Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Eye: Evolution versus Creationism

Hemos posted more than 9 years ago | from the this-should-be-a-pleasant-server-test dept.

Science 1983

Sox2 writes "SciScoop is running a story about researchers in Germany who claim to have solved the "mystery" surrounding the evolution of the mamalian eye. The work, published in Science, goes some way to answering the issues raised in the "intelligent design" debate that has become the mainstay of creationist thinking."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Mollecules telling the story! (1)

dprust (316840) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686584)

It will be interesting to see "mollecular fingerprinting" tell the entire story of our evolution over time. It will be like putting together the human genome!

Mirror here (5, Informative)

alienfluid (677872) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686706)

Here's the mirror [lafayette.edu]

tell the entire story of our evolution over time. (5, Insightful)

dpilot (134227) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686788)

But there are those who insist that the Earth was created "with age" 6000 years ago, and that fossils, etc, are a diversionary trap for the unfaithful. The same arguments can be made about this work, or anything done with molecular fingerprinting. (or any other technique, for that matter.)

Wearing the right blinders, it will be obvious that your road is the only correct one, and that all else is distractions. There are those who will make the same assertion against scientists, claiming that there are "science blinders" that restrict their vision. While I won't disagree that there are scientists who wear blinders, I would argue that the basic premise of science is to remove the blinders. The facts will guide you, and a scientist is always supposed to be ready to modify or discard a theory if disproven by facts.

I spent a little time with google and "neocon" (and a few other terms, some independent of "neocon") this weekend, and came to an interesting conclusion: Neocon philosophy is *never* wrong. Any mistakes happen because the philosophy was not put into practice vigorously enough. In other words, they compromised too much, and if they'd been sufficiently uncompromising they would have succeeded. Rather a disturbing world view, IMHO. Of course, this is the result of an hour or so on the Web, and my view can be modified by facts.

or maybe there is not argument "vs" (1)

popisdead (594564) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686850)

maybe it's just both and people refuse to see this?

I HATE ALL OF YOU! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10686591)

Go to hell! Fuck you all!

Love Always,
News For Turds

no, just the creationists (5, Funny)

squarefish (561836) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686828)

MC Hawkins says:

Fuck The Creationists

Trash Talk
Ah yeah, here we go again!
Damn! This is some funky shit that I be laying down on your ass.
This one goes out to all my homey's working in the field of
evolutionary science.
Check it!

Verse 1
Fuck the damn creationists, those bunch of dumb-ass bitches,
every time I think of them my trigger finger itches.
They want to have their bullshit, taught in public class,
Stephen J. Gould should put his foot right up their ass.
Noah and his ark, Adam and his Eve,
straight up fairy stories even children don't believe.
I'm not saying there's no god, that's not for me to say,
all I'm saying is the Earth was not made in a day.

Chorus
Fuck, fuck, fuck,
fuck the Creationists.

Trash Talk
Break it down.
Ah damn, this is a funky jam!
I'm about ready to kick this bitch back in.
Check it.

Verse 2
Fuck the damn creationists I say it with authority,
because kicking their punk asses be me paramount priority.
Them wack-ass bitches say, "evolution's just a theory",
they best step off, them brainless fools, I'll give them cause to fear me.
The cosmos is expanding every second, every day,
but their minds are shrinking as they close their eyes and pray.
They call their bullshit science like the word could give them cred,
if them bitches be scientists then cap me in the head.

Chorus

Trash Talk
Bass!
Bring that shit in!
Ah yeah, that's right, fuck them all motherfuckers.
Fucking punk ass creationists trying to set scientific thought back 400 years.
Fuck that!
If them superstitious motherfuckers want to have that kind of party,
I'm going to put my dick in the mashed potatoes.
Fucking creationists.
Fuck them.

error (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10686593)

lol, what a perfect time to get a,
"nothing to see here, please move along"

Darwin got it right... (5, Interesting)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686595)


The article is essentially saying 'we found the smoking gun'; that light-sensitive cells originated within the brain, and migrated slowly outwards to form eyes. Ergo, the famous Darwin reasoning 'any form of eye is an evolutionary advantage, and therefore given even a truly-awful eye you would expect it to develop over time into something useful' is at least plausible. Evolution at work within a large-enough population.

I remember reading in 'PCW' back when I was at school (20 years or so ago :-) of a graphical demonstration (written in Mac Basic) of the evolution of an eye lens, using statistical population approximation to demonstrate that once even a slight advantage is gained, the population moves towards a better and better eye. It drew the lens on the screen as it was being calculated iteration by iteration - fascinating stuff. I ported it to my Atari XL/Turbo Basic - Macs were a little out of my price range :-)

Simon

Re:Darwin got it right... (5, Funny)

NardofDoom (821951) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686669)

To paraphrase: "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."

Let it begin (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10686596)

Since this story is just an invitation for a huge flamewar, I thought I'd ask a few follup questions:

What's your favorite Linux distribution? Why?

Does anyone you know still run Windows?

What religion are you?

Vi or emacs?

Mac users: all gay?

How do you feel about abortion?

Which U.S. presidential candidate do you support?

Was the war in Iraq justified?

Just some food for thought.

Re:Let it begin (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10686675)

Linux from Scratch!
Yes.
Atheist.
VI
Yes, all gay.
I'm fine with abortion as long as it's within the first 8 weeks.
Badnarik.
No.
Thanks.

Re:Let it begin (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10686810)

You're stupid for throwing away your vote.

Thanks.

Re:Let it begin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10686837)

I would post with my name, but it would be off topic and I'm a karma-whore ;)

Gentoo
Yeah - damn VALVe!
Protestant Christian
nano
The whole lot of 'em
It's none of the government's business - and up to 18 years.
Badnarik - but I voted for Kerry since I'm in Florida
Hells No.

Re: Let it begin (5, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686720)


> What religion are you?

> Vi or emacs?

Looks like you got an accidental line break in there.

Re:Let it begin (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10686764)

Just some food for thought.

You're such a moron, thought needs food like my butt needs a cavity search. Oxygen dude, Oxygen! Thought needs oxygen not food. Go back to your little AOL chatroom n00b.

Re:Let it begin (0, Offtopic)

JAgostoni (685117) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686809)

Just some food for thought.

I take particular offense to that. Since humans can also be food for some other animals on the planet I am going to sue you for a hate crime [slashdot.org] .

Finally First (1, Flamebait)

jimijon (608416) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686605)

My take is that creationism and evolution need to go hand in hand. Just think about how humans "create". Someone comes up with a good idea it becomes created! Then, others like it and create something very similar... not exactly the same but very close.. then successive evolutions happen. Remember it all comes down to : Mind | Body | Spirit and Cash -Jimijon

Re:Finally First (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10686702)

I don't think you understand the meaning of "creationism" and "evolution" as they're being used in this instance.

Re:Finally First (1)

ThePDW (764788) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686755)

Ummmm translation please?

Cue anti-religious, hate-filled rants (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10686608)

Carry on.

Re:Cue anti-religious, hate-filled rants (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10686645)

Please do not skimp on the religious, hate-filled rants as well.

Re:Cue anti-religious, hate-filled rants (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10686802)

BUUURNNED! You're the insult master!

This won't change their minds... (3, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686609)

Scientist Kristin Tessmar-Raible provided the crucial evidence to support Arendt's hypothesis. With the help of EMBL researcher Heidi Snyman, she determined the molecular fingerprint of the cells in the worm's brain. She found an opsin, a light-sensitive molecule, in the worm that strikingly resembled the opsin in the vertebrate rods and cones. "When I saw this vertebrate-type molecule active in the cells of the Playtnereis brain - it was clear that these cells and the vertebrate rods and cones shared a molecular fingerprint. This was concrete evidence of common evolutionary origin. We had finally solved one of the big mysteries in human eye evolution."

Well, I understand that for this article they probably spoke in very simplistic terms but the phrase "strikingly resembled" doesn't exactly equate to "concrete evidence". This certainly won't quell the arguments from the creationists either as there just isn't enough evidence to prove that the "supreme being" didn't plan this all along...

Re:This won't change their minds... (4, Interesting)

Bearpaw (13080) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686734)

I picked up a copy of Wired the other day. (First time in years.) It had an interesting cover story [wired.com] on the people and strategies behind "intelligent design".

Re:This won't change their minds... (2, Informative)

Alci12 (698263) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686790)

Hmm As though 'evidence' has anything to do with the creationism argument. If you really 'believe' in creationism you will always think that there isn't enough evidence. As each argument is knowcked down another just springs up in its place. Hmm is it time to study the evolution in creationist explanations over the ages?

Re:This won't change their minds... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10686807)

no, it won't, because the argument is cyclical. it is assumed that "evolved cells" came from parent cells with the same fingerprint, but this hasn't been observed, only assumed. this argument is then used to "prove" other cells formed from the same place. so how do you know the eye evolved from this cell? because it has the same fingerprint. Why does it have the same fingerprint? because it evolved from this cell. this is a staple of darwinist reasoning.

is it that hard to believe that cells that perform similar function would have similar molecular make-up without being mutations of a parent cell? toasters and blenders both have wires in them, and if you buy GE, they probably both have a GE logo, but they didn't evolve from a single kitchen appliance.

No, it won't (4, Informative)

sonamchauhan (587356) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686847)

When facts like this keep popping up...
Family trees share roots in 1415BC

Everyone alive today is descended from one person who lived about 3500 years ago, probably in Asia, a study has found.
American researchers created elaborate mathematical models
...
The results are published in the journal Nature.
[Link to article [smh.com.au] . (free subscription required]

This article supports what the Bible says about all humans descending from Noah in Asia (i.e. Noah's ark settled in Armenia after a global flood about 4200 years ago.)

Re:This won't change their minds... (5, Insightful)

Nopal (219112) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686848)

And that's exactly why the whole creationism/evolution debate is pointless: You can never prove or disprove that one didn't precede the other. An argument can easily be made that God created all of it's creatures through evolution. To wit, that God created evolution.

It's kind of like science proving that God is not real. The effort is meant to fail because science cannot deal with God because it isn't designed to. On the other side, religion cannot, for the most part, deal with science because religion rests on a premise of faith which is by definition, unprovable belief.

When both sides are not even supposed to have common ground on which to argue, the creationist/evolutionist debate is a non-sequitur on both sides.

Evolution vs. Creationism (5, Funny)

einhverfr (238914) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686610)

What is this "Creationism" program? And will it run on Linux?

BTW, I am not sure that evolution is incompatible with the idea of "intelligent design" as long as one is careful about defining intelligent design....

Re:Evolution vs. Creationism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10686656)

"I am not sure that evolution is incompatible with the idea of 'intelligent design' as long as one is careful about defining intelligent design"

Considering that the majority of "intelligent design"ers are thinly veiled creationists, evolution is incompatible with mainstream ID.

Re:Evolution vs. Creationism (2, Insightful)

zechariahs (562935) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686667)

Maybe evolution is the "intelligent design." I just have a hard time believing that evolution gave us, the human race, our start. I think we were created and evolution was allowed to take its course so we can adapt to our environment. Assuming we were created maybe god knew we were going to fuck up our planet and we needed a mechanism to survive those changes.

Re:Evolution vs. Creationism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10686673)

If your definition of intelligent design contains "not a scientific theory", it certainly has no problems with the scientific theory of evolution.

Otherwise, you have bigger problems.

Re:Evolution vs. Creationism (4, Insightful)

bmj (230572) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686724)

BTW, I am not sure that evolution is incompatible with the idea of "intelligent design" as long as one is careful about defining intelligent design....

I agree. Most molecular biologists who are in the intelligent design camp are not against "micro-evolution", but are instead against "macro-evolution" -- primodial soup-type theories of genesis of life.

I think that unless you're a strict, seven day creationist, you at least have to have an open mind about evolution. And if you're still against micro-evolution, you're just a Luddite.

Re:Evolution vs. Creationism (5, Funny)

micromoog (206608) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686801)

Strictly speaking, "Luddite" is reserved for people opposed to technology, not science. I believe the word you're looking for is "Republican". *ducks*

Re:Evolution vs. Creationism (2, Funny)

bmj (230572) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686833)

Strictly speaking, "Luddite" is reserved for people opposed to technology, not science. I believe the word you're looking for is "Republican". *ducks*

Allow me to split hairs ;-). Would this level of scientific research be available without technology?

*ducks*

Re:Evolution vs. Creationism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10686762)

I'm not sure about the creationists program but I think java will run on it

Re:Evolution vs. Creationism (1)

dkf (304284) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686789)

BTW, I am not sure that evolution is incompatible with the idea of "intelligent design" as long as one is careful about defining intelligent design....
Actually, there have been studies of this (and someone else will have to pick up the karma for tracking down a URL) and you get differently shaped family trees with evolution and intelligent design. For some reason, I keep thinking of "design of cornets" was a case study...

Verses? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10686612)

Can I have it in prose, please?

"concrete evidence" (2, Insightful)

akaina (472254) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686617)

"When I saw this vertebrate-type molecule active in the cells of the Playtnereis brain - it was clear that these cells and the vertebrate rods and cones shared a molecular fingerprint. This was concrete evidence of common evolutionary origin. We had finally solved one of the big mysteries in human eye evolution."

Can someone explain how this information is conclusive?

Re:"concrete evidence" (1)

The_REAL_DZA (731082) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686684)

Prerequisite: You have to be willing to jump a certain distance to get to your conclusion.

Re:"concrete evidence" (5, Insightful)

stevelinton (4044) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686830)

Concrete and conclusive are different words. Scientists have long surmised (since Darwin himself, in fact) that the eye evolved from a very crude light-dark sensor by way of various kinds of primitive eye. Now we actually see common chemistry between an existing primitive light-dark sensor and the vertebrate eye. This provides concrete (ie real) evidence to support this view. It is not conclusive (the same chemistry could conceivably have evolved independently), but they don't say it is.

Verses? (3, Funny)

NardofDoom (821951) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686624)

Evolution verses Creationism? So evolution is quoting creationism?

Oh, you mean "versus." Now I get it.

Re:Verses? (1)

Pxtl (151020) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686741)

Yeah - I caught that too. Its not that Slashdot needs a spell checker... the spelling is valid. Its just that it needs to be edited by something other than a febrile two-year-old.

Arguing with a creationist (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10686629)

This doesnt matter.

Have you ever tried to have a reasoned debate with a creationist? It doesnt work. Their entire belief structure is based on rhetoric, falsehoods, and a book written two thousand years ago, that has gone through several revisions by whoever was in power at the time.

Then these people pick and choose which parts to believe in based on how it fits their situation.

IE, god created the world, but that whole thing about stoning disobedient children we can ignore.

WTF?

I have, honestly, tried to have an intellectual debate with a creationist. It was an exersize in futility.

These are completly unreasonable people, and trying to make an argument with reason will be lost on them, no matter how much scientific backing it has.

This willful ignorance is destroying america.

Im bitter, can you tell?

Re:Arguing with a creationist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10686687)

This post doesn't exactly suggest you're a paragon of reasoned debate.

Re:Arguing with a creationist (5, Insightful)

ximor_iksivich (666068) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686703)

And don't you think that the same can be said the other way around as well? The point is that humans are opinionated creatures. Anyone telling someone 'You beliefs are wrong' is going to be met with a cold stare. Even the scientific community is no exception. Tell someone 'Einstein was wrong' and you would probably get beaten badly even before you say a word about evidence. This is how things are. It takes a lot of courage to accept something contrary to you belief. Think about it.

Re:Arguing with a creationist (2, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686709)

This willful ignorance is destroying america.

While I am not a creationist and I agree that they are typically difficult to deal with I have to say that your quote above is less than intelligent.

Creationism (and the general belief in the Bible word for word) has been around for centuries. Yeah, the Bible has caused war, death, etc, all against its supposed teachings, yet the human race somehow survived.

I have a feeling that America will survive this round of Church/State integration as well.

Re:Arguing with a creationist (5, Insightful)

bludstone (103539) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686774)

Go look at what has happened to education in public schools in the past 10 years and get back to me.

I have nothing against organized religion.

I do have something against organized religion preaching in direct contradiction to accepted science, while providing no evidence to the contrary, other then "its in this book, so you cant teach the obvious, accepted science."

Re:Arguing with a creationist (0)

cmburns69 (169686) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686710)

However, history has proven that the science of today will always be replaced and corrected by the science of tomorrow.. That is, whatever has been "proven" by now will be replaced with something better in a year, or a couple hundred years.

To think we can know everything through science (in the macro or the microscopic) about our universe is just plain stupid.. The Hisenburg (sp?) uncertainty priciple dictates this!

Re:Arguing with a creationist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10686829)

I've read the structure of scientific revolutions before.

This does not (should not) relates to religious beliefs dictating the current state of education and science.

Of course we dont know everything. Thats one of the most basic lessons around.

Re:Arguing with a creationist (1)

Kazrath (822492) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686718)

The problem is. You are exactly the same just arguing your side of the story. Do most believers in creation believe that evolution has no part. Absolutly not. It's obvious things evolve. They just do not believe we evolved from a 1 cell orginism in a pool of muck. To a monkey to a human. The problem with both sides. There is ALOT of gaping wholes in everyones theories.

Re:Arguing with a creationist (0, Flamebait)

gspr (602968) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686792)

You are so completely right, but you will probably be modded down the toilet for it. It's a shame, but the religious zealots (which most religious people are anyway, since it is a matter of unquestionable belief without proof) are in power, even here on Slashdot.

Re:Arguing with a creationist (1)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686844)

Have you ever tried to have a reasoned debate with a creationist? It doesnt work. Their entire belief structure is based on rhetoric, falsehoods, and a book written two thousand years ago, that has gone through several revisions by whoever was in power at the time.

I call bullshit.

You assume that all creationists are Christians. What about the muslims who believe that God created the universe? Their book is less than two thousand years old and is still in the original Arabic.

What do you say to them?

LK

Face It (0, Troll)

ThePDW (764788) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686637)

Let's face it. Evolutionists are just as religios about their views as Creationists are!

Re:Face It (2, Insightful)

oroshana (588230) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686700)

Except evolutionists have some basis in reality. Also, they do not rule out that the process of evolution is as some deity intended. They are just describing a mechanism, not a supreme plan.

Orson Scott Card said. . . (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686775)

"Everyone you say who says that they have no religious beliefs is just so certain about their belief that they accept it as truth. If you just start asking probing questions, and they start getting mad, then you've found their religion."

Re:Face It (5, Insightful)

eviloverlordx (99809) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686776)

This is the typical 'reasoning' that creationists use to justify their attacks on evolution. The problems comes in places like Delaware, where people actually believe this line of reasoning. It comes from a terrible lack of real science education in this country. You don't see this sort of nonsense in Europe or the more develped countries in Asia, where they have better education systems.

Re:Face It (2, Insightful)

DrXym (126579) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686841)

By which you mean they feel quite affronted that religious dogma masquerading as bad science should be taught alongside a scientific fact. Is it any wonder?

Re:Face It (1, Insightful)

micromoog (206608) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686846)

nooooo . . . evolutionists attempt to construct an explanation for existing evidence. This is very different from taking thousands-of-years-old mythology literally.

Lets just get a few things out of the way, (2, Interesting)

arcite (661011) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686643)

Creationism is a myth.

Evolution is a fact of life.

Deal with it.

if we know 1 thing about evolution (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10686648)

It's that creationism arguments will evolve as well

Job (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10686650)

Hey! They are looking for a Unix Administrator [www-db.embl.de] .

Oh wait, this is Slashdot, where people only pretend to use Unix and spend their day playing games on their spam sending Windows machines.

Re:Job (1)

ThePDW (764788) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686716)

Speaking of spam...

Intelligent design? (3, Interesting)

cmburns69 (169686) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686651)

Intelligent design? That's soo 1700s! ...

Actually, I'm a proponent of the theory.. And while I'm not an expert on the official "intelligent design" theory, I think it's completely compatible with evolution.. (eg. evolution is the way the design is achieved).

Re:Intelligent design? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10686723)

Nobody has a problem with intelligent design as a philosophy or religion.

The problem is that's it's faith, i.e. you just believe it with no basis in provable (or testable) fact. It's the same as believing the Bible, just a little more rational because there's nothing that proves it's not true.

The problem is when people try to masquerade it as science. "I don't understand how this can happen, ergo 'God' did it." is not science, it's faith.

Re:Intelligent design? (1)

delta_avi_delta (813412) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686756)

Ah but that omits the core tenet: the design is not random, it was done by an intelligent creator. All this random coming together of molecules, it'd just to *filthy* for creatonists - it's abhorrent that we're derived from bacteria, rather than, oh, God.

Re:Intelligent design? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10686836)

"Actually, I'm a proponent of the theory.. And while I'm not an expert on the official "intelligent design" theory, I think it's completely compatible with evolution.. (eg. evolution is the way the design is achieved). "

Evolution isn't "intelligent". Adaptations are efficient for the situation the creature finds itself in, but they are not "perfect" and do not always "get better". We are imperfect beings.

This reminds me of a quote (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10686655)

When I see the term "intelligent design", I'm reminded of:

Religious fanatics are so unimaginative. There's no rational explanation for their beliefs, so they're free to speak without benefit of logic,
untroubled by petty concerns such as truth or
even plausability.

- _Belgarath_the_Sorcerer_ (David Eddings, Jr)

As for the inevitable flame-war that seems to be already brewing here:

90% percent of Americans don't care what you do; 10% are fanatics. They think you're going to hell, and they want you to go to hell. All right?
Ignore them... I mean, people who think you are going to hell and are going to quote from Revelation that you're going there. I think that's a little ridiculous, don't you?

- FOX News' Bill O'Reilly, on
religious right "fanatics"
_The_Advocate_, September 2002

Re:This reminds me of a quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10686752)

"Religious fanatics are so unimaginative. There's no rational explanation for their beliefs, so they're free to speak without benefit of logic,
untroubled by petty concerns such as truth or
even plausability."

I'd say that fanatics and zealots are *full* of imagination, myself. It takes creativity to make up as much as they do.

History versus theory (4, Insightful)

Henry V .009 (518000) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686658)

While the evolution of the eye has never been that much of a theoretical puzzle--there have been lots of plausible theories--this discovery moves us a little away from the realm of theory and into the realm of historical detail.

What effect will it have on the creation/evolution debate? The same effect that all the other mounds of evidence in favor of evolution have so far had on the debate.

Re:History versus theory (1, Interesting)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686779)

The same effect that all the other mounds of evidence in favor of evolution have so far had on the debate.

Prove what I ate for breakfast today last year.

Science can tell us how well we know the past, but it cannot tell us everything. I.D.--which is distinct from creationism--should be taught in schools, perhaps as an "anti-science" class that details the limitations of our rational evidence-only way of thinking.

At the least, it could give the students ammunition to shut down ignorant history teachers who believe the screed that half of the major figures in history were homosexual. Not that we have any way of knowing that they weren't, but we sure as heck can't tell that they were.

Huh??? (1, Flamebait)

TopShelf (92521) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686661)

"Creationist thinking"? We have a new oxymoron of the highest order...

Re:Huh??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10686816)

Score 4 for informative? Methinks there is some large scale bias on /.

Re:Huh??? (1)

Gaewyn L Knight (16566) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686820)

Ahh... so you are as open minded as they are then?

Sorry... couldn't resist. :}

Even if evolution is a flawed theroy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10686682)

... which I don't believe it to be, how is "Intelligent Design" a reasonable scientific alternative? Is it testable? Is it falsifiable? Where's the evidence? (Being "amazed" at complexity of life doesn't count) Until creationists can explain how their theory qualifies as science, you could just as well explain life on Earth as the dream of a Hindu cow.

Why Talk Creationism? (4, Insightful)

Alaren (682568) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686692)

"...answering the issues raised in the 'intelligent design' debate that has become the mainstay of creationist thinking.'"

[sarcasm]

Oh, well that's a relief. Because, you know, rational discourse is all creationists are really after. I'm sure this study will show them the error of their ways even though a century of development in geology, biology, and physics has failed to do so. Now if we can just find Jesus' skeleton, we'll be all set.

[/sarcasm]

Seriously, it's an interesting theory and appears (to my non-biologist's eyes, at least) to be good work, but I'm not sure why creationism got dragged into it. The argument that "if you find a watch on a beach, you assume someone made it" isn't going to go away. For the most part, people decide what they want to believe, then go looking for evidence. Not the other way around.

No so perfect after all (1)

alext (29323) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686699)

IANAB but I thought Darwin heard sometime in his lifetime that the mammalian eye wasn't so perfect after all - they'd discovered that the nerves made an awkward and fundamentally unnecessary U-turn from the rods and cones in the retina.

Now of course an octopus's eye probably doesn't have this flaw...

Why Verses? (2, Insightful)

bkruiser (610285) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686707)

Why couldn't God have created Evolution? This is the most plausible solution. The two ideas are not diametrically opposed.

Re:Why Verses? (2, Insightful)

jay-be-em (664602) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686765)

I don't understand. How does introducing an all powerful being whose existence could not be proved by definition make this more plausible than just evolution?

Re:Why Verses? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10686795)

Ever heard of Occam's Razor?

inside-out vs outside-in (4, Insightful)

Traa (158207) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686715)

Religion and science don't mix very well in my opinion. Beneath the typical flaming contests there lies a fundamental difference. I kind of look at it as the "outside-in" thinkers vs the "inside-out" thinkers. Religion is based on the Fact that God exists and that he/she is behind the way things happen. Non-religious thinkers (or those religious who keep religion out of their science) start with a meta science philosophy and build up their scientific knowledge based on observation, deduction and extrapolation. The meta science typically tells them not to predict things that can't be proven. The two philosophies are incompatible at the meta level. No matter how loud you scream, we will not settle the argument at the discussion level.

DISCLAIMER: this is just my $0.02

Re: inside-out vs outside-in (4, Interesting)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686787)


The actual difference is that creationists take their personal beliefs as axiomatic and work from there, whereas scientists use observables to winnow out which beliefs are true and which aren't.

Re:inside-out vs outside-in (1)

mitchus (797970) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686824)

Funny you didn't use the terms "top-down" and "bottom-up" :)

And no, we will probably never settle this argument, that's what makes it so fun! Start screaming!

Food for thought.. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10686719)

Just food for thought. I know this may cause a big flame war, because I do believe that God created it all (and it doesn't hurt the world one bit if God did created it all), but answer this question?

Why if you purport enough time, can you make anything sound plausible? Remember, Evolution (as well as Creation) are both Theories (the Theory of Evolution). To downplay someone because they don't believe (not the word believe) the same as use is just as willfully ignorant as you would call them.

I personally believe there is a God that created it all (to much in experience and life that I've seen to contradict this), but I'm not going to argue it with someone that doesn't hold the same belief as I do. It's not because I'm ignorant, but why "Cast your pearls before swine!" (I know that an evolutionist will say the same thing). So keep the creation/evolution of the world in your own belief, firm up what you do believe, and get on with the things that matter (Like what Linux distro should I use next).

That is all.

What's the Big Fuss (4, Insightful)

brandonp (126) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686727)

I graduated from a Catholic High School a few year back and one of the Priests said it best,

'Who are we to say how God created or didn't create the World. God could've could've chosen to create the creatures in 7 days or God could've chosen to create the creatures in the world with evolution'

I really don't see the big fuss, whether God created the world one way or another, it doesn't affect the core basis of my beliefs. This has little to do with morality and my day to day life.

It does turn out to be a lively debate that can go on for hours between two opinionated people. And my guess is that those two people usually care more about looking smarter than the other, than they care about their beliefs and Morality.

Brandon Petersen
Get Firefox! [spreadfirefox.com]

And the same old answer..... (2, Funny)

dickeya (733264) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686732)

The lord works in mysterious ways...........

If you ever... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10686733)

If you ever try to argue with a creationist, he'll argue straight from the bible.
Then, when you bring up things in the bible that were not true, he says that part was not right.
So the bible is somewhat correct, and somewhat incorrect. It's the person reading it that gets to decide which parts are false. Therefore, the argument never ends, because they can simply say "Well, that part is not true.".

Um... (4, Informative)

mitchus (797970) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686742)

I thought Dawkins basically pulverised the "intelligent design" thesis in his "Climbing mount improbable". Maybe I didn't read it right.

No entry found for mamalian. (3, Funny)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686748)

From the story submission:

evolution of the mamalian eye

Did you mean mammalian [reference.com] ?

Honestly, if you're not going to edit, why call yourselves editors?

Interesting article, but /. headline is a troll (5, Insightful)

Stephen Williams (23750) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686757)

The article is an interesting report about a new biological discovery which provides evidence of the evolution of the eye. However, creationism is not mentioned at all; looks to me as if the submitter is trying to start an argument for no reason.

-Stephen

Human Eye is Flawed (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10686770)

Creationists often point to the human eye as something so perfect that only a divine being could have planned it. However, the human eye is far from perfect. The detached retina model is a serious flaw which can oftentimes lead to total vision loss. Other animals, such as squid, have a significantly more advanced model completely impervious to these problems.

If the human eye is evidence of creationism then it can only be evidence of a flawed creator.

Huh? (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686777)

I don't get it. I can feel heat provided by infra-red, how is it a big leap from something like that to an eye?

What absurd arrogance (3, Insightful)

Exmet Paff Daxx (535601) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686784)

Displayed by both sides. Science is the quest to determine how our Universe operates. But if a God/Creator exists, and is all powerful, then our Universe could have been - actually, must have been - "intelligently designed". If science is currently discovering that evolution is the mechanism by which this occurs, discovering that mankind was created by putting a rock in play about a sun with just the right mixture of gasses and stability in it and letting the laws of Physics do their work, then so be it. Evolution is hardly a refutation of religion, and "Creationism" is the pathetic blithering of men who have read their Bible incorrectly.

Einstein rejected more than one theory on the premise that no God would have designed the proposed system - and he was right more often than not. Religion and science are hardly incompatible, except to those of rigid thinking.

What I find most interesting about this... (3, Insightful)

DeepHurtn! (773713) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686785)

...is that there is anyone who still takes Creationism seriously. Some of my American friends tell me it's still a big issue in education in some states, which I find mind-boggling...

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. This doesn't mean you need to become an athiest, though -- although I am one, I don't see the difficulty in conceiving evolution as merely a tool of your creator. If (a) god(s) wanted to create a planet with life on it, why couldn't they work through natural processes that they themselves set in motion? How does that challenge anyone's faith?

What People Miss (1)

grunt107 (739510) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686786)

Is that the two theories are not really opposing theories. Taking a less strict interpretation of the 'God created... in 7 days', the 'days' can mean almost any passage of time. God could have 'created' present-day man by developing them from a different 'man' that to God seemed like no time but was eons to the species. Same with other species evolution. God can have created one thing and allowed it to morph into something else.

After all, if God worked in actual days, wouldn't He be awful bored by now?

versus versus verses (1, Funny)

GillBates0 (664202) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686796)

Merriam Webster entry for "verses" [m-w.com]
Main Entry: 1verse
Pronunciation: 'v&rs
Function: noun
(3) : POETRY 2 b : POEM c : a body of metrical writing (as of a period or country)
3 : STANZA
4 : one of the short divisions into which a chapter of the Bible is traditionally divided

Merriam Webster entry for "versus" [m-w.com] :
Main Entry: versus
Pronunciation: 'v&r-s&s, -s&z
Function: preposition
1 : AGAINST
2 : in contrast to or as the alternative of

While it's possible the "Verses" in the article title was a subtle pun/play on the fact the Bible is creationist and consists of "verses", I am apt to believe it wasn't so.

/spelling_nazi

Wow...why the flaimbait article? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10686799)

Not making the quota on banner ad hits this month?

Richard Dawkins goes in depth in his book (5, Insightful)

xutopia (469129) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686805)

Climbing Mount Improbable. He explains the eye, differences in eyes in different species (not only mammals) and shows that the evidence "out there" points us rather towards a no design or random design rather than a creationist view.

It's what made me go from agnostic to atheist. We just use the concept of God whenever we reach personal limits. Time and time again we use God to explain things and we're proven wrong. Me becoming an atheist came after seeing one too many arguments in favor of the God is a coping mecanism rather than truth.

Natural Selection (5, Funny)

jamis (16403) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686815)

Ahh... natural selection at work...

The creationism website has been slashdotted.

That's all the proof *I* needed! Go Darwin!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?