backtop


Print 268 comment(s) - last by Dentist.. on Jun 25 at 1:22 AM


It was just a normal day in the lab... until E. coli made the biggest evolutionary leap observed to date.  (Source: Michigan State)
E. Coli bacteria shows signs of evolution in lab testing

Despite an overwhelming body of scientific evidence, evolution is still a fiercely debate topic in some circles.  Many people take evolution for granted, simply understanding that it is the theory accepted by the scientific community based on the strong supporting evidence, and remain relatively oblivious to the controversy. 

However, the fact remains that yearly there are many protests and court cases in the U.S. and abroad where people try to block educational attempts to teach the theory of evolution and replace them with religious-based theories.

Fortunately for evolutionary scientists they now have perhaps the greatest piece of evidence of all -- the largest evolutionary leap observed to date.  The experiment started inconspicuously, with researchers at Michigan State University in East Lansing by using a single Escherichia coli bacterium and its descendants to found 12 populations.

Over 44,000 generations were observed and only minor mutations were observed, as is typical in these kinds of studies.  Typical beneficial mutations -- larger cell size, faster growth rates, and lower peak population densities -- were observed.

Then at generation 31,500 something shocking happened.  The bacteria evolved, gaining an entirely new gene that could process citrate, a nutrient that the bacteria could not previously use.  To put this in context, lack of citrate metabolism is one of E. coli's identifying traits.  And the newly evolved bacteria proceeded to dominate over their citrate-intolerant kin.

Says researcher Richard Lenski, "It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting."

Lenski says the only two explanations are either an extremely improbable mutation such as a rare chromosomal inversion, or a series of small mutation adding up to a useful new gene.  Was the trait inevitable, guided by some all powerful hand?  Lenski turned to his freezer for the answer.  Unthawing the bacteria, from early generations, he found that pure chance had guided the evolutionary leap and that the bacteria did not evolve the trait.  He did find that the later generations after 20,000 did evolve the trait eventually, indicating something happened around this time that laid the groundwork for the evolution.

He and his fellow researchers are currently studying exactly what change allowed for the eventual evolution.  This experiment, however, proves that evolution does not always lead to best possible outcome (in that other lines did not achieve the same optimal trait).  This has been a major point of contention raised by creationists who point to structures in nature that serve ornamental or little purpose as proof of creationism.

Further, it goes to show that profound changes can happen, including the introduction of entirely new genes.  A particularly harsh criticism leveled in the past by was that profound genetic changes, including the creation of new genes, were never observed.  Considering a few genes can account for profound morphological differences in larger organism, this is a very salient piece of evidence for evolution's supporters.

Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago lauded the research and took a bit of an opportunity to poke fun at creationists saying, "The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events.  That's just what creationists say can't happen."

The findings are reported in the journal PNAS.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

A less-biased opinion... ;)
By MrBlastman on 6/11/2008 11:24:21 AM , Rating: 2
I will start out right now and state that I am a Creationist.

There, we have that out of the way. Let the mud-slinging commence. Now I will state that not only am I a creationist, but I am a _very_ strong supporter of science and technology and believe that they should go hand-in-hand without exception.

To be a creationist and to deny the importance of science/technology is ludicrous. This is where a lot of people get creationists wrong - as there are plenty of others like myself who value science to the highest degree.

I think stem cell research is absolutely critical to the advancement of mankind.

I also think that this article, which pokes at the fact that Creationists can be made fun of because it has been proven that a gene can evolve from nothing is absurd. I wholly believe that it is possible for cells/lifeforms to evolve over time into more useful beings. In order to accomplish this, genes would have to be created through evolution.

However, this article does nothing to further sway the idea that life came from absolutely nothing at all. It simply point that life can evolve over time from existing life which is quite obvious. All you have to do is look around you at examples in life. Examples such as pennicilin and other antibiotics and their neccessity. Viruses routinely evolve into different variants to overcome mans drugs which try to kill them off.

So, laugh all they want but they have not proven the key tennant of radical evolutionist belief - which is that life came from nothing at all all due to chance.

Nobody has proven this to be the case and I'm still waiting for it to be done.

I am happy though, that they have found definitive proof that genes can form through circumstance which does further back up everything that has been theorized in the past.




RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By BMFPitt on 6/11/2008 11:28:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
However, this article does nothing to further sway the idea that life came from absolutely nothing at all. It simply point that life can evolve over time from existing life which is quite obvious.
So in other words, it doesn't prove things that are entirely outside the scope of the theory of evolution?


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By MrBlastman on 6/11/2008 11:32:10 AM , Rating: 5
In simplest terms - yes, it proves what has been theorized for a long time in the general theory or evolution.

This is why I prefaced with 'radical evolutionists,' which are in many ways very similar to religious fundamentalists (which are just as bad).

I did not like, however, the semi-negative spin that article placed on creationists, or at least that is how I took the tone of the writing.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By BMFPitt on 6/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By MrBlastman on 6/11/2008 11:47:32 AM , Rating: 4
I find it humorous that thinking people consider creationists whom have put a great deal of clout behind science, and also thought into the origins of the universe - are a joke.

The fallacy to that is that they fail to realize that neither my belief - nor theirs, has been proven.

Both are highly theoretical and as far as the world is concerned, either one could be proven true at some point - or - both could be proven completely wrong!

For all we both know life on earth was planted here from alien civilizations. *gasp* a Creationist with some semblance of thought acknowledging the possibility of a non-godly source of our life?

We're not all as thoughtless as it might seem. Unfortunately the general perception of us is granted through the narrow-focus that the media and rest of "publicania" portray us in.

I think that free-thought should be the tenant of advanced society and welcome those whom liesurely share other ideas with which we can all choose to either endorse or discard. To niche us all into a general category such as "Creationist" or "Evolutionist" without allowing for sub-diversity such as radical or fundamentalist is a crime.

The reality is there are varying degree of acceptance of either form of idea within their given community.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By masher2 (blog) on 6/11/2008 11:51:43 AM , Rating: 1
> "The fallacy to that is that they fail to realize that neither my belief - nor theirs, has been proven"

The fallacy in the above sentence is the belief that anything whatsoever in science can be undeniably proven...or that the lack of such incontrovertible proof matters in the least.

The scientific method is what brought us out of the caves...and it requires nothing more than we believe in the preponderance of evidence. Evolution is the most solidly supported theory in the history of science, with more evidence and less contradictory data than even the theory of gravity itself.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By MrBlastman on 6/11/2008 12:04:08 PM , Rating: 2
Without the scientific method the world has nothing.

General Evolution has undeniably been supported without a doubt. I 100% agree with you.

My divergence occurs when radicals begin to suggest the unproven portion which is that life was created from nothing.

They have as much evidence to support that as Creationists have to support their view. That is where we differ.

Please read my idea thoroughly before making as assumption as you did above. I was referencing the radical train of thought, not the general.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By MozeeToby on 6/11/2008 12:19:36 PM , Rating: 5
Occams Razor.

We can assume that God stepped in a created life from nothing.

-OR-

We can assume that over Billions of years, on Billions of planets, at least once something weird happened and produced self replicating molecules.

I'm not saying that your belief is wrong, I'm saying that your belief isn't science. Science can only investigate the natural laws of the Universe.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By MrBlastman on 6/11/2008 12:29:12 PM , Rating: 2
I never once placed Science and Religion in the same category. ;)

They are separate and should always be considered separate fields - however, to deny endeavors into either of the two because of this divide is wrong.

Religion is based on faith and Science is based on facts and data.

I think for society to be well-rounded, they must study and attempt to understand both. They don't have to believe in what they read about religion, but they should at least study it as it provides such a tremendous insight into the human mind and how cultures and societies operate.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By MozeeToby on 6/11/2008 12:44:18 PM , Rating: 3
I agree that society should be well rounded. Where I disagree is where you equation the study of life's origins with creationism.

As you said, religion and science are seperate entities and need not tread on one another. When you equate creationism to abiogenisis you are either moving religion over (not down, over ) into science, or vice versa.

The study of Abiogenisis is clearly not religion. Studies have been done both in the lab, in the field, and with telescopes looking at the steller neighborhood. Likewise, creationism is clearly not science. It is irrefutable (even if we understand it completely it is still possible to say God did it), and unresearchable.

It is important to think about the existance (or non-existance) of God and what effect that would and should have on our lives. I choose to believe in God not because of evidence I see (because, quite frankly, I don't see any) but because of what I feel and think.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By feraltoad on 6/16/2008 5:35:48 AM , Rating: 1
Perhaps we should also pause daily to consider the profound effects that Unicorns have had on our lives. I choose to believe in Unicorns not because of evidence I see but because of what I feel and think.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By Dentist on 6/25/2008 1:22:01 AM , Rating: 2
Scientists should ask the question: what could have caused the result?

1. Bacteria possess many genes coding for different enzymes. Enzymes are proteins with different shapes. A simple point mutation of a gene can change one or more amino-acids in the protein, possibly changing the shape of the active part of the enzyme. This may make the enzyme able to process some chemical but unable to process another. For example various known mutations in hemoglobin exist, resulting in sickle cell, thalassemia, etc. Yet a new gene has not appeared, rather an old one has been altered.
Q. Could a single mutation of a single gene cause E coli to develop the ability to use citrate in the culture medium? Yes. This has been known and published since 1983.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcg...
Is this 'evolution'? No.
"E.coli possesses all of the enzymes necessary for citrate metabilism since citrate is a substrate in the tricarboxylic acid cycle, the major metabilic pathway of aerobically growing cells. Therefore the inability to transport citrate seemed likely to be the major barrier to the utilization of citrate by E.coli. This study characterized the citrate transport systems of plasmid-conferred and chromosome-conferred citrate utilization in E. Coli."

Furthermore, the dailytech article is incorrect in asserting that evolution conferred on E coli 'an entirely new gene able to process citrate' since the authors of the study assert, "That meant the "citrate-plus" trait must have been something special – either it was a single mutation of an unusually improbable sort, a rare chromosome inversion, say, or else gaining the ability to use citrate required the accumulation of several mutations in sequence.'

2. Bacteria are known to pass genetic information via plasmids even between species. In other words, expose a bacteria penicillin-susceptible to one that is penicillin-resistant and the penicillin-susceptible bacteria may become resistant.
Q. Could the test samples have been contaminated by bacteria that can process citrate? Then it would not be evolution, but plasmid transfer.

3. Science involves being able to duplicate the results.
Q. The authors of this 'evolutionary breakthrough' study duplicated the results with cultures after but not before generation 20,000.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-b...
Clearly after generation 20,000 all the genetic material to be able to process citrate is already there, requiring only a simple random mutation to activate the gene.
Strangely by going back 500 generations they were not able to proceed randomly to the same mutated gene. What happened back at generation 20,000 to produce the genetic material? "Lenski and his colleagues are now working to identify just what that earlier change was, and how it made the Cit+ mutation possible more than 10,000 generations later."

Really? They don't know what it was but they know it is evolution? Very nice science!!!

4. Gene sequencing.
Q. Why have not the authors indicated exactly what gene changed in what way? Is it because it was a simple point mutation as above, or plasmid conferred property. If they have tens of thousands of cultures, why have they not performed proper tests to indicate what actually happened?

Oh wait, "To find out which, Lenski turned to his freezer, where he had saved samples of each population every 500 generations. These allowed him to replay history from any starting point he chose, by reviving the bacteria and letting evolution "replay" again."

But it does not seem that they are actually checking to see how what genes changed. No need, since they have already identified it as evolution. Break it up now. No more to see here.

_____

The study referred to in this article does not appear to be science. It is just a forum to proclaim the authors religion. Evolution.

Frankly, it demands more faith to accept evolution, than to accept creation. Science identifies anything that occurs with p<0.05 (less than 1 in 20 chance) as being not happening spontaneously.

For example, amino acids and fats cannot develop in the presence of oxygen. They must be compartmentalized. Let's say there is only a 1 in 1 million chance of an amino acid developing in such an environment (and it will be randomly broken up very quickly too). By compartmentalizing elements and the reaction products, scientists have been able to produce select types of molecues. Could the molecules develop spontaneously? No. How did this 1 in 1000000 (1 followed by 6 0s) chance happen, by outside input: the scientists compartmentalized the reaction.

The big bang, etc, theories assume that things that cannot happen spontaneously (1 in 1 followed by millions of 0s) would happen randomly over long ages. These cannot be true science, since true science would tell us that such occurrences could not happen spontaneously/randomly. Then how? Only by outside input. What outside input could caused the development of anything? Intelligent design. Oops. Politically incorrect. Big bang and evolution is still not science per se. They are evolutionary religion using scientific language.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By michael67 on 6/11/2008 3:50:37 PM , Rating: 1
I believe in evolution and think MrBlastman is fundamentally wrong.

Still MrBlastman comes whit reasonable arguments to defend his point of view, imho wrong but still reasonable and he is open to argument.

PLEASE DONT USE THE RATING SYSTEM TO PUT HIM BELOW +1

The rating system is not a tool, to use to win a argument its a tool for getting writ of idiots that cant make a valid argument


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By BMFPitt on 6/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By michael67 on 6/11/2008 4:50:11 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that his post docent warrant a 5 but just a 1, still i believe if you vote someones argument completely away you also vote away the dialogue you having whit that person, and the opportunity to get him to see your side and win him over.

Its the same as just saying "you are wrong",
ore saying "i see what your saying but i think you are wrong because ...."
imho the second is better


By masher2 (blog) on 6/11/2008 4:56:39 PM , Rating: 2
I have to agree. In my opinion, voting a post to -1 should be reserved for personal attacks and the "BOOBIES R0XX0R!" types of posts, and not for those attempting to engage in honest dialogue.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By MrBlastman on 6/11/2008 6:19:38 PM , Rating: 2
I never said anything in malice and I think my point is valid. I fully understand what I am talking about.

Abiogensis is no more closer to truth these days as is the Bible proof-wise.

Period.

Both have points that support them, but both have many holes left to be filled with lots of questions remaining. At any point either could be proven or disproven.

How is that an ignorant opinion? Neither of them can be proved correct or wrong at this point and both are either faith or theory, nothing more. It is based on facts that we know currently.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By michael67 on 6/12/08, Rating: 0
RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By michael67 on 6/12/2008 4:29:42 AM , Rating: 2
I wrote this wrong it should say:
Guise what, scientist don't use the bible as guide for whats true ore not, they follow the evidence and only the evidence.

I believe the fundamental problem is that people that believe that genesis is true and the word of god is.

Is that, to accept science behind evolution is to accept there is a fundamental flaw in the bible.
This would then also mean that if a fundamental peace of the bible is not true what about the rest then?
This is just as difficult as when people had to accept the Earth wasn't flat ore the center of the universe.

This was in the old days so hard to accept that people got burned to the stake ore baned out of society (Galileo)

I understand to give up genesis as being completely accurate is like giving up on a all loving God is something very hard and for a lot of people even impossible to do.

Ass a atheist i don't believe in god so its not hard for me to accept these conclusions.
Even do i don't believe there is a God i cant say whit 100% certainty that there is not one, only that for me its really unlikely there is one.
But if believe there was one i would believe that the bible is written by people and they could have gotten it wrong.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By Jellodyne on 6/13/2008 12:29:55 PM , Rating: 2
Can they be seperate? The reasone this topic is so controversial is that prior to Darwin, the creation of all life was entirely religion's turf. Science had no answers. But now you've got two alternate views of how life arose one Earth, one based on facts and data, and one based on... well just trust me, right? Anyway, now science and religion both are in the business of answering that question so they ARE in the same category, at least as far as this topic is concerned.

As for the point of the article, duh. You can argue a creationism as far as an event that happened at one point, but you'd have to some kind of idiot to not see that evolution as ongoing process as far as how things work now, post whatever magical creation process you subsribe to. Mankind has 'evolved' many species on the planet in our recoded history. You think 'corn' had footlong ears in the garden of eden? You think cows 6,000 years ago had udders so large as to make it difficut to move? You think there was even something we'd recongise as a cow? There's all sorts of documented cases of both natural selection and specific human UNnatural selection affecting the genetic makup aka evolution of of hundreds of plants and animals, I don't get what this one ecoli study brings to the table thats new.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By MatthiasF on 6/11/2008 12:33:15 PM , Rating: 3
Religion was hastily pushed to the edge of a cliff over the last several millenia. As Science explained more, there needed less Gods to command the previously unexplained forces around us and the religious has less to give credit to what gods were left.

The origin of life itself is the last inch of the cliff. Since science cannot easily observe the origin of life, it is outside it's domain and the religious know this.

The argument will never be settled accurately until humanity has watched a barren planet spawn life without intervention and it's completely recorded, which by some scientific views would be an oxymoron.

So, for the next several hundred thousand years, we'll just have to put up with the now thankfully fringe element of our society that can't release the supernatural from their lives.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By mikefarinha on 6/11/2008 2:43:44 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
So, for the next several hundred thousand years, we'll just have to put up with the now thankfully fringe element of our society that can't release the supernatural from their lives.


The whole debate can be summed up as the inexplicable difference between asking the 'why' and 'how' of our existence.

Science never has and never will be able to answer 'Why we are here? What is our purpose?' Science can only attempt answer how we came about.

As a fun exercise you can do a kind of reverse-Descartes and ask the question 'Through evolution, what is the purpose of being able to envision a higher power?'


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By BMFPitt on 6/11/2008 4:18:08 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
As a fun exercise you can do a kind of reverse-Descartes and ask the question 'Through evolution, what is the purpose of being able to envision a higher power?'
Because it's a side effect of the ability to do abstract thinking. It also helps with facilitating social bonds.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By Wolfpup on 6/11/2008 3:37:41 PM , Rating: 2
What's ironic is that for people who want to demand that God did a certain thing instead of a natural principle, it "disproves" the existence of God once the natural principle is worked out.

I'm personally...not sure where I stand. I realize that we may just have evolved to have religious feelings for whatever reason, and that there may be nothing more to it than that. Even still, it's obviously not possible to disprove the existence of God, really, and I still find myself praying from time to time...I still kind of believe...still kind of WANT to believe sometimes (ironically I think my belief means more than these people who's beliefs are just based on magical thoughts and make believe that we can disprove through observation).


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By TestKing123 on 6/11/2008 12:42:54 PM , Rating: 2
Someone needs to look up the definition of Occam's Razor and how it's applied, rather than applying YOUR misconception.

By Occams Razor, the 2nd choice above would apply (self replicating molecules).


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By MozeeToby on 6/11/2008 12:52:37 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, that was the point, sorry that wasn't clear but I thought in the context of his earlier post that it was.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By Wolfpup on 6/11/2008 3:32:20 PM , Rating: 2
I wish I had links, but actually we DO now have what looks like it could be the very early stages of life. I can't remember the exact details (I think I read it in Scientific American), but basically it's along the lines of RNA spontaneously forming with a barrier wall...and to me it's not a big stretch to think that if that happens enough, sooner or later one of them may accidentally take on other traits needed to become self replicating.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/11/2008 7:38:48 PM , Rating: 4
God did not step in. He created it all. Stars, planets, everything..... Including the material to make life.

Time is meaningless to God - he is currently at the start of time and at the end of time and all point between. Something modern scientist are starting to research (ribbon time travel I think is what they are calling it). Science does not dis-prove God. In most cases it would/does show how he caused such things to happen or be created.

Time seems to be a big hang up for some... 7 day creation. The Jewish word for day, yes was used to talk about a 24 hour day, but it could also be used to talked about 10 years, 1000 years, 7 day ... any length of time. So, if you take away the metal thought of 7 days out of your head and re-read the first page or two of genesis. Read it as if you were standing on the Earth on day 0. Watching from some mountain top and seeing the environment change around you. Then read about how science says this Earth we live on started and changed through out time. It may creep you out on how they really are the same.
Example: On the third day he made the stars appear in the sky. --
He made all the planets, stars on the first day, but for days one, two and part of three you could not look up into the sky and see the stars like today. Clouds and such would block the way....Today we would say, the atmosphere was to thick to see off the planet....much like Venus (I believe that planets gas are to thick to see the ground, or at least very difficult). Well science claims the atmosphere was very thick on earth in the early days.....

If nothing else after you read the first page of Genesis ask your self this: How could a guy from 6,000 year ago write about the creation of the earth, planet, animals, humans (the order things appear on the planet and such) and be so close to what are modern day science is just now discovering? He could not even cook pork without getting sick, but he knew first there was a bright light – an explosion causes light (your big bang), knew early days of earth you could not see into space. Ask yourself how is this possible?


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By therealnickdanger on 6/12/08, Rating: -1
RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/12/2008 12:14:21 PM , Rating: 4
Incorrect. the mordern word for day in Hebrew is used to define a dusk to dusk.... Not orginal word used for the word day in the Bible. Translation and words meanings change over time.
For you second part....Again need to stop thinking about our 24 hour day being the same length of time to God day... It's silly to think that...He does not live on Earth he suppose to be everywhere not just Earth, time has no meaning to him.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By feraltoad on 6/16/2008 6:01:32 AM , Rating: 2
If your comment is satire I apologize. Genesis describes the creation of our world, and describes it in simple terms that don't really explain anything. "It was dark, then it was light", wow. There are all kinds of creation myths from around the world, and the bible borrows from some of those. Remember, they didn't even know what the sun was, or where the earth was in relation to anything. They didn't know what a planet was, or understand the atmosphere. They certainly had no idea what stars were. The bible was written by multiple people at different times. As for foresight of the bible, your just gerrymandering vague references; cobbling together anything that might fit. Doing that you could find prophecy in the coupon section of your local newspaper. "Wow, the earth is 4.3 billion years old. 4 for the major geologic eras, and 3 for when the minor geologic periods are divided by 4. Oh wait, 4+3=7! Coincidence!? Yeah , right. Wow, it's easy to see I'm crazy."


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By cochy on 6/11/2008 12:24:02 PM , Rating: 2
Life wasn't created from nothing.

As Carl Sagan would say: We are the result of the evolution of Hydrogen and Helium atoms over the course of 13 billion years.

That's where life and everything else ultimately comes from.


By therealnickdanger on 6/12/2008 11:01:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Life wasn't created from nothing.

It sure wasn't!

Sagan is correct: Genesis chapter 1 clearly describes all life on the planet's surface coming forth "from the earth". From dust do we come, to dust do we go.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By KernD on 6/11/2008 12:48:00 PM , Rating: 4
The creation of life can be explained by one great constant of the universe, the "rise of complexity". Due to all the natural forces at work in the universe, all things tend to group together to form new, more complex creation.

The creation of life has been reproduced in a lab to some extent. we know what compose a cell, what compose DNA, what compose Amino-Acid. And we know natural forces gets things together.

If you think that life couldn't just have evolved from complex molecules, then what makes you think a god can exist without a maker? Who created your creator? Who invented god?

the answer is men.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By Suntan on 6/11/2008 2:07:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The creation of life can be explained by one great constant of the universe, the "rise of complexity". Due to all the natural forces at work in the universe, all things tend to group together to form new, more complex creation.


Actually, no. The laws of thermodynamics clearly state that all things in the universe tend towards disorder, which as hard as it is to make the inference, means uniformity throughout the universe.

Feel free to google for “Entropy” or even “Heat Death of the Universe” if you don’t believe it. Might I just suggest you look at some of the technically credible articles on the subject instead of the knee jerk pop-culture “wikipedia” link that I am sure will be at the top of the ranking.

-Suntan


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By masher2 (blog) on 6/11/2008 4:04:59 PM , Rating: 2
> "Actually, no. The laws of thermodynamics clearly state that all things in the universe tend towards disorder...Feel free to google for Entropy..."

This isn't correct at all. ANL has an excellent low-level discussion on entropy and self-assembly. To quote from the beginning:

quote:
This misunderstanding has several origins. The first misunderstanding is that processes that result in a decrease in entropy cannot occur. This is an incorrect statement of the Second Law . Every time water freezes the entropy of the transition of water to ice decreases...
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/mats05/mats0...


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By Suntan on 6/11/2008 5:27:56 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I’m fully aware that processes can be done which result in lower entropy depending on where you would like to draw the boundary conditions. I did not say that a reduction of entropy *can not* occur within a closed system. I’ve spent my entire career designing and building equipment that does just that.

My response was to a post where someone stated something to the effect that all processes in the universe *tend* towards complexity. This is incorrect as these very processes *tend* towards uniformity.

Next time take a moment to soak in the overall topic being discussed before racing off to find any article online that will “disprove” what you think someone else’s post says.

And while you are pondering *your* incorrectness, take a moment to think about where that heat energy that is being taken out of the water/ice is going… …along with the energy needed to facilitate the process…

-Suntan


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By masher2 (blog) on 6/11/2008 5:47:22 PM , Rating: 2
> "My response was to a post where someone stated something to the effect that all processes in the universe *tend* towards complexity. This is incorrect "

Yes it is. And your rebuttal, which stated, and I quote, "the laws of thermodynamics clearly state that all things in the universe tend towards disorder" is equally incorrect.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By Suntan on 6/11/2008 8:38:22 PM , Rating: 2
You have no fundamental grasp of the actual workings of this topic. The sentence you quoted me on is basically the driving force of the universe.

Your little "sound bite" that you linked to is only valid if you choose to specifically overlook the system as a whole and only look at a specific boundary of events. That does not change the fact that the universe tends towards disorder.

If you would prefer to believe that what I wrote was incorrect, that is fine. If you would take the time to read and comprehend that article you linked to, you would see that it reluctantly admits to the same thing, (even though it is obvious from the tone of the article that the author is trying to insinuate that they know more about physics than the rest of the scientific community). Instead you would rather cling to whatever self delusional thoughts you have *just so that you can think you are right*.

Goo luck with that.

-Suntan


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By masher2 (blog) on 6/11/2008 11:27:45 PM , Rating: 2
> "it is obvious from the tone of the article that the author is trying to insinuate that they know more about physics than the rest of the scientific community"

So now its not only myself that is wrong, but the author of that piece? (who has a Ph.D. in physics, by the way)

> "That does not change the fact that the universe tends towards disorder."

The universe as a whole, yes. But not every system within it. That is the crucial distinction your earlier remark failed to capture.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By michael67 on 6/12/2008 5:09:25 AM , Rating: 2
So now its not only myself that is wrong, but the author of that piece? (who has a PhD. in physics, by the way)
Having PhD. doesn't make him more wrong ore right it just says he got more knowledge about the subject.

As history has proven even Einstein was wrong on some parts.
Same was going on whit the proof of expanding and static universe, till Hubble proofed the universe was expanding both arguments ware equal and valid arguments.

I have to to say Michael even do I think your a smart guy you think to often what your thinking is right, "so its is right" and don't wane see other peoples argument ore side.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By zzebi on 6/11/2008 12:14:27 PM , Rating: 2
The scientific method is not that old. Random "trial and error" and religious "belief-based reasoning" preceded it.
Trial and error however can be regarded as the very earliest, primitive form of scientific method.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By Wolfpup on 6/11/2008 3:41:25 PM , Rating: 2
One might even say it evolved from it :D

Or...maybe God had to step in and create the scientific method from scratch. Yeah, that's probably it

(Sorry! :D )


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By feraltoad on 6/16/2008 6:15:22 AM , Rating: 2
"belief-based reasoning"

lol

"Hey don't do dat!"
"Why not?"
"I don't know, just don't 'cause I said so."
"Why?"
"'Cause it's written down not to do it"
"Who wrote it? Did you write it!?"
"No...This guy...in the sky wrote it. He'll be mad if you do it"
"Hey, you can't even read!"
"Yeah I know, stupid. But this guy told me about it."
"OK, I won't do it so the guy in the sky won't be mad at me. OK, put down that rock. Put it down, I'm not gonna do it."


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By TheDoc9 on 6/11/2008 3:28:30 PM , Rating: 2
How is there more evidence than the law of gravity? I've never seen any evidence for the theory.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By Wolfpup on 6/11/2008 3:55:24 PM , Rating: 2
Are you talking about Evolution? There's all kinds of evidence for it, obviously. Something doesn't get to be a scientific theory without a ton of research and evidence backing it up. (And just FYI for anyone who doesn't know, a scientific theory is *NOT* a "hunch" or a "guess" or something as the word "theory" is perhaps commonly used in everyday speech.)


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By feraltoad on 6/16/2008 6:18:57 AM , Rating: 2
You can trust your crazy "theories" on evolution and gravity. I'll keep sleeping with my sister (who is NOT a monkey) and my money stays put; invested in glue and tape.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By borismkv on 6/11/2008 12:04:56 PM , Rating: 1
How about militant atheist? Even if someone gave you hard evidence of a supreme being you wouldn't believe it because you don't want to. Even if God came down and beat you on the head, you'd find some way to convince yourself it didn't happen. Why aren't you honest with yourself?

What's really funny about your statement of requiring proof is that you entirely miss the function and capabilities of scientific experimentation. Science can't prove anything. Experimentation either supports a hypothesis or it doesn't. Further experimentation that supports a supported hypothesis still doesn't prove the hypothesis to be correct. As time goes on and we learn more about the universe, everything we know today will eventually be comparable to the understanding of Aristotle.

Now, I'm a firm believer that creationism would be a great bane to scientific progress, mostly because of its willingness to attribute all unknowns to divine intervention and its stiff interpretation of scripture. But your own views would be just as much of a bane to real science, as stubborn grasping of existing scientific theory would halt the advance of science, much the same way as religious persecution slowed the advance of Galileo's more accurate view of the universe. The best scientists in the world are the ones that realize that we don't know everything about the universe yet, and that what we do know is very likely completely wrong. After all, our current sphere of direct observation is unbelievably minuscule compared to the universe at large.

As for you being a "thinking person"...well, I refuse to believe that until I see some hard proof.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By BMFPitt on 6/11/2008 12:17:39 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Even if someone gave you hard evidence of a supreme being you wouldn't believe it because you don't want to.
And you base this on what? If you have some evidence, I'd like to see it.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By derwin on 6/11/2008 12:37:59 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
If you have some evidence, I'd like to see it.


Ditto.

And borishmev (sp? sorry) and MrBlastman, the problem I think everyone here keeps having with what you guys are saying is that you keep using ISMs and ISTs. What the f is an evolutionist? Maybe you are talking about your drugged up high school friends, but for the most part, people who consider the idea of evolution are not "evolutionists." These people do not cling dearly to the idea of evolution as if it were some god. They would happily relinquish it were the preponderance of evidence to suggest otherwise. The problem is that the evidence goes the other way. It supports evolution. Such people who accept this evidence are often cited as feverantly holding to their "evolutionist" "beliefs..."

Just the same as you said you wished to remain in a free thinking atmosphere, as do we, and ISMs and ISTs are labels of unthought and unchangable beliefs. Just as you really have shown your self not to be a creationIST, do not label others as evolutionISTs. You wanted to have a discusion on grounds that are much more along the lines of philosophy than they are of technology - hence the confused people thinking you were making a strike at evolution.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By MrBlastman on 6/11/2008 12:48:37 PM , Rating: 2
I wholly said I support the theory of evolution in my first post.

I suppose my problem is that people don't fully read, word-for-word what is written. I had used 'radical' to separate general from specialized but apparently that was not enough and instead of should have placed abiogenesis in my first post.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By borismkv on 6/11/2008 4:13:11 PM , Rating: 3
I'd like to see your evidence to the contrary. Welcome to the 2 way street.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By mikefarinha on 6/11/2008 2:47:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even if someone gave you hard evidence of a supreme being you wouldn't believe it because you don't want to.


If someone gave me 'hard evidence' of God... I'd stop believing... :P


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By MozeeToby on 6/11/2008 1:25:39 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Well I happen to be a radical non-unicornist. I won't believe in unicorns until I see some hard proof.
I guess you didn't hear the news then...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25097986/


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By BMFPitt on 6/11/2008 2:30:00 PM , Rating: 2
Wow. That's really freaky timing.

OK then, I now believe in unicorns. See how this whole non-faith-based system of belief works?


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By mezman on 6/11/2008 2:47:45 PM , Rating: 2
Damn, you beat me to it. :)


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By MrBlastman on 6/11/2008 2:08:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well I happen to be a radical non-unicornist. I won't believe in unicorns until I see some hard proof.


Talk about irony... A Unicorn has been found!

This article came out today of all days.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,365629,00.html

;)


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/11/2008 5:03:46 PM , Rating: 2
Here is your unicorn my friend. Creationists understand freaks of nature have happened all the time and will continue to happen.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,365629,00.html

creationists also understand that creatures can change over time, have in the past and will in the future. However, to each his own. That is elephant will not become mouse nor will mouse become tiger nor monkey or ape into a man. Thousand of years went into this thinking not just a hundred or so. Disagree?? OK were is the “missing link”? I know the answer....It's in your head.

"It's not the article's fault that creationists (especially the kind that use phrases like "radical evolutionists") are a joke to thinking people."
Funny you should say that...Since most of the greatest known thinking schools world wide are "creationist" founded (Bible founded)...Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Oxford, Columbia, Brown just to list the first few that come to mind, the list is several thousand long....

Now there are a few people who go off the deep end on both side. To say I'm wrong on that fact, is to admit you are foolish...everything has an extreme side, only a non-educated person would disagree with this. So eliminate the extreme cases and you will find that average creationist has study as much if not more about evolution then the average evolutionists. The creationist that has truly study the Bible hard can see how the two fit together perfectly. No, do not study the kiddie books on how God is about love, peace, and doves; this will not get you even close. I'm talking about studying the Bible were God kills when it servers him right and promises some very unpleasant things for mankind, and tells man how the universe was created from the point of view as if you were alive standing on Earth watching it all unfold. So far nothing that is stated in the Bible can be dis-proven. (NOTHING!). Millions have tried, zero have done it. True, you can not prove everything that is in the Bible, but that is different then dis-proving it. At one point in history we could not prove man could figure out how to fly, but it did not dis-prove man ability to fly. -- So the average creationist has study both sides deeply; yet if you talk to the average evolutionists, they tend to only study one side and guess the other side (or think the fews years they were between ages 7 and 9 they learned all they needed to know about the Bible). It's very funny to hear you say the evolutionists side is the thinking side, when normally they've only done half the research.

Think about this.... We claim cloning is a new science... Well it's one of the oldest things preformed to a creationist. First done? God took out one of Adam ribs (bone best place for DNA). He used this rib to make Eve. Not only can he clone but he could change the sex of the clone. The Bible is full of little things like this that normal man will not understand but as soon as mans knowledge of science catches up to what happens in the Bible, the Bible makes even more sense then before...because we can now understand what has happened and why.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By masher2 (blog) on 6/11/08, Rating: 0
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/11/2008 6:32:48 PM , Rating: 3
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/guide/intro/index.html

Harvard College was established in 1636 by vote of the Great and General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony and was named for its first benefactor, John Harvard of Charlestown, a young minister who, upon his death in 1638, left his library and half his estate to the new institution. Harvard's first scholarship fund was created in 1643 with a gift from Ann Radcliffe, Lady Mowlson.

The school is name after a young minister. How much more to you want Christians to help found the school? The pilgrims were Christians too.

I believe in the Bible... purgatory is not talked about in the Bible. Some Christian do not follow the Bible as close as others, they say some different things. Yes, to an outsider this can be very confusing...As Christian we know -only God knows who is saved (we are not to judge who is saved - can judge bad and good, just not saved.) So, when some one ask a question about Christian, if the answer is not from the Bible (meaning they should be able to point you to an area of the Bible that talks about the subject they are explaining (Internet makes this easy) and not going to an outside source) they are probably off base and are giving you their view and not a Christian view.
The truth. There are too many people who claim to be Christian, but have never studied the Bible. They have spent more time reading the Sunday comic strips in one year then they have spend in their entire life reading the Bible (I was one). It's usually the comic strip reading ones that tries to explain the Bible to someone and screws it all up, because they have the "Hollywood" edition in the heads not the Bible edition. Like anything out there, there are good sources that give an accurate description and there are bad sources....Christianity has had 2000+ years to pick up a lot of bad crap. Look in the Bible, if it's not there, it's not Biblical - therefor not important to a Christian (as far as being saved). Purgatory is not talked about, therefor it is not important to me to know to be saved. Is it real or not, I don't know...I would say no. There is nothing in the Bible to lead me to say yes.


By phattyboombatty on 6/11/2008 6:39:44 PM , Rating: 2
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there is a high likelihood that the men responsible for the formation of Harvard were Puritans. It's undisputed that the early years of Harvard had a large Christian influence.

Also, I was under the impression that the original origins of Oxford, especially the original founders, are unknown.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By Reclaimer77 on 6/11/2008 6:52:56 PM , Rating: 5
Masher how far are you going to keep this going ?

I respect you a lot, and your a great debater here, but some things won't be solved on DT and you know it. Just let people believe what they want to believe. Its not hurting anyone.

Its going to take a lot more then E.Coli mutating to prove to Christians there is no god you know.


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/11/2008 7:02:24 PM , Rating: 2
Especially since God is the creator of mutation. :)


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By masher2 (blog) on 6/11/2008 11:31:48 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I respect you a lot, and your a great debater here, but some things won't be solved on DT and you know it. Just let people believe what they want to believe. Its not hurting anyone.
Certainly...and for that reason, you'll never see me on a religious website, attempting to convert any believers there. However, if on a science and technology website, a "believer" posts a challenge to evolution, they should expect to have their remarks rebutted.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By Reclaimer77 on 6/12/2008 1:40:38 AM , Rating: 5
That only came up because the author deliberately used the opening 2.5 paragraphs of the article to troll these people and use this experiment to directly challenge their beliefs. Its very blatant. Its only natural for people to rise to challenges. Lets be honest, they were put on the defensive.

Yes, this IS a science website. Your right. So why was a fifth of the article dedicated to basically flame baiting religious types ? Thats what I don't get. What could have been a decent discussion about the actual experiment, is now just a back and forth nukefest of two unshakable faiths.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By michael67 on 6/13/2008 4:34:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Certainly...and for that reason, you'll never see me on a religious website, attempting to convert any believers there. However, if on a science and technology website, a "believer" posts a challenge to evolution, they should expect to have their remarks rebutted.

I very often disagree whit masher, but ID is just bad science and hurts development of creative thinking of young minds in general.

99.93% of scientist (of white 67% are christians) in any type of science believe that evolution in general is true and a fact.
Why its still called a theory is because not every thing is discovered doesnt mean the theory is false.

Its like a theories about volcanoes we now how they work in general.
pressure pushes lava to the surface ware depending on how heavy the pressure on the cork is how violent it will explode.
Not understanding completely how volcanoes works doesnt make the general theory about it falls

Because if I would follow the same reasoning ID is following on evolution
God decided its now time for the volcano to erupted so it happened.
If I say that, no one can prove me wrong, and it even doesnt mater how mouths prove they come whit, I still could say, no that not true God decided it was time so it happened.
Just prove me wrong! can you? no, but is it science I think not!


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By karkas on 6/13/2008 7:14:18 PM , Rating: 1
I am an agnostic/atheist, and think there are just as many "non-thinking" atheists out there.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By borismkv on 6/11/2008 11:38:25 AM , Rating: 3
Eh. Mick is incapable of writing without bias. He's one of those journalists who thinks that everyone else in the world is stupid because they don't think the same things he does, and it is therefor his duty to beat people on the head with said "truth" until they get it. The fact that most of his beliefs are unsupported by reality and much of his writing is blatant plagiarism isn't so important to him, I think. He likes writing propaganda.


By JasonMick (blog) on 6/11/2008 11:45:04 AM , Rating: 2
How did you discover that it was I secretly funded the evolution research??!? Darn, you're onto me.

Got to build some solar panels for my escape. Here quick let me draw up my specs on my Macbook Air (literally made out of air since it doesnt exist).


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By Proteusza on 6/11/2008 12:07:00 PM , Rating: 2
Although sometimes I disagree with Jason Mick's writing, in this case the only people who still think evolution is an evil invention are fundamentalist Christians living in the US. Everyone else accepts that its true, given how its been proved so thoroughly.

Its also used as the basis for a lot of modern biological science.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By derwin on 6/11/2008 12:42:06 PM , Rating: 2
In all fairness, the article does take a harshly condesending tone towards those who would disagree with the conclusions drawn from it. There is no need for such a tone; the evidence and the story speak for themselves.

I don't know about those blasts about plagarism... to be fair to him I think you had ought to document such a claim as that or recant.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By omnicronx on 6/11/2008 12:48:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
He's one of those journalists who thinks that everyone else in the world is stupid because they don't think the same things he does, and it is therefor his duty to beat people on the head with said "truth" until they get it.
Ha, because all journalists write with an open mind, taking every view into perspective.... <caugh> Everything you hear in the media is someones point of view, you are kidding yourself if you think otherwise. One could even argue that history itself is somebodys point of view, seldom do you hear the view of those that lost the war, or those that were defeated in battle.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By ImSpartacus on 6/11/2008 12:06:26 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
In simplest terms - yes, it proves what has been theorized for a long time in the general theory or evolution.


There you go. Evolution is proved by evidence supporting evolution . Imagine that.

Evolution does not theorize how life began. End of story.

There's no "Well, radical evolutionists believe life came from nothing, blah blah blah." Evolution does not theorize how life began.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By jlips6 on 6/11/2008 11:29:15 AM , Rating: 2
*pauses in mid-fling*
Oh thanks a bunch. what the hell am I supposed to do with all this mud now?
;)


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By JasonMick (blog) on 6/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By borismkv on 6/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By ImSpartacus on 6/11/2008 1:48:06 PM , Rating: 2
It sounds like something you would hear in a sermon...


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By jlips6 on 6/11/2008 3:42:05 PM , Rating: 2
I actually make my men out of CNT's... and just for fun, some of them are made out of TNT. Mud is so old testament.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By MozeeToby on 6/11/2008 11:41:52 AM , Rating: 5
Unfortunatly, you seem to be confusing evolution (change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next) with biogenisis (the start of life on our planet). Evolution says nothing about biogenesis. The concepts of evolution have been applied to the study of life's origins the theory itself does not apply.

The vast majority of creationists argue against evolution, saying you're a creationist who supports the mainstream ideas of evolution is like saying you're a Marxist that supports the ideas of capitalism. Sure, it's technically possible, but it sends very confusion signals to anyone you are speaking to.

(On a side note, is God alive by your definition? If so, and if life is to complex to arise naturally, who or what created God?)


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By omnicronx on 6/11/2008 12:21:08 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
saying you're a creationist who supports the mainstream ideas of evolution is like saying you're a Marxist that supports the ideas of capitalism.
Ya he had me confused too. I don't mean to stomp on his beliefs, but it seems he is trying to 'have one's cake and eat it too'.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By Biodude on 6/11/2008 12:22:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The vast majority of creationists argue against evolution
Only because a majority of communication concerning evolution, in terms of expository texts and teachings (not individual studies such as this one), directly link evolution to biogenesis. Good grief, it was published as "The ORIGIN of Species" was it not? Not The Adaptation, or The Development, but Origin. And if there was not some push in the scientific community for one to influence the other we wouldn't have esteemed biologists like Richard Dawkins talking about how studying evolution guided him to become an atheist, would we? Don't get me wrong, I wish we could separate the topics, but the blame hardly rests on creationists alone for having them intertwined.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By BMFPitt on 6/11/2008 12:26:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Good grief, it was published as "The ORIGIN of Species" was it not? Not The Adaptation, or The Development, but Origin.
And that's what it is. Species/biodiversity arose due to evolution. It was NOT titled "The Origin of Life."


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By BurnItDwn on 6/11/2008 11:42:28 AM , Rating: 3
Evolution does nothing to explain the initial origin of life. Evolution is the process in which we went from the initial "simple" single cell organisms and changed over time into complex beings with billions of cells.

There is still quite a bit yet to be discovered before we can say for sure what the actual origin of life was, however, there are some pretty well thought up hypotheses out there.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By masher2 (blog) on 6/11/2008 11:48:49 AM , Rating: 4
> "they have not proven the key tennant of radical evolutionist belief - which is that life came from nothing at all"

It's already been demonstrated that simple elements can spontaneously evolve into amino acids -- the basic building blocks of life.

It's also already been demonstrated that those amino acids can spontaneously form into protocells which exhibit many of the same behaviors as the simplest living cells -- including division, cellular wall functioning, etc.

While it's a bit of a stretch to call those protocells "life", the fact remains they're incredible similar to such...and this is just what we've observed in just the last few decades. With millions of years to evolve, having these protocells evolve into prokaryotic cells, then into multicellular eukaryotic organisms isn't a stretch at all.

For some reason, certain people have difficulty believing that complex structures can self-assemble from simpler ones...but in fact, nature demonstrats such behavior on countless occasions.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 6/11/2008 12:16:55 PM , Rating: 4
Peaching to the choir. There is a reason that Logic and Religion do not get along well in many circles.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By Yossarian22 on 6/12/2008 2:54:03 AM , Rating: 2
Kind of sad really. Logic or religion is a massive false dichotomy.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By Biodude on 6/11/2008 12:56:06 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
It's also already been demonstrated that those amino acids can spontaneously form into protocells

Are you sure about that? I know the principles have been suggested, but I did not know that this had actually been witnessed. I am looking over Steen Rasmussen's and the Los Alamos Protocell Assembly web sites and I am not seeing that this was accomplished - I'm mostly seeing modeling and simulation papers. Source please.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By masher2 (blog) on 6/11/2008 3:01:05 PM , Rating: 2
> " Source please. "

Chemical Evolution, (c) 1991 S. F. Mson. I'm holding a copy in my hand as I type. I'm sure there have been even more interesting developments in the field since this book was printed, but unfortunately I'm a little behind in the biological sciences.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By Biodude on 6/11/2008 4:36:17 PM , Rating: 2
Book, aha. I don't have access to the text, but I do have access to PubMed. Is there any chance he gives references to published papers for that chapter? I can find the full text of those very quickly.

Oh, and that's Mason BTW, trying to find a SF Mson was driving me crazy.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/11/2008 5:25:44 PM , Rating: 2
Take a look at the link in my other post regarding DNA replication in protocells. This more modern research goes far above what Mason refers to in his text.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By jahwarrior on 6/11/2008 1:13:20 PM , Rating: 1
"While it's a bit of a stretch to call those protocells "life", the fact remains they're incredible similar to such...and this is just what we've observed in just the last few decades. With millions of years to evolve, having these protocells evolve into prokaryotic cells, then into multicellular eukaryotic organisms isn't a stretch at all."

I hear all this talk that evolution is possible with millions of years, even with billions of years it is impossible. Some geneticists have estimated that it would take something like 10^1400 mutations for a single cell organism to “evolve” into a mammal like a horse.

Even with the 10^17 seconds(4.5 billion years) that some scientist claim the earth has been around, this would be impossible, 10^1400 mutations in 10^17 seconds in an open system with no genetic code. Ha..

Are you grasping at straws so much, that you have to sing the praises of one observed added gene or mutation…..


By masher2 (blog) on 6/11/2008 3:03:19 PM , Rating: 3
> "Some geneticists have estimated that it would take something like 10^1400 mutations for a single cell organism to “evolve” into a mammal like a horse"

I've seen such poor science before myself, from those desperately seeking to discredit evolution. Such "calculations" are always flawed in a large number of ways, and usually demonstrate a basic misunderstanding of genetics, mathematics, or both.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By geddarkstorm on 6/11/2008 1:26:55 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, proto-cells have never been observed to divide or have cell wall function in any way. The closest, recent advances you are thinking about, was using osmolarity and the separation within an artificial membrane of a hydrophilic and hydrophobic (PEG) phase to cause distortion of the membrane which looked like budding. However, this was no different than water and oil separating, and the "budding" was the result of lowered liquid volume within the proto-cell due to the hyper osmotic shock induced in the media.

Also, another recent event that was done was using single tailed fatty acids (which generally form mycels under most conditions), to form a double layer, in which they showed that a special, pre-activated form of dNTPs could pass through and react to make DNA. A very interesting, albeit unrealistic experiment.

Finally, proteins are energetically unstable--that is, in water it is thermal dynamically favorable for proteins to disassociate into component amino acids in a spontaneous fashion (otherwise, life would be impossible as protein metabolism could not occur). Certain amino acids (glycine, alanine) are easy to make in spontaneous reactions involving methane, CO2 and electricity, however proteins have never been made, because that is an unfavorable reaction and non-spontaneous: it must be coupled to another, more favorable spontaneous reaction. This is, however, when under aqueous conditions, so it's quite a debate on how exactly these events took place spontaneously.

In the end, you have to obey the laws of thermal dynamics.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/11/2008 3:21:53 PM , Rating: 2
> "Actually, proto-cells have never been observed to divide or have cell wall function in any way"

Untrue. In fact, some very recent developments have shown shocking advances in reproducing cell wall behavior. This group of researchers was able to create a protocell with a semi-permneable cell wall that not only allowed nucleotides to cross the barrier, but was actually able to make copies of DNA:

http://www.hhmi.org/news/pdf/szostak20080604.pdf

> "however proteins have never been made"

Again, this is untrue. Short peptide chains have been formed spontaneously for decades. While we've never spontaneously created the longer, more complex proteins, there is no innate difference between them and the shorter-chain proteins.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By Proteusza on 6/11/2008 11:55:14 AM , Rating: 2
You do realize that the theory of evolution says nothing about where life came from, only why it is like it is?

In fact, if I were to guess, I would say that you do in fact support evolution and are therefore not a creationist, but its abiogenesis that you dont agree with.

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By MrBlastman on 6/11/2008 12:09:03 PM , Rating: 2
I apologize if I used the wrong terminology but simply put in 'radical' to categorize those evolutionists that I view as taking the theory to the full extreme and touting it as the end-all solution to the source of life.

I do support evolution completely, but I also am a creationist as I believe life was created (originated) by a higher power.

I think it is possible, with your explanation, to believe in both.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By Proteusza on 6/11/2008 12:20:03 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, it is possible to believe in both and is in fact very common.

The problem with believing in evolution and not in abiogenesis, as you will find, is what exactly did the Creator do after seeding a single bit of life (the most simple single celled organism) on Earth? If, as you say you believe in evolution, then there is nothing left for a Creator to do. A lot of people dont like that idea.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By MrBlastman on 6/11/2008 12:37:27 PM , Rating: 2
But I don't think so as you put it yourself:

"what exactly did the Creator do after seeding a single bit of life (the most simple single celled organism) on Earth?"

If the Creator did place life on earth, it is highly possible that he allowed it to evolve from that point onwards into what we see today.

The Bible for instance, is very general as it states that God created Man in his image and all of life on Earth. However, it never went into the details of what exactly did he do to create life. I think it leaves plenty of room for him to have placed life in a simple state and to change into what we see now.

The only hard-set writing is that of Man being created in certain form. This can only be taken in with a slant towards faith and conjecture.

It is entirely possible to believe in both with an open mind and not one that focuses on purely the words and writings through inference. Unfortunately, most of the people whom are religious will tell you otherwise.

I suppose I am an anomaly but I think there sill are plenty others out there like myself. I've met many an .MD who would fit in this category.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By BMFPitt on 6/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By MrBlastman on 6/11/2008 12:41:17 PM , Rating: 2
The problem with Intelligent Design is they position it as a science-style course which is wrong.

If you want to teach Religion in school (and it should be), is you should teach it in World History class as a co-piece towards further study in each section of the worlds culture.

You can not possibly understand an ancient society or a modern country without fully being aware of what Religion they practice. It has such a dramatic undeniable impact on our world and has also had in the past.

I think through this introduction of cultural ideals, you could delve into each societies belief in intricacies such as the origin of life per religion.

Intelligent Design as it is, is meerly a thinly-veiled attempt at equating Religion as science which it is not.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By KernD on 6/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By MrBlastman on 6/11/2008 1:05:41 PM , Rating: 2
How about you read my post more carefully before you draw an assumption on what religion I am suggesting they teach? ;)

Please, tell me, and elaborate how NOT teaching about ALL of the various religions on the world and their impacts on society throughout history is beneficial to our children?

I await your answer about the new more "sterile society."

Did I ever mention that just 'Christianity' should be taught?

no

I said that relgions from all cultures and societies should be mentioned in a World History context. Your rapid jump towards drawing a conclusion is just as bad as religious fundamentalists themselves.

You said:

"Everything you should learn in school should be for everyone."

Which is exactly what I said. Did you not read my post?


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By KernD on 6/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By Suntan on 6/11/2008 2:48:34 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Teaching history of what happened to a guy called Jesus or Mohamet don't matter much. Do we teach the history of the greek gods in class? no we consider it mythology, just like I consider all modern religions, mythology.


It matters because a large population of the world believes it to be true. Just because you personally think it is a big hoax, doesn’t mean that you can’t come to understand (not saying agree with, but understand) why someone might act/do/feel the way they do if they are very religious.

Quite honestly, it matters little if you know that this general advanced his troops to this fort on this date in history if you can’t comprehend the social reasons why the sides were at war with each other in the first place.

-Suntan


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By KernD on 6/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By MrBlastman on 6/11/2008 2:58:05 PM , Rating: 3
I learned about the greek and roman gods in 10th grade English Class. It was classified as Mythology.

It also gave me much further insight into Greek and Roman culture - far above and beyond what I could have learned purely from their conquests and empires.

We can not expect to fully put ourselves in ancient societies shoes and see how they were thinking when they made the decisions that they made without understanding their Religions and what they believed in.

I suppose you could teach about Israel and the middle east and fail to ever mention the existence of Jesus, Mohammed, Ishmael or Moses but to do so would deprive you significantly of understanding just exactly why there is so much conflict over barren desert to this day.

I also suppose you could fail to mention the teachings of Jesus - but to do so would also fail to explain the crusades and the puritan state of Northeastern America.

I'm sorry but so much of history is intertwined with happenings in various religions, be it Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism etc. etc. to ignore it.

Or, you can just sterilize everything and live under false harmony.

The choice is yours.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By KernD on 6/11/2008 6:38:12 PM , Rating: 1
I'm not saying they shoudn't explain the reason behind some historical event, like the witch hunt for example. Teaching history is not teaching religion, but religion is part of history and influences it, so when you teach history, you talk about it. But there is no need to teach religion as is.

And you could actually learn to understand why things are so bad in the holy land without actually referring to the religion of those people and just refer to the ethnic groups present in that area and fully understand why it is still that way over there.

I've had class about the history of that land and it's inhabitant, and it is fairly simple, in 3000 years, they have ruled over there own land for the duration of the last 60 years, plus the reign of 2 kings(David and Solomon if I'm correct), all of the other time it was always some foreign power who was actually in control of there land. They are at a very important cross road, and it's actually quite amazing that there culture has not been fully assimilated after all this time.

Right now we all know there are more than one culture who is actually native to this land. Because so many culture have passed by and left there mark.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By Suntan on 6/11/2008 2:26:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No religion should not be thought in school.


Quite honestly, I can think of a lot of topics that could be replaced with a course on religion. I can safely say that me knowing who Walter Mitty is has not panned out nearly as much as some English Lit teacher might have envisioned.

As long as it is taught as a social sciences or history class, and *not* as creationist's would want it taught. There is nothing wrong with at least understanding what people of other faiths believe in.

Unfortunately, it is just too hotly debated of a topic. I bet you couldn’t even teach a history lesson about the interactions of the 3 main religions on the Iberian Peninsula during the 16th century without getting a packed PTO meeting the next week.

-Suntan


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By DanoruX on 6/11/2008 2:49:17 PM , Rating: 2
It's as much of a debated topic as is the issue over whether the Earth is flat or round.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By Suntan on 6/11/2008 3:07:08 PM , Rating: 2
Sarcasm aside, 90% of the parents of your average high school kid wouldn’t even know who the person was that postulated the world was not flat. They couldn’t care less about science (or the history of science) because they don’t know it, and aren’t smart enough to understand it themselves.

A topic like the amazing exchanges of the 3 major religions during what is arguably the most prolific period of religious intermixing between Christianity, Judaism and Islam would just bring out the parental worry warts that someone might dare teach their children something that could be interpreted differently depending on which religious background you subscribe to.

-Suntan


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By MrBlastman on 6/11/2008 12:17:49 PM , Rating: 2
After reading the wiki entry I want to thank you for pointing me in the direction of the correct term.

Abiogenesis is exactly what I meant by "radical evolutionist"


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By luseferous on 6/11/2008 12:18:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So, laugh all they want but they have not proven the key tennant of radical evolutionist belief - which is that life came from nothing at all all due to chance.


Stanley Miller + Complex systems/Chaos theory FTW.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By luseferous on 6/11/2008 12:19:53 PM , Rating: 2
I forgot the imo. :)


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By Suntan on 6/11/2008 12:39:29 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry to say, but you are *not* a creationist. You are just a person that believes in God.

Nobody said that evolution and God doesn't coinside.

-Suntan


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By MrBlastman on 6/11/2008 12:44:59 PM , Rating: 1
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
cre·a·tion·ism Audio Help /kri'e????n?z?m/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kree-ey-shuh-niz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, esp. in the first chapter of Genesis.
3. the doctrine that God immediately creates out of nothing a new human soul for each individual born.

2 and 3 fall within my definition. I however disagree with definition 1 - as I do believe life has evolved from its origin to some large degree in many instances.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By Suntan on 6/11/2008 1:52:18 PM , Rating: 2
That just doesn’t make sense.

You can’t “believe” in 2&3 if you don’t believe in 1. That’s the way religion (at least Christianity) works. You can’t pick and choose and still call yourself a creationist.

If you believe Genesis is a true, literal story, (and yeah, you have to believe it is literally true) then you do not believe in evolution.

You *can* believe in God, while believing whatever else specifically that you want. However, in doing so you acknowledge that man’s understanding of God is wrong, at least partially. Which again, is a no-no in Christian circles as it tends to be all or nothing.

-Suntan


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By MrBlastman on 6/11/2008 2:29:59 PM , Rating: 1
In radical circles it is all or nothing. Same with the fundamentalists.

What I was originally trying to get across is not all of us "Creationists" are as irrational as we are made out to be. Some of us are down right logical and sane in our ideas.

Genesis as far as I'm concerned did not literally happen in a few days - each day happened over the course of thousands of years.

Evolution has far too much scientific evidence to deny.

Christianity has been made out to be an "evil sect" by mainstream media. We're not all crazies. The public is just the guinea pig for spin.

You also have to understand that the Bible is subject to interpretation. The Fundamentalists do not interpret - they believe the Bible verbatim which is what you allude to in:

quote:
You *can* believe in God, while believing whatever else specifically that you want. However, in doing so you acknowledge that man’s understanding of God is wrong, at least partially. Which again, is a no-no in Christian circles as it tends to be all or nothing.


There is a huge difference between them and your average Christian.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By Suntan on 6/11/2008 2:40:05 PM , Rating: 2
I was raised Catholic, I know what is “taught” and what the “average” person believes.

In a nutshell, what is taught is that what the average person believes is a sin.

That’s not spin. That’s spelled out in the religious doctrine.

In any case, I prefer to believe something in between the two extremes as well.

-Suntan


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By MrBungle123 on 6/11/2008 6:53:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Genesis as far as I'm concerned did not literally happen in a few days - each day happened over the course of thousands of years.


6,000 year old earth 12,000 year old earth both interpretations are an impossiblility given the scientific evidence.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By MozeeToby on 6/11/2008 1:30:37 PM , Rating: 1
I just wanted to say that I think it is a dispicable abuse of the comment rating system that most of your posts are voted down.

I may not agree with what you are saying but you are certainly not saying anything offensive and what you have been saying has created real discusion points for the article. It's just people with an agenda and a rating system that lets them vote 10+ times in popular discussions.


RE: A less-biased opinion... ;)
By Reclaimer77 on 6/11/2008 3:53:25 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not touching this debate. But I do agree the article would have been just fine without the blatant " IN your face, Creationists ! " slant. Was that really called for or even germane to the topic ?


By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 6/16/2008 3:04:09 PM , Rating: 2
Evolutionary theory doesn't argue that life came from nothing. You are thinking of planetary biology.

So what you are saying is that you have conceded the creationist / evloution argument on evolutionary grounds? But not on the issue of the demarcation between chemistry and biology? (At what point does chemistry become biology, and how?)

If so, then how about the fundamental issue of why there is something rather than nothing?


But we all know the truth...
By Proteusza on 6/11/2008 11:21:56 AM , Rating: 4
The Flying Spaghetti Monster intervened and fooled the researchers to further test our faith.




RE: But we all know the truth...
By JasonMick (blog) on 6/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: But we all know the truth...
By alkaiser on 6/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: But we all know the truth...
By ImSpartacus on 6/11/2008 12:17:25 PM , Rating: 5
You shouldn't have to make an argument for the bible being correct. I hate it when people link to these bible answer websites that add in all this insight and BS to make the bible seem correct.

If the bible is truly correct it would not need people writing articles defending it.


RE: But we all know the truth...
By Biodude on 6/11/2008 12:36:13 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
If the bible is truly correct it would not need people writing articles defending it.
Defending one's precepts, thoughts, and research, in front of your peers is one of the most fundamental aspects of progress. If you don't think that even the most elegant, correct and demonstrative papers are not defended and argued over you aren't a scientist and you don't know much about research.


RE: But we all know the truth...
By ImSpartacus on 6/11/2008 2:04:22 PM , Rating: 3
Does religion need progress?

A Christian's life goal is to go to heaven when he dies. Does he need to question others? He only needs his God, right?

Pilgrims worshiped God, and if that's all that's necessary to succeed in your life goal, then what use is progress?

Do research, science and peer review even matter to your life goal?


RE: But we all know the truth...
By Suntan on 6/11/2008 2:57:43 PM , Rating: 1
While I am not very religious at all, I do enjoy a good religious documentary on the History channel or PBS.

From all the evidence I have seen, every major religion (yes, even Islam) is very much in support of bettering yourself and your society. It is only the very small, extreme subsets of some religions that believe self betterment and striving for a better understanding of the world around you is wrong.

-Suntan


RE: But we all know the truth...
By Biodude on 6/11/2008 3:07:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Does religion need progress?
I would assume that like anything else that can be studied, progress in one's knowledge, understanding, and closeness to the topic would be just as important in religion as in any other study, yes.

quote:
A Christian's life goal is to go to heaven when he dies.
Funny, I've never heard it expressed like that before. Last time I heard going to heaven was a byproduct, not the goal.

quote:
Do research, science and peer review even matter to your life goal?
Assuming for a moment when you say "your" you meant "a pilgrim's", sure, why not? Why have study texts, church services, Bible studies, committees on the xyz, conferences on the zyx, archeology digs, etc etc unless research, science and peer review are important?

Just because you can't comprehend the motivations or the intentions does not mean there is a lack of critical thought. I would guess that there is a large difference in perspective going on here.


RE: But we all know the truth...
By ImSpartacus on 6/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: But we all know the truth...
By straycat74 on 6/11/2008 6:36:22 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I was raised a Christian and I was taught that the only reason I existed on Earth was to prove myself worthy to live eternally with God.


You would be wrong then. Your view is way too simplistic. Too bad you quit before you understood. To be a Christian is to believe in Jesus and live a life that is Christ-like. To acknowledge you are imperfect and a sinner. Your key to Heaven is believing in Jesus. That's all. But if you believe, you strive to live in an appropriate way.

Religions may change their beliefs to fit, but Christians don't.


RE: But we all know the truth...
By oab on 6/12/08, Rating: 0
RE: But we all know the truth...
By straycat74 on 6/12/2008 8:44:26 AM , Rating: 3
Which page in the Bible has the dress code?


RE: But we all know the truth...
By Screwballl on 6/12/2008 12:27:20 PM , Rating: 2
Some of the best and smartest scientists are also very devout Christians or at least very religious in other parts of the world. There are always pieces of any scientific puzzle that simply cannot be explained and is why they retain their religion.


RE: But we all know the truth...
By Samus on 6/13/2008 3:10:50 AM , Rating: 1
The bible is actually a decent read if you can just sit down with an open mind. 2000 years ago, they ate that shit up! But we can reflect on a lot of basic human traits and faults with its very basic lessons. People these days have nothing good to relate to except horrible roll models, the corrupt media and trashy music. That's why society is so jacked up. If people could be a little more honest and outgoing, we wouldn't have a lot of the problems and pain we do.


RE: But we all know the truth...
By geddarkstorm on 6/11/2008 12:55:09 PM , Rating: 1
Ancient Hebrew was not a positional mathematical system--that is, there's no decimal places, so you cannot say 3.14 in Hebrew, only 3. So, like Egyptian math, an exact answer and an approximation cannot be distinguished due to the lack of number theory.

Now, how often are people educated with the knowledge of that and not make the mistake Jason made?


RE: But we all know the truth...
By ImSpartacus on 6/11/2008 1:46:38 PM , Rating: 3
I really don't like it when people make excuses, because with God, there is absolutely no reasons for such things. If God is totally omnipotent in every way then he would have no trouble putting decimals into a number system that has none. It doesn't matter how it is done, but it is done.

That's the problem with religion in general. You don't have to explain it. It just is. You can always say "Well, God just wants it like that." How can you argue with that? If you honestly believe in your god, then you cannot argue that he can make things the way he wants them.

So you really don't need an answers website for the bible, because you should undyingly believe that you god can do what he wants and he does not need to be explained.


RE: But we all know the truth...
By geddarkstorm on 6/11/2008 2:16:10 PM , Rating: 4
Um, read what you said again, doesn't it sound a bit... silly?

"Oh yes, God could make this civilization of people invent a whole new number system which they don't need just to describe pi to the millionth digit" for.. what? For whom? Is it that important? What's wrong with their number system being so imprecise when there was no need for precision? And how many digits would you have them go? 10? 20? a billion? Our super computers haven't even found the end of it. Do you want the bible to be nothing but pages of pi? They didn't say it was 4, now did they? So, they are not wrong. In all approximation, rounding to the whole digit, Pi is 3.

Come on man, think logically. If God is logical, it'd be incredibly dumb to make people suddenly use new digit schemes just to make pi perfect when describing the size and form of an object, when pi and math are neither important for that description of said object or even part of the discussion. It's like the old adage, are you precise or concise? Cripes, approximation to 3 was more than good enough for them back then and us now to recreate that object, so I think they did a fine job of describing it :|.


RE: But we all know the truth...
By ImSpartacus on 6/11/2008 2:23:02 PM , Rating: 2
That's it; you're right. God doesn't have to be logical, even a little bit.

That's Christianity, blind faith.

If God were logical, he (she?) would not have mentioned Pi at all.

But then I already told you God doesn't have to be logical...


RE: But we all know the truth...
By geddarkstorm on 6/11/2008 2:31:27 PM , Rating: 2
Now you're just acting dumb to be dumb. It is utterly logical as it is. We're talking about the dimensions of an object, rounded, equaling the first digit of Pi. Whoopdeedoo. How is that illogical? You do it in math all the time. Everywhere. No math in science is carried out to its ultimate digit (if there is one), except where the ultimate digit happens to fit the "three sig figs" rule. Now, is science illogical and wrong suddenly because we rounded? GASP! Us horrible scientists, being so illogical, being so wrong in everything we do because we commit the shameful sin of ROUNDING!

I hate ignorance statements being thrown around just to be contrary.


RE: But we all know the truth...
By masher2 (blog) on 6/11/2008 4:07:35 PM , Rating: 1
> "Whoopdeedoo. How is that illogical? You do it in math all the time"

Agreed. There's far more valid mistakes in the bible. Robert Ingersoll points out a hundred or so of them, in this classic work from 150 years ago. I recommend it highly to anyone interested in the topic:

http://www.amazon.com/Some-Mistakes-Moses-Robert-I...


RE: But we all know the truth...
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/11/2008 5:18:07 PM , Rating: 3
masher2..... If one guy came up with just one mistake in the Bible he would undo the root of Judaism and Christianity. Truth is no one has every found one mistake in the Bible. Many misread or choose to read just one line and come up with their own thoughts to add to that line verse reading the page before and the page after which explains has happen or being said to have happen. Again, not one mistake, that's why it is known as the greatest book ever.


RE: But we all know the truth...
By Darkefire on 6/11/2008 6:26:20 PM , Rating: 2
Wasn't that the plot of Dogma?


RE: But we all know the truth...
By michael67 on 6/13/2008 10:42:40 AM , Rating: 2
@Seemonkeyscanfly you made that name just to post on this topic dint you :D

If God created the Earth in +/-4000BC, he did a great job in fouling ALL scientist in putting so mouths fake proof of Evolution in his creation.

A lot of non scientist think that in scientific community "theory" means the same as daily use.

In daily use there are 2 main forms of theory:
1. I take a strong plank lay it over a stream and think in theory it should hold me.
(they do break so it means it is just a weak hypotheses and can easily be proven wrong)

2, they design a simple public bridge and do all the calculations in theory it shouldn’t collapse
(it can still break but is very unlikely, so it means it is a stronger hypotheses and is almost never proven wrong)

In science there are 3 main forms of theory:
1. starting theory, what if this ore that is true how do we prove it.
(noting is proven so it means it is just a weak hypotheses and can easily be proven wrong but it’s a starting point)

2. main theory('s), not proven but generally excepted as properly/possible but also still can be proven wrong.
(like before it was proven, the 2 theory's about a static and expanding universe, both ware very plausible, it divided the scientific community in to 2 groups, ware both groups tried to find evidence to support there theory)

3. general accepted theory, General accepted by the whole scientific community as being true
(The theory of a expanding Universe is accepted as being true, and bin accepted by the whole scientific community, after a static universe was proven to be wrong)

General accepted theory’s like expanding Universe and Evolution, are on the same level as the hypotheses and theoretical answer "if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there listening to it dose it make a sound: answer yes "
No one can prove that the tree made sound when it falls because in doing so you are listening to it, still everything we know says it will make a sound.

If we take this to criminal law it would be the same as:
The police surrounded a basement whit only one entrance the door is locked inside there is one criminal and one hostage both to be known to be alive when they entered and closed the door, there is a shot and the criminal come out and the hostage is dead, denying that he done it would be the same as saying there beamed a little green men in toke my gun shot the hostage and beamed out again, I dint do it.
BUT still there is no prove he done it, only to certainty bordering likelihood that he done it.

This is how convinced the scientific community is about Evolution.
And I dear you to writhe ore call any scientist in biology astronomy, agrology ore physics that thatches at a university ore any scientist that has published in nature and ask him/her how strong they believe in Evolution

And read this post it’s a excellent summation of prove of Evolution mostly by Christian scientist.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=12045...


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/18/2008 2:28:26 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting link....
I went through a few of them. What is a common mistake though... In creationism... No not all creatures made at same time. God made man last (also does not mean no creature came after man, it's just how it's listed in the story). That means the other creatures were made before and were around before man. Again time to God (a day) is different then time to a man on Earth. Our day 24 hours, Gods day unknown to man.
There is nothing anti-Biblical about creatures changing over time. Like yes, a dinosaurs being related to chickens - or just different sized chickens...that is fine per the Bible. However, the line of creature that is dinosaurs and chicken can not be the same line of creature that is man, or dog, or ape... Now x years ago did man look more ape like? Maybe, but he was not ape.

If we take this to criminal law it would be the same as:
The police surrounded a basement whit only one entrance the door is locked inside there is one criminal and one hostage both to be known to be alive when they entered and closed the door, there is a shot and the criminal come out and the hostage is dead, denying that he done it would be the same as saying there beamed a little green men in toke my gun shot the hostage and beamed out again, I dint do it. BUT still there is no prove he done it, only to certainty bordering likelihood that he done it.

Errrr, not very scientific of you... You have heard of forensic. Were you would use science here to prove what happened because everything leaves some sort of trail. With this in mind, for man to come from ape – there would be some sort of trail. Science has yet to find this trail (the missing link). From a Biblical point of view we would tell you – you will not find this link, because man and ape are not the same. Now 100 or 4,000 years from now Apes start to talk – would this be against the Bible – No, because it does not make them man, they are still apes, but now they talk.


RE: But we all know the truth...
By SteelyKen on 6/11/2008 4:08:01 PM , Rating: 5
What does the Bible say concerning tangents?
You know, like the one this thread was destined to follow...


RE: But we all know the truth...
By Frank M on 6/11/2008 6:32:48 PM , Rating: 3
31.4 rounded to the nearest digit is 31, not 30.


RE: But we all know the truth...
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/11/2008 5:11:01 PM , Rating: 2
God is what he wants to be... And that is male, never once is this a question in the Bible. Any who disagrees simply does not or did not study the Bible and therefor is not a Christian...(Since the Bible is the word of God and knowing the word of God is key to every Christian. No do not need to memorize just need to be able to recognize the word.)


RE: But we all know the truth...
By Frank M on 6/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: But we all know the truth...
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/11/2008 6:57:14 PM , Rating: 4
God is male per the Bible. There is never a physical description of God. Viewed as pillar of fire, Cloud of smoke for the Jews to follow out of Egypt. That's about as close as you get.


RE: But we all know the truth...
By Frank M on 6/11/08, Rating: -1
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/12/2008 10:15:00 AM , Rating: 5
I know you are trying to be funny, but it's really sad. The answer to your questions are all yes. We celebrate this event every year. It's one of if not the largest Holiday in the World. We (the rest of world) celebrates the birth of his son through a female that was named Mary. The holiday is called Christmas.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/11/2008 2:54:47 PM , Rating: 3
> "Ancient Hebrew was not a positional mathematical system--that is, there's no decimal places, so you cannot say 3.14 in Hebrew, only "

But they didn't need to say "3.14159". The figures given were 10 and 30. Yet 10 and 31 would have both still been integers, and been considerably closer to the true value of pi. :p


RE: But we all know the truth...
By Frank M on 6/11/2008 6:19:27 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
In 1 Kings 7:23 there is an intriguing statement: 'And he [Hiram on behalf of King Solomon] made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.


You wouldn't need decimals. If it's 10 cubits across the diameter, it would be ~31.4 cubits around, rounded down to 31.

Failed argument.


RE: But we all know the truth...
By phattyboombatty on 6/11/2008 7:04:56 PM , Rating: 3
But what if the actual measurements were 30.25 and 9.65? A fair rounding of those numbers would be 30 and 10. There's no basis to assume that the diameter was exactly 10, and then state that 31 should have been the circumference. Do you see why this is such a loose argument? People could go on endlessly, and I haven't even mentioned how the "brim to brim" could be referring to the inner brim to inner brim (the diameter would be less in this case due to the thickness of the bowl) as opposed to the outer brim to outer brim which you seem to be assuming without any justification.


RE: But we all know the truth...
By Frank M on 6/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: But we all know the truth...
By daar on 6/12/2008 8:04:05 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
9.65 would round to 10.


lack of reading comprehension ftw

i ain't religious, but even for me, it's odd that a number of these down rated posts aren't even that bad, in fact i'd say a few present some reasonable responses (whether i agree or disagree is a different matter). the problem with this is that the mentality with science fanatics is the same as religious fanatics; namely the too common douchebagged quality where one must keep beating their drum about how they're right.


RE: But we all know the truth...
By TheDoc9 on 6/12/2008 11:19:18 AM , Rating: 2
and then you've got the guy who pretends to be in the middle and above the argument, and gets to make fun of everyone else. :)


RE: But we all know the truth...
By jahwarrior on 6/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: But we all know the truth...
By ImSpartacus on 6/11/2008 1:59:35 PM , Rating: 4
Your article is written with extreme bias and ineducation. It is right to order people to question things, which is ironic.

Your article says that evolution is deemed total fact and those who oppose it are shunned, but isn't that how Christianity is treated?

I live in a rural Midwestern town in the United States. Christianity is shoved down my throat all the time. I am told not to question it, and the people who do are looked upon as outsiders.

So, if I question Evolution, am I allowed to question God?


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/12/2008 11:36:44 AM , Rating: 2
In the Bible is state that you should question if there is a God or not all the time. This causes you to learn and grow.... questioning things is a good thing in a Christian world. Though there are areas that good over the top and it sounds like you lived in one....sorry to hear that.


RE: But we all know the truth...
By jbizzler on 6/11/2008 9:29:15 PM , Rating: 2
All of science is about defending un-provable things with evidence, since science can only be disproven. While defending the Bible isn't necessarily science for other reasons, your last statement makes the very foundations of science pointless. Think about how many scientific breakthroughs needed defending for people to finally believe them.

If the Bible were the divine word of God at one point, I doubt it still is. It's been rewritten and translated countless times, and possibly modified by the Catholic Church.

Whether or not God exists is not a question science can answer. Science can't say one way or the other as far as we can tell.

About evolution. If this study holds true, all it says is that a new gene appeared in this E. Coli. It doesn't, in any way, say this has been happening since the beginning of life. All it is is another piece of evidence. There could be any number of reasons other than random chance that the gene appeared, no matter how slim those chances are.

Everything in science could go one way or the other. Some just have more evidence.

I personally leave everything in question. I don't believe anything, but don't disbelieve anything either. The universe may not even exist. I might not exist. Maybe the universe only started existing when I was born. But living life like it's pointless when it isn't could be bad. Living for a reason when there is none can't hurt anyone.


By snakeInTheGrass on 6/12/2008 9:22:02 AM , Rating: 2
Glancing at some other pages on the linked-to site, I'm not sure I'd call it a defense - it's exactly what makes the whole creationist 'debate' so ludicrous.

In explaining why the earth is really young, the essence is that it's young because the bible says so (infallible word of god, never mind that it's a book written by people...) and all the other so-called scientific evidence therefore is wrong.

We're lucky the bible doesn't say that computers can't exist because otherwise we'd all be posting with these fake computers, and that would be really awkward.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1866.asp

Little excerpt: "Here’s what I mean by this: I understand that the Bible is a revelation from our infinite Creator, and it is self-authenticating and self-attesting. I must interpret Scripture with Scripture, not impose ideas from the outside! When I take the plain words of the Bible, it is obvious there was no death, bloodshed, disease or suffering of humans or animals before sin. God instituted death and bloodshed because of sin—this is foundational to the Gospel. Therefore, one cannot allow a fossil record of millions of years of death, bloodshed, disease and suffering before sin (which is why the fossil record makes much more sense as the graveyard of the flood of Noah’s day)."


RE: But we all know the truth...
By McGuffin on 6/11/2008 7:24:55 PM , Rating: 2
Some of the arguments here remind me of this:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512


RE: But we all know the truth...
By geddarkstorm on 6/11/2008 12:57:26 PM , Rating: 3
All joking aside, that's silly to say it's some fault when the language of the day couldn't do decimal places, so there was no difference between approximations and exact answers : P.


RE: But we all know the truth...
By phattyboombatty on 6/11/2008 2:10:18 PM , Rating: 4
Five thousand years from now somebody will unearth the body of Michael Jordan and say, "Those stupid simpletons couldn't even properly measure their own height. All the historical literature said that Michael Jordan was 6 feet, 6 inches, but obviously based on our measurements he was clearly 6 feet, 6.0471 inches."


RE: But we all know the truth...
By ImSpartacus on 6/11/2008 2:24:23 PM , Rating: 1
That's different. MJ isn't a universal mathematical concept.


By phattyboombatty on 6/11/2008 3:43:05 PM , Rating: 4
You obviously don't know the background on the whole "the Bible says pi is 3" argument. First, it doesn't come right out and say "the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is 3." The particular story simply mentions the dimensions of a bowl using archaic measurements, and some rocket scientist somewhere figured out that the measurements don't accurately portray pi.

Second, pi cannot be expressed as an exact number anyway, so the Bible can't win. If it would have been correct to 10 decimal places, it still would technically be incorrect and someone would complain.


RE: But we all know the truth...
By werepossum on 6/11/2008 7:05:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's different. MJ isn't a universal mathematical concept.


WHAT? When did this happen?


RE: But we all know the truth...
By geddarkstorm on 6/11/2008 2:27:47 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly, it's silly that people are like "Oh no, they rounded to the whole digit, somehow that makes it wrong when it isn't mathematically wrong!", unless they are just doing so in jest. In science, most of our measurements only got out to the 2nd or 3rd decimal place (3 significant digits), does that somehow make us completely wrong when the answer actually goes out to the trillionth place? No. Not only is approximation necessary, but we are limited by the precision of our instruments for measuring.

Pi is 3 when rounded to the whole digit. Big deal. It's like people have never heard of rounding before.


RE: But we all know the truth...
By Suntan on 6/11/2008 3:18:23 PM , Rating: 2
I admit that I have no idea what this pi equals 3 argument is about, but I do take issue with your little simplification below.

quote:

In science, most of our measurements only got out to the 2nd or 3rd decimal place (3 significant digits), does that somehow make us completely wrong when the answer actually goes out to the trillionth place? No. Not only is approximation necessary, but we are limited by the precision of our instruments for measuring.


No.

In *science* constants are the number they are. Not rounded up, not rounded down.

In *engineering* pi can be 3 if you are doing a quick check. It can be 3.14159 if you are doing an in depth evaluation.

Real world constraints of tooling accuracy and measurement error make extreme precision of constants much less critical. The theoretical/mathematical world of *science* requires much more due diligence.

Anyway, continue on with whatever argument you were having.

-Suntan


RE: But we all know the truth...
By phattyboombatty on 6/11/2008 3:54:57 PM , Rating: 2
To give you some background, the story at issue gave the dimensions of a bowl and said something like "the distance around the perimeter of the bowl was 12 cubits and the distance from one edge of the rim to the other was 4 cubits." Now, if you divide 12 by 4, you get 3, and that is where the "Bible says pi is 3!" argument comes from. The ridiculousness of that argument should be self-evident.


RE: But we all know the truth...
By Suntan on 6/11/2008 5:08:30 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, I see.

Heaven help us if these two sides ever move on to the topic of “leap years.”

-Suntan


RE: But we all know the truth...
By ImSpartacus on 6/11/2008 11:31:19 AM , Rating: 5
Bless his noodley appendage.


RE: But we all know the truth...
By Proteusza on 6/11/2008 11:57:12 AM , Rating: 6
RAmen.


RE: But we all know the truth...
By FITCamaro on 6/11/2008 12:10:31 PM , Rating: 2
+6 :)


RE: But we all know the truth...
By winterspan on 6/11/08, Rating: 0
By therealnickdanger on 6/12/2008 10:36:26 AM , Rating: 4
If you took the time to look beyond the generic comments made by inept Christian talking heads or slanderous atheists, you would find that the Bible doesn't promote a single item on your list:

quote:
1)Flat Earth WRONG
2) Pi = 3.0 WRONG
3)Geocentrism ("earth as center of the solar system/universe") WRONG
4)Young Earth WRONG
5)Genesis/Creationism WRONG
6)Earth as only location of life TBD
7) ?


1. Job 26:10, Proverbs 8:27, and Isaiah 40:22 (JPS) clearly describe a round Earth - not a flat one. Don't confuse poetic prose about "four corners of the Earth" with statements of fact. The flat-Earth myth is sadly still promoted at a Christian invention, even though the roots of the Christian faith lie in Judaism, which has never taught such a position.

2. Pi rounded to nearest whole number does in fact equal three. The Bible doesn't use decimals, it expects you to be smart enough to understand that. Another poster above has already stated all that is necessary on this topic.

3. Geocentrism is wrong, but you have to place the blame on people that incorrectly interpret the Bible or pull verses out of context. The fault here lies with "the church", not with the Bible. The Bible has little to say about the universe around the Earth and when it does speak, it doesn't support geocentrism.

4. Again, here you have to actually READ what the Bible says. Read Gen 1:1-2. It describes a dark, lifeless rock with water on it already - clearly before the 6-day creation event begins in verse 3-5. There were no "days" measured until God allowed light to shine - all the time before that (tens? hundreds? millions? billions?) is unaccounted for. "In the beginning" is a time of unknown measure before "day one".

5. That's a tad to general.

6. The Bible clearly describes life in the "heavens". Be they God Himself, angels, demons, serfim, what-have-you, there is much life catalogued in the Bible beyond what is on the surface of the Earth. One thing is clear, the Earth is the only location of HUMAN LIFE.

7. It really doesn't matter what you place here. Ultimately the Bible is not a science book. The biggest problem with "the church" or any religion aligning themselves with the Bible is when they apply their own doctrine of absolutes to it BEYOND what it says in the pages. Get back to the core of what it actually says, devoid of all your preconceptions, and discover how you can apply its values to your day-to-day life.


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/12/2008 11:28:10 AM , Rating: 5
Wow have you never study Christian or Jewish beliefs. It silly of you to talk about some ones beliefs when you have no clue.

First if it is not in the Bible it is not a Christian belief. Yes over the course of time there have been idiots saying things on behalf of Christians (though they themselves I doubt were real Christians, their family's probably go them the job by paying for it...) This still happens to, look at Al Gore – he acts like he's a scientist and speaks on behalf of ALL scientist but really has no clue and is pissing off the scientific world.

1)Flat Earth?? Never, not once is the shape of the World talked about in the Bible. So you are wrong
2)Pi = 3.0 ?? Again never talked about in the Bible
3)Geocentricism ?? Again never talked about in the Bible – in fact on space in resent day the Roman Catholic church decreed that live on other plants is very possible and is most like out there, does not sound like center of everything thinking to me.
4)Young Earth – Real this is not defined in the Bible (the age of planet not important to the Bible or Christians). Over the thousands of years the Bible has been around, many have tried to use it to guess the age of the Earth. Most make a horrible mistake. They assume God day is the same length of time as it is here on Earth. Time has no meaning to God, so a young earth is just a few the believe that but really again not talked about..
5)Genesis – well if you believe in science you are going to have a hell of a bad day. Science and the Bible tell the same story – Start with a big bang --- Bible start with then there was light (explosion cause noise and light). The whole development of the Earth in the Bible matches what science claim to have happen.... Including the entire Earth at one point having only one big mass of land surrounded by water, until it broke up to smaller masses. Geee isn't that a popular scientific thought????
6)Earth as only location of life – never says that in the Bible – she answer 3 again for better understanding of what at least some Christians think about life on other planets.
7)?? - I suggest you learn about a subject from the source of the subject and not third party sources. - Read the Bible not “the DaVinci Code”


By MrHanson on 6/11/2008 2:33:28 PM , Rating: 3
http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK3U696N278Z9...

"It’s a good thing Dr. Behe quickly dispelled the significance of this experiment. It saves us a lot of work having to trudge through the overhyped claims in the paper. Basically, the E. coli already had the machinery to digest citrate, but just lacked a gateway to get the nutrient inside, which was not that improbable a hurdle for a couple of mutations to permit. This accomplishment is orders of magnitude simpler than the kind of luck required to build the machinery in the first place. It’s like blindly pushing and finding a weakness in a fence. This is all the longest-running lab experiment in evolution was able to accomplish in 20 years of trying, with almost 40,000 generations. Are you impressed? If you can tell a lawyer is lying when his lips are moving, you can tell an evolutionist is lying when the reporters go wild about how Darwin has been vindicated."




By TheDoc9 on 6/11/2008 3:20:17 PM , Rating: 3
finally a voice of reason, I thought it might come from masher because of how biased this article was to begin with.

Genes don't just appear, you might as well wish for a million dollars to appear out of thin air but it's not going to happen.

Now we get to the truth and it turns out it's just another scientist twisting words to prove his religion. Sadly many people will fall for it.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/11/2008 4:01:00 PM , Rating: 2
> "It’s like blindly pushing and finding a weakness in a fence"

But that's all evolution is in the first place-- a lot of blind pushing that eventually finds a way to advance.

As for vindicating Darwin, that's been done the last century or so.


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/11/2008 5:27:58 PM , Rating: 2
When??? Still no missing link, still no proof of one creature changing into another. Just one creature become bigger, stronger, smaller, weaker....(creatures - not bacteria - Of course can argue bacteria can change to a new form of bacteria, but guess what? It's still just bacteria. Not ZZDDBBXXteria (something new))

Strongest will survive...sure that's true, always has been that way. - Bible and non Bible beliefs


By masher2 (blog) on 6/11/2008 5:44:57 PM , Rating: 2
> "Still no missing link..."

quote:
Missing link" is a popular term for transitional forms. Numerous examples exist, including those of primates and early humans ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/11/2008 6:51:57 PM , Rating: 5
The full thing:
A popular term used to designate transitional forms is "missing links". The term is especially used in the regular media, but is inaccurate and confusing. In reality, the continuing discovery of more and more transitional fossils is further adding to the knowledge of evolutionary transitions. The term probably arose in the nineteenth century where the awaited discovery of a "missing link" between humans and so-called "lower" animals was considered to be the final proof of evolution.

I'm using the last part between human and lower animal (more popular I think we can agree). A change in Bacteria to a different bacteria or anything of the same level of change is really no change at all. To me it is the same thing as saying look here is a Asian, African, European, and every other race...you mix up their genes and give birth to a new kind of human? No. It's a new baby, however still human.
At the end of the day, they still had bacteria...new form, more deadly – maybe, but still bacteria.


By bill3 on 6/12/2008 7:30:45 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah wikipedia, great source masher, a source where anybody can edit and liberals rule with an iron fist.

For example, I've noticed on the Wiki polar bear page, they take great pains to never mention the fact the polar bear population is at a recent decades high. Because that would threaten their whole global warming BS house of cards, by admitting that polar bears are in fact thriving. Which is simply a fact, not an assertion. But that side hates facts and science. And thrives on lies, stupidy, the gullible masses, and blind faith.

There are no "missing link" fossils, ever, period.


By bill3 on 6/12/2008 7:35:33 AM , Rating: 2
>>I think the results fit a lot more easily into the viewpoint of The Edge of Evolution. One of the major points of the book was that if only one mutation is needed to confer some ability, then Darwinian evolution has little problem finding it. But if more than one is needed, the probability of getting all the right ones grows exponentially worse. “If two mutations have to occur before there is a net beneficial effect — if an intermediate state is harmful, or less fit than the starting state — then there is already a big evolutionary problem.” (4) And what if more than two are needed? The task quickly gets out of reach of random mutation.

To get a feel for the clumsy ineffectiveness of random mutation and selection, consider that the workers in Lenski’s lab had routinely been growing E. coli all these years in a soup that contained a small amount of the sugar glucose (which they digest easily), plus about ten times as much citrate. Like so many cellular versions of Tantalus, for tens of thousands of generations trillions of cells were bathed in a solution with an abundance of food — citrate — that was just beyond their reach, outside the cell. Instead of using the unreachable food, however, the cells were condemned to starve after metabolizing the tiny bit of glucose in the medium — until an improbable series of mutations apparently occurred. As Lenski and co-workers observe: (1)>>

Leave the science to the real scientists ladies.


Religion vs. Science
By cscpianoman on 6/11/2008 9:54:54 PM , Rating: 4
Where does it say that science and religion are mutually exclusive? If religion deals with an omnipotent God and science deals with the understanding of the world around us wouldn't it make sense that the coincide in some form?

I like to think of it as a big jigsaw puzzle. Evolution is a piece and religion is a piece, just because the pieces don't connect directly does it mean we can through out one or both. It just means there are more pieces in between.

I believe in God and I accept evolution entirely. I don't think my faith is attacked by evolution, on the contrary, I appreciate more of the world around me the more and more I learn about science.




RE: Religion vs. Science
By Yossarian22 on 6/11/2008 11:06:48 PM , Rating: 2
Science embraces methodological naturalism (at a minimum), a position that basically rejects deity as a whole.

There is no supernatural (in any way, shape, or form), so that basically throws out 90% of all religions. It leaves pantheism, which is superfluous at best.

So in a sense, they are mutually mutually exclusive.


RE: Religion vs. Science
By JoshuaBuss on 6/12/2008 6:29:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is no supernatural (in any way, shape, or form), so that basically throws out 90% of all religions.


I'm sorry, but what peer-reviewed piece of work actually states this?

My more basic point - science doesn't say anything for OR against 'supernatural' activities... by its very nature it cannot. This doesn't mean they have to remain mutually exclusive, it just means they serve different purposes.


RE: Religion vs. Science
By Yossarian22 on 6/15/2008 2:57:54 AM , Rating: 2
Way to miss the point. Science cannot confirm the existence of the supernatural because science denies that the supernatural exists. At the very least, the supernaturally is wholly irrelevant and superfluous under the scientific method.


RE: Religion vs. Science
By just4U on 6/12/2008 2:37:57 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I believe in God and I accept evolution entirely. I don't think my faith is attacked by evolution, on the contrary, I appreciate more of the world around me the more and more I learn about science.


I agree. I also think alot of people who are educated, and have a religous belief probably look at it the same way.


RE: Religion vs. Science
By BruceLeet on 6/22/2008 6:01:36 PM , Rating: 2
Whats the point?
By mvpx02 on 6/11/2008 2:48:19 PM , Rating: 5
Every single article you write, it's like you're trying to pick a fight with somebody about the topic.

Why not just leave the first 2.5 paragraphs out and write about the evolutionary step that particular strain of E. Coli took? Instead there are now hundreds of comments of people going back and forth debating religion & evolution, when it has NOTHING to do with this story.

Maybe you could try linking this mutation to global warming, nuclear power & dying whales just to make sure the off-topic discussion is nice and well-rounded.




RE: Whats the point?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/11/2008 4:08:05 PM , Rating: 5
^
+6

Thats what I'm saying. I don't care about evolution or creationism arguments. Nobody ever wins. Why not just report ON the E.coli event and leave it at that ? Its like the dude gets up in the morning and says " Ok let me see how I can write this story with maximum flame baiting "


RE: Whats the point?
By NullSubroutine on 6/11/2008 11:51:47 PM , Rating: 4
Because this site gets money off the amount of traffic they get in a page (as well as probably clicked add links).

It is in his (their) interest to write articles that not only draw attention (headlines), but when combined a discussion thread behind every article you have people coming back to address and argue. It keeps people coming in and coming back which bring in ad revenue.

It's not like this type of news publications don't exist, especially in the technobabble field. You have the Inq, Fudzilla, and other various sites that not only report news, but comment on it - many times with a spin or tone on it. Whether it is to express an opinion or to jest it can grab readers attention and keep ad revenue coming.

Everyone is trying to pay the morgage...


Another comment
By JakLee on 6/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: Another comment
By masher2 (blog) on 6/11/2008 4:13:58 PM , Rating: 2
If your beliefs about evolutionary theory derives from a few bible-school sessions designed to discredit it (or worse, an incompetent high-school teacher who herself doesn't understand the theory) then you're necessarily going to struggle to understand it well.

The theory orginated from fossil observations, but since then it has been independently verified in many other ways. Molecular biology alone provides a far stronger basis for evolution than do fossil records.


RE: Another comment
By JakLee on 6/11/2008 5:03:37 PM , Rating: 2
Of course if your support of evolution comes from your dissastifaction with the Church (or worse teachers whose hatred for it and will do anything in their power to discredit it) then you are going to blindly follow it as well.

Like all people I chose what to believe and what not to believe. I have facts on my side, people who disagree have facts on their side as well. Interpreted facts.

My psychology professor made a point in one of my first classes that I always enjoyed. Two people can be in the same room and experience the exact same event and carry away two entirely different perceptions of that event.
One sceintists interpretation of the data may differ from another's. I am not a sceintist, but I am a fan of science and I read alot of information that is put out both supporting and attacking evolution. I also do not believe the arguement that was mentioned earlier by someone attacking creationism saying something like "if you believe we can't know everything then we revert to ignorance because no one will try to know anything".

That is a lame arguement. I don't know all the details of why animals behave certain ways - but animal behavioral science is facinating to me as well. By saying God created animals doesn't mean that I suddenly become not interested in why a cat likes chasing a mouse.


RE: Another comment
By ImSpartacus on 6/11/2008 5:42:34 PM , Rating: 2
Micro evolution and Macro evolution are the same thing.

There is no difference. Evolution can continue to occur until reproduction between an original organism and the evolved organism stops. At that point you have a different species.

Check this out:
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~rosenblum/research...
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~rosenblum/pdf/Rose...

Perfect example of micro -> macro. At the time of writing, they were not considered a different species, but now they are considered different.


RE: Another comment
By JakLee on 6/11/2008 6:30:00 PM , Rating: 2
not true.
Micro - a cat may become a different breed of cat, but will always be a cat.
Macro - someday said cat will become a diffent type of animal completely, say a bird.


RE: Another comment
By ImSpartacus on 6/15/2008 2:52:02 PM , Rating: 2
Now that is a problem (or just limitation) of categorization system.

If something evolves, it just evolves. It doesn't matter if Humans believe it is a different species (which is an abstract concept in itself), it is still evolution.

Also cats (and dogs) are different because they interbreed, but I get your point.

But the thing you're missing is that when that cat is a different breed of cat, how do you know it's a different breed of cat and not a bird? You have to use a human-made system of classification to determine what the new cat actually is. Did macro and micro-evolution not exist before humans organized a method of classifying?

I think you also have the method of evolution skewed a bit. Individual people do not evolve. Your cat isn't a cat the first 2 years of it's life, and a bird the last 10. It is always the same organism. It doesn't matter if it is a cat or a bird.

The evolution happens with new organisms. That cat's kittens may be totally normal. Or, one of them might die because it had a mutation that negatively impacted it. Another had a mutation that didn't impact it at all. A third may have even been slightly improved by that mutation.

That is really boiling it down, but that is basically evolution.


RE: Another comment
By phattyboombatty on 6/11/2008 6:49:04 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Micro evolution and Macro evolution are the same thing.

Neither terms are accepted scientific terms, but are more of a layman's way of saying "evolution in the short term" and "evolution in the long term". So, you're kind of half right, in that both involve the same process, but you're also wrong because, by definition, they describe different lengths of time. It's convenient to attack macroevolution because obviously no scientist can perform a million-year experiment in the lab to verify the results of evolution over that length of time. Thus, scientists are forced to look in the past and make inferences based on forensic analysis.


A very biased piece of "work"
By vtohthree on 6/11/2008 5:28:43 PM , Rating: 2

First and foremost, I believe in evolution, the whole debate of the origin is a different matter though(a.k.a true darwinism in which something came from nothing through random chance..because I believe that something had to write the algorithm for evolution, I don't believe something came from nothing).

To the point though, I feel as if the writer of this article basically wanted to express his opinion and whine about it in such a manner, "see this is what I believe in, and it's the truth and the only way, I'm right! see here's proof of it!!"

That's how blatantly obvious this article was to me. I respect Jason Mick's articles, but this was just an outright bias blog.




RE: A very biased piece of "work"
By Proteusza on 6/11/2008 5:32:57 PM , Rating: 2
The thing is, nowhere does Jason Mick infer that evolution being true implies that abiogenesis is also true. As has been stated before, abiogenesis is completely separate from evolution, although they are compatible.

Another thing, personal if you will. Evolution, being a matter of science and not religion, doesnt require belief any more than Einstein's theories of relativity do. They only require understanding.

Do you know that rivers tend to form slower, meandering bends and wider courses nearer to the sea, and narrow, straighter courses higher up? The reason for that is to keep their energy levels as constant as possible. Please try to argue that this behaviour means rivers are intelligent.


RE: A very biased piece of "work"
By vtohthree on 6/12/2008 1:42:28 AM , Rating: 2
Evolutionary conformity of non-living materials in alignment to gravity. There you have it for your river.

It's like taking a rugged rock and putting against the forces of water in a rushing river, over time it will wear, some can say "evolve". But that's what I stated above, conformity of a non-living material to "the elements" or external forces. No algorithm needed there. Nothing within the rock or rivers "told" it to change.

What makes humans so adaptable?

Why do we have different species in different part of the world, yes I believe they evolved, but since life continues with it's offspring(not some rock that has remained, beaten by the forces of nature for centuries), what told our offspring to create more(I'll u