×

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!

Study Explains Evolution's Molecular Advance

ScuttleMonkey posted about 8 years ago | from the good-for-some-bad-for-others dept.

477

pnewhook writes "The New York Times is reporting that 'by reconstructing ancient genes from long-extinct animals, scientists have for the first time demonstrated the step-by-step progression of how evolution created a new piece of molecular machinery by reusing and modifying existing parts. The researchers say the findings, published today in the journal Science, offer a counterargument to doubters of evolution who question how a progression of small changes could produce the intricate mechanisms found in living cells.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

477 comments

The truth shall set you free. (-1, Offtopic)

Ckwop (707653) | about 8 years ago | (#15091635)

Once again, Science tightens the vice on God. God must be feeling pretty claustrophobic inhabiting the ever smaller gaps of science. We already know God is a totally incoherent concept. Here's why:

Theorem: An all powerful God is impossible.

Proof:If God is all powerful that means he can perform any action, this however is absurd. Can God create a stone so heavy he can't lift it, if he can, he's not all powerful because he can't lift the stone, if he can't he's not all powerful because he can't lift the stone in the first place. God could also create married bachelors, square circles and honest politicians.

At best, God could be as powerful as allowed by the laws of logic. However, so can we. Through technology we have mastered what the ancients would have thought impossible: Flight, light at the flick of a switch, devices that allow us to communicate seamlessly over thousands of miles.

A common defence is to say God doesn't adhere to logic and therefore we can't judge him by it. That may be true, but it means we can't say anything about God whatsoever. Any logical contradiction in a system means that every statement within that system can be proved. God would be rendered meaningless. And besides, this is incompatible with Christian theology because God created man in the image of God. If man is logical, then by extension so is God.

Theorem A God that knows everything is impossible

Proof: A subset of knowing everything is to know every true statement. The question then becomes whether it is possible to know every true statement - or more precisely, can we even construct a complete set of statements that are true. The answer, as you've probably guess is no.

To prove this, first assume that we can construct a complete set of truths. Take the power-set of this set. The power-set of any set is bigger than the original set, even for set of infinite sizes, however, there is now a truth associated with each set: Is truth x in a given power-set. This is a contradiction, so we know constructing a set of all truths is impossible. By extension, it is impossible to know everything.

I could go on, the point in that God can be discounted with reason alone. We don't even have to get ourselves involved in Biology or Physics. I don't pretend that all human suffering is derived from religion, but a disgraceful amount of it is. Let's step beyond the God myth and try and make the world a better place.

Simon

Re:The truth shall set you free. (2, Insightful)

Ckwop (707653) | about 8 years ago | (#15091654)

That should be: Can God create a stone so heavy he can't lift it, if he can, he's not all powerful because he can't lift the stone, if he can't he's not all powerful because he can't create the stone in the first place.

Simon

Re:The truth shall set you free. (3, Funny)

CantGetAUserName (565692) | about 8 years ago | (#15091691)


"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

(Douglas Adams)

Re:The truth shall set you free. (1)

kertong (179136) | about 8 years ago | (#15091798)

In the sage words of H. Simpson - "Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot, that he himself could not eat it?"

Re:The truth shall set you free. (1)

ral8158 (947954) | about 8 years ago | (#15091847)

The answer: He creates the stone, and he can't lift it with his hands. He'll just have to use his incredible Divine Level a Bajillion mind powers to move it. Or, he can just choose not to use the word "lift" any more, and kill anyone who does. Therefore, even though he can't -

Re:The truth shall set you free. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15091663)

If God is all powerful that means he can perform any action, this however is absurd. Can God create a stone so heavy he can't lift it, if he can, he's not all powerful because he can't lift the stone, if he can't he's not all powerful because he can't lift the stone in the first place. God could also create married bachelors, square circles and honest politicians.

That argument is absurd. It's exactly like saying "God cannot create something that by definition cannot exist." Can you create a fish that's not a fish? How about a solid gas? Or an odd number evenly divisible by 2?

Re:The truth shall set you free. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15091696)

Take even a simple logic class and you'll realize how absolutely stupid you are. You make athiests look bad.

Re:The truth shall set you free. (-1, Offtopic)

pikine (771084) | about 8 years ago | (#15091857)

You never know, there are creative ways to get out of a paradox.

In the old testament, God mandated laws that people should follow and specified punishments for breaking the laws. However, if that is the end of the story, we would be extinct by now. Humans just can't follow the laws, but God wants to give each of us a chance to redeem and be forgiven. Yet God does not logically violate the axioms that are laws he set to stone.

Here comes Jesus, the son of God representing God himself, who takes the responsibility of all our sins and crucifies for us. The only condition is that we believe he is authorized by God to alleviate our sins.

Theorem An all powerful God is impossible.

To break out from your first paradox, if I were God, I would create a stone, specifically not to lift it myself, and create a being authorized by me to lift the stone. Since I'm able to designated a being to lift it for me, I am able to lift the stone indirectly, and still satisfy the conditions set forth by your proof.

Your other examples, such as married bachelors, are inherently inconsistent in the definition, so in order to keep the logic consistent, these definitions cannot be admitted. But again, there may be creative ways to break these paradoxes.

Ever wonder why computers, a being created by humans, is strictly logical but is not creative?

Theorem A God that knows everything is impossible

Breaking out of this paradox is similar to breaking out of Russells paradox. You simply need to restrict the domain of "everything."

More over, there is a hole in your proof. We cannot assume the powerset of any infinite set is bigger than itself. We know that for any set A, powerset of A has the cardinality 2^|A|. Consider A to be a set where |A| is a tower of 2's, that is, |A| = 2^(2^(2^...)), then |P(A)| = 2^(2^(2^(2^...))) = |A|. That is, powerset of A and A are the same sizes.

Re:The truth shall set you free. (3, Insightful)

Lehk228 (705449) | about 8 years ago | (#15091931)

God cannot be

Omnipotent
Omniscient
and Good

all at the same time

Fact: the world contains evil.
Fact:Creation of evil is an evil act

Conclusions:Either God performs evil acts and cannot be trusted, God is bound by some greater force requiring balance, or God cannot accurately predict the consequences of it's own actions.

Re:The truth shall set you free. (2, Interesting)

RandomPrecision (911416) | about 8 years ago | (#15091879)

What the hell, man? There's nothing about God in this article.

If evolution was universally accepted, there would still be believers in God, and if God was universally accepted, there would still be believers in evolution.

I don't know how you got modded either insightful or flamebait, much less both. Your post is simply off-topic.

Re:The truth shall set you free. (1)

msh104 (620136) | about 8 years ago | (#15091999)

indeed, some time ago i saw a movie that tried to "proof" the qoran as a "true" book of god. I found it quite of funny to see that they sad things along this line:

1. well, we see the stars moving away from each other so the universe must be expanding.
2. so if they are moving away from each other there must have been a beginning point, a "big bang" place
3. that is where allah created the universe.

the previous pope held a simulair belief.

while I neither believe in Islam nor in Christianity i do believe that religion will go on for quite some time, even when there would be total proof of evolution.

religion refused to die when the earth appeared to be round after all, and it will refuse to die after evolution is proved to be right.

It will only change the way that religious people will interpet there "holy" scriptures. perhaps one day science will have all the answers to "capture" the religious folks, but if you really really want to believe something, there is not really much science can do for you.

--
Nietzsche: there are no truths, only interpretations

Re:The truth shall set you free. (2, Interesting)

ardor (673957) | about 8 years ago | (#15091896)

First: Science does not deal with truths, only with models.

Second: Science cannot be applied everywhere. There are questions that cannot be answered by science, because no answer fulfills the requirements. (Like, "what is outside of the universe", or "why are we here".) There comes a point where the only thing you can do is - believe. In something. Some believe that there are no higher entities (science cannot disprove them, but because of this they are filtered out by Occam's Razor, just like all non-disprovable things). Some believe that life is guided by some god, some believe in a living an conscious Mother Nature etc. Claiming that atheism is "The Only Way" (tm) is just plain wrong because it does not have any advantages over other beliefs.

Re:The truth shall set you free. (1)

truthsearch (249536) | about 8 years ago | (#15091956)

Science does not deal with truths, only with models.

From Columbia University's electronic encyclopedia [answers.com]:
For many the term science refers to the organized body of knowledge concerning the physical world, both animate and inanimate, but a proper definition would also have to include the attitudes and methods through which this body of knowledge is formed; thus, a science is both a particular kind of activity and also the results of that activity.


So I'd say it does deal with truths (as in known facts).

Waiting... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15091636)

...for someone to post the content without the ridiculous registration. Or even better, a link to the original non-NYT article where the *real* information is.

Re:Waiting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15091722)

Study, in a First, Explains Evolution's Molecular Advance

By KENNETH CHANG
Published: April 7, 2006

By reconstructing ancient genes from long-extinct animals, scientists have for the first time demonstrated the step-by-step progression of how evolution created a new piece of molecular machinery by reusing and modifying existing parts.

The researchers say the findings, published today in the journal Science, offer a counterargument to doubters of evolution who question how a progression of small changes could produce the intricate mechanisms found in living cells.

"The evolution of complexity is a longstanding issue in evolutionary biology," said Joseph W. Thornton, professor of biology at the University of Oregon and lead author of the paper. "We wanted to understand how this system evolved at the molecular level. There's no scientific controversy over whether this system evolved. The question for scientists is how it evolved, and that's what our study showed."

Charles Darwin wrote in The Origin of Species, "If it would be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Discoveries like that announced this week of a fish with limblike fins have filled in the transitions between species. New molecular biology techniques let scientists begin to reconstruct how the processes inside a cell evolved over millions of years.

Dr. Thornton's experiments focused on two hormone receptors. One is a component of stress response systems. The other, while similar in shape, takes part in different biological processes, including kidney function in higher animals.

Hormones and hormone receptors are protein molecules that act like pairs of keys and locks. Hormones fit into specific receptors, and that attachment sends a signal to turn on -- or turn off -- cell functions. The matching of hormones and receptors led to the question of how new hormone-and-receptor pairs evolved, as one without the other would appear to be useless.

The researchers found the modern equivalent of the stress hormone receptor in lampreys and hagfish, two surviving jawless primitive species. The team also found two modern equivalents of the receptor in skate, a fish related to sharks.

After looking at the genes that produced them, and comparing the genes' similarities and differences among the genes, the scientists concluded that all descended from a single common gene 450 million years ago, before animals emerged from oceans onto land, before the evolution of bones.

The team recreated the ancestral receptor in the laboratory and found that it could bind to the kidney regulating hormone, aldosterone and the stress hormone, cortisol.

Thus, it turned out that the receptor for aldosterone existed before aldosterone. Aldosterone is found just in land animals, which appeared tens of millions of years later.

"It had a different function and was exploited to take part in a new complex system when the hormone came on the scene," Dr. Thornton said.

What happened was that a glitch produced two copies of the receptor gene in the animal's DNA, a not-uncommon occurrence in evolution. Then, for reasons not understood, two major mutations made one receptor sensitive just to cortisol, leading to the modern version of the stress hormone receptor. The other receptor became specialized for kidney regulation.

Dr. Thornton said the experiments showed how evolution could and did innovate functions over time. "I think this is likely to be a very common theme in how complex molecular systems evolved," he said.

Christoph Adami, a professor of life sciences at the Keck Graduate Institute in Claremont, Calif. who wrote an accompanying commentary in Science, said the research showed how evolution "takes advantage of lucky circumstances and builds upon them."

Dr. Thornton said the experiment refutes the notion of "irreducible complexity" put forward by Michael J. Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University.

Dr. Behe, a main advocate of intelligent design, the theory that life is so complicated that the best explanation is that it was designed by an intelligent being, has compared an irreducibly complex system to a mousetrap. Take away any piece, and the mousetrap fails to catch mice. Such all-or-none systems could not have arisen with incremental changes, Dr. Behe has argued.

Dr. Thornton said the key-and-lock mechanism of a hormone-receptor pair was "an elegant exemplar of a system that has been called irreducibly complex."

"Of course," he added, "our findings show that it is not irreducibly complex."

Dr. Behe described the results as "piddling." He wondered whether the receptors with the intermediate mutations would be harmful to the survival of the organisms and said a two-component hormone-receptor pair was too simple to be considered irreducibly complex. He said such a system would require at least three pieces and perform some specific function to fit his notion of irreducibly complex.

What Dr. Thornton has shown, Dr. Behe said, falls within with incremental changes that he allows evolutionary processes can cause.

"Even if this works, and they haven't shown that it does," Dr. Behe said, "I wouldn't have a problem with that. It doesn't really show that much."

The NYT page, no registration required. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15091743)

That's an ad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15091864)

The Parent is misleading. It leads to an ad that you have to click through.

So while there may not be any registration required, you still have to view their stupid ad.

If anyone's got the real text, please post it.

Matter of time (5, Insightful)

Transcendent (204992) | about 8 years ago | (#15091640)

It was only a matter of time before scientists discovered the steps and had enough knowledge to connect the dots.

Frankly, I'm glad they're finding more and more of how biology works. I don't want to get into a creationist debate, but it has always astounded me that people would argue that life is too complex for it to have been made "naturally" and that a higher being must have helped along the way. But, by saying that, they're saying that God is not powerful enough to create such a universe in which evolution can happen, that a universe created by God could not possibly work by itself.

How dare they...

Re:Matter of time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15091664)

dibs on Rex, T.

Re:Matter of time (1)

garyr_h (955473) | about 8 years ago | (#15091699)

Yeah, creationists don't think God is powerful enough to think out such a thing. Why do they want it to be more simple than it is? God, Allah, etc. etc. is more complicated than just waving his finger and saying 'Oh, there ya go little humans...'

Re:Matter of time (5, Interesting)

dsanfte (443781) | about 8 years ago | (#15091707)

It's also immensely disrespectful to our ancestors of well over a million years' span, to deny their existence because it just might, maybe rock the boat a little.

How many thousands of generations of people lived and died over the millennia so that we might be where we are today? And some would deny their very existence. Shame on you!

Re:Matter of time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15091797)

Ah, I see the historical record has challenged your faith, and won.

no (4, Insightful)

Khashishi (775369) | about 8 years ago | (#15091744)

They aren't saying that God is not powerful enough to create a universe with evolution. They are saying God didn't create a universe with evolution. Significant difference there

Re:Matter of time (5, Interesting)

shawb (16347) | about 8 years ago | (#15091755)

To be fair, evolution does not disprove of A god...

But it does kinda reduce the likelihood that there is a PERSONAL god who is intimately concerned with all of our activities, and so is a reason to behave in a moral way and more importantly, to then worship that god and tithe to the church who claims to be the bridge between man and god.

(Note, I was not saying that atheists are not moral with the "is a reason to behave..." line, but for some people the existance of a personal god is one of the reasons to behave in a moral manner.)

Re:Matter of time (1, Insightful)

hitmark (640295) | about 8 years ago | (#15091800)

and those basicly need a parent figure that they can look at with their puppy eyes and go "sorry, we didnt know that it was wrong"...

allso, if god is personal, why do one need a church to act as a bridge? are "we" not all directly linked? ah, theology, creating debate for over 2000 years...

Re:Matter of time (5, Insightful)

plunge (27239) | about 8 years ago | (#15091876)

Not at all. I'm an atheist, but I welcome imaginative, honest theist thinkers like biologist Kenneth Miller who feel that, if anything, evolution BETTER fits this theology than the reverse. A universe in which God allows to develop on its own, and then reaches out PERSONALLY to sentient creatures (and even performs miracles as part of this reaching out) is far more "free" than one in which God is constantly micro-managing.

Now, I don't believe in God, but I bear no grudges against those who do, and as long as a belief doesn't involve scientific claims or attacking good science with falsehoods, but I applaud those who are taking their beliefs forward and refining them to make them more honest rather than simply defending dogma. If there were a God, the only kind I can possibly imagine would reward the former, not the latter.

Re:Matter of time (5, Interesting)

geeber (520231) | about 8 years ago | (#15091981)

To be fair, evolution does not disprove of A god...

But it does kinda reduce the likelihood that there is a PERSONAL god who is intimately concerned with all of our activities, and so is a reason to behave in a moral way and more importantly, to then worship that god and tithe to the church who claims to be the bridge between man and god.


Personally, I feel like events such as hurricane Katrina, the tsunami in the indian ocean, and September 11th offer a much stronger proof of the lack of a personal god.

Interestingly, other people look at the same events and come to the exact opposite conclusion.

Wierd, no?

Re:Matter of time (1, Interesting)

Absentminded-Artist (560582) | about 8 years ago | (#15091978)

You can't make blanket condemning statements like that then declare you don't want to get into a debate.

I don't think it's a question of lack of faith as you suggest. You have one side of the issue where a faith based person is bombarded with facts, statements, or just assertions that evolution occurred. On the other side you have a faith based person with a personal conviction that there is a God. How does he justify the two? In my observation, there are varied ways they do it. One is to declare evolution is flat out wrong without argument. Another is to point out evolution's flaws (something evolutionists get very testy about, btw. They don't like their faith questioned anymore than religious people do) Still another is to concede some evolution occurred and suggest that God guided evolution. The important thing to realize here is that Creationists are a loud bunch, but they don't speak for all Christians. For example, some suggest the 7 days in question were actually epochs of time of indeterminate length "like unto" 1000 years each.

Frankly, it's not as if Genesis is like Make magazine with a creation How To. It's more like the Cliff Notes version. There's honestly not enough data to say HOW God did anything. Faith based people just believe that he did. They base that faith on their experiences with the Holy Spirit. If you can't relate to this experience then I can't help you. Often in matters concerning evolution and religion, one simply doesn't have much to do with the other and thus the conflict.

Personally, I tend to support the Slartibartfast theory. All those fake fossil layers took a lot of work...they'd need longer than 7 days.

We see tiny things becoming more complex everyday. (2, Insightful)

Dante Shamest (813622) | about 8 years ago | (#15091645)

Sperm + Egg = Baby

Okay, I realise most people here have never had a chance to partake in this activity after they were born, but you get the picture.

Re:We see tiny things becoming more complex everyd (1)

middlemen (765373) | about 8 years ago | (#15091784)

When I was young I used to think that once some guy got married to a girl, babies were automatically born as an after effect of marriage. It was just like my Mom said when I was 16, "When you grow older, you will grow a beard !".

Annoying.... (1)

catbutt (469582) | about 8 years ago | (#15091671)

that they ended with a quote by Behe.

When will he just give up? He's just grasping at straws....

Re:Annoying.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15091716)

Well, frankly when Dobson and Graham and the other televangelists figured out how to turn religion into a business and market it to a large population of eager consumers, non-scientists like Behe were given a podium from which to misinform the waiting masses. There is money to be made in his position, just like a writer for the National Enquirer can actually make a living. On the other hand, his followers can be very successful at bankrupting an entire school district with their eagerness to misinform. But I don't think Behe is hurting from the mischief he has caused. Satan, as the saying goes, can spin a good tale.

Re:Annoying.... (4, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 8 years ago | (#15091767)

Dr. Behe described the results as "piddling." He wondered whether the receptors with the intermediate mutations would be harmful to the survival of the organisms and said a two-component hormone-receptor pair was too simple to be considered irreducibly complex. He said such a system would require at least three pieces and perform some specific function to fit his notion of irreducibly complex.

What Dr. Thornton has shown, Dr. Behe said, falls within with incremental changes that he allows evolutionary processes can cause.

"Even if this works, and they haven't shown that it does," Dr. Behe said, "I wouldn't have a problem with that. It doesn't really show that much."
He will never give up as long as he can keep moving the goalposts.

It's truly an intellectually dishonest practice and it speaks directly to the kind of Doctor Behe is. This is the guy who testified in that 'lets put ID into the classroom' trial in Dover, PA. His testimony was an embarrassement and I'm surprised he has enough credibility left that the NY Times would include him in their article. I guess it's the whole "two sides of an argument" theme again.

Here's a great astronomy example of almost the exact same thing.
http://www.anomalist.com/commentaries/claim.html [anomalist.com]
Rather than having two images of the same object, astronomers now randomly decided that three were necessary.

Re:Annoying.... (1)

aminorex (141494) | about 8 years ago | (#15091802)

But he's right, it is a piddling example. The difference in complexity from those systems which Behe calls irreducibly complex systems is several orders of magnitude.

article (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15091678)

fuckin new york times

God created everything... (-1, Troll)

Baseball_Fan (959550) | about 8 years ago | (#15091685)

including evolution, if it exists.

There is nothing without God. What is the difference between a man who is alive one second, and dead the next second. The very second life ends??? The soul!!

Re:God created everything... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15091701)

What is the difference between a man who is alive one second, and dead the next second?

Electrical activity?

Re:God created everything... (5, Insightful)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | about 8 years ago | (#15091717)

There is nothing without God.

This is a science discussion - proselytizing has no place here.

Re:God created everything... (2, Funny)

mctk (840035) | about 8 years ago | (#15091750)

God created science! God created discussion! God created computers! God created Slashdot! God created the "Reply to This" link! God made you type that! God made me type this!

God rests his case.

Re:God created everything... (-1, Flamebait)

Baseball_Fan (959550) | about 8 years ago | (#15091751)

This is a science discussion

God made everything. When science thinks they understand something, credit should be made to God. And we should admit that science is wrong 99% of the time. Much of what was accepted as scientific fact 100 years ago is now false, just like what was accepted as scientific fact 200 years ago was disproved 100 years ago.

But God has been here FOREVER!! He has been proven to be true. Unlike any other religion or science, God sent Jesus here. Nobody else can say their God walked the earth except Christians. And there were thousands of witnesses to miracles he performed, and that he rose from the dead. That should be proof enough that God created everything.

Re:God created everything... (1)

Dimensio (311070) | about 8 years ago | (#15091808)

When science thinks they understand something, credit should be made to God.

To which "God", out of the thousands of deity constructs worshipped and acknowledged throughout human history, do you refer and why do you reference that specific God to the exclusion of all others.

And there were thousands of witnesses to miracles he performed, and that he rose from the dead.

Please provide references to independent accounts for each of the "thousands" of witnesses.

Re:God created everything... (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | about 8 years ago | (#15091828)

God made everything.
Everything? Including evil? So, does that make God evil?

Nobody else can say their God walked the earth except Christians.
I can say that the Ori are attempting to destroy the galaxy, that doesn't make it true. And the Greek/Roman gods walked the earth plenty of times in their stories.

In response to your whole post: Show me the proof of God. And show me the proof Jesus actually did miracles--there's no special mention of Jesus in Roman books, which there would be if he made such miracles. The only actual witnesses to those we have today are the Gospels. Jesus was almost certainly just a man--a very brave man, to stand up to the leading religious thought of his time--but still, just a man. Too bad modern Christians have fallen into their own blind religious hate. If Jesus were alive today, he'd be absolutely pissed at what Christianity has become.

Science is wrong 99% of the time. (1)

ShnowDoggie (858806) | about 8 years ago | (#15091831)

It is? And Religion is never wrong? ('Cept for those Geek God worshippers and Roman God worshippers,.. oh, and all the other religions that are not mine ..)
Was Galileo wrong when the Church banned many of ideas? Does the sun indeed revolve around Rome?

How about, lets just keep an open mind. And the next time you see a doctor, remember, if this doctor is a medical doctor, the doctor has studied science. Hope the doctor is not wrong 99% of the time.

Re:God created everything... (1)

yankpop (931224) | about 8 years ago | (#15091840)

It must be nice to be God. You get credit for everything that anyone ever does right, from scientific discoveries to touchdowns, it's all the Big Guy's work. But the fact that "science is wrong 99% of the time", well that's because the scientists are fallable humans. Doesn't sound so much like an all-powerful being as apologist spin. Small-pox vaccine? God's inspiration. No Aids vaccine? Human failure.

That so many otherwise intelligent people are prepared to accept such circular notions is perhaps the strongest argument against evolution. I'd expect millions of years of natural selection would have weeded out such soft-headedness.

yp

Re:God created everything... (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | about 8 years ago | (#15091872)

I'd expect millions of years of natural selection would have weeded out such soft-headedness.
It's because they don't believe in birth control, so they have so many more children and train them to think just as the parents do, so on and so on, until they've pervaded humanity.

Re:God created everything... (4, Insightful)

Expert Determination (950523) | about 8 years ago | (#15091845)

You are a moron. Before I'm modded down as flamebait I shall justify that statement.

When science thinks they understand something, credit should be made to God.
Science is not a person. Science is not plural.

But God has been here FOREVER!!
Just saying this in capital letters doesn't make it so.
He has been proven to be true.
Propositions or sentences are proven to be true. 'True' isn't an adjective that can be applied to characters from mythology. Maybe you mean "He has been proven to exist." But your inability to construct meaningful sentences is already losing you credibility.
Unlike any other religion or science...
What is the subject of this sentence? Are you saying that Christianity, the religion, sent Jesus. Or that God did? Do you have any idea what you are saying and how to construct a sentence.

Nobody else can say their God walked the earth except Christians.
Anyone can say that. Watch my lips "The evil God Urgzal, eater of babies, walked on Earth".

Anyway, it was pretty easy demonstrating what a moron you are. You have demonstrated an inability to think beyond what most 5 or 6 year olds can achieve.

I'd dismiss you as a troll but as I've seen so much evidence that many people do 'think' like you I'm taking you seriously.

Re:God created everything... (1)

pikine (771084) | about 8 years ago | (#15091907)

That's okay, we can look at this matter in a more light hearted way.

Imagine a scientist looks at an ancient CVS repository of the Linux kernel and notices that the source code evolves and branches. He is able to compute the diffs between each source code revision and to recall an early snapshot of the Linux kernel. He concludes that the code must have evolved on its own.

Moreover, he claims this justifies that Linux kernels must have evolved from a monocellular organism, which kind of makes sense because Linux kernels are monolithic kernels. If it wasn't monocelular at its origin, how can it be monolithic?

Re:God created everything... (1)

aardvarkjoe (156801) | about 8 years ago | (#15091789)

This is a science discussion - proselytizing has no place here.
An evolution article on slashdot is not a science discussion; it's a page-hit-generating flamewar.

Re:God created everything... (1)

kennygraham (894697) | about 8 years ago | (#15091718)

What is the difference between a man who is alive one second, and dead the next second. The very second life ends???

The brain loses its supply of oxygen, and stops functioning. Thought stops.

Re:God created everything... (3, Insightful)

Stephen Samuel (106962) | about 8 years ago | (#15091734)

The existence of evolution is not inconsistent with the existence of god. Most scientists agree on that point.

The most common people to claim otherwise seem to be the more rabid IDers and creationists. Go figure.

And for the most rabid athiests, I would point out that lack of proof is not proof of lack -- eg: Just because you'll never find the body doesn't mean I never killed mikie (don't tell the cops). Similarly: the fact that a 'missing link' is currently missing doesn't mean that it will never be found.

Re:God created everything... (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 8 years ago | (#15091820)

When it comes to evolution, I don't think there is really a "missing link" anymore.

The theory is fairly well fleshed out. Scientists and archeologists know what they're looking for, where they're looking for it and when (in the past) it should be found. The only thing a "missing link" can do now, is to reinforce & reconfirm the existing theory.

What will be much more interesting from a science perspective, are animals or chemical processes that don't fit in with the existing body of knowledge. Those are the types of discovery that will expand and advance the theory, anything else (while important) will, like I said previously, just reinforce the existing body of knowledge.

Science is much more exciting when you get unexpected surprises than when you get heaps of data to support your hypothesis/theory.

Re:God created everything... (3, Interesting)

plunge (27239) | about 8 years ago | (#15091992)

Indeed. Most scientists roll their eyes at the use of "missing link" because it obviously misleads far more than it informs. The basic idea is that we have a family tree of life. There are millions upon millions of branches (species), and billions upon billions of twigs (individual creatures) alive over time, but only a very very tiny proportion are still alive today. That means that there is a far far vaster space of animals that died that are NOT the ancestors of any living creature than there are.

Hence, since fossilization is basically a rare and random crapshoot, the chances of finding THE common ancestor are always unlikely, and we can't even reliably tell if we had. But, fortunately, it's also irrelevant. That's because we can learn more than enough simply by finding a fossil that's past a particular branching point about the creatures that led to those we see today. We are trying to learn the general, overall shape of the tree, and since features all tend to be unique to any given lineage, we can still always tell everything we need about the prior branchings from the random sampling of fossils we have.

Currently we have so many that all the basic connections are pretty clear. And when you add in genetic studies that confirm these relations, the conclusion becomes about as rock solid as can possibly be. Creationists often try to confuse the debate over how particular twigs branch with a debate over whether there even is a tree of life pattern and branching at all.

Re:God created everything... (1)

TheDreadSlashdotterD (966361) | about 8 years ago | (#15091813)

You might want to take something to help you relax. It's obvious that you're way too concerned about where you are, where you're going, and where you've been.

Re:God created everything... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15091886)

Yeah right. You probably want a ban on all AIDS research too.

You sicken me.

Genes from extinct animals (0, Offtopic)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | about 8 years ago | (#15091706)

The scientists have managed to reconstruct ancient genes from long extinct animals. Does this mean that we are one step closer to having pet dinosaurs?

Yay!

Re:Genes from extinct animals (1)

Jetekus (909605) | about 8 years ago | (#15091794)

I imagine they've got enough genes by now! If they haven't I'm sure they could just use some frog DNA, anyhow. That should do the trick.

Re:Genes from extinct animals (2, Informative)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 8 years ago | (#15091843)

Pet dinosaurs?

I predict we can make millions selling the smaller ones to Creationist families. After all, don't they want to be closer to the original man?

I can see the ad campaign now: Get your child a pet dinosaur so they can ride them just like man did before the flood! Now you too can have a beast of the earth, just as God gave to Adam! (Discounts given to Church groups buying more than 3 pet dinos.)

Create a live cell (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15091711)

Did anyone manage to show how a live cell can be created from basic organic, non-live ingredients? Maybe somewhat off-topic but still interesting, I think.

Re:Create a live cell (1)

iminplaya (723125) | about 8 years ago | (#15091774)

Did anyone manage to show how a live cell can be created from basic organic, non-live ingredients?

If anyone does, someone will accuse him/her of "playing god".

Re:Create a live cell (3, Informative)

shawb (16347) | about 8 years ago | (#15091916)

I don't know that we have as of yet been able so show a living cell bootstrap from basic inert materials (I'm using non-living as the definition of inert in this context. There may be a better word, but I didn't think "dead" would be appropriate, as it has an implication of "once was living".)

However, it has been shown that many organic materials can be created in an environment similar to primordial earth. It has also been shown that many of these materials do tend to self-organize in a way that would be compatible with a cell possibly forming given enough organic material and time.

Cell wall: phospholipids, mostly being hydrophobic with one or two ends being hydrophilic tend to organize in sheets or water filled bubbles, and so could naturally form a cell wall. Amino acids do self aggragate to some extent, and a random aggregation could form a useful protein, ditto for RNA (which I believe preceded DNA evolutionarilly for a number of reasons.)

There is only one protein that would have to aggregate naturally before life as we know it could arise... ribosomes (or some suitable analog.) From there RNA could be transcribed into protein. At first most of the protein would pretty much be useless globs, untill a protein arises that can create copies of RNA. This protein could either aggregate naturally or be encoded by random chance into a strand or RNA. From there Darwinian evolution kicks in and as more beneficial RNA sequences come about that improve the transcription process and copying mechanism as well as the defense mechanisms, cellular life would not be too wild of an outcome. The progression of life would seem to be fairly slow at first, but the copying mechanism in RNA would probably be so imperfect that new variations arise very frequently, but most of those variations would likely be detrimental. Eventually better copying mechanisms arise, and eventually use of a more stable genetic material (DNA) make life blossom, expanding at a decent pace. Once some organism figured out a way to systematically capture and store energy from sunlight (or any energy source, really... thermal vents, gradiants across a thermo/chemocline etc) and a way to release that energy, then evolution can start proceeding at an exponential rate.

So, if it can be proven that a ribosome or some other RNA-Protein copying method could eventually arise from a random mix of amino acids it would greatly support the possibility of some method of abiogenesis. It does not have to be likely that this ribosome would arise in a human time scale... it could take millions or billions of years. It just has to happen eventually.

Complex hemes, carbohydrates and many other materials that are necessary for life at a complexity of ours would not be necessary to bootstrap the system from inert materials. Just some strands of RNA and something like a ribosome. Once you have those, something as complex as an RNA transcriptase could eventually arise from random permutations of RNA strands. And once you have RNA that has RNA -> RNA transcriptase encoded somewhere inside of itself and has some ribosome analogue working on it, then you have the bare bones beginning of organic life.

Re:Create a live cell (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15091997)

Well, since only one of the four bases can be synthesized in a system that might have corrisponded to natural conditions at some point in earth's history, to say nothing of attaching the bases to the 5-sugar backbone; you've got a problem.

Doesn't matter, though. Nucleotide synthesis genes require about 40 working proteans. The cheapest viable protean-synthesis chain requires one ribosome and 45 proteans. The complexity of this scheme approaches 10^40000 assuming the system has a generous damage tolerance of 75%.

I'm not buying it (-1, Troll)

Baseball_Fan (959550) | about 8 years ago | (#15091728)

The researchers found the modern equivalent of the stress hormone receptor in lampreys and hagfish, two surviving jawless primitive species. The team also found two modern equivalents of the receptor in skate, a fish related to sharks.

After looking at the genes that produced them, and comparing the genes' similarities and differences among the genes, the scientists concluded that all descended from a single common gene 450 million years ago, before animals emerged from oceans onto land, before the evolution of bones.

Now there is some circular logic? It is possible these existed exclusive of one another. These "scientists" are as credible as the Koreans who claimed to have cloned people.

What happened was that a glitch produced two copies of the receptor gene in the animal's DNA, a not-uncommon occurrence in evolution. Then, for reasons not understood, two major mutations made one receptor sensitive just to cortisol, leading to the modern version of the stress hormone receptor. The other receptor became specialized for kidney regulation.

And this does not show cause at all. It is possible everything existed. So what? They are claiming that God couldn't have made those enzymes, or the manner in which they function.

We would not be here without God. He made everything, and the rules of the system. Our scientists are nothing more than looking at what God made and trying to understand how it works. Any scientist who denys God is not worthy of being a scientist.

Re:I'm not buying it (1)

Dimensio (311070) | about 8 years ago | (#15091818)

They are claiming that God couldn't have made those enzymes, or the manner in which they function.

The letter string "God" did not occur anywhere within the article. I believe that you have misinterpreted the claims made in the article, or you have mistaken read a different article than the one referenced. Your conclusion cannot be drawn from the actual article.

Re:I'm not buying it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15091842)


As far as science is concerned, it doesn't make a lick of difference if God exists or not. His existence is ultimately irrelevant, and not worth considering.

Re:I'm not buying it (1)

Aris Katsaris (939578) | about 8 years ago | (#15091860)

"We would not be here without God"

I wonder if you are defining the word God as "He who made everything", or whether you have an alternate more complex definition that would embrace theists of other conceptions of deity.

Would God still be God to you if instead of a directing mind that "created everything", he was (as I believe the Mormons think) a fellow intelligence that may have advanced from a lower level akin to our own to what He is now, and working inside the constraints of the system that he was in rather than constructing one from scratch?

Would God still be God, if instead of a trinitarian deity, he was divided along Male-Female principles as I think the Wiccans worship?

"He made everything, and the rules of the system."

According to which religion? Or don't you particularly mind which God made those rules, as long as you believe that *some* intellect did?

Really, the trick to battle theists is the old "divide and conquer" technique. Let them see that no matter how they try to make common cause with other theista against non-theists, us non-theists see right through them and their united front is as hole-ridden as their argument. Don't let them argue for the existence of *a* God, without defining *which* God that is.

Contradictions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15091730)

The dumb thing is, is that science itself has proven that genetics is too interdependant amoungst the different protein stands and processes. If they all didn't change simultaneously, the whole thing would go kaput. DNA strands are the key example of this.

At any rate, in nature you see general degradation of systems (laws of thermodynamics) for the system to create higher complexity out of thin air is completely bunk to me. The scientists just don't want to admit the existance of a God.

Molecular Biology Leads the Way (3, Insightful)

Quirk (36086) | about 8 years ago | (#15091733)

Molecular Biology has is taking the lead in terms of validating evolution as a cogent theory. The attacks on Darwin's ideas by factions such as those who proport Intelligent Design are following along far behind the advances being made today.

It is amusing that religions touting a Creator God are excellent examples of Evolution in Action. The Creator God is the equivalent of the alpha male of a troop of primates. The idea of the Creator God speaks not to the present alpha male but to an idealized father founder of the tribe. The sense of history inherent in a Creator meshes with our sense of our own history. The concept of history, partially embodied in burial rites, points to the ideas of teleology and the status quo ante that underpin many religions. The idea of death as examplified in burial and a belief in a life after death are ideas that need to be examined as they define us as a species.

Religions posing an alpha male Creator Father have evolved through many generations of selective mating. Those who strongly believed in the tribe's faith were more likely to find suitable mates. Those who couldn't bring themselves to believe in a Creator God were often killed outright as heretics or were driven from the tribe. Many generations of mating based upon religious beliefs should give us a population the majority of which advocate a belief in God. Religion is Evolution in Action.

In the brave new world (1)

arcite (661011) | about 8 years ago | (#15091814)

The disbelievers will in the near future miss out on genetic enhancements/cloning/implants and thus be weeded out of the population as they become unable to compete. Problem will fix itself.

Re:Molecular Biology Leads the Way (1)

TheDreadSlashdotterD (966361) | about 8 years ago | (#15091833)

But wouldn't you need those who questioned as a catalyst to keep everyone from killing each other? Their rage is directed at a target, thus allowing them to exist with each other in relative harmony. The boredom of life would cause strife, but by direct that energy towards the protection of their ideals the balance is maintained. Therefore, you would need some people as fodder for the protection of all.

Re:Molecular Biology Leads the Way (2, Insightful)

shredthrashgrind (960700) | about 8 years ago | (#15091889)

Religion is Evolution in Action.
Your example isn't evolution. It's natural selection. You're talking about popualations being refined, not growing a new leg or being endowed through mutations to better survive a climate or environment.

Re:Molecular Biology Leads the Way (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about 8 years ago | (#15091912)

What about religions that are not based on a "main dude"?

I should also point out that most versions of Intelligent Design to not claim to characterize the creator(s). They could be aliens, smart shrimp, robots, etc.
       

Why do we still care about the doubters? (2, Interesting)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | about 8 years ago | (#15091795)

"The researchers say the findings, published today in the journal Science, offer a counterargument to doubters of evolution who question..."

Can you believe it's 2006 and we still care about the near-high-school drop-outs who continue to question evolution?

I've found that most people who are ignorant of evolutionary processes lead sheltered lives. They are vaguely ignorant of where the beef on their table came from, they couldn't tell you how rainclouds form and they don't have a clue how much oil may be left in the ground. However, they darn sure know that men couldn't from monkeys.

The disbelievers will really be in trouble when (2, Insightful)

arcite (661011) | about 8 years ago | (#15091834)

The disbelievers will really be in trouble when we genetically engineer hyper-intelligent monkeys who can work in Walmart and Mcdonolds and take their jobs.

Re:Why do we still care about the doubters? (3, Insightful)

ferd_farkle (208662) | about 8 years ago | (#15091854)

"Near-high-school dropouts"?


From the article:

Dr. Thornton said the experiment refutes the notion of "irreducible complexity" put forward by Michael J. Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University.


We care because these yahoos get control of school boards and muck about with the science curricula in public schools. It's 2006, and it would be inexcusable not actively oppose them, because they have no intention to stop inflicting kids with "near-high-school dropout" level of science education.

Re:Why do we still care about the doubters? (1)

blamanj (253811) | about 8 years ago | (#15091903)

Unfortunately, it's a fairly large percent of the population. According to the latest surveys, 42% of Americans believe [pewforum.org]that life existed in its present form from the beginning of time.

Re:Why do we still care about the doubters? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15091917)

They breed more quickly and they vote.

Re:Why do we still care about the doubters? (1)

truthsearch (249536) | about 8 years ago | (#15091936)

Partly because one of those near-high-school drop-outs is our president. And some others sit in Congress. And while I believe the federal government should have no say at all in local education the fact is they currently do. If they wanted to drop a school's federal funding because they teach evolution they can do it.

Re:Why do we still care about the doubters? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15091945)

Can you believe it's 2006 and we still care about the near-high-school drop-outs who continue to question evolution?
Another person posted this link above your post: http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.a sp [chick.com] After reading it, and then reading your post, I couldn't help but chuckle at your attitude.

Re:Why do we still care about the doubters? (3, Informative)

f97tosc (578893) | about 8 years ago | (#15091954)

Can you believe it's 2006 and we still care about the near-high-school drop-outs who continue to question evolution?

For those of you who don't read science, I would like to add that the paper itself made no mention of ID at all. Of course, biologists are interested in evlotution of complex mechanisms for its own sake, not for the sake of convincing some young earth creationists.

However, Dr Christoph Adami, who wrote in Perspecives (basically, giving an opinion of the significance of a new finding and providing the non-specialist with a context of the paper) made the point of how fatal this finding is for the ID argument. Here we have parts that have exactly the "irreducable complexity" that ID proponents love to talk about, and now someone has managed to reconstruct their evolutionary history.

Tor

Because real science takes the high road... (2, Insightful)

weston (16146) | about 8 years ago | (#15091959)

Can you believe it's 2006 and we still care about the near-high-school drop-outs who continue to question evolution?

As the article points out, near-high-school-dropouts aren't the only ones who have questions about evolution, and I'm not just talking about proponents of intelligent design.

But maybe it's not so much that we care about what those who "question evolution" think as that good science doesn't simply stick to whatever the prevalent dogma is. Maybe it's that good science continues to come up with and test hypothesis after hypothesis and continually refine its case.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with questioning evolution or even our current conception of how evolution works.

Re:Why do we still care about the doubters? (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about 8 years ago | (#15091962)

Can you believe it's 2006 and we still care about the near-high-school drop-outs who continue to question evolution?

The problem is that evolution cannot be demonstrated making simple stuff into complex stuff before the eyes of observers and cameras. One has to except that truckloads of incremental and minor evidence can be extrapolated to the formation of complex life from simple life or mud. After being lied to by automechanics, lawyers, financial advisors, and marketers; people have formed a "show me" attitude when it comes to using peices to explain the whole.

If automechanics, lawyers, financial advisors, and marketers have an agenda, then it makes sense to assume scientists do also. The average person asks, "why should I trust scientists over other professions"?
           

The Blind Locksmith: Carl Zimmer's analysis (3, Informative)

fleshapple (321038) | about 8 years ago | (#15091819)

Carl Zimmer,who is of course, THE MAN! of parasite parables and paraphenalia, has posted a more in-depth analysis [corante.com] of this story at his weblog, The Loom [corante.com] , going into the genetic/molecular mechanism. Additionally, Zimmer responds to the creationist take [corante.com] on the story (the usual move-the-goalpost panic of those advocating irreduceable complexity). Of larger concern, why does this incredibly fascinating discussion about scientific sleuthing and the potential and beauty of proteomics, get automatically sidelined into a discussion on "what does creationism say about this?" I don't blame Zimmer for responding; indeed, that's the duty of science writers as gifted as he. But it diminishes the power of the story itself to have to ask, imnsho.

RTFA in Science, not in the slime (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15091870)

RTFA where it appeared in Science [sciencemag.org], not the media mush in the New York Slime. For important articles like this there is not only the actual article, full text [sciencemag.org] but also a condensation and explanation in the perspectives section [sciencemag.org]. Read that and you'll know what this is actually about.

Liberal lies! Don't trust science, trust W (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15091874)

trust W instead

Accuracy and Precision (1)

chiao (925954) | about 8 years ago | (#15091891)

The value of a theory lies in its ability to make accurate and precise predictions about the future. Religion has very little value in this sense, because it places few constraints on what to expect in the future; even if it is accurate, it is very imprecise. Evolution is the best theory we have about life because it makes the most accurate and precise predictions about life.
I can imagine that for people who do not know what it means to be accurate, or precise, this whole brouhaha about science must be a great mystery. I would recommend reading Eliezer Yudkowsky's Excellent Introduction to Technical Understanding [yudkowsky.net], especially the paragraph on the dragon.

ID already mathematically incoherent (5, Interesting)

plunge (27239) | about 8 years ago | (#15091898)

It's worth noting that most mathematicians already think ideas like Irreducible Complexity and Complex Specified Information are a load of hooey, despite the appeals people like Dembski and Behe make to having made innovative breakthroughs in these areas:

One good blog on this subject I've found is Good Math, Bad Math, and some posts relevant to this topic are:

-CSI is basically incoherent: if you translate the definition of CSI into non-obscure words, it essentially boils down to either "something that contains a lot of information, but doesn't contain a lot of information" or a definition for which EVERY piece of information is specified:
http://goodmath.blogspot.com/2006/04/one-last-stab -at-dembski-vacuousness.html [blogspot.com]

-IC, when translated into math, makes no sense. We can actually PROVE in math that there is no general proof that some system is the simplest possible (which IC requires), much like we can prove that we can never solve the halting problem.
http://goodmath.blogspot.com/2006/03/problem-with- irreducible-complexity.html [blogspot.com]

-Even if they did make sense, CSI and IC basically conflict with each other, arguing contradictory things:
http://goodmath.blogspot.com/2006/03/conflict-betw een-ic-and-it-arguments.html [blogspot.com]

Reducible Complexity (4, Informative)

posterlogo (943853) | about 8 years ago | (#15091924)

The study is a fascinating one. If you have a subscription to Science, I suggest reading the summary of the research by Cristoph Adami termed "Reducible Complexity." I'm sorry I don't know how to get that article to those without a subscription but I can give a lay-man's summary here. Although the original research did not specifically mention evolution vs. intelligent design, they essentially disproved the central tenet of ID, that of "irreducible complexity." IC states that some things are so complex, they look like a "lock and key" mechanism -- one could not have be made without the other "in mind" -- thus they must both have been designed. The research that is the focus of this article described two different hormones with two different receptors. Both look like lock and key systems. By tracing evolutionary lineages, the authors of the study showed how a series of mutations, as little as 2, occuring sequentially by random could have led to the two divergent lock and key systems from a single precursor. As an academic biologist, I really think this elegant study is one of the nicest pieces of evolution research to come out recently. It truly addresses a problem even Darwin admitted was a caveat (though Darwin also offered the solution, which was indeed confirmed here).

The solution is that the original precursor gained the ability to bind a new hormone by a single point mutation, and this did not disrupt the ability of it to bind its old hormone. The new receptor then diverged and through a well known process of gene duplication, begat multiple and independently evolving molecules. One retained the function of binding the old hormone, whereas another mutated further to lose the ability to bind the old hormone and could now only bind the new hormone. Viola -- two seemingly "designed" systems out of one precursor -- evolution at its finest, and IMHO, damning evidence against the basic principle of Intelligent Design.

On a personal note, it never fails to amaze me how much people deny the intelligence of humans to figure things out... the old "just because we can't explain it now, it must have be an unexplicable force, like God." I'm sure lightning and earthquakes seemed supernatural too. Evolution is no different -- it can be dissected and explained.

Gen. questions/doubts about evolution? Ask away. (1)

plunge (27239) | about 8 years ago | (#15091928)

In the interests of good discussion, I'd like to answer any questions that those questioning or unfamiliar with evolution have about the basic idea. We always seem to get a lot of sniping and pile-ons, and cross debate on this subject, so I thought I'd at least offer a place to express doubts or ask somewhat more general theory questions. Most of what I'm best experienced with as regards to evolution is common descent, but I've been studying the subject for quite some time now both as an amatuer and as an aspiring grad student, so I feel pretty comfortable with the broad scope of evidence and debate as long as it isn't too overly technical, even if it's outside my general focus of zoology.

It is ridiculous (2, Interesting)

ashayh (636057) | about 8 years ago | (#15091951)

It is ridiculus and demeaning to all human scientific progress to suggest that articles published by researchers are to be used as a "counter argument" to ID.

Please compare: What is their argument and what is ths scientific argument ? Who and where are their researchers ? What "science" do these reseaerhers do ? Is it a coincidence that almost all of them are Fervent Christians ? Do these peope want REAL answers to questions in the Universe or have they decided their answers already ? Imagine what would happen if their "science" becomes mainstream in schools and Universities: Something similar to what would have happened if Nazi bigotry had become mainstream.

What I'm trying to say is, it is stupid, demeaning and a complete waste of time,for example, to present arguments of the level of Einsteins work to someones who's bigotry driven intelligence is barely comparable to a below average high schooler. (not to demean high schoolers).

The only way to tackle these lies is to hit the root of the Big Lie: Who, what and where is this I in ID that they speak of ? Showing them Science journal will come later.

Intelligent design terms? (1)

random coward (527722) | about 8 years ago | (#15091998)

Now can this story please explain it without using terms of design.

"reusing and modifying existing parts"

This begs the question who is modifying and reusing existing parts? Can't evolutionist stop using concepts and words describing a design that is implemented by intelligence? Won't that more than anything help them put to rest intelligent design.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...