Slashdot Mirror
Humanity's Genetic Diversity on the Decline
jd writes "In a study covering five different periods of history, from 300 AD to the present day, and geographically spread across much of Europe, scientists have extracted the mitochondrial DNA from a sizable number of individuals in an effort to examine changes in diversity. The results, published in the Royal Society journal is intriguing to say the least. 1700 years ago, three out of every four individuals belonged to a different haplotype. In modern Europe, the number is only one in three. The researchers blame a combination of plague, selection of dominant lineages and culturally-inflicted distortions. The researchers say more work needs to be done, but are unclear if this involves archaeology or experiments involving skewing the data in the local female population."
the Melting Pot?!
Thank you, leave your $$$ in my hat, I'll be exiting the stage to the left, thank you, thank you...
Isn't this basically what that whole "survival of the fittest" thing does? End less suitable genetic traits and combine the surviving ones in an ever repeating cycle, ever closer to the "fittest" genetic blend?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Come on down to Southern Ohio and you'll see just what I mean. The Shadow Over Portsmouth!
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
In the name of science, I volunteer for any experiments involving "skewing" "data" into the local female population.
I've never heard it called that before. Either something is missing in translation, or we should be told a bit more about what the Royal Society is like nowadays. After all, it was founded by Charles II, and he was pretty good at something that sounded a bit like skewing the local female population.
Pining for the fjords
Easyjet is restoring the diversity.
Deleted
Firstly, the article has nothing about "human genetic diversity". It's about ancient UK population having larger haplotype diversity than the many modern European populations.
0 7/2221256
There could be a few reasons to this. Anglo-Saxons came to England around 550AD. Also Romans had settled the island. Later also Vikings came. These plus the local population already implies quite a lot of diversity.
Since then some lineages have been more successful, that's it. Actually, this could be considered supporting evidence for D. Gregory Clark's hypothesis that upper classes have been replacing the lower ones during middle ages in England, as reported by Slashdot yesterday, see http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/
Yeah, I think you mean "skewering" the local female population heh...
Seriously, genetic diversity cannot be helped by a society that favors monogamous, life-long relationships between couples. The most genetic diversity is achieved when women have children by as many different men as possible throughout their lifetimes.
They used a historic sample of only 48 ancient Britons and those were even spread out to a timeframe from about 700 years (contrary to the summary, the ancient samples lived between AD 300 and 1000 which is a relatively big timeframe).
I would think that their analysis could still be statistically relevant, but still they say themselves that more work is needed, so I think more historic sample data would be quite useful.
It's sad that scientists don't read each other's stuff. Then again, both of these articles came out at the same time, so it would have been virtually impossible.
0 7/2221256
But the parent article refers to a phenomenon mentioned in a slashdot article about the Industrial Revolution less than a day ago. http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/
Now the key is to see if the two groups catch on.
Reeses
If they eliminated the outliers, such as West Virginia, the average human diversity would go back to what it was in 300AD.
...and in 1000 years, we will all have an orange complexion, speak in all languages a once. We will also be referred to as "goobacks"!
The game.
So, as I understand it, this was written by an unattractive British science geek as a pickup line to use in bars full of attractive women.
"Hi. We analysed the historical genetic diversity of human populations in Europe at the mtDNA control region for 48 ancient Britons who lived between ca AD 300 and 1000, and compared these with 6320 modern mtDNA genotypes from England and across Europe and the Middle East. We found that the historical sample shows greater genetic diversity than for modern England and other modern populations, indicating the loss of diversity over the last millennium. The pattern of haplotypic diversity was clearly European in the ancient sample, representing each of the modern haplogroups. There was also increased representation of one of the ancient haplotypes in modern populations. We consider these results in the context of possible selection or stochastic processes. So, you understand... you... must have... sex.... with me."
"Are you trying to tell me that the genetic diversity of Britain is at stake if I don't hop into the sack with you?"
"Umm... yes."
"Yes, then. For Britannia and the queen!"
Mitochondria is carried by women (via the fact that they have the cell, where is the sperm just introduces DNA). So, by looking at just mitochondria, it is possible that the diversity was lost there, but not in the human DNA (the mitochondria is nothing more than a degraded bacteria; it even has bacterial DNA). IOW, they are saying that they may be measuring the wrong item.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Stochastic, from the Greek "stochos" or "aim", "guess", means of, relating to, or characterized by conjecture and randomness.
...I blame West Virginia.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
With different and distinct cultural groups it gives humanity more variations on how to resist diseases and other health afflictions with varying results. One race/culture may resist one disease yet be weak to another.
The ability to travel is the biggest natural evolutionary threat of "oneness". The second biggest threat are the people who through the media continue to suggest this mixing is natural when it is not. You can see plenty of suggestive propaganda if you actually look for it such as every commercial has a black person just for the sake of "diversity" or mixed couples in women's magazines being promoted as "progressive". The people who sell this sort of propaganda of course don't value different cultures, it's "politically correct" and if we all loose our cultural distinctions we will be much weaker not only genetically (and I say that about all races) but also as groups of people in general in the future. The true racists are the ones who would prefer there to be theirs and then one giant undefined blob. From my understanding those racists are defined as cultural Marxists.
- John
http://www.jabcreations.com/
In other words, you're suggesting that women become more like the women one sees walking about in the inner cities or appear on Maury Povich doing the paternity tests.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
My girlfriend has a very diverse set of genes. She has genes for going out, genes for lounging around the house. She often asks me if her genes make her look fat. Well, I certainly know she has some "fat" genes, but I always lie and tell her that her genes make her look fantastic! Of course, supporting this habit can be expensive. That's why every once in a while, I let her wear my genes, in a pinch. My genes are generally suited for function over form, but she enjoys them nonetheless! Sometimes, after experiencing the comfort of my genes, she swears she never going to look for new genes ever again! But I know better - her gene shopping impulses are FAR too strong...
Remember this is only a study of mitochondrial DNA, not the DNA for the nucleus. I think it's more likely that geographic barriers have lowered, causing a reduction in diversity over time. It may also be that certain mitochondrial variations were better adapted for a thousand years ago, while they don't hold up so well in the modern world. It could be that the Black Death, for example, ended up destroying populations with certain variations or simply that the rare variations vanished.
And how could the diversity *in*crease? Multiple mutations in a short timeframe?
This sig does not contain any SCO code.
I don't really know anything about European mitochondrial DNA and I'm not entirely sure England (which was swept by various waves of invaders, not all of whom actually stayed, and then remained unchanged for a very long time) is a good example anyway. But I can say that over the last 100 years human genetic diversity (like linguistic diversity and cultural diversity) has plummeted, with truly distinct populations like the Andamanese (google them) and less-distinct but highly diverse populations like those of southern Siberia, Taiwan, and the Caucasus disappearing almost without comment.
Unfortunately, not only is it unfeasibly difficult to prevent such loss, it is also politically well-nigh impossible even to document it, as doing so involves admitting that a given population *is* distinct which is generally unacceptable to Russia and China in one way, and to politically-correct Western academics in another way. From peppercorn hair to multi-base counting systems, the vast majority of human biology, language and tradition has been lost, and a few selected strains and languages grow uncontrollably like some kind of bizarre algal bloom. Made of people.
This is not at all a recent phenomenon but in the last century it has massively speeded up. The catastrophic loss of ecological diversity may be just around the corner but the human equivalent has already happened and with a tiny fraction of the fanfare.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
I remember this game from Sesame Street. They showed 4 things - 3 were different and one was the same. Same as... uh..
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
It's the ugly genotypes that are dying off because the good looking people won't have sex with them.
This is a good thing.
You mean like a crack whore?
Give us another couple of years of having russians spread plutonium throughout the world and we will start having a lot MORE genetic diversity.
I for one will welcome our two headed overlords.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Most importantly, it is the correct combination of genes that makes a successful organism as well as individual genes. 'Mixing' of groups of people is hugely advantageous for this reason.
Secondly, genes do not become lost when they combine with genes from another person to make a child. There is just a new combination of genes which can contribute to the whole genetic diversity of mankind. For example, we could take the idea that races should not interbreed a little further and say that people should not breed outside of their immediate family. The problem with this would be that genetic diversity could hardly ever increase, and by attrition mankind would be doomed. By separating races one creates several smaller separate gene-pools each of which is smaller than the original whole and hence more vulnerable.
Thirdly, by separating the societies it would become genetically/evolutionarily advantageous for one race to think of or treat the others as subhumans. By this argument I claim that you have implicitly invoked Godwin's law.
Also, I wish you luck procreating with your sister...
... we are all slowly but definitely becoming inbreeds. And it shows.
Does this indicate a loss of information or merely a preference for a particular part of the set? If information is being lost, wouldn't that indicate that mutation has occured (a processed also observed with viruses)?
All right, if Slashdotters are going to continually jump all over misuse of "begs the question", then there's a pet peeve I'd like to add to that fervor. "300 AD", as it appears in the summary, is also incorrect usage. "AD" stands for anno domini, which is Latin for "in the year of the Lord". The phrase in Latin usage and traditional English usage comes properly before the number, not after. (Say it in full: "300 in the year of the Lord" sounds like an explanation of when something's tricentennial occurred. "In the year of the Lord 300" makes more sense as an absolute time reference.)
The convention of putting "AD" after the number is nothing but sloppy analogizing to "BC", which (being the English phrase "before Christ") does make more sense that way.
Note that the Royal Society writers did get it right. It's the Slashdot summary that's wrong.
So says Liberal Harvard Professor: story from Boston Globe : "The downside of diversity"
The greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects
informative? Ill go out on a limb and ask you if your white... just a guess since your surname has a roman numeral after it...
Maybe there are 'black' people in commercials because they actually are a TARGET DEMOGRAPHIC of the business? Or is it your belief that business doesnt serve black people?
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, racism is a belief or ideology that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially to distinguish it as being either superior or inferior to another race or races.
Your desire to not want to be a racist and trying to 'redefine' a WORD, is just this side of pure arrogance. Whether you attach a negative or positive emotion to the word 'racism' is something you need to face head on. Trying to redefine a word to satisfy your self-serving ego is plain silly. Your 'understanding' is nothing but wordplay to make sure you always see yourself in a glowing halo of supremacy, instead of the BIGOT that you are!
TFA brings up an important issue, but an obvious one. Over time, similar ethnic groups mixed in a nation (the UK) become closer to one. If a species appears on one continent, the farther it goes from that continent, the more it loses genetic diversity as it gets specialized for the new, foreign environment. All the other whinging is FUD by those who fear science just as much as the Christian fundamentalists do.
Go get yourself DNA tested already, so you know what diseases you're going to inherit and whether or not you really had that Cherokee ancestor. I'm too cynical today to say anything other than that general scientific education has become too scarce and too politicized. Let's just look at the data and make reasonable conclusions, and leave FUD to large corporations and finger-wagging moms.
technical writing / development
Perfect beings no longer evolve
Mitochondria are a hell of a lot more than "degraded bacteria;" try taking the mitochondria out of your cells and see how long you last. ;)
... or a mammal ... or, for that matter, anything more complex than a jellyfish. Our mitochondria have evolved along with the rest of us for the last two-billion-plus years. I understand the distinction you're trying to make -- basically, this study only measures matrilineal diversity, rather than diversity as a whole -- but it could probably be phrased better.
Also, human mitichondrial DNA is just as much "human DNA" as is nuclear DNA. Sure, it was bacterial originally, but the point at which it became a vital part of our cells was very early in the evolution of eukaryotes, a looong time before there was any such thing as human being
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Would promiscuity help combat this?
Honestly babe, I'm just trying to add diversity to the gene-pool!
> a class of people whose job is to determine what truth is
That is complete nonsense. It is their job to discover what truth is, not to determine it.
Has anyone ever done a study on what is probably the most inbred population on the planet - the European royals?
...skewing a few of the local female population. You know, for scientific reasons...
That's not completely true. For a simple example, if one parent is homozygous dominant for a gene (A/A) and another is heterozygous (A/a) then half of their children on average will have "lost" the recessive allele. If by chance all the children they have happen to be A/A, then that recessive a trait is lost forever.
occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Genocide DOES Pay (c)War Nerd
skewing the data in the local female population
So that's what they call it now.
When you send huge portions of your peak reproductive populaiton through the meat grinder in the span of about two generations, you can probably expect a decrease in genetic diversity. The good news about the next World War is that it will be nuclear and with all the radiation will come mutations which should help out with the genetic diversity issue.
No. Marriage between cousins leads to genetic disorders. I think you may be thinking of marriage within a social or ethnic group. If the group is large enough, then yes it can be used to preserve that group's genetic traits.
That is complete nonsense. It is their job to discover what truth is, not to determine it.
Uh no. The truth is in the thing itself. A rock is a rock and it doesn't need our help to attain its own truth. All science does is arrange new tidbits of observation about that rock, into our own classification system.
We put names on things that already exist, and organize those names in a way that is convenient for us as humans to use. But the truth is already in the thing itself, and it is entirely possible that another civilization could theoretically come up with an entirely different scheme of organizing its information such that what it holds to be "true" would be completely different from our own "truths".
You need to think more broadly about things.
This is my sig.
"it would become genetically/evolutionarily advantageous for one race to think of or treat the others as subhumans"
Is that why we say we(USA) want to help Africa but we never seem to get around to it?
While the mitochondria is in a pure symbiotic relationship with the cell, it is still just a degraded bacteria (just millions of years ago). In particular, the Mitoconhondria CAN exist outside of the cell (with a little bit of help), while as you point out the cell WILL die without our little powerhouse. But the telling issue is that Mito's have the same DNA as that from bacteria (anucleas as well as the same structure as ALL prokayotes; in a centerfuge, they spin to the EXACT location of all prokayotes), whereas we eurkayotes have DNA inside of a nucleas and a different structure. The DNA from mito's have as much in common with nuclear DNA as the E. Coli in you does.
It has been 25 years since I was in the virology section of CDC, but I tend to recall the majority of study. In particular with a quick google:
The mitochondrion is different from most other organelles because it has its own circular DNA (similar to the DNA of prokaryotes) and reproduces independently of the cell in which it is found; an apparent case of endosymbiosis. Scientists hypothesize that millions of years ago small, free-living prokaryotes were engulfed, but not consumed, by larger prokaryotes, perhaps because they were able to resist the digestive enzymes of the host organism. The two organisms developed a symbiotic relationship over time, the larger organism providing the smaller with ample nutrients and the smaller organism providing ATP molecules to the larger one. Eventually, according to this view, the larger organism developed into the eukaryotic cell and the smaller organism into the mitochondrion.
As to phrasing, I simply pointed out that the mito is a poor choice to study, but it is quick, fast, cheap, and doable.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
It still seems very odd to me. Humans in general are having a lot more contact across large areas, as well as more interracial relationships. Wouldn't that imply that we are, in fact, building genetic combinations within a bigger pool than, say, hundreds or thousands of years ago?
I, for one, welcome our three-toed banjo-pickin' overlords.
This is off topic, considering the headline story...but the way the topic usually hashes out (and indeed did) makes this post not entirely off topic.
This is a fine example of the moronic left not seeing the world moderating and controling it I suppose.
Or, conversely, a fine example of the righteous right seeing the picture, but only from their point of view and seeking to make sure the rest of the world sees it their way.
In general, I'd say that a lack of genetic diversity seems an obvious outcome from centuries of radiation from the sun and an excellent support to a degrading human race - not an improving and evolving one. Others I'm sure can speculate the other way. Hence the never ending debate.
Who is this that even the wind and the waves obey Him? Surely this computer must submit also!
... according to popular belief, we all came from Adam and Eve....
This also makes me think of the tower of babel for some reason...
Maybe what was needed is the diversity of trial and error to then figure out we had it right to begin with.
or some such line of thinking.
But if there really is a lack of diversity problem, we certainly know enough about genetics even now to inject all sorts of genetic deviations.
Actually he was talking about how businesses promote race mixing in their commercials, despite the fact that such things, while they do happen, are relatively rare.
I don't understand how the comparison can even be close to valid. The ancient group spans 700 years, the modern group is one snapshot. I dare say that any 700 year group would show more diversity than any single snapshot.
Infuriate left and right
There is good evidence that humankind had a massive die-off / population thinning approximately 70,000 ya, possibly reducing us to as few as 5,000 or 10,000 individuals, and many haplotypes vanished then. That's okay though, as we continue to radiate ourselves with flatscreen TV's and microwaves - we'll make more.
semantics are everything!
Let's see... 1700 years ago approximately... the Roman Empire fell. From what I gather, the Roman Empire had, at the end, a melting pot of sorts as far as citizens go. Then, gothic and slavic tribes moved in and pretty much decimated what remained of Roman power and population. With the collapse of order came the Dark Ages and it's accompanying calamities such as civic and academic loss, famine and plague. Former Roman citizens would have lost everything to the invaders.
These tribes were largely extended family groups of interrelated people. Where is the surprise in the lack of mitochondrial DNA diversification?
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
Considering all the idiots running around now, I'm sort of glad we dumped a genetic strain that couldn't hack it in the Middle Ages. Just think, we might have had worse human beings than Carrot Head, Rosie O'Donnell, Britney Spears and the general audience of the X Games.
your family tree doesn't have any branches.
a. approach genetic perfection next week or b. we all die to a single disease tomorrow?
Mitochondrial DNA is not something you want to be looking at when determining genetic diversity.
Firstly, mitochondrial DNA is significantly more stable than the host DNA. It's a highly efficient system which decreases energy production in all but the rarest of mutations, generally leading to cell death. On the other hand, host DNA undergoes much more mutation, a large degree of it benign - either it's junk DNA, or covered by your other allele, or what have you.
Furthermore, mitochondrial DNA is maternally inherited - you always (well, almost) get your mitochondrial DNA from your mother. Contrast this with cell DNA, which is determined by two sets of alleles from both parents. You would expect mitochondrial DNA to be similar amongst groups of people.
...doin his own thang!
(my USAF roommate used to tease me with this old sesame street lyric, as I was quite the nonconformist...)
But science isn't about truth. It's about usefulness. It doesn't matter if a theory accurately represents underlying reality or not, as long as the theory makes accurate and useful predictions. As an example, people think that Newton's theory of gravity is 'false' and Einstein's is 'true.' Yet in general, engineers do not use Einstein's formula, they use Newton's because it is simpler to calculate and is just as accurate as long as the things under consideration aren't moving at some significant fraction of the speed of light. Newton's theory is less correct, but more useful.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
> The truth is in the thing itself.
Absoutely. But until we discover the truth of a thing, we don't know it. We do not determine the truth of it. Just because something can be classified in different ways, the truth of its properties do not change. Just our understanding, or perspective of it.
Anyone who understands what mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is and how it works also understands that using it to characterize human (or any other species) genetic diversity is quite bogus.
The problem is that mtDNA doesn't take part in any of the recombination methods produced by sexual reproduction. It's inherited in a simple tree through the maternal line. There's no recombination of mtDNA from parents. The only source of variation is mutations, which are almost always bad. After enough such mutations, a "line" simply dies out because it's not viable any more.
To those who believe in some sort of "intelligent design", this must be a real problem, as it makes the designer look like either an idiot or actively malevolent. Biologists did figure out some time back that mitochondria are the descendants of symbiotic bacteria, who originally presumably had sexual reproduction (conjugation), but lost this after taking up residence inside our cells. This doesn't bother the biologists, because their creator (Mother Nature) is long known to be an idiot, and it goes right along with a lot of Her other crappy "designs".
Anyway, there really aren't all that many genes in the mitochondria. Maybe some day, after a few more decades of research, we'll figure out how to transfer those genes to the nucleus, and fix up that particular bit of idiocy. Or maybe we'll do it the easy way, and persuade sperm cells to carry along the father's mtDNA.
Meanwhile, if you want to know something about human genetic diversity over time, you really should wait until someone figures out how to study the real human chromosomes from long-dead people.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
"1700 years ago, three out of every four individuals belonged to a different haplotype. In modern Europe, the number is only one in three. "
.. even the rare ones (ok, there are obviously exceptions but true in general)
This is not a problem - because we have a much larger population today, there is probably an increase in
1) the number of people with a particular haplotype
2) the number of haplotypes (new ones emerging)
One thing I've noticed is when two people of different racial backgrounds have children together there offspring are usually very attractive. Perhaps our gene pool is getting stale.
---- "Excuse me. Where's the children's gun section?"
You're wrong on so many levels.
1) Mitochondria can't exist outside of cells. There are thousands of proteins involved in the mitochondria - only 13 are made by the mitochondrial genome in humans (the rest are imported). Sure you can isolate them, but they don't last for very long (intracellularly, mitochondria have halflives ranging from a few days to a few weeks depending on the cell, and most in vitro preps only have decent mitochondria for about 4-6 hours depending on levels of contaminating proteases and lysosomes etc.).
2) Cells can survive without mitochondria - I don't know why you think they can't. Look up "amitochondrial cells" (eg. mature erythrocytes etc.) and also cultured rho0 cells.
3) They don't have the same DNA as bacteria. A lot of the DNA has undergone transfer to the nucleus, and the rest of the genome has undergone various mutation over time - not to mention the fact that bacterial species are incredibly diverse genetically. There is very good conservation of the tRNA and rRNA but otherwise you're barking up the wrong tree there.
4) Studying mtDNA is not a poor choice. The ability to measure ancient nuclear DNA is difficult due to low copy number relative to mtDNA, and the amount of artifactual degradation that occurs over time.
5) By calling mitochondria "degraded bacteria" it appears you aren't familiar with how integrated mitochondria are in cells. Mitochondria are responsible for a range of different things (many that bacteria just don't do) from standard oxidative phosphorylation, and fatty acid beta-oxidation, to maintenance of the urea cycle, amino acid metabolism and catabolism, calcium regulation, apoptosis, haem biosynthesis, Fe-S centre biosynthesis and a lot of others. Mitochondrial complexes are present on the cell surface of many cells (ie. externally to the mitochondria) where they participate in proton transport at the cell surface, or act as various hormonal receptors.
They are incredibly integrated into the cell, and are a proper organelle, just as much as the nucleus, golgi apparatus, peroxisome and so on. To suggest otherwise indicates a very superficial understanding of mitochondria and their role in eukaryotic cells.
(Disclaimer: My PhD was completed in a mitochondrial biology lab, so your post struck a nerve).
Small correction :) When I mentioned rho0 cells I meant that they don't have fully functional mitochondria (they have no mitochondrial DNA). Not quite amitochondrial like red blood cells, but certainly growing without a functional OXPHOS system (meaning other aspects of mitochondrial biology are ineffective as well).
The genetic diversity in a population decreases over time, unless the population interbreeds with another, genetically different population. Even then, if you consider all the interbreeding populations together as one, the genetic diversity of the whole population decreases over time.
The larger the population, the slower the decrease and, conversely, the smaller the population the faster the decrease. (In extreme cases this is called "inbreeding", but the effect in larger populations, albeit less pronounced, is still present.) Hence, the genetic diversity in Europe is relatively poor (or at any rate was until quite recently when a lot of immigrants started showing up), because the total size of the population, not to mention the population density, was smaller than other parts of the world.
The genetic diversity in certain island nations (notably in eastern Polynesia) is even worse, because of their isolation (hence, little infusions of different DNA from other populations) and small population.
In the modern era, with long-distance travel becomming relatively cheap and easy and common, the amount of exchange of genetic material between different parts of the world is significantly higher than in the past. Also the size of the population is getting quite large these days. Consequently, the rate of decay in our genetic diversity is slowing to a crawl. In areas like Europe, I expect the genetic diversity will significantly increase, due to infusions of foreign genetic material from other continents.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
... wouldn't decline in genetic diversity be more or less what is expected anyway?
As a staunch atheist / deist, I wouldn't say that the theory of evolution negates the possibility of a creator. It does go against the literal word of most religious texts, in that it denies that something put the world together using the same kind of rational process that we would use - but then very few religions are willing to accept that something that lives forever and is capable of creating a universe would be fundamentally alien to us.
Evolution also suggests that the Earth is a work-in-progress, constantly changing and adapting, and not the finished, 'perfect' creation that most (if not all) religions seem to require.
However, "God moves in mysterious ways" - who is to say that a god-like entity wouldn't utilise a billion-year process to build an ecology? What upsets the fundamentalists about evolution is not that it disproves creation, but that it disproves their version of it - ultimately they want to claim that they know the mind of god.
I hope that the parent is not a sensible person with a good understanding of scientific reason just making a sarcastic joke to make creationists look bad, because that would be unfair and terribly unkind. On the other hand if the parent is being serious, then it has done a great service to the argument it opposes (purely by its own lack of reason). Either way it was an entertaining read.
I agree with that point. But there are those that argue that science is measured by something higher than its utility. They would, to defend the opposite point of view, would argue that both you and I confuse science and technology.
This is my sig.
No reputable scientist would ever, and I mean ever defend the view that science can ever tell us The Truth about the universe. The people who would defend that view aren't worth arguing with.
For the sake of analogy, consider the universe to be a clock. We can see the hands move, but we can't open up the clock to see what makes them move. We can come up with all kinds of theories about what's inside the clock that makes the hands move. Those theories might describe the motion of the hands perfectly. They might even actually represent what's going on inside but we'll never know.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton