backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 217 comment(s) - last by mircea.. on Jun 26 at 11:34 AM

Scientist correct evolutionary theory, showcase flexibility of evolution science

While many lines of criticism have been leveled against evolution theory over the years, one of the most ironic reoccurring criticisms focuses in one of its greatest strengths -- flexibility.  Frequently the theory is alternatively blasted for being too rigid and an incomplete picture and then later for changing and revising. 

Flexibility is a key strength of evolution theory.  DailyTech recently chronicled a major evolution observed by American researchers, believed to be the first of its magnitude to be observed.  Now evolutionary biologists have made critical steps in revising the genetic side of evolutionary theory to help explain one of the most daunting questions of evolutionary history -- how prehistoric fish evolved over hundreds of millions of years into amphibians, then reptiles, and finally mammals, and eventually how apes evolved into humans.

European Molecular Biology Laboratory's European Bioinformatics Institute [EMBL-EBI] researchers have discovered and fixed critical errors in genetic comparisons between species.  Genetic comparisons are frequently used to draw evolutionary conclusions about heredity and common ancestors.  However, according to the EMBL-EBI researchers, these methods have been suffering silently under systematic errors.

Their findings are detailed in the journal Science this month.  They don't just point out the problem either -- they provide a solution.  The researchers have developed a computational tool which avoids the errors and offers key insight into how DNA and protein sequences have evolved over time.

The results suggest that sequence turnover, thought to be a key component of major evolutions, is discovered to be much more common than previously thought.  Nick Goldman, group leader at EMBL-EBI explains that while evolution may be occurring faster, it still occurs at a maddeningly slow pace by human standards.

Says Goldman, "Evolution is happening so slowly that we cannot study it by simply watching it. That's why we learn about the relationships between species and the course and mechanism of evolution by comparing genetic sequences."

Evolution is driven by changes in living organisms' DNA.  DNA code consists of sets of four "letter" bases, which code a sequence for a specific amino acid.  Mutation and thus evolution can occur when the DNA gets "messed up" during copying with individual or several letters incorrectly copied [substitution], lost [deletion] or gained [insertion].

The rather complex error is explained well in the researchers’ publications.  They detail genetic comparison and how they go awry, stating:

A comparison of multiple sequences starts with their alignment. Characters in different sequences that share common ancestry are matched and gains and losses of characters are marked as gaps. Since this procedure is computationally heavy, multiple alignments are often built progressively from several pairwise alignments. It is impossible, however, to judge if a length difference between two sequences is a deletion in one or an insertion in the other sequence. For correct alignment of multiple sequences, distinguishing between these two events is crucial. Existing methods, that fail to do that, lead to a flawed understanding of the course of evolution.

Ari Löytynoja, who developed the tool to correct these errors, states, "Our new method gets around these errors by taking into account what we already know about evolutionary relationships.  Say we are comparing the DNA of human and chimp and can't tell if a deletion or an insertion happened. To solve this, our tool automatically invokes information about the corresponding sequences in closely related species, such as gorilla or macaque. If they show the same gap as the chimp, this suggests an insertion in humans."

Researchers have thus discovered that insertions are much more prevalent than previously believed, while deletions are less common than previously believed.

The researchers believe that the errors came from adapting protein recognition tools to genetics, which is broader in scope.  They believe that for this reason, additional errors in current computational methods are likely to be found.  Fortunately for evolutionary theory, it has the flexibility to correct these errors, and some of the world's brightest minds to help with the corrections.



Comments     Threshold


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

So...
By jadeskye on 6/24/2008 9:00:08 AM , Rating: 4
So are we the production of retarded fish frogs?




RE: So...
By BMFPitt on 6/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: So...
By TSS on 6/24/2008 9:13:06 AM , Rating: 4
actually since the internet was invented it seems where slowly evolving towards retarded fish frog gay monkeys, instead of beeing the result of them.


RE: So...
By Nyamekye on 6/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: So...
By Spyvie on 6/24/2008 11:36:27 AM , Rating: 2
Hey! My mother was an aquatic simian with a learning disability!


RE: So...
By FaceMaster on 6/24/2008 7:39:58 PM , Rating: 3
Your Mum's evidence that occasionally evolution takes a step backwards.


RE: So...
By phxfreddy on 6/24/2008 10:46:40 PM , Rating: 2
I am athiest. But I do find it ironic that while liberals believe in evolution it is considered politically incorrect to state the obvious that there is difference in intelligence levels between the races.

I guess its only ok to screw with the rights religion. But you dast not fudge with the lefts.


RE: So...
By OrSin on 6/25/2008 11:57:12 AM , Rating: 2
Tha that is becuase thier is no difference level in intellence between the races. Almost all studies show, that in the same envirnoment the races show a very similar levels. The problem with many test done in the 60-80, is that they tried to equate enviroments that was fundimentally not equal. It is true that intelligence, just like speed and strenght can be breed. But it is also true that the breeding to increase strength (what was done to slaves) doesn't breed out intelligence. Guess what begin an athiest doesn't make your foolish ideas any better.



RE: So...
By porkpie on 6/25/2008 1:23:05 PM , Rating: 2
I don't take any position on this, but the only studies that don't show an intelligence difference between races are those which apply a huge socioeconomic "correction factor" to get things to balance out.


RE: So...
By DM0407 on 6/24/2008 10:51:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And gay monkeys


Not that there is anything wrong with that...


RE: So...
By DM0407 on 6/24/2008 10:51:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And gay monkeys


Not that there is anything wrong with that...


RE: So...
By Lightnix on 6/24/2008 9:46:01 AM , Rating: 5
The human race, too smart to be an ape, too good to be a fish. Look at us, the poor creatures that we are, subjected to the possibility that we might have come from something lesser than the impossible.


RE: So...
By Phlargo on 6/24/2008 11:41:39 AM , Rating: 5
How come this was rated down - it's pretty clever. We are a very proud species and we like to distance ourselves from things that don't feel like we want to be related or involved.

Just think of how long it's been since I called my Aunt Martha... case in point ;-)

I think the acknowledgment of being 'only human' is perfect here - we are the product of immense changes over a long time. To me that sounds far more possible than, as Lightnix put it, the impossible (or at least ridiculously improbable).

Science is science - how could evolution be anything more than a theory and how can people complain about it so much? We're not looking for truth - we accept we can't know the truth - we identify models which don't work and we get rid of them and we modify those that come close to make them closer.


RE: So...
By JonnyDough on 6/25/2008 11:47:18 AM , Rating: 2
What's interesting is that both evolutionists and creationists often fail to examine human nature when it comes to the idea of the evolution of our species.

Simply put, even today we kill those different from ourselves using ethnocentric views and racism as driving forces. It is not so wild to imagine that man-like apes were regarded as lowly, or perceived as a sort of sub-par threat to the "more evolved" societies and species of man.

As such, being human nature what it is, these "man-like apes" would have probably been killed by those "better" than them. The same principle is what drove slavery here in America not too long ago, and continues in the minds of those enlisted with the KKK and other racist organizations.

The idea of diversity is that each person or even group of people have certain strengths and qualities that are sometimes lacking in others.

It is impossible to draw conclusions that an entire race of people is sub-par when there are individuals in any racial group that excel and exceed our own personal selves in any number of areas.

This is why many argue that racism is a selfish idea that only serves to show the ignorance of a person, with a lack of understanding of others and themselves.

What's interesting as mentioned earlier in my post, however, is that racism and prejudices have likely had a large part in our evolution through a natural human process of genocide. I say natural, because virtually anything mankind does should be considered natural, as we are derived and a part of nature.


RE: So...
By stirfry213 on 6/24/2008 12:24:07 PM , Rating: 5
Manbearpig... the ultimate proof of evolution!


RE: So...
By someguy743 on 6/24/2008 5:09:51 PM , Rating: 1
We evolved from primordial pond scum that got struck by lightning. The electricity booted up the DNA in the pond scum kind of like in Frankenstein movies. Once these protein amino acids with DNA booted up, we became tiny one celled bacteria or something.

From there, the DNA just sort of tweaked and optimized itself into something new which made the organism survive better. The surviving organisms had sex to create slightly "new and improved" offspring. Then, basically the process repeated over and over for millions and millions of years. Little tweaks to DNA code like computer code over VERY long periods of time to get us to where we are today. Supposedly, us humans are the pinnacle of all that DNA programming. We're the most organism with the most advanced software :) If you see pictures of a fetus develop in the womb, it looks like the progression of millions of years evolution over a period of 9 months. It's weird.

Just like all the other animals on the planet, we still have billions if not trillions of bacteria in us to this day ... good and bad bacteria. We have lots of "critters" running around in our bodies actually ... most of them are supposed to be there by design. The immune system is like a coordinated army patrol like the Borg in Star Trek or something except they are the good guys out to kill invading bacteria and viruses, etc. Amazing thing the immune system. We'd be toast without it. Kind of like running your computer without a firewall and anti-virus software. Your body would crash before long. Blue screen of death. :)


RE: So...
By masher2 (blog) on 6/24/2008 7:10:54 PM , Rating: 2
> "The immune system is like a coordinated army patrol like the Borg in Star Trek or something except they are the good guys out to kill invading bacteria and viruses, etc. Amazing thing the immune system"

What's even more amazing is that, at any one time, there are far more foreign cells living in our body than those which belong to us....most of them within our gut.


RE: So...
By JonnyDough on 6/25/2008 11:53:04 AM , Rating: 2
If you've ever studied reef coral and many ocean invertebrates you will have probably noted that some creatures are actually more than one creature living in symbiosis, much as we do with our bacteria.

The thing is, that with some of these sea creatures, it is nearly impossible to distinguish a host from it's symbiotic partner. In fact, until recently many corals and such were considered to be a single organism and mysterious.

The point of what I am saying is that as we evolved our unique cell types may have indeed been different types of bacteria and sort of "melded" together to form our human bodies.

I believe that the idea is not that far fetched. It would help to explain how life evolved from a single cell into a multi-cellular organisms. I think that scientists should spend more time studying this theory.


RE: So...
By masher2 (blog) on 6/25/2008 1:31:27 PM , Rating: 2
> "It would help to explain how life evolved from a single cell into a multi-cellular organisms"

What you suggest is actually one of the three major theories for the origins of multicellular life...the other two being the Colonial and the Synchytial.


RE: So...
By JonnyDough on 6/25/2008 5:44:43 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting Masher, but you failed to elaborate. Throwing out fancy names to appear to be a know it all like so many on here do doesn't make you look smart, just prickish. I really don't care if people rate me up or down on here, I just call it like it is. I haven't studied every facet of science, theorizing can be done in a mind that wanders, it doesn't take a noble scientist and lots of research. If you at least learn something and then think on your own you too can be a Socrates or a Darwin. They weren't really all that revolutionary, only revolutionary compared to the societies of their time.

Now, don't quote me as saying "Ever heard of Socratoes, Plato, Aristotle? Morons!" but I honestly don't think they were much more than men that thought beyond the ignorance of their societies.


RE: So...
By MRwizard on 6/24/2008 11:47:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
like in Frankenstein


Frankenstein: The beginning! (scary music in background)


Scientist "correct" evolutionary theory...
By Machinegear on 6/24/2008 9:05:56 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The researchers have developed a computational tool which avoids the errors


Ok. No correction here.

quote:
Ari Löytynoja..."Our new method gets around these errors by..."


Nope. Still no corrections.

quote:
Fortunately for evolutionary theory, it has the flexibility to correct these errors, and some of the world's brightest minds to help with the corrections.


Lol.




RE: Scientist "correct" evolutionary theory...
By retrospooty on 6/24/2008 9:17:32 AM , Rating: 3
Whats your point?


RE: Scientist "correct" evolutionary theory...
By Machinegear on 6/24/2008 9:53:08 AM , Rating: 3
One can't correct what they avoid. :)


By phattyboombatty on 6/24/2008 10:24:01 AM , Rating: 5
The article is misleading because there has been absolutely no change in evolutionary theory. Scientists have come up with an improved process to study evolutionary theory. This is equivalent to a scientist coming up with a more accurate process for carbon dating.


RE: Scientist "correct" evolutionary theory...
By RandallMoore on 6/24/2008 5:31:32 PM , Rating: 2
Not assuming that you personally think carbon dating is accurate, but has anyone ever seen carbon dated material that didn't yield ridiculous results?? I have personally seen a case where human bones were found, split up, and sent to different labs all around the country and each study about the date of it was vastly different. The bones were about 150 years old. One test came to be 110,000 years, another was 35. I'm not going to argue with anyone like a 4 year old child about this, but honestly... when are people going come out of the dream world of evolution and do some REAL science that can be STUDIED, OBSERVED, and RECORDED. say what you want, the theory of evolution is a religion that requires FAITH. Just like christianity.


RE: Scientist "correct" evolutionary theory...
By larcen007 on 6/24/2008 6:52:54 PM , Rating: 2
Even though I may not like your beliefs - you are correct on this point. Any scientific theory has faith - that's why its a theory. If the theory were conclusively shown, it wouldn't be a theory anymore - it would be proven. The progress of science works because it produces a theory, the theory gets tested, the results modify the theory, new tests, etc. This is how we went from Newtonian to Einsteinian mechanics - quantum mechanics, gravity, etc.

In fact, anyone who has faith in a theory/religion, in my opinion, is a poor scientist/human being. Faithfulness to a god or theory produces narrow-mindedness in a human being (My opinion - can be wrong). Scientists/atheists may fail to see certain phenomona because they let the theory/religion dictate their observations, instead of the other way around.

But don't think saying that evolution requires faith is victory for christianity - all you do is remind us to let our observations inform our beliefs - otherwise you end up as a fanatic for religion/science.


RE: Scientist "correct" evolutionary theory...
By wien on 6/24/2008 10:22:13 PM , Rating: 4
What you're describing is an hypothesis. A scientific theory is backed up with observable facts and has no observations running contrary to the theory. Faith does not enter into it, no matter how much the religious element want you to think that it does.


By larcen007 on 6/25/2008 9:25:05 AM , Rating: 2
My terminology may be wrong, but my point is still accurate.

Theories can exist with observations running to the contrary - happens all the time. This results in either a refinement in the theory or discarding the theory altogether in favor of a new one that explains all the observations better. This is where faith creeps in - as someone said in an earlier post - a scientist does not treat a theory into fact - it blinds him other phenomona.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scie...

I would say that a scientist's faith is better than a theist's faith because there are observations which directly "support" the scientist. Faith though can be dangerous if people hold onto it in spite of the observations presented.


By JonnyDough on 6/25/2008 11:54:33 AM , Rating: 2
I thought carbon dating was only accurate to like 100,000 years?


RE: Scientist "correct" evolutionary theory...
By larson0699 on 6/24/2008 10:44:18 AM , Rating: 2
One can't correctly use "they" in reference to himself, a singular object.


RE: Scientist "correct" evolutionary theory...
By ProviaFan on 6/24/2008 10:58:49 AM , Rating: 1
Maybe someone should consult a dictionary before they say something stupid.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/they


By larson0699 on 6/24/2008 11:10:16 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The use of they, their, them, and themselves as pronouns of indefinite gender and indefinite number is well established in speech and writing, even in literary and formal contexts. This gives you the option of using the plural pronouns where you think they sound best, and of using the singular pronouns (as he, she, he or she, and their inflected forms) where you think they sound best.
In the proper sense, using a plural pronoun on a singular object never sounds best.

Don't BE stupid, pal.


RE: Scientist "correct" evolutionary theory...
By wordsworm on 6/24/2008 11:08:49 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
One can't correctly use "they" in reference to himself, a singular object.


Obviously you're not speaking for Elizabeth Windsor. However, having superb English, surely She would say 'we' when referring to herself. We call it a nosism.

Why can't grammar nazis bone up on their grammar?!


By bighairycamel on 6/24/2008 11:35:10 AM , Rating: 1
So the possesive form of the word, theirs, can only refer to a plural subject?


RE: Scientist "correct" evolutionary theory...
By larcen007 on 6/24/2008 4:01:07 PM , Rating: 2
Techinically - that statement is not true all the time. There are situations where the only way to correct something is to avoid it. For example - a grammatically incorrect sentence - you can correct it by correcting its structure. An alternative to correcting the structure is to avoid the gramatical problem completely by re-writing the sentence. I know its a silly example - but the point is sometimes it is possible to correct something by avoiding it.

Maybe this is what is trying to be portrayed - correcting via avoidance of the problem by presenting a new method.


By mircea on 6/26/2008 11:34:50 AM , Rating: 2
But there might be a problem with the fact that you start with the presumption you are right, and the end result should be what you have predicted. So you try something you thought should work, and then try something else again, going for the result you want, many times ignoring the different rezults.

I should state from the begining that I am a christian and believe in creationism as described in the Bible (not trough evolution as some want to combine them) The main thing that makes me not listen to evolution arguments is the fact that it still promotes in the science books published now stuff that was proven false or incorect even more than a century ago. so why should I listen to them now.

For example Haekel's drawings of the similarities in embrios, or fosile findings "linking" species that were discovered as wrongly dated, or even intentionally made for that purpose.

And no matter how much people say it, there has never been a case of observed evolution, just adaptation and mutation. The much invoked case of flu for example, which never evolved to something else thatn another flu virus. It never became malaria, AIDS, or something new, just a diferent flu, like there are diferent cats, dferent dogs, diferent horses. Fosiles are only what we want to see in them, since there have been so many cases where some ugly human died and his skull was thaught to be a monkleys for a while, or beautiful monkey thought to be ugly human.

Thinks like this are thaught to highschool student's as fact's in the presumption someone here already said that they don't understand some complexities, and shouldn't be bothered with the details. The frank result is a majority of us where thaught that way so most accepted those as complete fact's because of that and so clinging to them just like I hold to my faith.


By PresidentThomasJefferson on 6/24/2008 12:44:11 PM , Rating: 5
For doubters of evolution, here's some quick 5 min videos of proof of evolution by a biochemistry PhD (my major was also biochem/molecular cell bio at UCBerkeley) -I'll like to call it proof/evidence:

- http://www.youtube.com/v/T9ZUFsLLHSs&hl -How God & Evolution are compatible by scientist Ken Miller

http://www.youtube.com/v/O4GdZOlPrX8&hl -Transitional Fossils

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0wwhSlo1NI -gradual changes/walking-airbreathing fish

-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0 -4 Proofs of Evolution

-http://www.youtube.com/v/9V_2r2n4b5c&hl -Quick 5 Minute Video on Evolution Evidence/Creationism Disproved

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-... Scientific American: 15 Answers to Creationist Propaganda -www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creatio nist</a>

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=4311046&... -ABCNews: Florida Finally Allows word 'Evolution' to Be Included in Teaching Standards For The First Time

http://media.pbs.org/asxgen/general/windows/wgbh/n... -NOVA documentary –Dover trial –Fossil evidence ch. 5 & how the courtroom & reporters were amazed & surprised at all the fossil evidence/'missing links' found between fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to dinosaurs, dinosaurs to birds, & reptiles to mammals BECAUSE CREATIONISTS HAD FOUGHT to KEEP THE EVIDENCE OUT OF HI SCHOOL TEXTBOOKS

http://media.pbs.org/asxgen/general/windows/wgbh/n... NOVA documentary –Dover trial –Fossil evidence ch. 5

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/programs/ht/qt/3416_0... -NOVA documentary -Dover tiral –DNA evidence ch. 6

==
<a href=
http://WWW.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs1zeWWIm5M target=new4>WWW.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs1zeWWIm5M& lt;/a> --Ken Miller on How Entire Human Chromosome #2 is the Result of the Fusion of Ape Chromosome #13 onto Ape Chromosome #2 --4 minutes of eye-opening evidence

==
<a href=http://WWW.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0&feature... ayList&p=0FB1F085BD950D0F&index=0 target=_new3 >-- DNA proof of evolution -9 minutes of eye-opening evidence …fast-forward to 7 min mark if already seen the 1st video </a> -shows human DNA contains ERV(endogenous retroviral DNA) at exact same spots (out of 3 billion spots) as ape DNA -retroviral DNA infected ape DNA at the exact same spots as human DNA (meaning humans inherited the infected DNA from apes) -click Part 2 also:

http://WWW.youtube.com/watch?v=D0wwhSlo1NI --evolution + transitional form of fish to amphibian (mudskipper):

You should see Ken Miller's lecture on this(1st link).. Great info & provides some good bits that are impossible to explain in any sensible manner.
.........
1st video is from Brown University bio proffesor Ken Miller who explains DNA EVIDENCE how apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes (number #1 to number #24) while humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes (numbered #1 to number #23) .. recently, both the entire human & ape DNA/genome was mapped .. evolutionary theory can be verified/tested in that if humans evolved from apes, humans are missing the 1 ape chromosome pair cause the 1 chromosome pair fused/attached to end of another chromosome (ape chromosome #13 attached/fused to what we call now call ape/human chromosome #2). (Chromosomes come in pairs --one of each pair is just a copy/a mirror image of the other: total number of chromosomes is 46(23 pairs)

Chromosome #2 of humans is shown next to two chimpanzee (and gorilla and orangutan) chromosomes since the human chromosome #2 is twice as long as the chimpanzee (and the other apes as well), yet all the bands match up showing that the one less human chromosome is merely the result of two chimp chromosomes getting connected together!"
….
Further DNA testing showed that human chromosome #2 MATCHES ape chromosome #2 & #13 when both ape chromosomes are lined up end to end! Human chrom#2 is complete match with telomere & centremore at exact location/fusion points, proving that human chromosome #2 is a fusion of ape chromosom #2 & #13
........
Chromosomes have a beginning & an end marked by telomeres. After mapping the entire DNA of both apes & humans, lo & behold, humans have the entire missing ape chromosome fused into chromosome #2 (we know they're fused because there is a telomere in the MIDDLE of the chromosome in addition to the normal telomere at the end/beginning of chromosome #2 --such an anomaly can only be explained by the fusion of the missing chromosome with chromosome #2 --not only that, but the fused portion of the chromosome matches the "missing" chromosome of the apes!).

......... Contray to creationists propaganda, individuals w/differeing numbers of chromosomes can still mate w/the rest of the population (wild horses w/ 66 chromosomes can still mate with domestic horses w/64 chromosomes, humans born with extra or missing chromosomes can still mate w/ normal humans & all produced fertile offspring)

==

here's more info that exposes the ignorance of the creationists(that IDEA site was written by a lawyer w/ no understanding of biology (the following link explains how chromosomes fusing/splitting results in new species --note, the fusing of chromosomes DOES NOT mean the loss of genomic(genetic) information -think of chromosomes as piles of paper or filing cabinets for holding DNA..fusing just means u have 1 big pile instead of 2 smaller piles, that is, 2 filing cabinets fusing into 1 bigger filing cabinet ):

<a href=http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/basics_... target=new>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/basics_...

More refutation of IDEA’s ignorant essay by creationist lawyers:
<a href=http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/09/luskins... target=New2>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/09/luskins...

........
More evolution proof videos:
<a href=http://WWW.youtube.com/user/DonExodus2 target=new6>WWW.youtube.com/user/DonExodus2</ a> .....
==
<a href=http://WWW.youtube.com/user/rippedbuff target=_new3>WWW.youtube.com/user/rippedbuff< /a>




RE: Quick Videos of Evolutonary "Proof'
By INeedCache on 6/24/2008 8:17:05 PM , Rating: 2
If I may just ask, if evolution is a fact, why are there still many scientists who do not believe it? Just asking.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/24/2008 9:40:24 PM , Rating: 3
> "why are there still many scientists who do not believe it?"

There are no scientists in the field who disbelieves evolution.

This is rather unique in fact...you can even scratch up a few physicists who disbelieve in the theory of gravity, but finding a geneticist, molecular biologist, or other allied reseacher who disputes evolution doesn't happen.


By Jiggs1337 on 6/24/2008 10:36:16 PM , Rating: 3
That is like asking: "Why can this programmer not 'speak' Java?".
A scientist does not automatically know everything. If I do not agree with evolution, because say, I am a creationist, and then go to college, and do a biology degree, I can focus on biochemistry, say. When I pick the modules, I can do no, or very little evolution. I then graduate as a 'scientist', get asked if I believe in evolution, and say no. For example, I just finished 4 years of biology, and at least 50% of my class took only a single module on evolution lasting only a couple of weeks (they were interested in one of the many many other fields in biology). (All however 'believe' in evolution, I have yet to meet any scientist that doesn't).
Or, a 'scientist' in this case could be someone who studies physics, medicine, etc. If you look for the stats, and I have before, but I have no time to now, you will see that about 95% of scientists believe in evolution. That includes computer scientists, physicists, biologists, etc. So those 'scientists' that do not believe may have nothing to do with biology and especially not evolution.
Also, creationists love to include the beginning of the universe (physics), which is not a part of the theory evolution or the beginning of life (abiogenesis), which has nothing to do with evolution, etc, confusing the public even more, and allowing them to show the lack of evidence for those theories. The big bang and abiogenesis are not nearly as well understood as evolution is, so its easy to use against evolution when you have convinced everyone that its the same thing.
Creationists always use this 'some scientists don't even buy it' argument. However, that is because 'scientist' is too broad a term. Evolution is as much a theory as is gravity. Its exactly how it works that makes it a theory. Whether or not it happened is not.

(I found this real quick, in reference to the 95% claim I made http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html)


By drando on 6/25/2008 12:46:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If I may just ask, if evolution is a fact, why are there still many scientists who do not believe it? Just asking.


There aren't...

List of Scientists Rejecting Evolution- Do they really?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM


Misunderstanding
By laurentrepond on 6/24/2008 11:28:32 AM , Rating: 5
There is a fundamental problem with this conversation. The reason that Evolutionists and Creationists don't agree is not scientific (although many times, both would have you believe that).

Creationism disagrees with Evolution before any science ever gets into it.

By definition, Science looks for logical descriptions of physical events. In other words, it looks for a very detailed "how" of what we observe.

Creationists purport that life (in something very close to its present state) came about in an illogical, indescribable way i.e. it did not come about by a process. Thus, we cannot logically describe the "how" by using general principles of physical behaviour. They say there is no logical "how." This is what we like to call a miracle.

Here it is obvious that the difference is philosophical.




RE: Misunderstanding
By yacoub on 6/24/2008 2:15:01 PM , Rating: 1
Actually it's not a matter of logic or illogic, it's simply that one acknowledges the supernatural and one refuses to do so. That's where the divide begins. If one refuses the supernatural, one has to come up with a natural explanation for things, which is inherently much more difficult when the cause was supernatural. :)


RE: Misunderstanding
By larcen007 on 6/24/2008 4:18:55 PM , Rating: 3
Actually its not a matter of supernatural/natural.

I have never really understood the supernatural/natural distinction. As I understand it, natrual refers to things known or explained by laws. Supernatural refers to things not known or explained by laws. (It's all really a silly language game - but we will play).

At one time, maybe earthquakes, tornadoes, etc were seen as supernatural - but humans later learned that they were highly complex natural phenomena. How can one tell the difference between a truly supernatural event and a natrual event, where there is no law known to man to explain the natural event, but the law is discovered years later? Would we be considered supernatural from a dog's point of view?

I don't think I can point to something and say "That's supernatrual." Actually - I take that back - the only thing that may fit under supernatural is us humans. We have "consciousness" and "free will." We can theoretically act in any possible manner - independent of any law. And a small minority of us do. It seems like the only test for what is supernatural is something that can go against natural laws - not something that can't be explained by natural laws. But then the same problem pops up - how can I tell the difference between the supernatural and the yet to be discovered natural law (say natural laws rooted in psychology)?

The answer is that I can't - lets just focus on the natural and stop being distracted by the supernatural world. And in this sense, it is logical vs. illogical, assuming my analysis is correct.


RE: Misunderstanding
By Reclaimer77 on 6/24/2008 6:51:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
By definition, Science looks for logical descriptions of physical events.


In theory. Sadly today Science is used to prove a hypothesis based on the scientists personal beliefs or political climate. Like global warming. Hey, scientists need to make money too right ? Research grants are easy money. All you have to do is sell out the institution of science and manipulate enough data to prove an activists point.


RE: Misunderstanding
By larcen007 on 6/24/2008 7:19:53 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, it has been the case for MUCH longer than you think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scie...


Money
By Machinegear on 6/24/2008 2:59:02 PM , Rating: 3
I think articles like this one are to purely incite people and generate ad revenue.




RE: Money
By krwhite on 6/24/2008 3:56:07 PM , Rating: 2
Someone here gets it.


RE: Money
By larcen007 on 6/24/2008 4:34:29 PM , Rating: 2
Simple solution - boycott the advertisers.

Why isn't there a site that tracks advertisers and what they advertise? For example - I refuse to buy any products endorsed by celebrities I don't like (like Hilton) - it would be good to know which companies use her so I can actively not purchase their product.

This also assumes that a comparable product exists.


Actually...
By geddarkstorm on 6/24/2008 1:04:49 PM , Rating: 3
This article, and what they found, has absolutely nothing to do with evolutionary theory, nor is it somehow related to flexibility of theory. This is all about bioinformatics--how data is organized and compared in regards to biological systems. Discoveries like this are very common, since bioinformatics is a new and growing field, for new computational methods to be derived that show errors in old ones. Plugging in evolution into the story is totally meaningless, other than they simply applied their tool to known relationships to re-evaluate and show off their tool's usefulness.

This is only a new tool to evaluate information, which can be applied to evolutionary studies, or it could be applied to disease studies when comparing cancer cells to normal cells, or it could be applied to genetic engineering and a host of other gene-gene comparison fields. But this isn't about evolution at all, so it's kinda funny to totally bury the actual usefulness of this tool under all sorts of digression.




By joegee on 6/24/2008 5:12:16 PM , Rating: 3
We're the ones who devolve any discussion about science into a religious debate. I don't come in here for comparative religion debates, I come in here for a quick fix of technology and science information. I go elsewhere to learn about religion and spirituality.

Even taking into account that some of us have hobbies that include trolling or playing the Devil's advocate, this ceaseless nitpicking is becoming onerous.

On the bright side, as long as we have discussion forums to taint and dumb down articles, we'll have a place for dead tree magazines. At least with print magazines it's more difficult to dilute information with senseless verbal clutter.




Or maybe the theory is wrong???
By Emryse on 6/25/2008 6:21:51 PM , Rating: 2
I appreciate the author's bravery in posting this article, but really??? This subtitle takes the cake!!!

I'm sorry, but no, "flexibility" in science hypothesis is not how the process should work.

You form your idea, set your hypothesis in place, utilize good research practices to do the work, gain and assess the results, and then either reject or sustain the hypothesis.

I find it so amusing that while every hypothesis formed on the theory of evolution has inevitably warranted rejection, that we (and by we I mean the majority of the scientific community) still persist to believe it is true.

Clearly the line of thinking in this article, along with all theories supporting evolution, was develped in the same manner (according to evolution) that the world developed - without intelligent design.




Damage Control?
By Indianapolis on 6/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Damage Control?
By BMFPitt on 6/24/2008 9:11:07 AM , Rating: 5
It's just you.


RE: Damage Control?
By retrospooty on 6/24/2008 9:16:55 AM , Rating: 1
Definitely just you. Evolution isnt a theory, its a fact (WAS a theory when Darwin first introduced it, now it is proven fact)... The fine details are not 100% known exactly how it happened (as in each and every step of the way) and why it happens - but it did happen.

If you dont beleive it happened, you are dead from the neck up and need to go back to the "George Dubba university of south headupyourassica" =)


RE: Damage Control?
By BMFPitt on 6/24/2008 9:22:03 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Evolution isnt a theory, its a fact (WAS a theory when Darwin first introduced it, now it is proven fact)
Please refrain from sinking to their level. It remains a theory, just as gravity remains a theory. Learn what "theory" means in scientific terms so you don't have to make stuff up.


RE: Damage Control?
By borismkv on 6/24/2008 10:21:53 AM , Rating: 3
Actually, gravity is a Law. When there is ample evidence to support a theory without question, it becomes a law. While the full laws and hypothesis are relatively (ha!) flawed, the general laws of gravity are have been as close to scientifically proven as is possible (which is to say...not completely).


RE: Damage Control?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/24/2008 10:26:30 AM , Rating: 2
> "Actually, gravity is a Law"

Actually, there is some reason to believe it's not wholly accurate. Google MOND (modified Newtonian Dynamics) for one such hypothesis.


RE: Damage Control?
By Frank M on 6/24/2008 10:31:16 AM , Rating: 5
Actually, you're 100% incorrect. Please don't talk out of your ass.

A law is an axiom, like the laws of thermodynamics. A Theory is a very well-supported explanation for a phenomenon. A theory can never "graduate" to a fact, theory is as high as it can get.

One of the most important qualities of science is that nothing is ever accepted to be solid fact. This allows new, conflicting data to come in at any time and invalidate a theory. This ability to adapt to new information is what separates scientific theory from religious dogma.

Gravity is not a law, it's covered under the general theory of relativity. The atomic theory is also not a law, nor is the germ theory.

Plenty of theories are close enough to fact that they're accepted as such, but there's not such thing as an elevation from theory to law.


RE: Damage Control?
By just4U on 6/24/2008 10:37:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
One of the most important qualities of science is that nothing is ever accepted to be solid fact.


BANG ON!


RE: Damage Control?
By hcahwk19 on 6/24/2008 11:41:15 AM , Rating: 2
Someone needs to inform the global warming/climate change nazis about this important quality.


RE: Damage Control?
By DM0407 on 6/24/2008 10:57:56 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Actually, you're 100% incorrect. Please don't talk out of your ass


Great now we have retarded gay fish monkey's that talk out their ass and can type. Further proof god created everything, even himself.


RE: Damage Control?
By wordsworm on 6/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Damage Control?
By math is fun on 6/24/2008 11:45:28 AM , Rating: 2
newton's 3 laws are in fact axioms (not theories that became laws since that doesn't happen). newtonian physics is only approximately correct. einstein's theories of special and general relativity correct the experimental discrepancies observed in newtonian physics. relativity, like evolution will always remain a theory.


RE: Damage Control?
By The Sword 88 on 6/24/2008 1:10:00 PM , Rating: 2
Einstein's theories attempted to correct the errors in Newtonian physics but general relativity does not explain all observed phenomena and has to rely on theories such as dark energy and dark matter to explain gravitation on a cosmological scale.


RE: Damage Control?
By Frank M on 6/24/2008 12:56:34 PM , Rating: 2
Go look up Newton's Laws, you won't find one called the "Law of Gravity."

You couldn't be more wrong in your understanding of the scientific method. Stop embarassing yourself.


RE: Damage Control?
By wordsworm on 6/24/2008 8:52:41 PM , Rating: 2
ummm... ok.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_uni...

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/ne...

http://physics.about.com/od/classicalmechanics/a/g...

See 'law of gravitation' or 'law of gravity.' It was pretty easy to find. I remember this stuff from grade school. Where did you go to school that they neglected to teach this stuff?


RE: Damage Control?
By Frank M on 6/24/2008 10:09:08 PM , Rating: 2
From your link:
quote:
Newton's law has since been superseded by Einstein's theory of general relativity, but it continues to be used as an excellent approximation of the effects of gravity.


Again, stop embarrassing yourself.


RE: Damage Control?
By jbartabas on 6/24/2008 1:20:14 PM , Rating: 2
This opinion of a theory "graduating" to a law seems to be shared by some scientists:

http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vo...

However, some others (Gregory Mead, Joseph Ribaudo) disagree with this interpretation of theory in the scientific context:
http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vo...

It is obviously a very subjective matter, but it appears clear that the statement:
quote:
A theory can 'graduate' to a fact. That's when a theory becomes a law.


is nothing more than a personal opinion. I tend to think that the quote attributed to Newton sum it up rather well:
quote:
I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypothesis. . . . It is enough that gravity does really exist, and acts according to the laws which we have explained.'


RE: Damage Control?
By Fluxion on 6/24/2008 2:27:24 PM , Rating: 2
My only problem with that quote from Newton, is he seems to use the word "laws" much as we would use "constants", "rules", etc.

I think it's important to point out, that even the world "law" is misleading, as typically most view it as an unchangeable constant, but as we know from politics, the judicial system, etc., a "law" is very much open to modification.

I think the mainstream "law" is in many ways similar to a well-established scientific "theory". People tend to think less of a theory because it's not a "law", but typically when research moves a concept from a hypothetical/observation stage to being a "theory", it usually has quite a bit of support behind it.


RE: Damage Control?
By jbartabas on 6/24/2008 2:35:36 PM , Rating: 2
One of the answer to the first link I have provided points to these definitions (source: http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/e... ):

Glossary of Terms Used in Teaching About the Nature of Science

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed.

Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.

Hypothesis: A testable statement about the natural world that can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.


Of course nothing make these definition universal standards, but it is clear that the meaning of "law" and "theory" is noticeably different for the layman and scientists.


RE: Damage Control?
By Fluxion on 6/24/2008 3:12:49 PM , Rating: 2
I'd say generally those are acceptable definitions, although I think that there is no purpose for "facts", and even the definition of law is provided by that site, can tie in closely with that of a theory (Einstein's Theory of Relativity is often used to state how natural forces interact under specific conditions, and yet it is still very much a theory).

As for a fact, my main problem with it is that you could say "The speed of light in a vacuum being ~300,000,000 m/s is a fact", because it's undergone repeated observations. However, there's a vocal group of scientists who believe it may have at one time been difference (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-o... so while the "fact" holds up for current observations, it would not have held up in the past, thus I don't like terming it as a fact, when it may be a very-slowly changing value.


RE: Damage Control?
By wordsworm on 6/25/2008 7:16:43 AM , Rating: 2
I'd still like to see if light would go 'faster' if that vacuum were in a mobile container, much like sound goes faster in a jet plane. (It still goes the same speed relative to those in the plane, but much faster to those, should sound be visible, observing the sound travel). The way to test this is to get a rocket to go at the speed of light, bring a flashlight, and point it towards the nose inside the capsule. If the light hits, then it would seem that it does indeed go faster. However, no one would really be able to observe it unless light had another method of observation which could be tracked.

As far as laws and theories are concerned, the theories provided by Einstein have not been entirely proven. Newton's Laws of Gravity, however, has been proven. Even though, as someone 'kindly' pointed out, it has been superseded by Einstein's theory, it nonetheless isn't entirely conclusive that Einstein's theory supersedes it.

Clearly observable time gets distorted, as is well explained by Einstein's theory, but whether 'real time' gets distorted or not is something I do not yet accept. I haven't seen any evidence. What people quip as evidence is usually quite easily counter-argued. Even the 'fact' that the earth goes around the sun in an elliptical fashion can be argued against since light isn't always the best medium to describe reality any more than sound is. That is to say, listening to an object pass overhead isn't going to tell you how fast the object is going. Light is more accurate than sound, but it isn't infallible. When we look 5,000,000 light years away, we know that what we're seeing isn't a reality, but reality as it was 5,000,000 years ago. I believe that what we're really seeing as we follow our ellipses around the sun is the apparent distortion in time caused by the real vs observed position of the sun. If my math/physics were better, I would probably be able to figure out the exact speed of the sun throughout the universe based on the distortion of light during the phases of our orbit.

In any case, it's all fun stuff. Laws are based on overwhelming proofs we've won by observing nature and reality. Theories are laws in progress. Hypotheses are reasonable arguments based on repeatable observations. Opinions are baseless (except mine of course). Laws are meant to be broken and reality doesn't care what we think. I feel free to think that Newton's Laws describe reality while Einstein's Theories describe what we observe using the flawed medium, light - which is precisely why I think his theories are slightly off. I'm not trying to put the guy down. His description of light and of how time is perceived by light are mostly correct, as far as I can tell, and should be considered laws of physics.


RE: Damage Control?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/25/2008 10:00:53 AM , Rating: 2
> "I'd still like to see if light would go 'faster' if that vacuum were in a mobile container"

Such experiments have already been performed many times. The speed of light is indeed a constant regardless of relative motion.

> "it nonetheless isn't entirely conclusive that Einstein's theory supersedes [Newton's Laws of Gravity]"

Eh? It most certainly is conclusive, both by theory and experimental data. While something *else* may eventually supercede Einstein's theories, it most certainly won't be Newtonian mechanics. We already have ample proof that it is only a rough approximation useful at low velocities.


RE: Damage Control?
By wordsworm on 6/25/2008 11:41:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It most certainly is conclusive, both by theory and experimental data.
And what would you call conclusive evidence? You're talking about observations using light, which is a flawed medium. It doesn't do 'real time.' If it did, looking 4 billion light years away is also a look into the distant past of that area of the universe 4 billion years ago. It's not a reflection of reality. Using that same medium to try to explain reality has its flaws, and essentially that's what Einstein did when he tried to explain time dilation. Time dilation is an interesting thing that he came up with. Certainly, it exists in the context of what we see. It doesn't work, however, in explaining reality. Those two things are definitely different beasts.

Now, as for the speed of light being constant regardless of motion, that's just silly talk. We've never had a vehicle even remotely capable of reaching ludicrous speed to test that out with. Einstein wondered, if he were flying at the speed of light whether or not he would see his hand. He concluded that he would not. I put that into the context of if I were traveling at the speed of sound, and my ear was in front of my mouth, would I hear myself? The answer depends on whether or not I'm in a container moving at the same speed or not. If you're in a plane, you can hear people all over the place, regardless of how fast you travel. If everyone was going in a convertible jet and tried doing the same thing, you would never hear the people behind you. I suspect the same would be said for light. Even though we regard space as empty, I don't think that it is at all. It's kind of like how you can jump into water at 1 meter without much pain (from the water, not talking about the rocks that hit your head as you go in.) Jump into that water at 50km/h, and you will feel pain. At terminal velocity, you'll likely hit that water and be terminated. The same thing can be said for air. Sure, it doesn't feel like much (unless you're in a storm), but if you're going at 80,000km/h, it's going to feel like you just hit a rock.

I know what I think can't be proven. We just can't go fast enough to validate what I'm saying. However, I suspect that in space we would have a similar scenario. If you could actually go 300 Megameters per second, you would find that space feels far denser than it does at 80,000 km/h. Light does change speed according to density. This much has been relatively easy to prove. Light in water travels much more slowly.

I think eventually Newton's physics will come back into fashion when we find something other than photons to measure things by. I suspect that it will be gravitons, but no one has empirical evidence to prove anything about the speed they go at. I've only heard 'educated guesses' that it goes at approximately the same speed as light. Of course, then I ask the question how does a graviton escape a black hole if light can't.

Anyways, a lot of the 'proofs' or 'evidence' floating around that makes Einstein's theories on reality isn't entirely conclusive, and in some cases it's entirely contrary. Geostationary orbits don't move relative to a given point on earth, yet their clocks still have to be corrected. Einstein also postulated that mass would have an effect on time. However, he said that both relative speed and mass would have an effect on time. Yet, the calculations for satellites are the same.

The appearance of time dilates, there's no question in my mind that he got that right. That time itself, as a reality dilates, I'm unconvinced. Quite the opposite, I'm convinced that Newton had it right when he said it's a constant.

Anyways, I don't think I'll ever convince you to try to understand what it is I'm saying, or that anyone would give 2 cents to hear my beliefs. But here I am, wasting everyone's time anyways.


RE: Damage Control?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/25/2008 1:35:30 PM , Rating: 2
> "And what would you call conclusive evidence? "

Experimental results that sharply differ from Newtonian Mechanics, but agree with values predicted from Einsteinian to within 10 or more decimal places.

> "Now, as for the speed of light being constant regardless of motion, that's just silly talk. "

You're welcome to deny basic relativity if you wish. However, it **has** been experimentally verified countless times. Why not spend at least 15 minutes looking at some of the hundreds of such experiments?


RE: Damage Control?
By wordsworm on 6/25/2008 9:02:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're welcome to deny basic relativity if you wish. However, it **has** been experimentally verified countless times. Why not spend at least 15 minutes looking at some of the hundreds of such experiments?


I've looked at some of the experiments - in particular time dilation. However, I haven't found their conclusions conclusive. Let's put it this way, Einstein said that if ladder starts moving at 1/10 the speed of light towards you, it would become shorter. As it passed you and moved away from you, the inverse would occur. I simply draw a distinction and say that it's just the Doppler effect: it is neither longer nor shorter, but rather it appears that way because of the limitations of light. The appearance of time gets distorted, not time itself. The appearance of the ladder gets distorted, not the ladder itself. There should be a tangible difference. However, the scientific world hasn't yet made that logical step any more than I could change that perception.

So, you can look at the experiments all you want. We can both look at the results and come to different conclusions. As I said before, his analysis of light and how we view time based on it is correct. The idea that it actually bends time, which I believe is a constant, is simply skewed by the fact that light bends, gets compressed, and sometimes cannot even move. I, therefore, don't believe it to be an accurate descriptor of reality - even if it is the best one we've got.

Anyways, people who think differently about reality or science than what is mainstream are viewed in the same light. It's kind of like a test with an answer key that has the wrong answer on it - both the correct and the incorrect answers will result in the same evaluation (not, of course, if both wrong answers are the same.)

Einstein was, more than anything, a physical philosopher. It's his philosophies that interest me. The evidence that is used to support his philosophies are usually concluded automatically and without much thought. As to reality, that is a different thing which is altogether different from perception.


RE: Damage Control?
By Fluxion on 6/24/2008 2:22:29 PM , Rating: 2
Completely correct.

I think it's important to point out too, however, that while science does not approach any subject or idea as being solid fact, a well-supported theory (such as the theory of gravity, theory of light transmission, etc), if able to stand up over time without any proof to its contrary, will often be approached by the scientific community as essentially being a "fact", although I'd like to stress that that only goes so far as to imply that it's assumed to be the correct value, data, constant, etc., given current information and experimentation, such as how typically we default to acceleration due to gravity as being ~ 9.8 m/s^2 (I realize it's much longer, but I'm being lazy :P).

But you are right, in that in terms of what most people regard as "laws", are really theories, and unfortunately, what the general public often views as being a "theory", is really a hypothesis/model.


RE: Damage Control?
By wordsworm on 6/24/2008 8:59:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
what the general public often views as being a "theory", is really a hypothesis/model.


You're being far too generous. I think what the public interprets a theory to be is far closer to that of an opinion.

quote:
I think it's important to point out too, however, that while science does not approach any subject or idea as being solid fact


Certainly I don't agree with much of Einstein's TOR (in relation to time). However, I'm quite content to call my beliefs opinion.


RE: Damage Control?
By Tuor on 6/25/2008 9:19:54 AM , Rating: 2
One example of this that I was given is Gravity. Back before Einstien, space was flat and Newtonion physics could account for every sort of movement that could be imagined... or so it was thought.

Einstien came along and started talking about mass warping space-time, and he proved it using Mercury's orbit, IIRC... explaining a discrepency between what Newtonian physics predicted and the Universe displayed.

There is definitely NOT a 'law of gravity'. In fact, we don't really understand how gravity works in many respects, and it's been a pain trying to incorporate it into the Grand Unified Theories that are supposed to tie to gether the various fundamental forces we know about.

Calling them 'Laws of Gravity' is a common mistake, but a mistake nontheless: they're theories and will always be so.


RE: Damage Control?
By mdogs444 on 6/24/2008 9:41:35 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Evolution isnt a theory, its a fact (WAS a theory when Darwin first introduced it, now it is proven fact)... The fine details are not 100% known exactly how it happened (as in each and every step of the way) and why it happens - but it did happen.

First and foremost, I'm not a scientist, nor am I that religious. I have beliefs in both, but neither control the way I live my life.

However, your statement completely contradicts itself. In order for something to be a fact, it needs to be able to be explained in terms of how and why, especially in the sense of evolution. What is fact is that humans and apes, and everything else are here right now. We also have fossils and prove of what was there long ago. However, filling in the blanks with scientific proof is where the problem is. Could it have happened the way they think? Sure. Could it be something totally different? Sure. I couldnt say. I, for one, would rather not make a connection between humans and apes. But in the end, I think the root of the problem is proving the Big Bang Theory, because that is not a scientific fact, over creationism. They are both more less a religion, than fact, in the sense that you cannot prove which one happened, which one didn't, or even if either of them happened.

Certainly forms of evolution has happened over the years by protein advancement and mutation. However, trying to pass off the start of the world by the Big Bang Theory and Evolution is not an open and shut case, thus why its being so hotly debated for some time now. If it truely was a proven fact, religion would cease to exist - everything from christianity to scientology. These are no more educated guesses than global warming theory. There is certain evidence to suspect them, just as there is certain evidence to contradict them. But to merely claim either as a 100% fact is also scientifically false.


RE: Damage Control?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/24/2008 10:16:25 AM , Rating: 2
> " However, trying to pass off the start of the world by the Big Bang Theory and Evolution is not an open and shut case"

Well for one you've confused evolutionary theory with abiogenesis. Evolution tells us nothing about how life got started...nor is it intended to.

> "I couldnt say. I, for one, would rather not make a connection between humans and apes. "

Most who deny evolution are the same way. They don't mind believing that a bird evolved from a dinosaur, or a frog from a fish...but claim man and ape evolved from the same ancestor, and their entire emotional fiber cries out.


RE: Damage Control?
By Proteusza on 6/24/2008 10:27:59 AM , Rating: 5
Frankly I dont see why people get up in arms about apes and humans having evolved from a common ancestor. I dont see what is so special about us humans - we are pretty violent brutes.


RE: Damage Control?
By just4U on 6/24/2008 10:52:56 AM , Rating: 1
I am sorta a christian who believes in intelligent design and evolution and have no problems believing in that. But then again I have some pretty way out there (and fanciful) ideas of what I think we are and how everything works.

One thing for me tho.. those ideas are always changing and nothing is set in stone except I exist... I think!