Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Findings Confirm Darwin's Theory — Evolution Not Random

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the water-also-wet dept.

ScienceDaily is reporting a team of biologists has demonstrated that evolution is a deterministic process, rather than a random selection as some competing theories suggested. "When the researchers measured changes in 40 defined characteristics of the nematodes' sexual organs (including cell division patterns and the formation of specific cells), they found that most were uniform in direction, with the main mechanism for the development favoring a natural selection of successful traits, the researchers said."

21 of 386 comments (clear)

  1. Ah, but... by susano_otter · · Score: 5, Funny

    the main mechanism for the development favoring a natural selection of successful traits

    Ah, but did this deterministic development mechanism evolve deterministically or randomly?
    --

    Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    1. Re:Ah, but... by WgT2 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Is the following a fact or faith?

      The Sun will rise tomorrow (whether over clouds or otherwise).
      What say ye?

      Hint: ISATRAP

    2. Re:Ah, but... by kemushi88 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Facts have a known liberal bias.

    3. Re:Ah, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      The concept of a geocentric universe makes you sexually excited doesnt it!

      SIR YES SIR!

      You want to make 15th century mathematician Johannes Kepler your bitch DONT YOU!

      SIR YES SIR!

    4. Re:Ah, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!!

      Two points:

            1. While it's good to verify things, you do realize that this proves nothing, right? It is merely in line with the one theory that we have for this sort of thing. It doesn't go anywhere near proving it. To prove that evolutionary selection is deterministic, you'd have to show that it was true for all cases, and that's a bit difficult. What this experiment shows is that for the species tested, traits considered, over the time analyzed, nothing abnormal was observed.
            2. There is no "competing theory", just Darwin's. There are those of us that believed that it the selection of traits was deterministic, and then there are ... creationists. Those that are in between don't make up a significant population in the scientific community. Also note that this study is irrelevant for the evolution/ID debate, since this is supposed to determine how evolution goes about, not whether it goes about.
      3. While I don't think that this experiment wasn't worth...

      WAIT, I'LL COME IN AGAIN

      NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!!

      Among our THREE points are:

            1. While it's good to verify things, you do realize that this proves nothing, right? It is merely in line with the one theory that we have for this sort of thing. It doesn't go anywhere near proving it. To prove that evolutionary selection is deterministic, you'd have to show that it was true for all cases, and that's a bit difficult. What this experiment shows is that for the species tested, traits considered, over the time analyzed, nothing abnormal was observed.
            2. There is no "competing theory", just Darwin's. There are those of us that believed that it the selection of traits was deterministic, and then there are ... creationists. Those that are in between don't make up a significant population in the scientific community. Also note that this study is irrelevant for the evolution/ID debate, since this is supposed to determine how evolution goes about, not whether it goes about.
            3. While I don't think that this experiment wasn't worth doing, I don't think it's news. It's like going out to measure the mass of a photon and discovering that it's less than you can measure (yes, I know this has been done; it wasn't very exciting). It doesn't break anything we thought was fine, and doesn't prove anything we didn't already know: it simply puts limits on how wrong our theory can possibly be.

    5. Re:Ah, but... by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 4, Funny

      Elk. Elk. Elk. Moosen live in Sweden. Elken live in Deutchland. And whoever heard of a critical moose? Is that when you have enough moose that fission becomes self-sustaining?

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    6. Re:Ah, but... by ibbey · · Score: 2, Funny

      Grammatically, linguistically and geographically you might be correct, but you have to give it to him that a moose are funnier than elk.

    7. Re:Ah, but... by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 2, Funny

      A notable exception to the "k sounds are funny" law of humor.

    8. Re:Ah, but... by xPsi · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think the "oo" trumps the "k" in this case.

      --
      i\hbar\dot{\psi}=\hat{H}\psi
    9. Re:Ah, but... by fimbulvetr · · Score: 4, Funny

      A moose once bit my sister.

    10. Re:Ah, but... by ricosalomar · · Score: 1, Funny

      Mind you, moose bites can be veri nasti.

  2. God Recycles by usul294 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Creationist Interpretation : "God came up with something he liked, so he repeated his design; I mean it must have taken awhile to design millions of organisms, He must have recycled ideas somewhere"

    1. Re:God Recycles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Whats really intresting then is that while a whole bunch of stuff is recycled, the pattern makes a tree where recycling never seems to occur among plants-mammals-birds, so no four cycle breathing for mammals, no bird milk, no bat fruit.. really strange that with all the shortcuts that were taken, so much separation would be faithfully preserved. Please explain the platypus.

    2. Re:God Recycles by Nimey · · Score: 3, Funny

      Shut up.

          -- GOD

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
  3. But... But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    If evolution isn't random, then it must be through a predetermined pattern... ergo intelligent design is correct.
    Repent! Repent!!!

  4. Most interesting by strange+dynamics · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think the most interesting thing to come to light in this study is that scientists have identified fourty characteristics of nematode sexual organs.

  5. Finally, there is an answer by eclectro · · Score: 3, Funny

    That it is a deterministic process that will tell how much wood would a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood.

    They might even be able to write a mathematical expression for it.

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
  6. interesting career choice by digitalderbs · · Score: 5, Funny

    measured changes in.. nematodes' sexual organs
    and I thought my job sucked.
  7. Of course they studied nematodes by CleverDan · · Score: 3, Funny

    They are obviously creations of His Noodly Appendage

  8. So wait a second... by feepness · · Score: 2, Funny

    Evolution is intelligently designed?

  9. Who comes first? by ImaLamer · · Score: 4, Funny

    A chicken and egg are lying in bed together. They are both smoking.

    The chicken leans over to the egg and says; "I guess we answered that question."

    --
    Get your Unix fortune now!