Slashdot Mirror
Organism Survives 100 Million Years Without Sex
zyl0x writes "The Times has an interesting article online on the discovery of a 100-million-year-old micro-organism which has survived its entire lifespan without sex." From the article "A tiny creature that has not had sex for 100 million years has overturned the theory that animals need to mate to create variety. Analysis of the jaw shapes of bdelloid rotifers, combined with genetic data, revealed that the animals have diversified under pressure of natural selection. Researchers say that their study "refutes the idea that sex is necessary for diversification into evolutionary species".
This happens on Slashdot all the time.
Move along...
It should be right at home here.
Now you know how Slashdotters will look after a hundred million years!
On a serious note, no sex, no evolution -- doesn't look like this organism has changed all that much in hundred million years.
Support evolution: get laid now!
Scientists have named this new species Republicanus Typicalus.
*cough* BULLSHIT! *cough*
My wife doesn't listen to me either...
...it's married.
It is gratifying to see an article about me, but why did they add in the irrelevant stuff about bdelloid rotifers?
...y'know...uh...does it like...touch itself? You know like, down there?
Is that what you would name this micro-organism?
Previewing comments are for sissies!
While 100 million years seems like a long time, perhaps it is married and has a wife. That would explain everything.
I see they finally studied the mating habits of the married American male...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
...who read this as a single organism living for 100 million years without having sex? First part said "wow", second part made me feel like I had been out-geeked...
Great Intellect...
From the look of those mandibles, it's the foreplay that kills 'em.
Who ever said sex was necessary for diversity? It just speeds it up - what's the big deal about this discovery? There are a crazy number of organisms that don't have sex and have changed a hell of a lot over time.
It was discovered wearing a ratty linux t-shirt.
Sorry, I couldn't resist. Seriously however the article was very unclear. What is it that asexual organisms aren't able to do? Surely it isn't that they can't diversify into different species. After all every organism on earth is descended from the same intial life form and some organisms are still asexual hence establishing that the initial lifeform diversified into some progenitor sexual organism as well as branches that remained asexual.
My best guess as to the claim made in the article is that multi-celluar organisms require sexual reproduction to select for organism wide traits. Not sure why it would be true (maybe different cells don't have enough incentive to look out for the whole organism) but that's my best guess.
Anyway saying that the organism doesn't have sex isn't very clear. Many bacteria exchange genetic material without having sex. Such a system might let this creature gain some of the benefits of sexual selection.
Does anyone understand what this article is actually trying to say? I know it's a funny title but some info would be nice too.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
Front page stories
* Dungeons & Dragons and IT
* Organism Survives 100 Million Years Without Sex
* Gifted Children Find Heavy Metal Comforting
Did anyone see suck's parody of slashdot?
http://www.suck.com/daily/99/12/13/daily.html
Doesn't seem so funny now, does it?
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Of course, it had one hellashish case of masterbation blisters....
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
Did anyone else read that headline as "Orgasm Survives 100 Million Years Without Sex?" That'd be a pretty impressive feat!
oral?
...scientists *don't* say "that sex is necessary for diversification into evolutionary species".
Sex *does* lead to diversity *within* a species, which can be good for keeping ahead of parasites and diseases, and all the genetic duplication can help accelerate diversification. But sexual reproduction, in the absence of other sources of genetic variation, does not lead to speciation.
...but they're all female.
I actually don't see what the big f**king deal is. If you understand evolution, you probably know that natural selection does not depend on sexual reproduction. It just depends on reproduction, period. It's not as if this single, individual organism has lived 100 million years; its asexual offspring have lived that long, and any time in asexual reproduction, mutations can also occur. I repeat, IT IS NOT SPECIFIC TO SEXUAL REPRODUCTION.
I would fathom that mutation might happen more often with sexual reproduction, and thus asexual reproduction could slow the pace of evolution, but again, that's not to say it doesn't happen. Because it very surely does, as we know from the mutation of all those single-celled asexual organisms we know about. Like every disease out there. It is absolutely nonsense to claim otherwise. Bacteria multiply asexually. Protists do too. This is why diseases resist new drugs. Countless species of plants reproduce asexually. Myriad species of all these kingdoms have survived for 100 million years.
The headline might as well be, 'there has been life on Earth a long time.'
Take off every sig. For great justice.
This discovery doesn't refute anything. Sex has never been a requirement for diversification. That's just silly. Single celled organisms reproduce clonally, and there are millions of species. (they do utilize gene transfer, but that isn't the same as sexual reproduction)
Inheritable differences and selection are sufficient. Mutation is a fine source of inheritable differences. Sex allows greater rates of diversity and retention in the population of undesirable traits that are not dominant for longer, allowing them time to mutate into something useful or show up when environmental factors make them useful. Sexual reproduction is far and away the most common mode in multicellular organisms, probably because it helps the species be resilient to environmental changes. But it isn't required.
it just seemed like a 100 million years.
I had always read that sex wasn't nessaccary for diversity but it excellerates the process. It would be more of a story if the microorganism had mirrored the diversity of sex based organisms without the benefit of sex. The mutation rate is higher with sex providing for a more varied gene pool and it allows for those genes to be randomly exchanged.
I would have found "Organism Survives Without Orgasm" at least a hundred times more entertaining :)
Seems more like a punishment than an accomplishment.
| Ceci n'est pas une pipe.
But where's the fun in that?
At first, I thought if I was that small I'd have a hard time finding a mate too. Then it struck me. Who the hell compares the size of anything to sperm. Couldn't they say it was less than 1/10 the width of human hair?
you call that living?
This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
Researchers say that their study "refutes the idea that sex is necessary for diversification into evolutionary species".
I have never even heard the idea (during a degree in genetics) that sex is necessary for diversification into species. Bacteria do not have sex (although they can share DNA through other means, such as plasmids) and yet that are incrediably diverse and continue to evolve rapidly (e.g. antibiotic resistance). Therefore, if sex were necessary for speciation we would only have one species of bacteria.
The term "evolutionary species" is also strange. All "species" are by definition "evolutionary", since that is the process by which individual species arise.
RMS does not look that old... aaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahhahah.
Badum-bum... we'll be here all week, try the fish...
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
but the organism in question is female & reproduces asexually.
So if anything, it's a woman married to herself.
Maybe there really is something to those stereotypes...
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Sounds a lot like my marriage...
What's sex?
--- At my sig, unleash hell.
So how long before the Cristian Right tries to use this study as "proof" that evolution is just a hoax and has been "proven wrong" by science. Or do they ever even bother giving actual sources for their claims anymore?
welcome our abstinent 100-million year old micro-organic losers *cough* overlords.
From Wargames;
Mr. Liggett: Alright, Lightman. Maybe you can tell us who first suggested the idea of reproduction without sex.
David Lightman: Um, your wife?
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
Looks like they uncovered the first programmer.
I guess the real question is, How much coffee has he had?
I'd feel concerned for any creature which DID end up having sex after 100 million years.
Given all that pent-up need, they probably blow with enough force to launch the space shuttle.
Two sister species were found to be living together on the body of a water louse. One of them specialised in living around the louse's legs and the other stayed close to the chest. And I thought I had a crappy dorm room.
Harpo Tunnel Syndrome--my wrist feels funny.
Please don't tell my wife!
The chance that it will be named after Paris Hilton should be minimal. ^_^
that this will be the longest thread on slashdot. Ever.
funny pics
And in unrelated news, the title of the sequel to "The 40 Year Old Virgin" has just been announced...
You just described my college room mate's survival strategy!
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Here is the original article in PLoS Biology. Why link to a story in the Times when the original is available in an open access online journal?
I am pretty sure they are not the only organisms that reproduce asexually and still mutate. What about viruses, bacteria etc?
Original article states: "Bdelloids (the "b" is silent) reproduce through parthenogenesis, which generates offspring with essentially the same genome as their mother from unfertilized eggs. Biologists have yet to find males, hermaphrodites, or any trace of meiosis--the process that creates sex cells--challenging the long-held assumption that evolutionary success requires genetic exchange."
So, essentially as I understand, offsprings have the same genes as parent. Still, natural selection works across millions and millions of years, plenty of spacetime for genes shuffling due to radiation and whatnot, for one thing.
Mr. Liggett: All right, Lightman. Maybe you can tell us who first suggested the idea of reproduction without sex.
David Lightman: Um, your wife?
The latest Slashdot meme.
I thought we talked this through before. There is no evolution. God just gets bored, making the same thing over and over.
How is this news? The fact that bdelloid rotifers have remained asexual for over 40 million years is not news e.g. an article from 2000.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
BTW, it's hard to do any calculation while having sex, so I guess having no sex helps it to multiply.
(Note to moderators: Yes, I know about that other meaning of "multiply"
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Ehm so this schientist finds this a sex starved creature, totaly desperat.
:)
And then the story just stops, only leaving the qleu that this creatures was smaller then his sperm?
Ahhh common we want to hear the whole story....
What realy happened there in the labs, perhaps next on playboy magazine
I know you're out there. I can feel you now. I know that you're afraid. You're afraid of us. You're afraid of change.
...that Malda was that old...
The purpose of sexual reproduction (mitosis) is to blend genetic traits, and thus diversify the species. However, I can think of a number of ways that genes can be modified without mitosis:
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
"So, what do you do?"
"I'm a parasite that lives on larger parasites."
"Well, it was nice meeting you. I've got to get going."
There's no failure quite as dissatisfying as a complete and total solution to the wrong problem.
on when life begins. It begins at birth, by extremely well established common law. You get to vote when you are 18 years old, that is, 18 years after your birthday, you get to legally drink alcohol 21 years after your birthday, etc. Even among the "right-to-lifers," I've never met one who celebrated "conception day."
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
e.g. The USA - a 2 party state. Israel - a 12+ party state.
i.e. Clumping is of expediency, not choice. Change the electoral system and left/right loses all meaning. It only has meaning in the US because American politics is one dimensional.
Deleted
So if you stick your finger in a woman's mouth, does she have the right to bite it off?
The Kingdom of Lesotho is an enclave: it's inside South Africa, but it is not part of South Africa. San Marino and Vatican City are enclaves as well, completely surrounded by Italy but not part of Italy. The content of the amniotic sac is inside the woman's body, but is it necessarily still part of the woman's body?
I always have trouble reading about findings of "two close species". Article claims that they are too different genetically to be one species, too different ecological niches to be one species, yet dispite the differences they find it proving that they are "evolutionary related". If they are too distant then they might be created using non-evolutionary ways (aliens came, looked at the rotifer and decided to make it live in another organ of the lice). If they are similar, then what does prevent us to call asexual organisms one species?
In sexual organisms there is a clear boundary between species - productive progeny of mating between two organisms. If a couple does not produce productive progeny - male and female belong to different species, if they do - they are from the same species. That is why using asexual organisms to support pseudo-science of evolution is particularly lame: all the arguments are tautologically meaningless reducing themselves to "diversity".
About that: authors write First of all, that has been traditional view long time ago, but evolutionists have been convinced that sex is not necessary for evolution for quite some time. And you do not have to be a specialist to know that. Look at bacteria.
Second. How would you know if clades are displaying the same pattern or different pattern or any pattern, if you for sure do not know all the representatives of the clade that ever existed? For example, according to "traditional" view of evolutionists reptiles were much more diversed before 100M years ago than they are now.
It is essentially comparing diversity of two arbitrarily (which is different from randomly) selected samples. And the difference between "arbitrarily" and "randomly" is that first is biased selection (some species exist no more for all kinds of reasons).
And this is a beginning of the article.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
From the article: Researchers say that their study "refutes the idea that sex is necessary for diversification into evolutionary species". Of course they are gonna refute this fact. It would be acknowledging that there is no diversity in research ! :)
Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?
It's a bad idea to read "organism" as "orgasm" when you're reading out loud for a class.
Like most reporting of detailed but interesting science, this one gets it way wrong. Take a look here for a better summary.
The question that was actually being addressed by this research is whether speciation in asexual organisms works the way it does in sexual species. A sexual species in a new environment can separate into new species by adaptations to different niches. It happened with the cichlid fish in Lake Victoria, it happened with the Galapagos finches, and there are lots of other examples.
It's really an interesting question with clonal lines like the rotifers. Since there's no gene mixing between organisms, it's surprising that environmental selection alone would be sufficient to keep the traits similar enough that multiple lines could be seen as the same species after a long time. But that's what's happened here. The rotifers living on water lice diverged into two separate groups, but I think you would expect either much more divergence (as each line accumulates different mutations) or much less (as there might not be enough variation for selection to work with).
Bdelloid rotifers have been known for a long time, and known to be asexual. The bit about "discovering" them was just a gross distortion of the original article.
Who first suggested the idea of an organism living for 100 million years without sex?
Therefore, if sex were necessary for speciation we would only have one species of bacteria.
There would not even be bacteria.
Trust me, I work for the government.
funny you should mention that.. it's why I don't care for my birthday.. yes, it's tied into a shitload of legal bits and pieces, but other than that it is wholly arbitrary.
;)
If labor were induced a day earlier for any medical reason or just for kicks, my birthday would be 1 day earlier. If my mother said "fsck it, I'm not giving labor while watching I Love Lucy" and postponed it for a day, my birthday would be 1 day later. Many people are born 2, 3, 4 weeks 'early', others are born 1, 2 weeks 'late'. That in and of itself means that birthdays are arbitrary and linked only to the actual event of being born.
Day of conception is vastly more important, imho. One snag, though.. it's a bit more difficult to determine from the get go, and I'm certainly not going to ask my parents
darnit.. forgot to mention. I'm not a right-to-lifer.. I'm all for abortion in a great number of situations, and certainly don't consider a cluster of cells a 'human being'. I just feel that birthdays are arbitrary; totally unrelated to the whole pro/against abortion and whatnot stance.
... that we do not live 100 Mios years ...
Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?
Please, this is way too depressing!
don't tell my wife.
The finest shade.
And what, Socrates, is the food of the soul? Surely, I said, knowledge is the food of the soul.
There's no denying it. We're getting older. There are now more jokes about wives not having sex than there are about parent's basements.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Silly comment alert - first one ever...really!
Just 99,999,971 years to go and I win!
Versus being married and not having a wife?
Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
Incomprehensible! I've only made it for 26 years so far, but god willing I'll give it a run for its money.
But who calls that livin'
When no gal will give in
To no man what's nine hundred years
it's tonight baby!
I mean, I haven't ever had sex, but since age 14 I'm sure I've had THOUSANDS of orgasms. (Okay you didn't need to know that - would it help if I mentioned that I'm a girl?)
Yeahm but Carl Sagan had BILLYUNS and BILLYUNS.....
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
there is no sex
Helen Thomas?
Use your head, can't you, use your head,
You're on earth, there's no cure for that - S. Beckett
When does a mutation in an individual immediately cause the entire species to suddenly evolve into another species?
Also, sexual reproduction != evolution. I was taught sexual reproduction made the process of evolution or speciation more efficient, but was not necessary for either process to occur. Even the classic experiment of forcing bacteria to become resistant to an antibiotic shows that sexual reproduction is not needed, especially if you use an F(-) strain. This experiment, which is probably done by many high school students in the US these days, also "refutes the idea that sex is necessary for diversification into evolutionary species."
I sure hope the actual article in PLoS doesn't use the same assumptions and hyperbole as this layman article. If it does, then it's really much ado about nothing.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Evolutionism is a RELIGION.
Evolution is a theory. A well backed theory with *lots* of evidence to point us in that direction. It could all be misunderstood, but no other explanation has one thousandth the facts behind it. No, reading from the Bible is not it. And certain ex science teachers who have not a clue about science are not it either.
Scientists date the rock by the fossils contain within
No, carbon dating and other forms of measuring radioactive decay are used. They are rather precise and very consistent. They even have different ways of dating by using different target elements to measur to verify the dates found.
Jeesh. I think it is time for a slashwiki to handle all of this nonsense. We can then just point to the answer already scribed.
-InnerwebFreud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
"their study 'refutes the idea that sex is necessary for diversification into evolutionary species'."
But as a geek Transhumanist, clearly I demonstrate this beyond any question.
Seriously, though, this is no particular surprise to me. I suspect "evolution" - which is a concept ABOUT a phenomena, not a phenomena itself - can use several methods to diversify species. Sex may have been the easiest at some level, other methods at other levels.
So basically what we have here is somebody merely expanding the notion of what "evolution" is and how it works, rather than limiting it to a particular mechanism.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
And Bacteria *do* have a kind of sex, called conjugation.
Amo, Amas, Amat, Amamus, Amatis, Amant.
Thanks to the internet, we can now all die alone together! -SomeWoman
Now, we are wanting to push canned responses to anyone we disagree with. It is almost as if you were thinking of referring him to the verse in the good book. For sum, science has become a religion. Or at least as supporting of one as any religion has been. Lets hope everyone in the Science field isn't bigoted.
Am I the only one who finds it ironic that the animal that most resembles a vagina hasn't had sex?
If someone's still reading and has mod points, Scooter's_dad has provided a useful link.
AJZ refers to actual research paper (gasp!) and coherently explains the terminology I found confusing.
"Evolution is a theory. A well backed theory with *lots* of evidence to point us in that direction. It could all be misunderstood, but no other explanation has one thousandth the facts behind it."
It also meets the common definition of religion:
Evolutionists claim to be the voice of reason that rises above the superstitions of the masses. Many Evolutionists claim that science backs up evolution. They also claim to have physical evidence that show their claims to be true. Most evolutionists claim that just about every mainstream scientist support their view. When a Christian tells an Evolutionist that the theory of evolution is a religion, that Christian is likely to get a hostile reply. Like the practicers of other religions, Evolutionists think that their way of thinking is the only correct way to believe. The writer of this book has found that most of the vocal supporters of Evolutionism are in many cases unwilling to listen to reason and resort to name calling when they begin to lose their argument. The Evolutionists tend to get angry when other interpetations of physical evidence they use (to support Evolutionism) point to other possibilities. Unfortunately Evolutionism is taught in many public school textbooks as if it were a fact. In spite of what Evolutionists would like people to believe, not all mainstream scientists support Evolutionism. In fact, there are many prominant scientists both past and present who support the Bible or at least believe in a Creator. Some these scientists will have their names listed in this book.
Evolutionism is a religion. Many dictionaries define religion as a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe often involving a moral code of conduct. Many also state that religion is a fundamental set of beliefs shared by a number of persons or sects. Most religions also have their scripture or writings that contain their teachings. Many religions also show a particular affinity or attachment to a specific geographic area. If one uses these definitions and qualifiers, then Evolutionism definitely qualifies as a religion. It is very important to understand the dogmas and belief systems of Evolutionism because Evolutionism is the state sponsored RELIGION of most Western countries. In other words, it is a RELIGION for which people are REQUIRED to PAY TAXES to SUPPORT in spite of what people believe.
Most religions have a book or set of books that contain their teachings. Evolutionism is no exception. One of the main scriptures of the Evolutionists is a book called, "The Origin of Species: By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." This book was written by a man named Charles Darwin. It is the same book that is refered to in science books which use the shorter form, "The Origin of Species." Many people who believe in Evolutionism also claim to be against racism and sexism. If one would only examine the title and the pages within, one will see that it is impossible to be a Darwinist and NOT be a racist. Evolutionism has other scriptures written by other people. However Charles Darwin is considered the most famous.
Evolutionism also contains a moral code, and that moral code is briefly stated here. Evolutionists believe that humankind are animals that have become powerful enough to take over and destroy the entire earth. Evolutionists believe that since humankind has become so able to adapt to so many different environments, there is severe danger of mankind destroying all life including itself. Most Evolutionists in essence, believe that humans are harmful organisms whose numbers need to be significantly reduced. They believe that people need to be removed from many different areas so that other species can survive. In other words, they believe that people are doing wrong simply because they are living, because
Wrong Assumptions Yield Wrong Answers Author: Bruce Malone Time = Amount / Rate Amount = Measured - Initial - Contamination Rate = Average Rate Over the Whole Time Search for the Truth This article is one of many found within Mr. Malone's excellent book, Search for the Truth. It is hard to open a newspaper, book, or magazine without finding some implication to the earth being billions of years old. Given the overwhelming barrage of these statements, it is understandable why so many people have trouble considering the possibility that the earth might be only thousands of years old. Yet there is an intriguing possibility that the earth may be much younger than 'billions of years'. Despite what people have been led to believe, there are no dating methods which give an absolute date for the formation of the earth. All dating methods are based on non-provable assumptions about some event in the past. Furthermore, there is a strong bias to reject any dating method which does not allow enough time for evolution to have happened. To understand the validity of any date, the reader must gain an understanding of how all dating methods work. The following illustration should help: Suppose you were up at 6:00 a.m. and happened to see a friend who lives in a nearby town. You observe that he is walking along at 2 miles an hour and you know that he lives 16 miles away. You can easily use the formula at the top of the illustration to calculate that your friend left home 8 hours earlier. You have just performed a dating method of how long your friend has been on the road. However, something doesn't make sense. Why would your friend be up all night walking? Although you used the correct formula, your assumptions may not have been correct. Perhaps your friend stayed with someone in town and woke up just minutes before for a morning stroll. In this case, you have used the 'Wrong Initial Amount' in your calculation. Perhaps he took a shortcut which cut 12 miles of his walk. In this case there was 'CONTAMINATION' of the total amount. Perhaps since you last saw your friend, he has taken up marathon running and average 8 miles and hour (only having slowed down just before you saw him). In this case you have used the wrong 'Average Rate'. The point is, wrong assumptions lead to wrong answers. In all (radioactive) dating methods the initial amount is an assumption, the estimate of contamination is an assumption, and the overall rate is an assumption. The only things which can be known for sure are the present amount and the present rate. Unless you estimate the initial amount correctly, the average rate correctly, and the amount of contamination correctly, your answer will be wrong . And depending on your assumptions, it could be very, very wrong. There are actually very few dating methods which seem to indicate that the earth is extremely old. On the other hand there are many dating methods which indicate that the earth is quite young, then evolution is obviously a myth and creation becomes the only logical alternative. Could this be the primary reason that only those methods which seem to indicate very old ages are acceptable?
Yes.
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
Galileo also won out over time. He used science. He presented facts that were at first strongly resisted or ignored, then over time evaluated, re-evaluated and then confirmed. Same thing is going on with the theory of evolution. The bubbles theory (I have not read on it) may be another theory with strong evidence. Cool. I am under no illusion that science has proven evolution. It merely strongly supports the theories as they are now defined.
Tesla was another person who suffered such. Most people thought he was truly nuts with that AC idea of his.
Canned responses are not incomplete responses. A good canned response would cover evolution, bubbles, creationism et al. It would explain what is and is not known/assumed/believed. That is also why I mentioned a wiki. Then, it is able to be updated as new ideas and information are presented. Which, makes it a very dynamic canned response, so not really canned at all. It would merely help in the reduction of copious amounts of redundant postings.
Most things are a religion to some (like NASCAR or Wrestling). Putting up an entry to cover the facts surrounding the theories would be anti-religion. Religion is about control and limitation of choice. It is about limiting one's accepted interpretation of reality to whatever the religious group espouses without regards for reality or differing evidence (not theory). In that sense, there are groups of people who are religious on the issue. Evolution has a large amount of measured evidence behind it. Nothing conclusive yet, but a large amount of suggestive evidence. That takes it out of the realm of religion. -InnerWeb
Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
Boy, this feels like Troll, but you got me on a good night. I am sick and tired of watching charlatans rip the guts out of what is good in the Bible for their own selfish motivations. SO, I am going to really step in it tonight.
This Kent Hovind?
Please, do your homework about the people you follow. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing. If this is who I think this is, I have heard him speak. He is not a scientist or honest, and his knowledge is incorrect, inaccurate and misleading. He may use words that sound like he knows what he is talking about, but he messes up on the basics of the theories, definitions and then misquotes things! He is either a fool he think he is smart or a deranged idiot. I would be inclined to listen to his ideas if he got the things he claims to know correct. I doubt he is with God.
I will not argue that God did or did not create the Universe. It is not arguable. It is only believable. I am fine with that. God has given us a beautiful gift - the Universe. By studying it, how it works and where it/we have come from, we do honor God. By perverting those discoveries, by not learning to decide what in the Bible is fact and what is story, we dishonor God. Yes, God created the universe. How he did it is known by him and summarized in the Bible - no details given! (What is a day in the Universe anyway? Is it a day on Earth, a day on Jupiter? What context for day do we use? It is not defined!!!) If God wanted evolution, we have it. If not, it just looks like it. Whatever it is, God deemed and it is so. It is up to us to discover it. We are not going to discover much if we keep jumping back to a book based on three to six thousand year old understandings of God's world. The Bible teaches us much, but not about auto mechanics, computing, electricity and most of what our society currently uses technologically or scientifically. What the Bible does give us, which is infinitely more important is how to live life right. How to manage money, treat other people, how to lead, right and wrong, how to learn and study, how to observe and research and so on.
Let us use the Bible for what it is intended. How to live life. How to have faith in God and yourself. Let us not turn back to the dark ages when the Bible was used as a tool of ignorance. I do not believe that God would like us to use His book as a tool for ignorance. Science is the study of God's universe, its rules, and how it works. Science is the study of God's physical world laws! The Bible does not spell many of those out if any at all. Scientific endeavors are a strong form of worship. But, not a religion unto themselves. They are merely another way to know God. I have an essay on this. I will try to remember to post it here.
BTW, as you go running down the New Earth Road, let me remind you of another disaster that was followed for a long time, because some past *experts* like the one you mentioned saw it in the bible.. Flat Earth followers.
And, there was that thing from Churches for a long time that the heavens revolved around the Earth. They said that was from the Bible as well. Someone mentioned Galileo. How about Da Vinci?
Oh, and yeah. Evolution is not a religion. It proffers no concepts about before birth, or after death. It does not deal with any *facts* that are not measurable. It does not deal with God (or the presence or lack thereof). It merely makes observations on what has been observed (research, experiment) and tries to make sense of them (theory).
Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
I don't know Kent Hovind, nor have I ever visited his museum. However, I do like his scientific rebuttal of Evolutionism. I have studied science myself for many, many years and have come to pretty much similar conclusions. However, I don't take his word for anything. I studied his information, and most appears to be on the level. The information I look at from him appears to be correct. I have found a misquote in one thing posted on his website, and I have sent him a correction. I also believe that you made a false assumption about me as well. You seem to assume that I am a Christian and I am of the same religion as Kent Hoving. I am not. You also said he may be a wolf in sheep's clothing. That I do not know. I have never met the man. I only looked at his rebuttals to Evolutionism.
I have no problem with people believing in Evolutionism, but I just don't want to be forced to pay for a religion that is disguised as science to be taught to school kids. I am just as upset at the Bush Administration trying to push faith based initiatives down our throats. The same goes for shool vouchers when these vouchers pay for religious education. While I believe that politicians and judges are allowed to pray as well as post the 10 Commandments in public buildings (freedom of religion), I do not believe that they have the right to force everyone else to pray or pay money to support their religious beliefs.
You claim that Evolution is a theory rather than a religion. However, many school textbooks say we are both wrong. They say that EVOLUTION IS A FACT. If I could see macro-evolution demonstrated in a lab, or if I could travel back in time 3000 B.C. and find the same conditions as today (except the stuff added by modern life), then I'd be convinced. IF you can prove macro-evolution, you ought to do it in front of a bunch of people with Dr. Hoving present. He says he will give you $250,000.00 if you prove macro-evolution. If you prove macro-evolution, and he does not come up with the money, then you will be able to out him as a liar.
A 2 day old baby certainly knows if he is hungry or otherwise in pain. He knows if he is being held or spoken to or sung to. That may not be much when compared with the great philosophers, but if you want to get philosophical, I'd argue that most kids under age 45 or so could not be considered to be self-aware, either.
Indeed, fetuses show awareness inside the womb, as well. If you poke 'em a bit, they'll move around. Some fetuses respond to different types of music. They certainly respond to the mother-to-be's movement.Most likely you would not make that claim after seeing your own future child's 18 week ultrasound. The fetus at that point objectively looks more or less like a cross between a human and a fish, but when it is your own fish, you'll love it like only a parent can love his child.
First of all, at what moment does the birth occur? The actual "pushing" part of childbirth (the part you see on TV), can last up to 2 hours or so. Typical is 30-60 minutes. At what point is the baby born? When the OB can first feel the head? Many times the head can be felt days or even a week or two before birth (the woman's cervix may be dilated up to 5 or 6 cm. long before going into labor). When the first body part is presented (hopefully the head!)? When the entire baby is out? If that, what about a C section? The surgeon could pull the baby out and put him back in 10 times. How many times would he be born then? And could the surgeon put the baby back in and then kill him?
Other proposed standards come with problems of their own:
I think we'll have to resign ourselves that we will never come up with an acceptable standard that can be codified into law. Any attempt at this always fails to account for this or that special case. Personally, I have a hard time asking the state to interfere with the judgment of a woman and her doctor.
I would prefer not to come up with a standard, but if I had to come up with standard, I would say: permit through trimester 1 for any reason, permit through trimester 2 for the health of the eventual child, and permit up until birth for the health of the mother.
But really I think this is best left up to the judgment of the family and the family doctor.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
I read the background on Wikipedia about Kent Hovind, and I admit that the article does not paint a good picture of him. However I'm not willing to shoot the messenger because of the message. His credentials are attacked as well as his run-ins with the government and court system. I also know of at least one thing said about Kent Hovind on Wikipedia that is incorrect. He NEVER said that we evolved from a banana. He NEVER said that Evolutionists believe that we evolved from a banana. However, he does point out that dogs, wolves, and other canines have LITTLE in common with a banana. He disputes that bananas and dogs evolved from the same source. I happen to agree that it is UNPROVEN that canines and bananas evolved from the same source.
As far as credentials are concerned, there are many un-credentialed people who have made GREAT contributions to science and technology. Some of these include Linus Torvalds. He is credentialed now, but he was not when he wrote the base Linux kernel. Another one is Bill Gates. Bill Gates may or may not have written a single line of code, but he has become one of the top earners of the country. Like it or not (I don't like Microsoft or many of its products) Microsoft has been tremendously helpful in bringing computing into the average home. If I'm not mistaken, the founder of Apple computers started out as garage hacker (un-credentialed). A 17 years old girl (again, un-credentialed) has invented a laser spectrograph that is affordable to many scientists. What this demonstrates is that people with few credentials or credentials that are not widely recognized make contributions to science and technology every day.
As far as trouble with the government is concerned, again, many people who have been in trouble with governments have made tremendous contributions to science. The unabomber (Theodore Kaczynski) just happens to be a brilliant mathematician. He also happens to have a degree from Harvard and a Ph.D. in mathematics from the University of Michigan. While this man has contributed to science, he still wound up in prison.
Another person with run-ins with government authorities (The Catholic Church at that time had tremendous power over people) was Galileo Galilei.
Other people include Robert Stroud (The Bird Man of Alcatraz) was both a prison inmate and un-credentialed, yet he made significant contribution to avian pathology. Again legal status has little to do with scientific knowledge.
Like I said in other post, I do not necessarily agree with all or most of Kent Hovind's religious views. I also understand why he may have run into such legal trouble. Kent Hovind, and many of his likes believe that the U.S. government has overstepped its bounds (many here on Slashdot will have to agree with this statement). Like quite a few right wing Christians, he believes that the 16th amendment of the Constitution was not properly ratified because Kentucky made a few changes to the amendment before it ratified it (Without Kentucky ratifying the Amendment as written, there would have been less than 2/3 of states which ratified the amendment). Like some other right wing Christians, his conscience could also be against paying taxes that are used to support such organizations as Planned Parenthood because he believes that such expenditures are both immoral and unconstitutional. I don't know the man or why he does the things he does.
As far as where Hovind went to school or didn't go to school, I never look at his record. I know for a fact that one can learn just about anything one wants to learn without ever setting foot into a classroom. There are bookstores, libraries, the Internet, other people, and many other places from where one can obtain knowledge. I myself speak two different languages as well as write computer programs, and yet I never set foot in a college to learn how to do these things. Many people who have degrees from accredited colleges and universities are impressed with my knowledge and have asked for my advice in many differe
... the discovery of a 100-million-year-old micro-organism which has survived its entire lifespan without sex. I know this post is just continuing the poor wording of the original article but no organism is likely to live for millions of years.I think what they mean to say is that the particular species has been evolving for that length of time without sex, not that a single organism has been living for millions of years without sex.
No dude - thats verbs.