I’m officially in “I told you so” mode. (for those of you new to Wizbang… if you care you can search the archives, or read the last paragraph in the extended section for a brief explanation.)
Startling Scientists, Plant Fixes Its Flawed Gene
In a startling discovery, geneticists at Purdue University say they have found plants that possess a corrected version of a defective gene inherited from both their parents, as if some handy backup copy with the right version had been made in the grandparents’ generation or earlier.
The finding implies that some organisms may contain a cryptic backup copy of their genome that bypasses the usual mechanisms of heredity. If confirmed, it would represent an unprecedented exception to the laws of inheritance discovered by Gregor Mendel in the 19th century. Equally surprising, the cryptic genome appears not to be made of DNA, the standard hereditary material.
The discovery also raises interesting biological questions – including whether it gets in the way of evolution, which depends on mutations changing an organism rather than being put right by a backup system.
“It looks like a marvelous discovery,” said Dr. Elliott Meyerowitz, a plant geneticist at the California Institute of Technology. Dr. David Haig, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard, described the finding as “a really strange and unexpected result,” which would be important if the observation holds up and applies widely in nature.
My argument about evolution* is and will always be, that all you loud mouth people who accept as some sort of fact etched in stone that man evolved from some primordial ooze are just as religious as the people you bash.
The truth is –though you are loath to admit it– that we don’t know jack about the origin of the species. If there is indeed some mechanism built into organisms to repair flawed genes, the whole theory -which is already mathematically astronomically improbable- is now a few dozen more orders of magnitude more improbable. There is something other than DNA that apparently carries some sort of genome and we don’t even have a name for it yet, much less understand it!
OK, you can now commence to ranting in the comments about how it is a fact and I’m just some ignorant fool. And make sure you bash religious people… If there is one thing I love to laugh at, it is one religious zealot claiming the other guy is just a religious zealot.
]]>< 
A line of research those of you interested in the origins of life can be found by searching online for A G Cairns-Smith. He has some interesting theories about how early pre-biotic replication could be templated by clays. Fascinating stuff, and he has written at least one book on this idea for laymen.
That said, I’m hardly convinced by his arguments, not because I’ve decided or been told by the bible or my pastor it isn’t so, but largely because they are very speculative so far. But his ideas suggest experiments that might give insight. I guess my position would be summed up thusly: If you want to know the mind of God, science won’t help much, however evocative it might be, despite what physicists say. If you want to know something for which there is the possibility of experiment or historical data, it can help. In any case, it’s hard, and takes a long time, is expensive, and after all that, may still give equivocal answers.
I don’t capital K know that evolution happened like I know what I had for lunch…wait, bad example, I’m pretty forgetful…but it seems to explain the data past the point of the origins of life. We could fight about how well it does, and such is healthy, if we will stay confined to things we can measure or model. If something overturned the theory of evolution, I’d live with it. But one or two findings won’t do it, since so much of the evidence converges (again, we could argue how well, and looking for counterexamples is cool). Biology would have to figure out something every bit as encompassing to replace it.
I don’t think god is literally dictating at some point, “hey you there chimpanzee, lose the hair, trust me on this.”
but then again, I’m only human, so I guess I have no clue…
However, when people discuss creationist theory versus evolution, the heart of the debate usually (at least in the past here at WIZBANG!) ends up revolving around the key points for each. The Intelligent Design Theory tries to focus their debate at the point where life began, whereas the evolutionist people try to focus their debate on the evolution on life already begun.
I’m not choosing sides because I subscribe to both ideas, without excluding one or the other.
My argument about evolution* is and will always be, that all you loud mouth people who accept as some sort of fact etched in stone that man evolved from some primordial ooze are just as religious as the people you bash.
That isn’t an argument, it’s a statement of personal opinion and it’s grossly erroneous. Evolution is a scientific explanation in the case of the theorretical aspect, and an iferred fact in the case of common descent. This is accepted by both evangelical Christians (Glenn Morton, Welsy Elsberry, Richard Wein) and atheists, and for that matter, it corsses every religious creed and political ideology on earth. Thus your statement that ‘evolution is a rleigion’ is clearly falsified by the facts.
The truth is –though you are loath to admit it– that we don’t know jack about the origin of the species.
There are an estimated 100 million extant species and an estimated 100 billion that have existed. I have no idea which of those numbers you are referring to. If you mean anatomically modern humans, yes we have an excellent idea where and how we originated most recently. We evolved from a common ancestr with chimps, gorrilars, primates, mammals, vertebrates, metazoans, eukaryotes, etc. 1. Comparitive analysis of mtDNA and nuclear DNA (I.e. Genetic Material: ERV’s, SINE’s and LINE’s, retrotransposons, pseudogene complexes. The distributions of these features is exactly what we would expect for known or suspected phylogenies in common descent scenarios involving humans)
2. The fossil record of hominid transitionals, A. Afarensis, H. ergaster, archiac H sapeiens, and anatoimcally modern h sapeins, is both morphologically and temporally in the precise framework to support recent common ancestry with other primates.
3. Homology, anatomy, and physiology, together with vestigial structures also converges on the same answer.
And as an explainer to newbies… My point is, it does not matter if you believe in the Bible’s version of Adam and Eve or you believe in the whole “primordial ooze” theory, either version requires a leap of faith.
There is no ‘primordial ooze theory’. More importantly, you have created a fasle dichotomy implying that it’s ‘either/ or’. This is clearly invalid as most scientists (About 95 % plus) who are theists accept evolutionary biology and common descent.
There is no shame in being related to animals. Huamns are animals. Personally I think it’s pretty cool to be able to call a cheetah or an eagle a member of your extended family. And it’s odd that anyone would attempt to limit the Creator, or try to tell Him what He can and cannot do, when in fact the evidence clearly shows that any Creator which does exist used evolution to bequeath unto us the most precious and amazing instrument we will ever own: Our bodies and minds. This is evidence for the brilliance of said Creator, not evidence against Him.
Jolly Roger –
There actually is some real scientific controversy over whether or not the speed of light has changed. See here for example, or the idea that the speed of light changed during the Big Bang. Yes, findings of this sort might very well mean that “our entire universe wouldn’t even exist as we know it” – but, you know, that like totally never happens in science.
Cousin Dave –
While I agree that natual selection happens, there is lots of controversy over the pepper moth study – the most important point being that pepper moths don’t actually land on tree trunks.
“Among the bulk of serious scientists, there is little dispute that evolution occurs today and has been occuring for at least longer than human civilization has been around. However, there is considerable dispute about how it actually works”
This is kind of a problem. How can a scientist be convinced that something is occuring and yet not have a clear theory about how it works?
The problem here is one of the differing definitions of evolution. Do we mean natural selection? If so, yes we have examples of that occuring. Do we mean mutation? If so, while there are lots of theories of how mutation might work, have we actually ever observed one life form mutating into another? Not that I’ve ever heard of. We have mutations occuring and forms of life changing in the fossil record, but the connection of the two is a theory, and not a scientific theory either. Do we mean that life exploded from the primordial soup? If so, that’s not even a theory – just pure speculation.
Ds, did you know that bananas are like 50% the same as us genetically?
anyways,
The point he was asking about the origin of species is mainly the origin of LIFE. I have yet to hear a straight answer that Intelligent design could be just as viable a theory as “oops” from the evolutionist nuts when it comes to the origin of LIFE.
Of COURSE we all recognize that the species evolved from each other (and not always as darwin intended, read my last comment about humans, we’re extremely weak physically, but behaviorally, we created inter-relationships and teamwork unlike any animal around, not only us, but packs of predators can take down any larger animal)
MASTER OF NONE, READ BELOW THE FOLD ON PAUL’S POST FIRST
“The nomenclature will always bite you. I don’t use “evolution” in the strict definition here, I mean evolution as in the theory that lighting stuck inorganic material and started life that a bazillion years later evolved into every life form on the planet. That version of “evolution” is seriously, seriously flawed…. And no amount of your typing in the comments section will make unflawed.
And as an explainer to newbies… My point is, it does not matter if you believe in the Bible’s version of Adam and Eve or you believe in the whole “primordial ooze” theory, either version requires a leap of faith. And the hypocrisy of the “oozers” bashing the religious for accepting something on faith just annoys me. The only real “truth” in the whole debate is that we have no clue. I’m enough of a scientist to admit that. Though the pseudoscientists can’t accept it.”
Yes it was about that specific point.
Raina said: There actually is some real scientific controversy over whether or not the speed of light has changed.
This would not rescue Young Earth Creationism, note the bold font. Consider SN1987A: SN1987A was a supernova observed in the Large Magellanic Cloud in 1987. (The progenator was a star blue white supergiant catalogued as SK-69 202). SN1987A has a primary gas ring that allows us to calculate it’s distance using simple triangulation. That distance is 168,000 light years. Ergo: SK-69 202 blew up 168,000 years ago or about 160,000 years before you believe the univrerse was created if you’re defending YEC. So we know the universe is older than 6,000 – 10,000 years years, because in 1987 we observed the light of a super nova which actually occurred in 166,000 BC.
We also know the light from 1987A has not slowed down during transit because if it had, among other enormous physical problems, events on 1987A would be in ‘slow motion’ and they’re not, again direct observation. SN1987A also gives us rock solid evidence that radiodecay processes operated at the same rate in the remote past as they do today. During the super nova explosion exotic isotopes were created with short half lives such as cobalt 56 and nickel 55. We can observe the decay sequence of those isotopes in the spectral emission of 1987A. They match exactly the empirically measured rates on earth which are also the theoretically predicted rates universally applicable in the entire universe. Thus SN1987A is a ‘twofer’ in falsifying YEC.
Henry asked: Ds, did you know that bananas are like 50% the same as us genetically?
More or elss depending on you count, by base pair, by sequence, etc. Mor eimportantly, do you know why bananas share so much genetic material in common with other forms of life on earth? And why those patterns are consistent with phylogenetic scenarios? A-Common descent.
I mean evolution as in the theory that lighting stuck inorganic material and started life that a bazillion years later evolved into every life form on the planet. That version of “evolution” is seriously, seriously flawed….
Take this in the genuine spirit of good will in which I ofer it. You’ve made a fundamental error.
There is no such theory as yopu’re articulated. Evolution is merely an explanation of how life changes over time, it does not address the development of life AT ALL. Life could have arisen from supoernat6ural emans, it could have developed naturally but directed by a Creator, it could have been blind chance, it could have been the Gorth Mothership purging it’s sewage tanks on the early earth.
But evo doe snot address that, anymore than Chemistry addresses the development of elements from staller nucleosynthesis. You can make up any definition you want for evolution. But no one else will udnerstand you if you do it too often.
work, have we actually ever observed one life form mutating into another? Not that I’ve ever heard of.
We have observed speciation of two species from a single ancestral population in which the new clade is not interfertile, and it arose by mutation, yes. We have not, due to our mayfly lives and our short time keeeping precise records, seen a fish turn into a cat, just as we have not observed continents skidding across the oceans and bumping into one another, or a star form from a Bak Globule, age, and go supernova. For that matter, we’ve never observed/recorded via camera or video tech, a Giant Red Wood grow from a seed to a towering 200′ titan. It is precisely because these phenomena occur so slowly, that we have to tease the facts out of nature. The easy stuff, stuff humans can watch happen, is mostly figured out long ago.
~DS~
That’s nice. All of that.
But, the issue isn’t that someone asked for a definition and examples to support that, as to what evolution was.
However, that’s nice.
Not like it’s not a part of Bio 101, however…
You do make a great example of all that Paul attempted to share, however, and that is that those devoted to the theory of evolution (it is theory, after all, however acceptable to some) (and I’ve never declined to join in accepting it, by the way) are as “fundamentalist” in their commitment to their own “religious” ideology as those Creationists they disdain as fundamental religious-right.
It’s a case of those involved in academic sciences often blindly accepting their empirical process as dogma to the denigration and dismissal of religious theory, while both are still theory, both are only as acceptable and dismissable as they are agreed to be by those who need to dismiss one inorder to believe in the other.
Not to speak on Paul’s behalf here, but the point being that to assume that there exists only science — a very, very human thing, when you think about it — as study and understanding, then that actually defies the empirical process of science itself. Sadly, many among ardent evolutionist theorists really seem limited in scope and again I include the fact that their entire focus begins and ends with the assumption that life already existed, then the study of life. Seems rather juvenile, actually, highly presumptive.
ROFL!
If that’s your definition of ‘fundamentalist” then we’ve barely scratched the surface of my ‘religious convictions’ ~S~, hehe. In addition to evolutionary biology, I’m also a staunch convert of Newtonian Physics below high velocities and energies, at which time I turn to the teachings of the prohpet Einstien to resolve discrepancies. I light candles in worship of Lord Kelvin and Maxwell, for both my thermodymanics faith and my electromagnetic deities. When praying to the Gods of genetics, my prohpets are Mendel, Crick, and Watson. I advocate the Gallilean Laws od Motion when solving kinematics probelms on earth, and I drop to me knees in abject subjurgation. Brian Greene and associate Witten command my total faith in M-Thoery, the other night I saw his face in a taco and wept profusely with joy framed by Calabi and Yau.
The beautiful thing about all my many fundamental rleigoius views here is that they’re testable, and you don’t even have to believe in them for them to work for you.
Now seriously, do you want to be absurbly silly and give us some good, quotable material to spread around the blogosphere and laugh at your desperate idiocy? Or do you want to discuss the evidence?
Hehe, religious theory, still chortling on that one! Thanks for the grins! Pray tell O Wise One, what testable predictions does religious theory make with respect to a specific deity? What are the falsification criteria? Where can I see thes eprocesses happening in part or in whole right now? How can I reproduce thos eprocesses under controlled conditions?
“This would not rescue Young Earth Creationism, note the bold font. Consider SN1987A: SN1987A was a supernova observed in the Large Magellanic Cloud in 1987. (The progenator was a star blue white supergiant catalogued as SK-69 202). SN1987A has a primary gas ring that allows us to calculate it’s distance using simple triangulation. That distance is 168,000 light years. Ergo: SK-69 202 blew up 168,000 years ago or about 160,000 years before you believe the univrerse was created if you’re defending YEC. So we know the universe is older than 6,000 – 10,000 years years, because in 1987 we observed the light of a super nova which actually occurred in 166,000 BC.”
I wasn’t actually trying to convince anyone about YEC (because I don’t believe it), but merely pointing out the fact that what was said about the speed of light isn’t necessarily true. As regards what you said above, you must remember the fact that the expansion of the universe changes those calculations. We can actually see things in the universe that are 3 times the age of the universe itself because of that.
In terms of YEC, you can’t actually disprove that with science anyway, since it would be entirely possible for God to have created the universe anytime, including 2 seconds ago for that matter, to look as though it had been around a lot longer.
However, I tend to believe that God isn’t out to fool us like that. In fact, the Big Bang seems like a pretty cool way to create the universe if you ask me.
DS-
“We have observed speciation of two species from a single ancestral population in which the new clade is not interfertile, and it arose by mutation, yes. We have not, due to our mayfly lives and our short time keeeping precise records, seen a fish turn into a cat”
I’ve never read the research about that myself, but I’ll take your word for it. However it’s still a big leap from two species of fly from a fish to a cat, or even a cat to a tiger for that matter. First we started out with the theory that there was slow change over time, but then the problems of transitional forms came up so then we say “well, it must be happening faster and in bigger leaps.” If we’ve never seen any of these leaps, then how do we know they exist?
Also, I’ve never understood how it is we can go from a creature with 2 chromosomes to a creature with 26 chromosomes. Where does all that new information come from? We’re not just talking about a 1 gig of information becoming corrupted so it runs linux instead of windows, we’re talking about that 1 gig becoming 15 gigs of completely new information. 6 billion years may be a long time, but it doesn’t seem like it’s long enough to come up with that much information. A million monkeys typing on a million typewritters might eventually come up with a novel – but it will take a longer time than you might think.
However, I’m not actually saying that it’s impossible for all the mutation theories to be correct. I am saying that there’s an awful lot of questions to be answered before we get to the point where anyone who doesn’t accept them is just a plain idiot.
Ok, jumping into the [primordial ooze] pool with my three cents:
cent one: Paul, your views echo nicely the character Reason in C.S. Lewis’ “The Pilgrim’s Regress”, where in that story, she upbraided the main character, John, for jumping to conclusions. Her response was (paraphrased), “if you don’t have all the data, why must you make a decision? Better to live a lifetime with doubt, than to make a decision that is ill-considered or one that leaves any room for doubt.”
cent two: the main Creationist argument these days does not center around faith (required to “believe” a conclusion on either Evolution or Creationism, regardless of anyone’s attempt to label it otherwise), but rather, the idea that living organisms consist of various complex subsystems that are, in themselves, “irreduceably complex”. In effect, you cannot maintain the operation of the subsystem within its scope if you attempt to reduce its complexity. The subsystem fails.
cent three: since no one was there to witness or record the event, in either case, all we have to go on is the data we find. So how can we be sure that the data we are able to find is complete, or even that it is entirely accurate? What I mean is this: suppose that, for the sake of argument, there really *was* a Creative Week, six literal days of creation. Is that impossible from a theological point of view? The very idea that Something could be “omnipotent” suggests that a creative week is possible. But to prove? If you were God, and you decided to make your creation as “complete”, you would include all the marks of completion, including AGE. Therefore, if you were to be there at the end of the creative week, and you were to cut down a tree, that tree would have rings, as if it had lived for years, or centuries, before the Week.
There are many other items to be argued from both points of view, but I stand with Paul’s point of view, in that because we weren’t there, accepting either one is ultimately a matter of belief.
Yes but “Lat Wesdnesdayism” as it’ called, is untestable. In facty, one could make a philosophical argument that there’s no difference between a universe that is ancient, and one which perfectly apepars ancient. You have two theological problems here though.
1. God crafted every photon, every Quasar, every radio wave from distant points to perefctly appear to be ancient, yet accoridng to Young Earthers, silly God forgot about the receeding moon and that pesky salt in the ocean (Both are YEC arguments used extensively)
2. If God went to such trouble to make the universe apopear ancient, it stands to reason he wants you to think it is, so you’d better stop flapping your chops about a young universe and pissing God off blowing his whole speil.
I want to talk more about ~S~ contribution earlier because…we because it’s so much fun when they get this desperate! He or she seemed to feel that tlaking about evolution was somehow religious, or that explaining it is a sign of religious fundamentalism …How strange.
Commenting on an evolution post in which the message thread discusses the nature and evidence for evolution is an example of … religious fundamentalism? What would be an example of ‘not’ fundamentlism with regard to the topic? Or what exactly are you driving at ~S~? Should I have been discussing rock climbing or cooking here in order to discuss evolution .. or what exactly ~S~?
You wish to call science a religion or scientists religoius fundamentliats? That’s fine with me, although the many millions of scientists who profess Christianity or Islam or Judiasm or Hinduism, etc, might have a real problem with your unconventional definition.
Let me explain why making up definitions on the spot and/or using your own private definitions is alway diceys, especially if they don’t make any sense and confuse people!
For example, I forgot to mention one thing, I didn’t think it was really important; when I say the word creationist or Christian, what I’m referring is to Pedophiles for Satan.
If say you’re a creationist or a Christian, why that means you’re a Satanic Pedophile.
Isn’t that fun? It’s amazing how much you can tar your opponent and confuse the issue if you abandon honesty and integrity, eh?
Now I’ll be happy to discuss the issue of evolution-or any other scientific matter- with you. And I promise you; I’ll never knowingly mislead you in anyway, although being human I might make an honest mistake and have done so before. Provided you stick to standard definitions, or at the very least clearly define when you’re diverging from them. And I’m happy to clear up honest mistakes on your part with regard to the meaning of technical terms in evolutionary biology.
But I have little time or inclination to try and talk reasonably with a sick, degenerate, Satanic pervert who rapes and murders small children in the name of The Dark Prince, so make up your mind which it’s going to be by your next post addressing me … get it? (And by raping and murdering children for Satan, what I really mean is shopping at Walmart for those low, low, discount prices!)
1. The sun will appear above the eastern horizon tomorrow, cloud cover permitting.
2. The sun will turn purple tomorrow and rain down cheeseburgers (Whatabuger’s to be exact, the Sun is classy)
Both beliefs? I suppose they could be by stratching the meaning of the word to the point of absurdity. Both occupying the same rung on the ladder of plausibility? Ummm…no.
The ruse here is to present two ideas as belliefs, and then to queitly assume that places them in the same class of probability. That’s a rather juvenile outlook, quite invalid, and as used here, I’d say clarly dishonest in intent.
Evolution is an established fact of nature. Arguing about it is about as rational as disputing the heliocentric model of the solar system. Even the Catholic church admits that the Ptolemaic model is wrong. Sooner or later either evolution will be universally accepted, or it will be replaced by a better theory the same way that relativity replaced the newtonian model of physics. If it is replaced, it will be by a theory (not to be confused with a hypothesis) that is rooted in observable, verifiable phenomena and concrete data, unless of course civilization itself falls into ruin and we’re all reduced to the level of ignorant illiterate medieval peasants.
The only area where there are any doubts about evolution are in the details. We have a general understanding of how it works (its a genetic algorithms with natural selection acting as a culling mechanism), but there is still plenty of room for little surprises such as this one to pop up.
I’m surprised that this is even a topic of debate anymore, at least among anyone with a college education.
The older I get, the more I come to realize just how fucking stupid a lot of people are. Those who are not stupid due to a lack of innate intelligence are effectively reduced to the level of stupidity by accepting and internalizing an intellectually bankrupt ideology. It is no coincidence that the words Ideology and Idiot sound so much alike. The former tends turn people into the latter.
Lee
“HOW did life begin? Please keep the arguments revolving around that single question.”
The article that Paul linked to and his added comments had to do with a discovery at Purdue that seems to make the process of evolution by genetic mutation more difficult. Nothing in that article had anything to do with “how life began”
Ot’s also kind of strange Paul would think this prevents mutations from occuring, seeing as how they do, and how we can even produce them at will.
I think the original point, which some seem to have missed, is that there is a very strong CONSERVATIVE element to DNA that acts against the types of mutation needed for evolution to work.
This, by the way, seems to be another case of scientists over-hyping their work – the conservative behavior of DNA is hardly new news. Anyone who has followed Lobzhansky(sp?)’s experiments with Fruit Flies knows that no matter how you manipulate DNA, successive generations “pull” the DNA back to the middle. I seem to recall an experiment with the “eyeless” gene, where researchers would remove the gene for eyes from a fly, and breed “eyeless” flies. But, when they interbred the eyeless flies, successive generations of flies got their eyes back – despite the parents’ lack of the original gene.
Interesting stuff, and one that certainly would seem to cause a problem for evolution. Remember, by definition, evolution of species is either a) subtractive as genetic strains are “selected” out, or b) random due to mutations. If the conservative and destructive influences outweigh the “constructive” potential of random mutations, how did advanced species get here, so quickly? Quite a conundrum.
My personal opinion is that evolution’s biggest problems are two-fold:
1) Law of biogenesis
2) “Cousins shouldn’t marry.”
I think the original point, which some seem to have missed, is that there is a very strong CONSERVATIVE element to DNA that acts against the types of mutation needed for evolution to work.
Too bad that ‘conservative element’ doesn’t prevent cancers and hordes of other mutations from killing people eh?
1) Law of biogenesis
The “Law” of Biogenesis states that non living matters doesn’t suddenly turn into living things, it was based on maggots not arising naturally from rotting meat in the 19th century. It is a Law in the same sense of “Murphy’s Law’ or Moore’s Law. The term “Law” is no longer much used in science. It was popilar back in the day, but it’s an archaic term. It’s also misleading, which is apprently what Creationism is all about, misleading you fellow Christians with a load of nonsense. These “Laws” can be broken in many cases. For examples Newton’s Laws were shown invalid by Einstein.
On abio, folks, do you guys think we’re just making shit up when we point out that the strict biological venue of evo is not abiogenesis? I mean do you think we’re lying about that? Or are you simply so lazy, or dishonest, that you’re spreading that error?
2) “Cousins shouldn’t marry.”
Huh? Outside of humans, I don’t think there’s been a hell of a hell of marriage ceremonies performed in the wild among starfish and butterflies …
It’s fascinating to read the defensive comments by those who deny very LOUDLY that the plant’s corrective mechanism is a threat to their sacred religion. Apparently they do realize how frail is the foundation of their belief system.
Speaking of falsification criteria, what would they be regarding macroevolution? Is there ANY conceivable evidence that would falsify the theory of macroevolution?
If not, then it’s just a religion after all. And not a very persuasive one at that.
Darwin’s theory should have come into question with the discovery of DNA. Instead a new and improbable dogma appeared to save the paradigm, viz. Dawkins et al. & genetic fundamentalism.
Jack RuddSpeaking of falsification criteria, what would they be regarding macroevolution? Is there ANY conceivable evidence that would falsify the theory of macroevolution?
Of course there is, as has already been stated on this very thread by myself and others-and which is also freely available on the Internet with the click of a mouse, in libraries, or in Museums. The thread is getting long though, so I can understand if you missed it.
If not, then it’s just a religion after all. And not a very persuasive one at that.
Well there is so by your own admission it’s not a religion. See below …
The Theory of Natural Selection derives from:
1. Populations often reproduce exponentially reaching the carrying capacity of the biome quickly, resulting in inevitable competition for resources
2. Variation exists among members of the popualtion including differentials in mortality, morbidity, and/or fertility, some of which are at least partially heritable.
3. Biological traits which are heritable and positive are assymetrically selected over those which are neutral or detrimental resulting in eventual wide spread distribution of that phenotype via the genotype after a number of generations
All three staments are falsifiable. It didn’t have to be that way; But it is.
The Theory of Natural Selection concludes that after many iterations this can result in clearly detectable changes in the species over time and/or diversification and speciation.
If by evolution you mean common descent, it predicted: 1) Biostratification of the fossil record 2) Transitional fossils 3) Molecular analysis and comparison of mt and nuclear DNA 4) Vestigial structures 5) Observed speciation 6) Comparative anatomy/physiology/homology
Jack you may not wish to accept these criteria, however your perosnal opinion is not the arbitrator, IOW, you’re not in charge of that. Would it be too much for you to return my courtesy? Now your turn, what would falsify Intelligent Design Creationism?
Now your turn, what would falsify Intelligent Design Creationism?
I vote for hydrocephalic infants, the weakness of the human knee, and blind spot in our eyes. Oh, and kittens with two heads.
Of course, all of those are for a “greater good.”
Or whatever.
Wow. The utter cluelessness is breathtaking.
Cancer/deadly mutations are irrelevant to the conservative nature of DNA, because we’re talking about conservation over generations, not in individuals. Mutations are bad – breeding (among distant relatives) tends to eliminate mutations.
“It is a Law in the same sense of “Murphy’s Law’ or Moore’s Law.”
No, it is a Law in the sense of the Law of Gravity. Hypothesis – make an informed guess. Theory – perform experimentation to validate/invalidate said guess. Law – extensive experimentation has validated the Theory w/o contradictory evidence. The Law of Biogenesis remains a “law” because it has never been contradicted via laboratory experimentation. Newton’s Laws are still considered “laws”, because they are experimentally valid where v
And abiogenesis IS relevant to evolution, whether you want it to be or not, because the raison d’etre for evolution is a PURELY naturalistic/mechanistic theory of the origin of species. You can’t just “punt” once you work back to a single-celled life form and say “we don’t really care how that got here, its unimportant”. If we accept a “miracle” or “alien intervention” or “I don’t know” for cell one, there’s really no need to exclude these possibilities for cells two through 2mil, is there.
And you completely missed the point behind “Cousins shouldn’t marry”. Why shouldn’t cousins marry? Same reason that purebreed dogs are, um, “flighty”. Ever see the movie “Deliverance”? Evolution requires new mutations be preserved – this would indicate the need for inbreeding among lifeforms having a specific mutation. Unfortunately, inbreeding is universally a “bad thing”. The damage done by inbreeding will quickly overwhelm any possible “benefit” of a single random mutation. C.F. “genetic burden” or “genetic load”.
Don’t complain about clulessness if you are about to claim that a scientific law is something higher and more valuable than a scientific theory.
In science theory mean explanation. A law explains a relation under certain circumstances. A theory is something much more extensive than a law. A theory can include scientific laws.
A scientific theory might be replaced, modified or expanded in the light of new evidence, but scientific theories are as good as it gets.
Yes abiogenesis is relevant to evolution, but biological evolution does not depend on it. Life got here somehow and now it evolves.
You should perhaps drop the arogance when discussing a subject where your knowledge is limited.
Paul: “I don’t use “evolution” in the strict definition here, I mean evolution as in the theory that lighting stuck inorganic material ….“
Ah yes. The time-honored tradition of beating strawmen.
~DS~: ah, I see I scratched the surface of hell and you popped up with all your smarmy insinuations and nasties.
If you can’t respect another person’s worth, there’s little anyone can discuss with you beyond that point. Good luck.
What I find interesting is that you consider my expressions, me, in fact, via heavy projections of nonsense, and yet you actually read what I wrote.
And, to that audience that ~DS~ assumes is here for him/her/it, he/she/it wrote:
“….I want to talk more about ~S~ contribution earlier because…we because it’s so much fun when they get this desperate! He or she seemed to feel that tlaking about evolution was somehow religious, or that explaining it is a sign of religious fundamentalism …How strange.
Commenting on an evolution post in which the message thread discusses the nature and evidence for evolution is an example of … religious fundamentalism? What would be an example of ‘not’ fundamentlism with regard to the topic? Or what exactly are you driving at ~S~? Should I have been discussing rock climbing or cooking here in order to discuss evolution .. or what exactly ~S~?
You wish to call science a religion or scientists religoius fundamentliats? That’s fine with me, although the many millions of scientists who profess Christianity or Islam or Judiasm or Hinduism, etc, might have a real problem with your unconventional definition.
Let me explain why making…”
Excuse me, but I did prick the surface of a big pustule, now didn’t I?
It amazes me how writing about God, wonder and even suggesting Creationism while never even going so far as to negate evolution and recognizing the fossil record and more, it amazes me just how emotionally sick ~DS~ has become and quite so quickly about that.
I really have no idea just what it is that’s bothering you, ~DS~. No one merits your throwup, however well documented it may be.
So, let;’s look closely at that throw-up by ~DS~, who writes:
“…Commenting on an evolution post in which the message thread discusses the nature and evidence for evolution is an example of … religious fundamentalism? What would be an example of ‘not’ fundamentlism with regard to the topic? Or what exactly are you driving at ~S~? Should I have been discussing rock climbing or cooking here in order to discuss evolution .. or what exactly ~S~?
You wish to call science a religion or scientists religoius fundamentliats? That’s fine with me, although the many millions of scientists who profess Christianity or Islam or Judiasm or Hinduism, etc, might have a real problem with your unconventional definition…”
You imagined all that from what I wrote earlier? You’ve wandered from Bio.101 copy and pasting to now writing imagined content and attempting to accredit your imagined content to me.
I never expressed what you carried on there about. The problem with clouded perceptions is that anyone can express anything and, unfortunately, to those with clouded perceptions, a large dose of their own clouded perceptions are projected onto what they THINK they have just heard/read expressed by someone else, and then they attempt to disagree with their very own clouded perceptions and no amount of typing on blog site will ever undo the very bad intellectual and emotional space they’ve worked themselves into.
~DS~, you have problems. Read what someone else says, express what you need to but leave out your misrepresentations about the opinions of others.
In reference to me describing ~DS~ as both sick and throwing up, here’s a great example of that:
Now I’ll be happy to discuss the issue of evolution-or any other scientific matter- with you. And I promise you; I’ll never knowingly mislead you in anyway, although being human I might make an honest mistake and have done so before. Provided you stick to standard definitions, or at the very least clearly define when you’re diverging from them. And I’m happy to clear up honest mistakes on your part with regard to the meaning of technical terms in evolutionary biology.
But I have little time or inclination to try and talk reasonably with a sick, degenerate, Satanic pervert who rapes and murders small children in the name of The Dark Prince, so make up your mind which it’s going to be by your next post addressing me … get it? (And by raping and murdering children for Satan, what I really mean is shopping at Walmart for those low, low, discount prices!)
Posted by: ~DS~ at March 23, 2005 07:56 PM
And you assume that you are a reputable source from whence anyone would seek an opinion about anything academic? You wrote all that and you then offer up your “time” as a source for ‘evolutionary biology’?
Is that all?
You’d be surprised what other people already know, and learned without ever involved ~DS~ on a blog site. It’s all right there in very undergraduate biology at any university.
You have problems, ~DS~, lots and lots of problems.
Words, words, words…
I think that came from one of Shakespeare’s tragedies.
That’s all I could think of after reading the above: so many almost lucid and very eloquent attempts to struggle in this vat of jello (the primordial ooze Paul created in his post). But if this is the best creationism can create, I’m favoring the spore from an alien’s butt theory myself.
Sorry, I had nothing lucid or coherent to add, so I thought a little psychotic rambling would fit in here.
You said I can’t read. You said:
“* The nomenclature will always bite you. I don’t use “evolution” in the strict definition here, I mean evolution as in the theory that lighting stuck inorganic material and started life that a bazillion years later evolved into every life form on the planet. That version of “evolution” is seriously, seriously flawed…. And no amount of your typing in the comments section will make unflawed.”
Evolution is not flawed. Nothing in this article is contrary to the theory of evolution. It’s just illustrating that there is more complexity inherint in it than some people’s models of it showed.
I think it’s interesting that you need to fall back on cussing in order to get your point across Paul. That’s a sure sign of someone insecure of their position.
~S~ please, save your breath. In my day-to-day dealings with creationist advocates, I get flamed by professionals, I’m talking trolls who truly care about their work. Your efforts are frankly not even effective enough to make me angry, I’m just trying to help you and give you an out, so that we can get back to discussing the evidence; a topic you seem terribly, terribly, anxious to avoid. How about this, what kind of evidence would you accept for common descent and/or The Modern Synthesis? Or will you once again duck evidentiary matters and resort to diatractions? Or if you choose to defend the mythological alternative, what is the scientific Theory of non-human Intelligent Design creationism which does not rely on common descent, and what is the falsification criteria? Evidence my friend, evidence, nothing else really matters here.
DarkSyde:
Should I show him the one massive article on Talk Origins that tells what it would take to falsify evolution and how the evidence thus far has not only failed to falsify evolution, but has in fact supported it.
I would expect at least as comprehensive an article for creationism/intelligent design before I would start to take it seriously as anything other than a trasnparent attempt to disguise religious beliefs as “science” and force them down our children’s collective throats.
Orac
Well let’s give him/her a chance Doc. He/she might be a good sort sincerely interested in productive … Hahahaha! Ok I almost said it with a straight face, take two ..
He/she might be interested in a productive exchange of ideas.
~DS~ said:
“If that’s your definition of ‘fundamentalist” then we’ve barely scratched the surface of my ‘religious convictions’ ~S~, hehe. In addition to evolutionary biology, I’m also a staunch convert of Newtonian Physics below high velocities and energies, at which time I turn to the teachings of the prohpet Einstien to resolve discrepancies. I light candles in worship of Lord Kelvin and Maxwell, for both my thermodymanics faith and my electromagnetic deities. When praying to the Gods of genetics, my prohpets are Mendel, Crick, and Watson. I advocate the Gallilean Laws od Motion when solving kinematics probelms on earth, and I drop to me knees in abject subjurgation. Brian Greene and associate Witten command my total faith in M-Thoery, the other night I saw his face in a taco and wept profusely with joy framed by Calabi and Yau.”
Thats the most hilarious thing I have read this week. ~DS~ is my new god.
Raina says:
“How can a scientist be convinced that something is occuring and yet not have a clear theory about how it works?”
Easy. The first thing scientists do is document a phenomenon. The next thing they do is try to explain it (which is where the theory comes in).
Historical example: fire. Man has used fire since before recorded history. Modern theories of combustion were not developed until the 1780s, when Lavosier discovered oxygen’s role in combustion.
For further examples, look up the history of the periodic table and the periodic law.
A phenomenon can be documented and described rather thoroughly long before it is understood.
I got through the first sentence of this post and frankly nearly stopped. It is stock fundamentalist crap to assert that to believe in the processes of science is to worship the processes of science.
As has been noted in a few comments, it’s possible to believe in both evolution and God. There is nothing incompatible at all with a theory that is based in science, and one that is based in religious philosophy. That there are a number of scientists who espouse Christian beliefs ought to tell you something about the long-time assertion that to believe in the scientific method is to worship it.
Further, I know no one who is familiar with evolution who considers it a fact etched in stone. What you think is strongly held fact is nothing more than people trying to beat you over the head with a basic biology textbook in an attempt to get you to understand that it is the best conclusion based on the facts at hand. The only reason anyone’s yelling is because folks like you simply refuse to accept that because it doesn’t fit in with your own preconceived notion of how the universe works. The fact that an article that says new discovery raises interesting questions sends you into “I told you so” mode says much about your scientific illiteracy.
” I light candles in worship of Lord Kelvin and Maxwell, for both my thermodymanics faith and my electromagnetic deities.”
I’ve been known to pray to the porcelain god from time to time.
‘The smarter science community is today beginning to accept the idea of Creationism and that’s a great place to begin to incorporate the already understandable (to us mortals) process of evolution.’
No not the smarter science community but a small, loud, group of idealoques. The smarter science community is pushing science forward.
Your a catholic, you should examine some of the claims of your religion with the same force that you throw darts at sound theory.
Posted by: -S- at March 23, 2005 09:22 AM
‘And the hypocrisy of the “oozers” bashing the religious for accepting something on faith just annoys me. The only real “truth” in the whole debate is that we have no clue. I’m enough of a scientist to admit that. Though the pseudoscientists can’t accept it.”
UG, no one accepts anything on faith. What are you going to do if and when the experiments being conducted in at least 10 labs yield results of life from ‘ooze’?
So if it requires nothing but faith to buy we came from ‘ooze’ why continue looking for any answers at all. Lets just throw up our hands.
Very well written. One of the best pieces on the belief system of both sides that I’ve ever seen.
Whats sad is that people think evolution is a belief system and secondly that it has sides.
So I guess the heliocentric solar system is a belief system as is germ theory, gravity, et al.
It’s about evidence folks, and the evidence points, well not just points, but shows common descent so likely to make dissent seem trivial.
* The nomenclature will always bite you. I don’t use “evolution” in the strict definition here, I mean evolution as in the theory that lighting stuck inorganic material and started life that a bazillion years later evolved into every life form on the planet. That version of “evolution” is seriously, seriously flawed…. And no amount of your typing in the comments section will make unflawed.
You seem to be using “evolution” in the sense of “life arose by the operation of natural law”. That happens to be the definition of “evolution” I believe. Where did the origin of life require a step that violates natural law, and why?
The best book I’ve seen on this subject is The Science of God, by Gerald Schroeder. A man of science and faith, Schroeder clearly lays out the case that science and religion need not diverge in their explanation of the origin of the universe and life on earth. Well worth reading, whichever side of the debate you’re on. (I’m going to copy this in the comments of a few other blogs — no spam intended, I’m just a big fan of this very relevant book.)
Meaning, I do not believe as humans that it is possible for us to comprehend, without Divine intervention and helps, what and how the omnipotent thinks and reasons.
And yet people still do try to figure out the will of god…we call it “religion”. I’d agree it’s a waste of time, but then I’m an atheist.
Could you have ever imagined atoms? Or mammalian cardiovascular system? I mean, invented it in all it’s complexities. I think it puts humans in perspective when you take into consideratiion that no known human could or has ever imagined our known universe. Much less everything we do not yet understand or comprehend.
Humans can only imagine things that they’ve been exposed to. Imagination is simply combining things together that we’ve already been exposed to (that’s why we “imagine” god as being like an old man, though clearly that’s absurd.)
Think about it.
Try to conceptualize something that is a totally new concept to humanity (something no one has ever observed nor is it like anything ever observed.)
I think you’ll have trouble.
It’s not that you’re being a religious dolt, it’s that you’re demonstrating that you’re a philosophical dolt. How, other than your professed religious faith, do you propose to distinguish between your two cases, mindless evolution and intelligent creation? If a bolt of lightning did cause the initial condition that led to biology, was God somehow absent from the event? Did an omniscient and omnipotent God lack the capability to build the Universe so that we would arise as a consequence of the initial lux fiat?
Isn’t claiming limits on what the Creator can do both logically flawed and theological error? Have you talked to your confessor about the weakness of your faith (as well as your conflict with the position of the Church, which is that evolution is not inconsistent with doctrine?)
Thread closed, moved here.