteristics from their parents, but nobody knew how it worked. It took another century to find and verify the physical mechanism. He just explained how the evolutionary process works, without knowing the mechanism of inheritance.

It's pretty easy to come up with things that are "neutral" in the evolutionary process, and biologists often consider the possibility that some genetic variations are not actually significant. Thus, I have blue eyes, while other humans have brown eyes; there seems to be no survival value in humans to a particular iris color. Similar examples of trivial variation exist in many species. It's not unusual for biologists to hypothesize that some characteristic is "neutral", i.e., neither harmful nor beneficial.

At the other extreme, consider the K-T impact event 65 million years back. This would not be considered an "evolutionary event" for most of the species, because most species were simply exterminated and no longer evolved at all. Also, it's not something that the evolutionary process could adapt to, since asteroid impacts are too rare and utterly unpredictable by any genetic mechanism. The survivors survived mostly due to the blind luck of being far enough away from the impact site, in a place where they could find enough food and shelter to get through the next few years. Survivors were mostly small, opportunistic omnivores, of course, and there's an obvious explanation for this. But still, the survivors weren't adapted to asteroid impacts in any meaningful sense, and neither are their descendants.

It's common to argue that evolutionary theory is trivial and tautological, because it merely asserts that whoever survives is a survivor. But this is a "straw man" argument that's based on an extreme generalization while ignoring significant details. In the case of evolution, the significant parts include the fact that characteristics are inherited from parents, but the inheritance is error prone. This results in offspring that vary slightly from the parents, and many of the variations affect survivability. This in turn affects the relative frequency of characteristics in later generations. When you include such details, the evolutionary process is no longer trivial. And it's no longer clear that everything is necessarily of evolutionary significance.

Re:But *THAT* is the problem....

[Yahweh Doesn't Exist]

>And yet you have the Church, still sending the same message it has always sent, since the 70's - AD 70 - that there is a way to eternal life. And it doesn't change every decade. And for those willing to learn, it has a much more sound basis in truth than the scientific method could ever provide.

o rly?

where does the church stand today on the burning of witches? on slavery? on sex with 14 year olds - fine for Mary and Joesph but get called a paedo these days (not that it stops the most devout religious people)? on punishment for adultery - still stoning I assume?

is the Catholic church still accepting payments from people to reduce their time in purgatory? oh no, they're actually talking about getting rid of the whole idea aren't they.

is denying the existence of ghosts still an unforgivable sin? I've denied the existence of ghosts, especially holy ones, many times. so am I screwed even if I accept Jesus or could I still join your church?

Re:But *THAT* is the problem....

[spun]

It's not called change because it's not just change. There is obviously more to it than that. Although change in the frequency of alleles in a given population is evolution, it is only one step. What happens next is that these changes combine in novel ways in actual individuals who then deal with their environment, which is also changing. Some of those combinations of changes will be beneficial, some not, and based on that, certain individuals will have an easier time in their (slightly) changed environment.

So what is happening all the time is that species change, and the environment culls based on fitness criteria which are also changing. Today's hideous mutation that makes a bird easier to catch is tomorrow's peacock tail. It may make it harder to survive, but because peahens find it sexy, it actually makes the bird more fit in terms of passing on genes, not less.

Re:But *THAT* is the problem....

[Kazoo the Clown]

And this explains why the church still has a considerable following. People want to know the truth, and believe in something which won't come and go with the shifting of political power. Remember the Energy Crisis of the 70's? The Low Fat - High Carb dogma? How about the Population Explosion? How about the Geocentric model of the solar system - yes, it was secular thought that brought that one forth. Science wasn't just a little wrong - it was completely false. And yet you have the Church, still sending the same message it has always sent, since the 70's - AD 70 - that there is a way to eternal life. And it doesn't change every decade. And for those willing to learn, it has a much more sound basis in truth than the scientific method could ever provide.

The difference is, that when science is wrong, it's possible to discover and fix it. When religion is wrong, it's not possible to discover and fix it. Given the fact that it's very easy for humans to fool themselves, and that human understanding is imperfect, I'd much prefer a system of knowledge that has at least some ability to identify errors. Every time I hear that "science was wrong about that," I think-- hey, we actually learned something there. That's exactly how you learn, from your mistakes. In that context, what does religion ever learn? I'll give you a hint-- "nada."

Re:But *THAT* is the problem....

[truckaxle]

Inevitably, science - like art - merely reflects the opinions of its financiers. I'm sorry to rain on your objectivity parade, but all science these days is political, and one needs look no farther than the global warming debate to see this.

So you avoid modern medical science? I doubt it and suspect your faith is veneer.

Science is self-correcting. While scientist may be subjective and politics, as in all human endeavors, holds sway, science corrects itself to the data over time.

Remember the Energy Crisis of the 70's? The Low Fat - High Carb dogma? How about the Population Explosion? How about the Geocentric model of the solar system - yes, it was secular thought that brought that one forth. Science wasn't just a little wrong - it was completely false.

And religion was well on to those points right? The earth immovable and has a foundation, Joshua stopped the sun in the sky not the earth, there are four corners of the earth, A tree that can be see from anywhere on earth, men can threaten God by building a tower toward heaven, placing peeled and striped branches in front of livestock alters genetics, the stars are attached to tent like fabric, etc.

Here is a comment by Martin Luther concerning Copernicus...

"There was mention of a certain astrologer who wanted to pro"ve that the earth moves and not the sky, the sun, and the moon. This would be as if somebody were riding on a cart or in a ship and imagined that he was standing still while the earth and the trees were moving.... I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth "

Is that secular reasoning? That is the same reasoning resisting the acceptances of evolution today. Same battle different ground.

And yet you have the Church, still sending the same message it has always sent, since the 70's - AD 70 - that there is a way to eternal life.

You can be wrong for a very long time and still be wrong. The concept of eternal life evolved and mutated and you can see that by reading the bible and seeing certain concepts emerge thru the ages (like heaven and hell)

Here is a parable.

Science is like a control system on a plane. When a plane takes off from Los Angeles to New York and goes on autopilot the plane never has the exact correct heading and attitude. There is a feedback mechanism that is always correcting. In other words the heading/attitude/altitude are always off but in the average it maintains its course and finds its way to the destination.

Religion is like taking a measurement and fixing the control surfaces at one time during the flight (canonization) and never correcting even though the plane is veering way of course and is about to crash. And the faithful will say amen.

Re:Sorry Skinflute.. We are a Democracy.

[ibbo]

Funny how electricity was discovered by Ben Franklin while he was British and proud of his Englishness and his English heratige (rumour has it he was a spy too). Thus its quite easy to see that without good old England none of that and none of you would have come into being.

Evolution is a fact over hear though. I guess we managed to remove the yoke of religion long before you guys managed to build a civilisation (ooops sorry extend our civilisation) into what it is now.

ibbo

Giving in to loud people

[JeremyDuffy]

The core problem of the evolution avoidance issue is that they are disregarding their own science in the face of a few very loud people. Science is based on the fact that what we have is the "best answer" at the time and a better one can come along and displace it. There is nothing wrong with believing and talking about evolution as long as it's the best answer out there. But to give in to the extremely vocal opposition who has nothing in the way of evidence to support their side is lunacy.

Re:Sorry Skinflute.. We are a Democracy.

[professionalfurryele]

Parent means 'Rights based Republic' not 'Republic as in not Monarchy'. In some sense on paper England is also a rights based republic (essentially since the Magna Carta). Of course being one on paper and being one in practice are entirely different. For rights based republics which include the democratic process part of being a rights based republic is the recognition of both the idea that the governing class has to have the consent of the people, and reflect the will of the people. These are rights the people retain, but they do not supercede most other rights. For example free speach is in some sense more important than the will of the people in traditional American culture.

Hence the distinction. Democracy is not really an important concept in Ye Olde American culture (compared with free speech or consent of the people). It is more a means to an end. It is only recently that democratic feaver has gripped the nation.

Terminology Problem

[secondhand_Buddah]

An important concept in evolutionary biology is natural selection. Natural selection does not always imply that the correct choice for survival has been made (evidence: all of the species that have become extinct), but rather that some selection has been made that the life form perceives to be beneficial. What you are describing is part of evolution. It may only be a VERY SMALL increment in evolution, but evolution it remains.

Re:Sorry Skinflute.. We are a Democracy.

[c6gunner]

You're kidding about the astrology thing, right? You do realize that it's just as much bunk as the other stuff you've mentioned, right?? Why should it be taught in schools, exactly?

Richard Dawkins couldn't answer this...

[Anonymous Coward]

... can you?

Do you have proof / have you seen any example what-so-ever of a mutation being beneficial to any species?

Also, what ever happened to all those hundreds of thousands of (not faked) fossilised transitional species which evolution was supposed to produce?
And yet, you tell me you can't even find one (which hasn't been faked by radical darwinists)?!

Re:Disturbing?

[Dunbal]

I realize the populace here at Slashdot is 99% atheist

      I'm Pastafarian you insensitive clod!

that's only if you believe in Islam. That's why they still ride camels over there.

      Someone needs a quick history lesson. Islamic faith is not at all against education - in fact at one point if you wanted to be on the cutting edge in some fields (mathematics, medicine) you had to study in Persia. The bit about keeping people in the 9th century has to do with politics and power, rather than religion.

Religion is what got the United States on its feet

      Members of this American religion will be glad to hear that. I thought it was a LACK of state religion and religious persecution that encouraged the colonization of the US.

religion provides morals and helps to keep the people more in line.

      You are suggesting that atheists are "immoral" and out of line. Stop right there, because it's incorrect. I'm an atheist and an extremely moral person. I don't break the law (except for the odd speeding ticket). My work as a physician regularly puts me in a position of having great power over others (because of sedatives during a procedure, due to psychological problems in a patient, or simply the trust in the physician-patient relationship) and yet I've never abused that power. An immoral person would. In fact, if you look at history, I could argue that a great deal of sexual abuse has been commited by religious people...

If man were naturally good, there'd be no need for religion

      You seem to have bought into that argument. Too bad you can't see that religion is only another form of politics. Do what I say and get a "reward". Do something I don't approve of, and you get a "punishment". This is beautiful since no one can deny the existence of these rewards and punishments (and if they try, they get ridiculed and asked to "prove" that it's NOT true), and they don't cost a thing.

      Not only that, if someone dares to contradict my "teachings", I can bring enormous social pressure to bear. I can even have that person killed with the APPROVAL of the masses. Religion is GREAT! There's NO downside for a religious leader - except perhaps having to pretend to practice what you preach once in a while.
      I agree that religion supports law since it's a form of mind control. However a society with strict adherence to the law and completely lacking in freedom discourages the acquisition of knowledge - as you yourself pointed out when you incorrectly attributed this a generalized islamic discouragement of education.

Re:Sorry Skinflute.. We are a Democracy.

[Fordiman]

Hey. Not to be picky, but I'm pretty certain that the people who wrote and signed the starting legal documents for this country were either deists (of the 'divine watchmaker' sort), agnostics or atheists. At least, that's what you can glean from their writings.

Meanwhile, you have to understand that about 90% of the scientific community for which that technology is attributed are also of the deist/agnost/atheist group.

http://www.nwcreation.net/atheism.html

So yeah. I wouldn't be attributing the good stuff in this country to 'ignorant' 'religious zealots', unless of course, you _like_ fooling yourself.

Re:Enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

Humanism = Religion

It takes as much faith to believe there isn't a god as it does to believe there is a god.

Evolution IS A RELIGION

[Anonymous Coward]

To believe in evolution actually takes more faith than believing in something like Christianity. At least in the case of Judaism and Christianity we have

1) eye witnesses (in the case of jesus' ascension, hundreds. In the case of the red sea, millions)
2) advanced scientific knowledge (quarantining, knowledge of animal behaviour, etc)
3) hard historical evidence that certain events actually happened

With evolution we have theories that are more far-fetched than the creation account - completely counter-intuitive.
We have no eye-witnesses. Scanty hard historical linking evidence.

The Judo-Christian religions are very much also like the evolutionists. Both are ultimately founded on faith with some evidence and both sides are just a vehemently insane about arguing their side. I just wish some of the evolutionist would realise that in the end, they really are no different.

Re:Moo

[mrpeebles]

I don't know about religious fanaticism, but religion tends to include an element of personal revelation, or truth by testimony. For example, there is no way, even in principle, for you and I to verify that Paul saw Jesus on the road to Damascus.

All scientific claims, on the other hand, can be verified by you or I personally, if we have the time and skill. That verification, of course, while very difficult to describe in a systematic way, is certainly not arbitrary. One can do a bad job at this verification. This is the case with creationists- they are doing a bad job of verifying the evidence that supports evolution, either because they aren't good enough at this area of biology, or don't subscribe to basic philosophical tenants of science. In any case, it is then perfectly appropriate for their arguments to be attacked. This has nothing to do with fanaticism, religious or otherwise.

Did you ever notice?

[spun]

The counter-evolutionistas love to huff and puff until they find a person who so soundly refutes them that they have no possible comeback. Then they ignore that person and go on making their ridiculous claims elsewhere as if they have not just been shown to be absurd.

It's frustrating. You make the same point over and over. You refute the same idiocy over and over. Nothing changes. It's like a sick game to them. They're like the baby that keeps throwing its strained peas on the floor, and we keep picking them up.

It doesn't matter how much evidence we have. It doesn't matter how many times their objections to the theory are answered. It's not about truth to them, its about belief. Specifically, control of belief, which is religion's bread and butter. It's sophistry, plain and simple. They don't argue to arrive at the truth through a dialectic process. They argue to protect their untenable belief system from anything that might threaten it.

I would say that "Deliberate and venal ignorance" is about the best working definition of "Evil" that I can come up with. Counter-evolutionistas are evil.

'evolution' is an inappropriate word to describe

[Cedric Tsui]

...these studies.

Evolution represents increases in complexity and general improvements in abilities and survivability over a timescale of tens of thousands of years. Small changes in a species due to external stimuli isn't really evolution. Change does not imply evolution.

If I have a culture of viruses, and I expose them to a toxin, after several generations the viruses that I have may be resistant to this toxin. We have observed the process of (artificial) selection, not evolution.

The difference here is the time scale. Implying evolution can be observed in the lab is like looking at the temperature fluctuations throughout a week and claiming to be observing global warming.