Slashdot Mirror
Rate of Evolution Metrics Observed
eldavojohn notes an article up at Science Daily on research demonstrating that smaller animals with warmer blood evolve faster than larger, colder animals. From the article: "Across species from fish to mammals, they found that rates of protein evolution showed the same body size and temperature dependence as metabolic rate. Specifically, their mathematical model predicts that a 10-degree increase in temperature across species leads to about a 300 percent increase in the evolutionary rate of proteins, while a tenfold decrease in body size leads to about a 200 percent increase in evolutionary rates."
more cell division, shorter lifespan, and more more abundant reproduction. All of these mean mutations collect in the population faster. Bacteria evolve much faster than mice, BTW, and they're not warm-blooded since they have no blood. Yet, they reproduce at a much faster rate and the mutations add up faster.
I didn't read TFA, but TFS tells us nothing common sense and a basic high-school understanding of biology couldn't predict as a hypothesis. That someone has gathered evidence to support the hypothesis empirically is pretty cool, though. Even what seems apparent should be tested, or it's not really science.
that word theory. i'm not sure it means what you think it means.
music - http://www.subatomicglue.com
It *does* mean that smaller animals can evolve faster if under lots of evolutionary pressure. Note that since smaller animals tend to breed faster, this is already the case.
The cake is a pie
Using the term "evolutionary rate" is pretty misleading: whats happening is that the genomes are changing faster, but almost all of that change isn't from any selective pressure. Its mostly "neutral drift", things changing randomly in a way that does not impact the fitness of the organism.
And my theory is they're making shit up to appease that wing of their constituencies and that they aren't creationist or intelligent design fans at all.
Can you imagine how refreshing it would be if a candidate introduced himself at the first debate by saying:
"My name is Quag7, and I believe that the best explanations currently available for our origin are Darwin's Theory of Evolution, and the Big Bang. I do not believe in ghosts, UFOs, stigmata, or bleeding statues. I believe in literacy, science, and education, and reason. I believe that there are better and more compelling reasons to lead a virtuous life than the threat of hellfire. I believe in honesty, morality, integrity, and honor, because they serve the self as they in turn serve the public good.
I believe in the open and free exchange of information, oppose censorship, and support the right of each and every human being on this planet to think, worship, and copulate as they like. I believe that the golden rule transcends all civilizations. I believe in the value and power of the individual.
I believe that rights transcend national borders and that if they are valid and apply at all to human beings, that they apply to all human beings equally.
I believe that the real saints of our world are the freethinkers, dissidents, and whistleblowers.
I am inspired by the Renaissance. I am a child of The Enlightenment. I believe that our species should be most concerned with the pursuit of beauty, discovery, exploration, and adventure.
I believe that all human beings are fallible, and that it is necessary to question all of our most deeply held assumptions, and that the greatest example of courage a human being can display is to admit that they are wrong.
I believe that war is truly a last resort, and, when waged, the only thing we should feel about it is regret that it was necessary at all.
I believe in pizza Fridays."
Wouldn't that be refreshing? Especially the pizza Fridays bit?
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
The fact of evolution does show that certain evolution-denying cults have at least one false claim in their creeds, but that's a far narrower conclusion than what you suggested.
Nice troll, though.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I hate to break your bubble, but 2+2=4 is not, and never has been a fact, let alone an incontrovertible one. Yes, there is some exceptionally convincing evidence, especially when experiments and comparisions with the real world are provided. But the fact of the matter is that 2+2=4 is simply a theory, stemming from axioms and some additional constructions. In fact, some people just accept it flat out as an axiom in its own right.
2+2=4 in our number system, not because that's the way the universe works, but because that's the way we have made our number system. There's a hell of a lot of different possibilities, but nothing is solidly provable without some ZFC set theory and a team of research mathematicians. Students need to know the difference.
May the Maths Be with you!
No, evolution has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. It is one of the most solid scientific theories (which is different from the common usage of the word theory) known. In other words, it is one of the best established conclusions of science to date.
Small scale evolution is proven. Plants & insects splitting into strains that can't cross breed, maybe some small noticable differences. That stuff isn't too hard to reproduce.
But an ape evolving into a human, or a dinosaur into a bird can't be proven. You can find evidence that suggests it's highly likely that it happened, but unless you can form a family tree that goes back millions of years, you can't prove it.
Evolution has much more evidence than theories about gravity, chemical structure, the earth going around the sun, etc. To imply evolution has less evidence than other scientific theories is deceptive, when in reality it has much more than most.
Evolution in the form that's in dispute takes millions of years to occur. You can't experiment on that. You can't observe it without a time machine. Everything else you listed you can set up experiments to test.
And I really don't get the point, the bible was already 'wrong' about the earth being the center of the universe. It didn't destroy the religion or change anything. Neither does evolution.
I do agree with you there. The Bible is a set of stories and guidelines written to be understood by people who lived thousands of years ago. You have to treat it in that context, not as an absolute.