I'm glad someone mentioned Dr. Shweitzer's work, since, as you point out, this is only confirmation of old news. The reason "it can still take that long for a major discovery to become accepted" is that human nature has not changed in the last several thousand years: we have our treasured beliefs, and we don't like to see them challenged, ESPECIALLY when changing them could render our past work pointless or even wrong.
The controversy is usually framed as Creation vs Evolution, but really it's Biochemistry vs Evolutionary Biology.
In the linked BBC article, I did not see any indication that these researchers took other recent findings into account, such as the discovery of water in ringwoodite, trapped in a diamond that came from the earth's mantle. Those who studied it concluded that there is "an ocean's worth of water" in the mantle.
http://www.livescience.com/440...
I find it much more plausible that our oceans were derived from internal water than that asteroids deposited it. I mean, really, how much water could your average meteor deposit? Looking at the amount of water on our planet's surface, we would have to assume a long, horrendous bombardment. Asteroid material would then account for a large percentage of the earth's crust, and I don't hear anyone suggesting that.
And don't get me started on that whole "Theia" hypothesis. The only evidence for a planetary impact is the fact that we have a moon, and it's larger than one would expect. Very weak argument.
I have a co-worker from Ghana; I asked him if he has family back in West Africa and if they are worried. He laughed and said that Ghana has a good health care system, much better than Liberia, for example, and they are not worried. I was amazed by the contrast with US citizens (us), who are fretting so much about the disease. Granted, Ghana's government is taking the disease very seriously and is handling it professionally... another contrast.
I could show you a confirmed non-reworked rabbit fossil in Precambrian rock, and you would not accept it. Don't believe me? How about:
Pollen has been found in Precambrian metamorphic rock of the Roraima formation (Nature 210(5033):292–294) and elsewhere.
Fossil footprints found in Poland, dated at 400 million years -- 18 million years before the earliest Tiktaalik fossils (http://www.livescience.com/6004-legged-creature-footprints-force-evolution-rethink.html)
We know that all living things change over time due to environmental pressures and DNA mutation, yet we have 150+ million-year old "living fossils" such as the coelacanth and Wollemi pine. So we call it "evolutionary stasis", which means non-changing change.
And Biochemists tell us that the physical properties of proteins like collagen preclude any trace lasting longer than 3 million years under ideal conditions, yet Dr. Mary Schweitzer has found those and other proteins as well as soft tissues in dinosaur fossils dated over 68 million years old (Bone, 17 October 2012). So we tell the Biochemists they are wrong about the physical characteristics of molecules because what we found doesn't fit our paradigm!
The theory of evolution never falters under these blows, it only reshapes and incorporates the conflicting evidence. No, we may never question *whether* it happened, but only minor details of *how* it happened. Why? Because this is not about objectively examining evidence and coming to a conclusion, it's about examining evidence, applying the foundational assumptions of our worldview to the data, then working the conclusions in a way that they reinforce that worldview.
Because really, the only other possibility leads us to a Creator who just might demand an account for our lives.
Did you actually read the summary above, which states that the belief or non-belief in evolution was no predictor of scientific comprehension? That means they did not find the "incredible blind spot" you mention. Or perhaps you are trying to say that you believe the findings of the study are incorrect?
Also, you are comparing apples and oranges: it is one thing to explain skin pigment differences by deactivation/deletion of pigment genes -- then proceed to knock out pigment genes in a gray mouse and get white progeny; but it is quite another to stipulate that that mouse arose from a lizard by many tiny changes over eons. The latter cannot be tested as the former can; instead one examines evidence, then builds his theory on the foundation of his assumptions.
And if you try to tell me you start with no assumptions, your "blind spot" is greater than you think...
You're trying to sell me half a horse. *Selection*, whether natural or artificial, is what you are describing, and is not controversial in any context. The process by which new information might be generated, in the form of new genes for example, is hotly debated by the experts. Random mutation is woefully inadequate, gene duplication simply kicks the can down the road (where did that first gene come from?), as does the increasingly popular panspermia hypothesis.
This president promised he would boot the lobbyists; that they would not have access to his administration. The FCC appointment is only the latest evidence that that promise is broken. Conor McGrath wrote in the Journal of Public Affairs in September that Obama employs 119 (make that 120 now) former lobbyists.
Wow. If I fall off the wagon and break my promise, I'm like any other human. But when I do it over and over again with no sign of regret or shame, that's different. That's a matter of character, and you would be right to be slow to trust me in other areas.
It is unfortunate that the same study can provide support for either belief.... To come to the conclusion that because we found many similarities across different organisms is a proof of God or an Intelligent Designer is... to be generous, a leap.
The reason you can see "obvious" evidence for Evolution and he can see "obvious" evidence for ID is that the data NEVER SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. (my apologies for shouting.) We gather a set of numbers or letters, measurements of what we observe, then we INTERPRET them based on a fundamental set of assumptions that stem from our worldview. In your case, you start with the assertion that Evolution is true, then ask how can this data fit in the framework of my beliefs? He, in turn, would start with a different set of assumptions that would lead him to interpret the same data differently.
So yes, it makes sense that you would consider it a great leap to arrive at the conclusion that the data support his view. After all, it would be a leap *outside* your worldview, beyond the boundaries of your assumptions and beliefs. Yes, that's a scary leap as well if I may say so.
However, I have to call "foul" on your borrowed analogy of the computer programmers, since most coders are *intelligent*. You would, at the least, be comparing gods rather than natural processes. The current theories of mutation and natural selection would be perfectly blind and dumb, since natural selection can only act after the fact. I heartily object to many scientists' referring to natural selection as if it were an intelligent, loving hand guiding Evolution.
a God that asks us to have faith and a God that is so visible that faith is not required seems like an odd juxtaposition.
It's not that He is visible to the point of not needing faith. Obviously that is not the case. Rather, there is ample evidence of His work to base that faith on.
Take the comment below about the "Great Programmer": the genetic *code* is just that -- digital bits that are lined up in a specific order and INTERPRETED by another entity according to a set of rules. We see that in our own language and we immediately accept it as the product of an intelligent mind. But when we see that in our cells we eschew this interpretation because of the implications. That is evidence, even if we don't like it.
This research was successful in determining what may have been an ancestral form of one protein, and that's interesting. But if you want to talk about abiogenesis, this doesn't even address the issue.
We have a pretty good idea of the minimum genome needed for a free-living organism, and even if we figure out what that possible ancestral genome looks like, we still know nothing of how it came to be. Any cell is a spectacularly complicated machine, and for it to fall together spontaneously is improbable beyond all reason.
And blaming aliens or even a transfer from Mars is only kicking the proverbial can down the road.
"Trust me, I'm with the government."
[Presses Climate-o-matic button]...
[Europe freezes and India is wiped off the map by tsunamis]
"Oops. Uh, somebody confiscate Fox News' e-mails so they don't report this."
It was not so long ago that phones were shrinking over time, to the point people were asking how small they could get and still be useful. Now we're facing the *opposite* issue!
What I think is happening is actually: phones and computers continue to shrink, so we've merged them. However, we want bigger and bigger screens (as other posters have mentioned). That's the only reason for the increased sizes.
When I left my job at a university for one in the federal government doing research, my pay went up a little, but money for expenditures jumped 200%. We've had to cut back a little in the last couple of years and this year will be no different, but it only means we can't be as extravagant in which reagents we purchase. There are no furloughs expected in our research division.
As others have said, this is all about using fear to manipulate the populace.
Slashdot Mirror
Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!
The controversy is usually framed as Creation vs Evolution, but really it's Biochemistry vs Evolutionary Biology.
I find it much more plausible that our oceans were derived from internal water than that asteroids deposited it. I mean, really, how much water could your average meteor deposit? Looking at the amount of water on our planet's surface, we would have to assume a long, horrendous bombardment. Asteroid material would then account for a large percentage of the earth's crust, and I don't hear anyone suggesting that.
And don't get me started on that whole "Theia" hypothesis. The only evidence for a planetary impact is the fact that we have a moon, and it's larger than one would expect. Very weak argument.
I have a co-worker from Ghana; I asked him if he has family back in West Africa and if they are worried. He laughed and said that Ghana has a good health care system, much better than Liberia, for example, and they are not worried. I was amazed by the contrast with US citizens (us), who are fretting so much about the disease. Granted, Ghana's government is taking the disease very seriously and is handling it professionally... another contrast.
Pollen has been found in Precambrian metamorphic rock of the Roraima formation (Nature 210(5033):292–294) and elsewhere.
Fossil footprints found in Poland, dated at 400 million years -- 18 million years before the earliest Tiktaalik fossils (http://www.livescience.com/6004-legged-creature-footprints-force-evolution-rethink.html)
We know that all living things change over time due to environmental pressures and DNA mutation, yet we have 150+ million-year old "living fossils" such as the coelacanth and Wollemi pine. So we call it "evolutionary stasis", which means non-changing change.
And Biochemists tell us that the physical properties of proteins like collagen preclude any trace lasting longer than 3 million years under ideal conditions, yet Dr. Mary Schweitzer has found those and other proteins as well as soft tissues in dinosaur fossils dated over 68 million years old (Bone, 17 October 2012). So we tell the Biochemists they are wrong about the physical characteristics of molecules because what we found doesn't fit our paradigm!
The theory of evolution never falters under these blows, it only reshapes and incorporates the conflicting evidence. No, we may never question *whether* it happened, but only minor details of *how* it happened. Why? Because this is not about objectively examining evidence and coming to a conclusion, it's about examining evidence, applying the foundational assumptions of our worldview to the data, then working the conclusions in a way that they reinforce that worldview.
Because really, the only other possibility leads us to a Creator who just might demand an account for our lives.
Also, you are comparing apples and oranges: it is one thing to explain skin pigment differences by deactivation/deletion of pigment genes -- then proceed to knock out pigment genes in a gray mouse and get white progeny; but it is quite another to stipulate that that mouse arose from a lizard by many tiny changes over eons. The latter cannot be tested as the former can; instead one examines evidence, then builds his theory on the foundation of his assumptions.
And if you try to tell me you start with no assumptions, your "blind spot" is greater than you think...
You're trying to sell me half a horse. *Selection*, whether natural or artificial, is what you are describing, and is not controversial in any context. The process by which new information might be generated, in the form of new genes for example, is hotly debated by the experts. Random mutation is woefully inadequate, gene duplication simply kicks the can down the road (where did that first gene come from?), as does the increasingly popular panspermia hypothesis.
Ah, but what if it was the arrangement of the stars that caused that amount of space to be available!
Well I for one welcome our robot overlords.
Aaaaaaaaaand it's gone.
Wow. If I fall off the wagon and break my promise, I'm like any other human. But when I do it over and over again with no sign of regret or shame, that's different. That's a matter of character, and you would be right to be slow to trust me in other areas.
Certainly there may be some astute and incisive remarks by a few commenters, but who's really gonna scroll down that far?
And more importantly, how will a comment challenging the results of a paper change anything?
Does Download.com have it yet? I need a program like this to help me figure those freaky, wormy wordnumbers out.
What other famous game devs have tried this? I'd love to see what Chris Taylor (Total Annihilation, Dungeon Siege) could do with this.
It is unfortunate that the same study can provide support for either belief. ... To come to the conclusion that because we found many similarities across different organisms is a proof of God or an Intelligent Designer is... to be generous, a leap.
The reason you can see "obvious" evidence for Evolution and he can see "obvious" evidence for ID is that the data NEVER SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. (my apologies for shouting.) We gather a set of numbers or letters, measurements of what we observe, then we INTERPRET them based on a fundamental set of assumptions that stem from our worldview. In your case, you start with the assertion that Evolution is true, then ask how can this data fit in the framework of my beliefs? He, in turn, would start with a different set of assumptions that would lead him to interpret the same data differently.
So yes, it makes sense that you would consider it a great leap to arrive at the conclusion that the data support his view. After all, it would be a leap *outside* your worldview, beyond the boundaries of your assumptions and beliefs. Yes, that's a scary leap as well if I may say so.
However, I have to call "foul" on your borrowed analogy of the computer programmers, since most coders are *intelligent*. You would, at the least, be comparing gods rather than natural processes. The current theories of mutation and natural selection would be perfectly blind and dumb, since natural selection can only act after the fact. I heartily object to many scientists' referring to natural selection as if it were an intelligent, loving hand guiding Evolution.
a God that asks us to have faith and a God that is so visible that faith is not required seems like an odd juxtaposition.
It's not that He is visible to the point of not needing faith. Obviously that is not the case. Rather, there is ample evidence of His work to base that faith on.
Take the comment below about the "Great Programmer": the genetic *code* is just that -- digital bits that are lined up in a specific order and INTERPRETED by another entity according to a set of rules. We see that in our own language and we immediately accept it as the product of an intelligent mind. But when we see that in our cells we eschew this interpretation because of the implications. That is evidence, even if we don't like it.
It's true, unfortunately. No one knows why he made the Insecta class so abundant.
We have a pretty good idea of the minimum genome needed for a free-living organism, and even if we figure out what that possible ancestral genome looks like, we still know nothing of how it came to be. Any cell is a spectacularly complicated machine, and for it to fall together spontaneously is improbable beyond all reason.
And blaming aliens or even a transfer from Mars is only kicking the proverbial can down the road.
"Trust me, I'm with the government."
[Presses Climate-o-matic button]...
[Europe freezes and India is wiped off the map by tsunamis]
"Oops. Uh, somebody confiscate Fox News' e-mails so they don't report this."
It was not so long ago that phones were shrinking over time, to the point people were asking how small they could get and still be useful. Now we're facing the *opposite* issue! What I think is happening is actually: phones and computers continue to shrink, so we've merged them. However, we want bigger and bigger screens (as other posters have mentioned). That's the only reason for the increased sizes.
"from the that's-a-long-movie dept." Wrong, that's a freaking lot of bonus materials!
And if you could use the new cover sheet for the TPS reports, that'd be great....
Right! The answer to "what will we be doing when the robots take over?" is easy! We'll be testing. Er, that is if Wheatley remembers to wake us up...
When I left my job at a university for one in the federal government doing research, my pay went up a little, but money for expenditures jumped 200%. We've had to cut back a little in the last couple of years and this year will be no different, but it only means we can't be as extravagant in which reagents we purchase. There are no furloughs expected in our research division. As others have said, this is all about using fear to manipulate the populace.
LOL I see what you did there...