backtop

Print 48 comment(s) - last by Jyrioffinland.. on Dec 25 at 8:29 PM

  (Source: Lawrence David)
MIT's mathematical model combines modern genomes and information on how genes evolve to pinpoint key changes in time and create a fossil record prior to the Cambrian Explosion

Computational biologists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have developed a mathematical model that is capable of using modern genomes to mimic the evolution of ancient microbes. 

Lawrence David, who recently earned his Ph.D. from MIT, and Eric Alm, a professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and the Department of Biological Engineering at MIT, have traced the evolution of ancient microbes back billions of years ago using modern genomes in an effort to identify points of change through history. 

The Cambrian Explosion, which occurred approximately 580 million years ago, was a period of rapid change on Earth where new life forms came about and contributed to the modern diversity of animals. Paleontologists are able to understand and archive the evolution of life from the Cambrian Explosion until now because of fossils, but recording the evolution of life before the Cambrian Explosion has been difficult due to the fact that soft Precambrian cells hardly left "fossil imprints" behind. 

But now, Alm and David have created a mathematical model that paints the picture of life more clearly over the 3 billion year period before the Cambrian Explosion. To do this, they used 100 modern genomes because all living organisms "inherit their genomes from ancestral genomes." All of the possible ways that genes evolve was combined with the mathematical model, such as the fact that new gene families can be born and inherited, duplicated in the same genome, lost, or swapped or horizontally transferred between organisms.

With the 100 modern genomes, researchers were able to trace thousands of genes back to their very first moment on Earth and were able to tell which ancient microbes carried these genes. According to the results, the genome of all life experienced an expansion between 3.3 and 2.8 billion years ago where 27 percent of all existing gene families were born. Alm and David are calling this period of time the Archean Expansion.

"What is really remarkable about these findings is that they prove that the histories of very ancient events are recorded in the shared DNA of living organisms," said Alm. "And now that we are beginning to understand how to decode that history, I have hope that we can reconstruct some of the earliest events in the evolution of life in great detail."

At first, Alm and David believed that the emergence of oxygen was the cause of the Archean Expansion since the new genes they've found are related to oxygen, and oxygen was not available on Earth until around 2.5 billion years ago when it started accumulating and killing off anerobic life forms during the Great Oxidation Event. But when investigating further, they found that oxygen-utilizing genes didn't exist until the end of the Archean Expansion, which is when geochemists dated the Great Oxidation Event. 

After eliminating that possibility, Alm and David now believe they've identified the beginnings of modern electron transport, which is the biochemical process that moves electrons around within cell membranes. The process is necessary for breathing, and is used by plants and some microbes during photosynthesis. It is believed that during the Great Oxide Event, a type of photosynthesis called oxygenic photosynthesis generated the oxygen we breathe today. Ultimately, electron transport's evolution through the Archean Expansion would be responsible for photosynthesis and respiration.

"Our results can't say if the development of electron transport directly caused the Archean Expansion," said David. "Nonetheless, we can speculate that having access to a much larger energy budget enabled the biosphere to host larger and more complex microbial ecosystems."

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
By Marlin1975 on 12/20/2010 1:17:13 PM , Rating: 5
Evolution is not a fact, don’t believe the educated liberals and those hippies.

/Fox

OK now thats out of the way :)




By Anoxanmore on 12/20/2010 1:26:35 PM , Rating: 2
I think it'd be really awesome to find out that the basic genetic material actually came from an asteroid that crashed into the Earth.

Which would pave the way for easier acceptance for other lifeforms than what is just on the Earth.


By Gio6518 on 12/20/2010 2:08:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think it'd be really awesome to find out that the basic genetic material actually came from an asteroid that crashed into the Earth.


Thats always been my theory, hard to believe that all life evolved from stem reptiles. IMHO its more plausible that the asteroid that "wiped out the dinosaurs" carried some kind of DNA or RNA to change life on our beloved planet from reptilian to mammalian...


By Anoxanmore on 12/20/2010 2:46:15 PM , Rating: 2
Well I was referring to the original DNA/RNA molecules that formed after an asteroid hit the Earth say 2.5B yrs ago.

The DNA combinations found in reptiles is quite plausible to have mutated, originally, to be found in mammals.

Also there were mammals around when the "Thunder Lizards" were present. They were just really small and used for food.


By Homerboy on 12/20/2010 4:32:07 PM , Rating: 4
You realize mammals were around at the same time as dinosaurs right?


By MozeeToby on 12/20/2010 1:57:22 PM , Rating: 4
Yeah, you shouldn't put too much weight into scientific theory, after all they're unproven right?

Like the Germ Theory of Disease, for instance (wouldn't want to automatically treat communicable disease as if it were caused by germs when it's just a theory would you?). Or the Atomic Theory (hey, matter could just be a non-differentiated soup that really, really looks like it's made of discrete atoms right?). Or Antenna theory (Actually, it looks like Apple could have paid a bit more attention to this one on their latest design). But there's no religious controversy about those theories (well, not anymore, germ theory had quite a bit of religious controversy at one point), so everyone just accepts them as correct without too much question.

But "it's not a law", people say. "If we really knew for sure it ought to be the law of evolution". The plane fact of the matter is that there is very little difference between a scientific law and a scientific theory. In fact, the only real difference is that a theory explains how things happen, instead of only explaining what happens (which is what Laws do). Scientific theories say more than laws do, and the level of evidence required to declare something a viable theory is exactly the same as it is for scientific laws.


By MozeeToby on 12/20/2010 3:35:56 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
We have tested those theories enough and now have proof, so it is well beyond a theory, enough to drop the title of "Theory" it anyhow.
No, that isn't how it works. No one get's to just decide that things are proven 'enough' and drop the word "theory" from title. Theories will always be theories, regardless of how much evidence supports them, because the word "theory" does not mean what you think it means.

Evolution is called a theory not because we haven't watched new species evolve but because evolution is a system of models, predictions, and explanations that can explain the observed diversity of life. And it is the preferred theory to explain the diversity of life because it explained the diversity best without resorting to making assumptions that can't be scientifically examined.

Atomic theory is (and will always be) a theory not because we haven't filled in all the gaps in the particle zoo yet, but because it is a system of models, predictions, and explanations that can explain the world as we understand it. That is all that the word "theory" means in a scientific context.


By tng on 12/20/2010 5:06:56 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
No, that isn't how it works. No one get's to just decide that things are proven 'enough' and drop the word "theory" from title. Theories will always be theories, regardless of how much evidence supports them, because the word "theory" does not mean what you think it means.

Actually it is what I think it means, but you are correct, it can never be proven enough to drop the word completely.

My point was that as a theory gains support from scientifically gathered evidence, the word "theory" is eventually dropped from the description in general. It is always understood that the word theory is still there in the background.

Evolution is one of those things that triggers that controversy. You have the one guy here that claims it as science fact, but although there is allot of evidence for it in the fossil record and probably is fact, there is still allot of unknowns. It still remains a theory.


By Fritzr on 12/22/2010 2:02:30 AM , Rating: 2
The meaning you are hanging on theory actually belongs to hypothesis.

In science you work out a model or set of rules that might explain what you see. This is called developing a hypothesis.

Now that you have a hypothesis, you can start designing tests (called experiments) that will work if your hypothesis is correct or fail if it is wrong. If you keep inventing new tests and the results continue to match the predictions of the hypothesis, then it becomes a theory.

Sometimes the tests are virtual, simply testing for flaws in the logic. That is where String Theory is at now. The best tests though are observation of reality. LHC is now testing several of the String Theories in this manner.

Evolution has been disproven so many times now that it is ridiculous (that is the newspaper version) scientists though simply study the evidence and revise the Theory to better match reality when this happens.

Phlogiston became Oxygen by this process. A material that was required for respiration and combustion was identified and it's behavior documented. Later chemical and atomic theories were used to rewrite the description and the element oxygen was identified as phlogiston. Nowadays we treat phlogiston theory as crackpot because the chemical and atomic theories were not used in the original research.


By PReiger99 on 12/20/2010 2:04:26 PM , Rating: 4
You obviously know very little about sciences. Evolution is an undeniable fact. The theory of evolution, as anything else in sciences, is the best explanation that account for all the available data.

Also, unless you haven't realized yet, the word "theory" in its familiar use has about the same meaning to what scientists call a "hypothesis". However, in sciences, a theory constitutes a statement taking account of multiple facts and tries to explain a large variety of phenomena, just like the theory of the gravitation of Newton or the theory of natural selection of Darwin.


By Irish Patient on 12/21/2010 10:39:47 AM , Rating: 2
The phrase "theory of evolution" subsumes two very different concepts. As most people do, your post takes those two separate concepts and mashes them together into a kind of jelly.

The first concept is the existence of evolution. In other words, the fossil record demonstrating that life has arisen only once or some small number of times, and that modern species have branched out from common ancestors. The existence of evolution is indeed an undeniable fact.

The second concept involves the process of evolution. The best explanation that can be posited today from the known facts is that of random point mutations and natural selection. This explanation is a theory at best, and is better described as a hypothesis.

The difficulty is that random mutation and selection does a good job of explaining how a mouse becomes a better mouse and a deer becomes a better deer, but it does a very bad job of explaining how a common ancestor branches into two separate species (which are no longer capable of interbreeding) that share a common geographic range. The point here is NOT to try to interject God into the process. I reject any attempt to resort to Deus ex machina, or "intelligent design", or whatever else one cares to call it, but there is simply no point in pretending that science holds all of the pieces of the puzzle at this point in time. There are still Nobel prizes to be won.

BTW, the theory that evolution is driven by random point mutations was not posited until long after Darwin was in his grave. Darwin deserves his reputation as an intellectual giant for recognizing the existence of evolution, but his musings as to the mechanics of evolution were discredited a century ago. Generally, a person who uses the term "Darwinism" to refer to the theory of random point mutations is not going to have much of value to offer.


By JediJeb on 12/21/2010 2:20:31 PM , Rating: 4
I picked this up from a chemistry site and I think it define Law, Theory and Hypothesis pretty well.

Words have precise meanings in science. For example, 'theory', 'law', and 'hypothesis' don't all mean the same thing. Outside of science, you might say something is 'just a theory', meaning it's supposition that may or may not be true. In science, a theory is an explanation that generally is accepted to be true. Here's a closer look at these important, commonly misused terms.

Hypothesis

A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.

Example: If you see no difference in the cleaning ability of various laundry detergents, you might hypothesize that cleaning effectiveness is not affected by which detergent you use. You can see this hypothesis can be disproven if a stain is removed by one detergent and not another. On the other hand, you cannot prove the hypothesis. Even if you never see a difference in the cleanliness of your clothes after trying a thousand detergents, there might be one you haven't tried that could be different.

Theory

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes.

Law

A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.

As you can see, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations. Note, however, if you define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the evidence, then there is 'proof' in science. I work under the definition that to prove something implies it can never be wrong, which is different. If you're asked to define hypothesis, theory, and law, keep in mind the definitions of proof and of these words can vary slightly depending on the scientific discipline. What is important is to realize they don't all mean the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably.


By superPC on 12/20/2010 1:58:45 PM , Rating: 2
great another article that pitted science against relegion. well i'm a big believer in science but i'm also a religious man and i'm not ashamed to admit it. i believe in evolution as well.

everything in a holly book (of any religion) should never be taken literally IMHO. it should be taken figuratively. if anyone can prove the existance of god than there's no need for faith is there? we can all just look at the proof. any god that's almighty wouldn't do that. if god is almighty than all of god creation would be perfect. and to be perfect all of god creation had to be self explanatory. its creation process can be explained without resorting to a devine being created them. humans are not perfect therefore none of our creation are self explanatory. the only explaination of their existance is than humans created them.


By Paj on 12/20/2010 5:24:51 PM , Rating: 3
You had me there for a while, but you lost me in the second paragraph.

I don't understand why so many religious people have a problem with evolution. I, for one, don't think its impossible that something completely beyond my ability to comprehend (lets call this god) had a hand in creating life here, or elsewhere.

The god in the bible, making eve from a rib? That, I don't believe.


By Jyrioffinland on 12/21/2010 4:10:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Evolution would mean death and suffering before sin. God created a world without those things...


Ah... now I see. It actually makes sense --- people like you will never ever accept any other kind of point of view no matter how solid the proof. No need to discuss this any more (since it won't make a difference anyway).

quote:
quote:
The god in the bible, making eve from a rib? That, I don't believe.
Then what God do you believe in? One that is weak and stupid?


Priceless! A strong and wise god needs a rib for creating Eve. ;)


By Jyrioffinland on 12/21/2010 5:19:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How can you claim to know that? I see evidence differently then you do, but somehow you are inherently right? Nice smug attitude you have there.


Smug? Moi? ;)

I didn't claim I'm right and you're wrong --- but I made a point that you said it out loud yourself that you (and your likes) desperately need to cling on to this doctrine that says "there is no evolution" because your faith would be shattered otherwise.

If you can prove scientifically (i.e. test-retest-reliably) there's ANYthing supernatural behind the nature, I'm all ears. And no, Bible is no scientific proof.

quote:
You are just another typical hateful atheist...


Usually the smiley ";)" means it's a joke and it's not to be taken seriously. But then again, I'm just a hateful atheist with a smug attitude... ;)


By Quadrillity on 12/21/2010 7:44:35 PM , Rating: 2
I hardly think that mocking God is meant to be taken as a joke.


By Jyrioffinland on 12/21/2010 8:20:34 PM , Rating: 2
Good grief! I wasn't mocking god but being a wise-ass about your (apparently fortuitous) choice of words.

You should know by now that Sarcasm is my middle name. ;)


By Jyrioffinland on 12/25/2010 8:29:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Quadrillity: It certainly wouldn't be God of the Christian Bible.


May I ask you Mr. Q - candidly - how do you answer the following questions:

- Why does our planet look like it were the end-product of a process that would have taken billions of years (with all the old-looking fossils in the rocks plus the Himalayan and Grand Canyon -like formations that look like they took a very long time to form? Are they really old --- or did God deliberately create them old-looking? What might be the reason for God to forge the age of Earth?

- Why do we see objects that are more then 6000+ light years away? Did God create the universe 13,7 billion years ago or did he make it look like it were that old? Why would he choose to fabricate the age?

It looks like your God is doing His best trying to trick us not to believe in Him.


By B3an on 12/20/2010 4:34:07 PM , Rating: 2
Here we go again...


WAG
By Denigrate on 12/20/2010 1:25:28 PM , Rating: 1
This is little better than a Wild Arse Guess. Very interesting work, but how are they fact checking their work with nothing in the geological record to back them up? The millions of permutations on current DNA is pretty far out there, plus who knows how much DNA has been lost to extinction over the billions of years?




RE: WAG
By kattanna on 12/20/2010 2:36:11 PM , Rating: 3
im sure it is a pretty well educated guess, but yes. a model is not evidence, just a study tool.


RE: WAG
By MozeeToby on 12/20/2010 3:00:15 PM , Rating: 3
Just because you don't understand the science behind something does not automatically make it a 'Wild Ass Guess'. Honestly, I'm not trying to be rude, but you accusing these researchers of essentially making up evidence simply because you don't understand their work.

This is work that has doubtless taken them years to complete, and a decade or more of study to lay the foundations for. And you can't understand their work based on a 500 word summary on Dailytech, so you therefor dismiss it as a guess. That's downright insulting to the researchers in my opinion.

For a more detailed summary: There are some genes that are so important for life that they haven't functionally changed even over billions of years. That isn't to say that they haven't changed at all, there are many, many tiny variations over the millennia that have little or no effect on function. We know the rate that these changes occur, so the changes can be used to date when two different species first split off from each other based on how different these key genes are between the two species.

What these researchers have done is the opposite. They have taken species (actually whole kingdoms and phyla) that are believed to have common ancestors only as far back as during the Cambrian and Archean explosions and determined which genes were new at that time (presumably by comparing them to kingdoms and phyla that split off before the explosions). They've show that, to the accuracy of their technique, the Archean explosion coincided with the genes that code for electron transfer.

That's some pretty neat research, and it could go a long way towards explaining why the explosion happened in the first place. Electron transfer increases the energy available in the ecosystem by an order of magnitude, opening up more niches for life to colonize.


RE: WAG
By geddarkstorm on 12/20/2010 3:25:58 PM , Rating: 4
This is all computational and mathematical modeling based on assumed rates of change and homology (which organisms carry these genes and how related they are). This is standard stuff done in phylogeny and bioinformatics all the time. I'm assuming they also put in models for likely selective pressures. Basically, what they accomplished is a new, more complex, model to help narrow down the uncertainties of the numerous previous analyses that have already been done. How correct this model is over competing ones is the only thing we can test, not if it's correct against reality.

It will be useful to test against however, and that's the point, as a reference to look at current gene events and other models to put them into a better quantitative context (scientific competition is a good thing). It could allow better predictions for how genes are likely to change. But, that's what phylogenetic analysis is working to do all the time. This model will change, and new ones will come in its wake; there are many being made every year.

I am always weary and skeptical of computer models, and rightly so, as they can only ever be at best an approximation of reality, and at worst completely misleading; especially with how genes and genomes are surprising us all the time in how fast or slow they can change; how epigenetics, non-coding RNAs, and "junk" DNA can play pivotal roles just as important as actual genes; and how even "new" genes can be just as vital for an organism's survival as "ancient" ones, as Drosophila knock outs have recently shown, which completely changes the game in how genes may change and be tolerated over long periods of time. It's no simple matter!


RE: WAG
By Denigrate on 12/20/10, Rating: -1
RE: WAG
By MozeeToby on 12/20/2010 3:39:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Far too much data is missing from the pool for anything truly meaningful to come of it.
How do you know? Have you done the statistical analysis on the available gene pool to make that assumption (these guys did, that's part of what their paper is about). Or is it just a gut feeling that you have? Sorry, but I'll trust their math more than your gut any day of the week.


RE: WAG
By JediJeb on 12/21/2010 2:38:13 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe it isn't a WAG but a SWAG :)

(Scientific WAG)


Is a big copy of the graphic available
By DanNeely on 12/20/2010 1:55:51 PM , Rating: 2
The one on the article page is too small to read.




By MozeeToby on 12/20/2010 3:04:31 PM , Rating: 3
Not the exact same image, but they have essentially similar images available here: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Phy...


RE: Is a big copy of the graphic available
By Jyrioffinland on 12/21/2010 11:30:03 AM , Rating: 2
Go here:

http://web.mit.edu/press/images/article_images/ori...

BTW, it's sad how a fascinating study that brings new insight to the understanding of nature is being dissed by these "it's only a theory" -people.

I know it's futile to argue with these die-hard ID fanboys but how come it is so hard to accept that nature has evolved by itself no matter how unbelievable and improbable it may seem.

I mean, isn't the concept of an omnipotent god even MORE unbelievable and improbable.

Like "I can't believe in the scientific explanation of the universe --- yet I do so believe in something that is so extranaturally powerful that it can change the laws of nature and conjure up complete universes in a split second by shear will".

Anyhoo, we're having two different kinds of discussions mixed together here, one of reason and one of faith. Yet they're like oil and water, no matter how good a whisk you give them it's still "much ado over nothing".


By morphologia on 12/21/2010 3:43:10 PM , Rating: 2
It's somewhat forgivable...ID is a spiffy little fad after all. But it can't do much unless it can substantiate its claims somehow. Maybe they can subpoena Jesus.


Science & Religion
By SFMChris on 12/20/2010 7:59:38 PM , Rating: 2
Science represents a constantly changing model of our understanding of the world around us, while most religious belief involves a static and unchanging understanding of that same world. The difference between the two metaphysical approaches couldn't be more dissimilar. It is often the reason why there is so little common ground between the two.

A scientist (or an empiricist) is someone who understands the world as a process whereby the epistemological approach is couched in testing, observation, prediction, falsification, and repeatability of experiments. By this method, slowly over the last few hundred years, their ever expanding understanding, or model, of the universe explains more about that which they did not know before. Consequently, scientists and empiricists have to be prepared for paradigm changes both small and large in that increasingly complex, and shifting, understanding of reality.

Western revelatory religion adherant's understanding is based upon a revealed knowledge that is absolute and unchanging. Understanding and wisdom don't change over time. The answers to all their epistemological questions they may ever have are to be found in their Holy books. In short, what was true 2,000 years ago is still true today, and everything worth knowing is revealed within those sacred texts. People know something is true because scripture says it is so.

Scientists and empiricists live in a world full of questions, the answers to most they will never know.

Religious believers live in a world full of certain knowledge, and the answers to all of their questions lay within their sacred texts.




RE: Science & Religion
By JediJeb on 12/21/2010 2:46:04 PM , Rating: 2
A common problem to both science and religion is that either can become blinded to a belief that is universally accepted but at the same time incorrect.


RE: Science & Religion
By morphologia on 12/21/2010 3:39:42 PM , Rating: 2
The progression tends in such a manner that the rash and vague assumptions of faith, previously held as supreme and unassailable, are gradually, individually disproven and disregarded by means of the progress of science. It's all well and good to keep believing them if it makes you feel better, but don't expect them to give you the same supreme mandate they once did.

The bottom line is, faith needs to stick to what it's good at...which is to say, something other than substantiation of the facts by scientific means.


RE: Science & Religion
By SFMChris on 12/21/2010 6:40:09 PM , Rating: 2
JediJeb,

It is true that some advocates of both science and religion can be dogmatic and absolutely certain of their metaphysical positions. However, the fundamental difference is that science and the models of reality it generates are always subject to scientific evidence (old and new) and the test of falsifiability. So even if one scientist insists otherwise, scientific understanding is always increasing and sometimes changing the way we look at the world. As a result, scientists are never 100% sure of all aspects of any given scientific theory (because there is always more to be discovered).

Religious tenants, in contrast, are not subject to testing or analysis which would lead to change in the tenants themselves. These religious ideas stand immutable and unchanging. As a result, many religious adherants are 100% sure of their world view.

Morphologia,

Your points are well taken. When Sir Isaac Newton first proposed his Three Laws of Motion (the use of 'Laws' sounds pretty absolute here), they stood unchallenged for over 200 years until another scientist started thinking about light. The resulting scientific treatise on the General and Special Theories of Relativity by Albert Einstein didn't overthrow Newton so much as to say that at speeds significantly below the speed of light, Newtons Laws - and the associated equations - adequately describe the world around us. However, at speeds that approach the speed of light, Newtonian mechanics start to break down as an adequate description of observed phenomena. What Einstein did with his Theories of Relativity was to explain everything that Newton's Laws did, and more. This is the mechanism of scientific change.

The multitude of mechanisms of both micro and macro evolution, speciation, adaptation, etc. are held in high esteem by scientists because of the explanatory power of a relatively simple scientific model proposed by Charles Darwin in 1859. If the current multifaceted model of "Evolution" is to be replaced by another scientific model, that newer model must explain everything the current model does, and more.


Cards on the table, everyone
By morphologia on 12/21/2010 3:25:07 PM , Rating: 2
Reputable scientific minds have no problem admitting that evolution is a theory (just like Einstein's theories of relativity, and no less valid). Meanwhile, the most active opponents of the theory of evolution have nothing but criticism to offer, no substantive alternative explanation.

If someone is going to challenge an explanation of the facts, the least they can do is provide a scientifically viable alternative explanation, instead of dwelling on an assumption and bending the data to fit that assumption.

One can prove nothing by attacking evolutionary theory and picking apart various well-publicized talking points in tune with the choreography of professional naysayers and counter-culture sensationalists.

Essentially, with evolution on trial, the prosecution rests after having said little more than "just because."




Good quote (not mine)
By MrHanson on 12/20/10, Rating: -1
RE: Good quote (not mine)
By zixin on 12/20/2010 7:41:15 PM , Rating: 2
This study is not used to proof Evolution. The theory of evlustion was proposed by Darwin over 150 years ago and has been proven time and time. This study uses the stuff we learned from that 150 years and basically deduce what evolution before fossils are like. Intelligent people with PhDs don't commit such logical sins with impunity. Only religious people, in the complete absence of proof, assume God exist to prove God's existence.


RE: Good quote (not mine)
By JediJeb on 12/21/10, Rating: -1
RE: Good quote (not mine)
By morphologia on 12/21/2010 3:35:12 PM , Rating: 2
Are you saying, then, that doubt in the generally accepted concept is enough to justify and substantiate an unspoken, vague and thoroughly unscientific alternative? Doesn't the alternative need to be proven to some degree to have validity comparable to the generally accepted theory?

There's plenty of research depicting the progression from single-celled organisms, to colonies of such acting in unison, and further to the specialization of function by various elements of such colonies, leading to the development of organic processes carried out by specialized organisms...which are the predecessors of organ structure and function...etc.

There's plenty of substantiation for evolution...but still people dwell obsessively on those few & far between facts that do not fit the model, ignoring the vast fabric and staring at the microscopic holes in the weave instead.


RE: Good quote (not mine)
By Jyrioffinland on 12/21/2010 11:35:49 AM , Rating: 2
Dear Mr Hanson,

You sound like a person that would argue against evolution even if we found the remains of every creature that ever lived on Earth - except one.

- Ha! There's a gap! You're wrong!!!


"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki