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!


RE: Damage Control?
By Machinegear on 6/24/2008 3:21:24 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Frankly I dont see why people get up in arms about apes and humans having evolved from a common ancestor.


Then you clearly don't know what is at stake. If man is not God's creation then we are not accountable to His word either. Arguments against God are pleasing to many as it automatically relieves man from personal responsibility enforced through a supernatural power. At that point, all power is assumed by man and it just becomes a power struggle to determine who controls who; survival of the fittest as they say.

quote:
I dont see what is so special about us humans - we are pretty violent brutes.


This is a silly statement. Of course humans are special. You included. Violence is just a small part of humanity, not humanity itself.


RE: Damage Control?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/24/2008 1:27:21 PM , Rating: 2
For evolution to take place the creature as a whole would change....family, friend...all change not just one. Once in a while a mutation fall back or forward, but on average the species would change together. hence why some like me can accept the idea a creature can change over time, like birds may have come from dinosaurs - sure why not evidence looks pretty good to back that story up. However, really no more dinosaurs. (sure can be many things happened to cause no more dinosaurs...but there was more then one type of dinosaurs...hell even crocks are still around but have changed since those days.) However, if an evolved species had only part of it's group change (say ape to man). Then it would have left some family members to not change (Hence why you would say, Apes and man both still on the Earth now). If really this is the case then there would be stragglers all along the evolutionary change (still would be some half man/ape some ¼ man ¾ ape)...So no right now, not going to believe fish to frog or Ape to man. Dinosaurs to Bird - sure, theres even stragglers – all kinds of weird prehistoric looking birds around this planet of ours....
Do we have a lot in common with Ape, sure. DNA shows that, but DNA shows we have a lot in common with all animals on this planet – some more then others, but it does not mean we are from the same line....just means that the same materials were used to create the different species. Just like house across this planet are not the same from one place to another – can be very different and have no common point to connect the design ideas with one place to another place (that is tribes that still live in South American rain forest avoiding the outside world have never in their entire history had their architects talk with the European architects, USA architects, Asian architects,...and so on) – however, you will often see the same material being used in all houses. Good building material is good building material.


RE: Damage Control?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/24/2008 1:47:23 PM , Rating: 2
> "For evolution to take place the creature as a whole would change....family, friend...all change not just one"

Eh? This isn't true at all. In fact, very often just the opposite occurs...a small isolated group of a particular species will evolve in a wholly different direction, becoming a subspecies (as the different races of man or various breeds of dogs) or, over enough time and selection pressure, a wholly different species itself.


RE: Damage Control?
By Fluxion on 6/24/2008 2:58:07 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly.

For example, Marsupials in Australia. Mammals, and yet, co-evolution occurred due to Australia's isolation from the rest of the world.

There are plenty of fossils also which so co-evolution during breaks ups of super-continents such as Pangea (and it's split into Gondwana and Laurasia, which split themselves later), plus many other past and even future supercontinents.


RE: Damage Control?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/24/2008 3:16:29 PM , Rating: 2
I stated that poorly, should have put it in more of a question form.
As you should have read later on, I did say if evolved from one species to another (ape to man) then we should have all(most) stages of evolution around. There should be a 1/2 man 1/2 ape creature (alive or bones). Of course some one might jump in with Big Foot – if can prove he's real...
Let's just be clear....anyone who says a species does not change (evolve) over time to adapt to its environment; well they are just off the deep end. My point is, I have yet to see anything to make me believe that man and ape at one point in time had the same mother and father.


RE: Damage Control?
By BMFPitt on 6/24/2008 4:36:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I did say if evolved from one species to another (ape to man) then we should have all(most) stages of evolution around. There should be a 1/2 man 1/2 ape creature (alive or bones).
Just in case you were being serious, and you actually didn't know we have a bunch of fossils...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_(genus)


RE: Damage Control?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/24/2008 5:13:44 PM , Rating: 2
A minority of zoologists consider that the two species of chimpanzees (usually treated in the genus Pan), and maybe the gorillas (usually treated in the genus Gorilla) should also be included in the genus based on genetic similarities. Most scientists argue that chimpanzees and gorillas have too many anatomical differences between themselves and humans to be part of Homo.
So, the link you sent talks about the line of man, showing how man (Homo) has changed. That was never in question. The link you sent has an idea of a map beyond homo - on to hominini and hominidae up to hominoidea. Again I ask for hard facts, bones not ideas. Ideas are nice, but not always correct. Columbus had an idea...sail east to India and save time. He was part right, (India to the East) but was wrong in it being a good trade route to India. Once he tried it, it was proven a bad idea for India...but good idea for the America's.

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

Homininae ancestors speciate from the ancestors the orangutan[11]. Pierolapithecus catalaunicus is believed to be a common ancestor of humans and the great apes or at least a species that brings us closer to a common ancestor than any previous fossil discovery.

You know why they stated like above...because it's an idea, they can not prove it 100% or even really much over 50% which is nothing. 85% - breath air, have hands, have feet have toes, have figures, have hair, have skin, have ears, have lips, have teeth, have nose...you get the idea.....The articles you have sent will not even say 100% for sure. One simple reason. We still do not have the evidence to close the deal.


RE: Damage Control?
By BMFPitt on 6/24/2008 5:23:13 PM , Rating: 2
OK, just wanted to give you some info in case you were genuinely ignorant, rather than willfully ignorant. If you can look at all that and say, "But it's just a guess" then there's nothing else to discuss.


RE: Damage Control?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/24/2008 5:51:27 PM , Rating: 2
Be scientific about it...
They used the words "is believed" that means, guessing till proven. If accept that has 100% evidence to you then you are not being a good scientist. You are making 100% of a point on still not 100% complete information... That goes back to the same way people thought in 1300 to 1800 time. See a bit of information and guess the rest – and how often were they wrong? It's OK to guess till you figure 100% of the truth, but teach correct. Which is, “we believe, but still looking to complete the information.” Complete is complete and any scientific person would accept nothing but complete information - otherwise they should be looking to complete the information.

It maybe as Masher2 lists below...some changes comes too fast to leave evidence. However, I would think with the number of creatures that walked this planet - even with fire, storms and everything else destroying evidence, that we could find something to make it 100% complete, no questions. I maybe asking for a lot, but I don't think it's unrealizable if you want me to believe an Ape and I have the same Grand xxxx parent.


RE: Damage Control?
By AlmostExAMD on 6/25/2008 5:02:30 AM , Rating: 2
"It maybe as Masher2 lists below...some changes comes too fast to leave evidence. However, I would think with the number of creatures that walked this planet - even with fire, storms and everything else destroying evidence, that we could find something to make it 100% complete, no questions."

Ummm, Well they are bit by bit. It's just that the world is an awfully big place to dig and it takes time,Also I would expect that they just can't waltz into any country they like and start digging it up either, Sure I could mention many countries that would probably shoot you, North Korea being one example.
Evidence is out there but like other fields ie Archaeology
it takes a long time to piece things together and come up with an explanation.


RE: Damage Control?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/24/2008 4:41:35 PM , Rating: 2
> " if evolved from one species to another (ape to man) then we should have all(most) stages of evolution around"

But we do. Contrast a prosimian primate such as a tarsier or lemur to man himself. Now look at a species such as a chimpanzee...what else can they possibly be but an intermediate step between the two?

I won't even point out the fossil evidence of even closer links and finer shades of distinction, because the very premise itself is incorrect. When a small group undergoes extreme selection pressure, it can change radically in as little as a few hundred years. In such a case, it won't preserve any intermediate forms, not even in the fossil record, as fossilization is itself a rare event under normal conditions.


RE: Damage Control?
By phattyboombatty on 6/24/2008 6:08:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When a small group undergoes extreme selection pressure, it . . .
. . . goes extinct.


RE: Damage Control?
By retrospooty on 6/24/2008 10:18:19 AM , Rating: 3
"In order for something to be a fact, it needs to be able to be explained in terms of how and why,"

Not true at all... We truly don't understand why the Earth is there, and how it got there (in a sense) yet it is a fact that it is there... The fact is that we all live on a ball floating through space - what made it? was it a god? Was it just the laws of physics? Who knows, but it exists and that is a fact.

The fact is we do know that life evolved on Earth, fossil, DNA geology etc all prove that fact. Scientists have not catalogued every single step of the evolutionary journey and have not been fully able to document how it happened in the first place, but that doesn't change the fact that it happened.

My ancestors crawled out of the water several hundred million years ago, some of us cant quite seem to fully make the leap.

As for the big bang... Who said anything about that in this thread?


RE: Damage Control?
By borismkv on 6/24/2008 10:33:49 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, we only know what we see. It's no more possible to prove that life evolved on this planet than it is possible to prove that God exists. Hell, all that fossil evidence could have been planted by aliens for all you know. I'm not saying it was, but nothing can ever be definitively proven unless you have a time machine to go watch it happening.

What many proponents of abiogenesis seem to ignore is that science never tries to prove anything. A hypothesis is either supported through experimentation or it isn't. The funny thing about all of the experiments into evolution (the ones that were able to generate living matter from scratch) do as much to prove the existence of God as they do to prove the theory of abiogenesis. Why? Because the experiments were seen over by an intelligent being. Scientists tested a theory by recreating the perfect conditions for creating life. What they proved is that an intelligent being can create life from nothing. Not that life on earth came from nothing.

That said, it doesn't matter to me one bit whether life evolved from nothing on this planet. How it got here doesn't matter to me. Why it's here does.


RE: Damage Control?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/24/2008 10:43:08 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The funny thing about all of the experiments into evolution (the ones that were able to generate living matter from scratch) do as much to prove the existence of God as they do to prove the theory of abiogenesis. Why? Because the experiments were seen over by an intelligent being.
I'm sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong. Such experiments such as Urey-Miller worked by replicating conditions on the primordial earth, to demonstrate certain events could happen spontaneously.

If one sets water in a freezer at 0 degress C and observes it to freeze, one can reasonably conclude that water would naturally freeze on its own, should the same conditions exist outside. These experiments were no different.


RE: Damage Control?
By Curelom on 6/24/2008 11:14:47 AM , Rating: 2
A few proteins and amino acids are far far from a living cell. They aren't even close. The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain the diversity of life. It doesn't explain the beginning of life. Miller-Urey wasn't able to produce even the simplest of DNA/RNA molecules, and there is a lot more to life than DNA.


RE: Damage Control?
By AnnihilatorX on 6/24/2008 11:36:42 AM , Rating: 3
I doubt you can create DNA with such a limited time frame of the experiment, otherwise life will be popping up everywhere. Some organic compound is already a very promising sign. Remember the age of Earth is 4.5 billion years.


RE: Damage Control?
By Curelom on 6/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: Damage Control?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/24/2008 1:50:25 PM , Rating: 2
We've already gone far beyond spontaneous creation of simple nucleotides...all the way to the formation of protocells, which exhibit many of the same chacteristics of life itself.

The step from a protocell to the simplest of eukaryotic cells truly isn't that large, and at our current rates of progress, certainly occur within less than the next 100 years.


RE: Damage Control?
By MrHanson on 6/24/2008 2:22:39 PM , Rating: 1
The creation of a fiew simple nucleotides is far, far, away from the creation of a fully self duplicating molocular machine. We haven't been able to create a simple cell in the laboratory. When they have claimed they have created life, its always using parts from existing organisms. You are trying to over simplify life.


RE: Damage Control?
By Ramshambo on 6/24/2008 2:36:19 PM , Rating: 2
Oh I know, lets get a finite solution together right now then...I'm gonna say the easter bunny did it. There done, no more research needed.

Hippitus hoppitus Dues Domine!


RE: Damage Control?
By DASQ on 6/24/2008 11:55:28 AM , Rating: 2
Would I break your weak little mind by saying that we're here for no good reason at all? That your life is worth nothing to this planet?

I hope you don't actually think you have some greater purpose being alive. And it was the perfect environment for OUR TYPE of life. Not for all physically possible organisms ever.


RE: Damage Control?
By picklesurprise on 6/24/2008 10:36:09 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
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.


The theory of evolution was formulated almost one hundred years before the discovery of DNA. When it turned out that our closest relatives were indeed chimps or whatever, then I'd say that's pretty compelling evidence of a common ancestor.

quote:
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.


The Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution. You could say that evolution is simply God's way of getting things done and the Big Bang was how God started it all. Unless you make specific claims about these things then you can always move God further and further behind the scenes since we can't ever know for sure what happened before the big bang. The big bang was the start of time so there was no 'before'. Science is not afraid to say 'we don't know' but it's not fair to conclude that since there's no scientific answer then some other one must be true.


RE: Damage Control?
By Diesel Donkey on 6/24/2008 12:56:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If it truely was a proven fact, religion would cease to exist...


Why would proving the Big Bang theory eliminate religion? I haven't decided if I'm religious or not (I'm not convinced one way or the other), but it seems to me that the Big Bang could certainly have been just another step in "God's Plan" or whatever you want to call it.


RE: Damage Control?
By mdogs444 on 6/24/2008 1:20:13 PM , Rating: 2
The big bang theory is a scientific theory based on the universe and earths creation, and how a single organism spread life on earth - which contradicts creationsism of how god created the universe and created man.


RE: Damage Control?
By xRyanCat on 6/24/2008 4:56:11 PM , Rating: 2
What part of the Big Bang Theory states life spread from a single organism? Once again Big Bang Theory != Evolution != Abiogenesis. They are all very different subjects. The Theory of Evolution doesn't dip into how the first life forms were created, but how those first life forms evolved and changed.

Abiogenesis is about the origins of life itself.

Big Bang Theory is about the origins of the Universe and how it came into existence. (It also helps explain how space expands in its finite state, among other things.)


RE: Damage Control?
By Misty Dingos on 6/24/2008 10:44:57 AM , Rating: 2
OK because I am nice and I like to help people out. In this case keep them from the Eternal Chum Bucket. I will have to point out that the theory of evolution is obviously flawed and because I am nice will tell you why.

It does not take into account the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Blessed Be the FSM! While your quaint little theory certainly has some followers it's failure to recognize the implicit activities of the FSM leaves you open to ridicule and scorn. The truly enlightened all know that the activities of the FSM have noodled mankind into the position he is in now and only for the betterment of mankind. Why ignoring the saucy endeavors of the FSM is like going to dinner and not having dessert! Or worse yet, not drinking beer! It is blasphemous. So get your self to a FSM worship center and update that evolution theory of yours. And remember Blessed Be the FSM or it is the Eternal Chum Bucket for you!

I am glad that I could help you out there. Doesn’t everyone feel better now?


RE: Damage Control?
By root mean sq on 6/24/2008 1:32:19 PM , Rating: 1
praise spaghetti!!!!

give this man a 6, he has been touched by the noodley appendages...


RE: Damage Control?
By Screwballl on 6/24/2008 12:01:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Evolution isnt a theory, its a fact


Living things evolve or adapt, that is a fact. That does not mean evolution is a fact, it is, was and always will be a THEORY. The THEORY of evolution states everything in its current state came from something else. Whereas the FACT that things adapt comes from documented events that have been seen and replicated. Evolution cannot be replicated and therefore remains a theory.
Evolving/adaptation is not evolution. Living things can evolve and adapt without it falling under the heading of evolution.
Please learn the difference between fact and fiction.


RE: Damage Control?
By Proteusza on 6/24/2008 9:19:29 AM , Rating: 2
Why dont you venture out of small town America for a change?

Cos every other country takes evolution as true.

Oh and I hope you dont go for flu vaccines, since the production of those relies on the fact that the flu virus evolves every year.

It must be the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Bless His Noodly Appendage.


RE: Damage Control?
By rdeegvainl on 6/24/2008 9:24:42 AM , Rating: 2
Don't you take my spaghetti monster's name in vain, especially without mention of either garlic bread, or Parmesan cheese.


RE: Damage Control?
By theapparition on 6/24/2008 12:21:04 PM , Rating: 1
In the name of the Spaghetti monster, the garlic bread, and the holy meatballs......Amen.


RE: Damage Control?
By Shadow Conception on 6/24/2008 10:53:27 PM , Rating: 1
Now the question stands. Does the His Noodly Highness evolve?


RE: Damage Control?
By MrHanson on 6/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: Damage Control?
By Proteusza on 6/24/2008 9:35:46 AM , Rating: 1
Well I hate to say it, but you are. There is no reason for not accepting it. It has been proven to be true over the past 200 years, by the same science that has produced your computer and tv set.

As I said, outside of America, there is no debate. Evolution is taught in schools, with nary a mention of ID or creationism, or whatever they call it today. Religion stays in the church and science in the classroom.

Only in America, do your church leaders, who so desperately want to cling to a particular interpretation of the Bible, that they produce misinformation about evolution.

EVERYONE ELSE is uninterested in the so-called debate, because there is none. The only debate now is on a particular aspect of evolution, or whether there is a better scientific theory than evolution (and by scientific I mean the opposite of ID).

So its not desperation, its exasperation. I sit on the other side of the atlantic, where everyone knows that evolution is by far the best theory we have for why life is like it is. And every time someone posts an article supporting evolution, dissidents, all American strangely enough, crawl out from the woodwork to decry how unfair it is that evolution gets such press.

You would have the same reaction if someone tried to tell you that the Earth is flat or the sun rotates around the earth (at least I hope you would).


RE: Damage Control?
By mdogs444 on 6/24/2008 9:48:35 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
There is no reason for not accepting it. It has been proven to be true over the past 200 years

There are obviously reasons for not accepting - whether you want to accept those reasons is a different story. Im fairly impartial to evolution or creationism, since both have serious holes and flaws.

However, merely accepting something because of 200 years of data in comparison to hundreds of millions of years of existance is no more fact than accepting global warming because of a few years of data.

quote:
So its not desperation, its exasperation. I sit on the other side of the atlantic, where everyone knows that evolution is by far the best theory we have for why life is like it is. And every time someone posts an article supporting evolution, dissidents, all American strangely enough, crawl out from the woodwork to decry how unfair it is that evolution gets such press.

Not exactly a true or fair argument by any means. Is it the best scientific theory out there? Yes, I'll agree to that. But teaching it in schools as fact, when the fact is that its not a full proof is also wrong. But the reason for it in the US is the fact that majority of teachers here are of left wing bias, and is seen on a day by day basis. In a place where we are supposed to seperate church and state, we should also be eliminating the agenda of left or right wing politics in our public school systems. After all, the left wing wants a "fairness doctrine" to force the airwaves to have just as much airtime for left wing politics as right wing, so why shouldn't we mandate that school systems employ the same amount of right wing teachers as left wing teachers?


RE: Damage Control?
By Phil Harris on 6/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: Damage Control?
By mdogs444 on 6/24/2008 10:03:05 AM , Rating: 1
Riiight. Or could it be a threat to the liberal agenda on society?

Its an utter fact that the media and school systems are dominated by the left. There are no facts or data you can show me that prove otherwise.

But yeah, if we had more Code Pink, Greenpeace, PETA, NAACP, and Black Theology teachers, we'd all be better off....and smarter to boot.


RE: Damage Control?
By Nyamekye on 6/24/2008 10:49:40 AM , Rating: 2
Schools are public institutions, which get their money to operate from the government. So, when conservatives cut taxes to promote smaller government, they cut the schools operating budget - and show their utter lack of care for America's school systems.

But yet you complain when liberals who seems to want to keep the boat running dominate the school system which conservatives abandoned...

Florida's a great example of this phenomenon, where the graduation percentage in some counties is less than 50% - were science test scores on standardized test are in 30% range.


RE: Damage Control?
By mdogs444 on 6/24/2008 11:26:32 AM , Rating: 2
Uh, sounds like you have't grasped the fact that shools are mainly paid for by local property taxes, not federal income taxes.

Just another way of saying that the low income families who want everyone else to pay for better schools while not contributing.

quote:
Florida's a great example of this phenomenon, where the graduation percentage in some counties is less than 50% - were science test scores on standardized test are in 30% range.

Perhaps in something like Dade county - where the majority of the population does not speak english? Wonder if that could be a barrier in their educational advancement....


RE: Damage Control?
By root mean sq on 6/24/2008 1:37:05 PM , Rating: 2
how do i reach these kiiiiiiids?


RE: Damage Control?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/24/2008 2:09:13 PM , Rating: 2
> "Uh, sounds like you have't grasped the fact that shools are mainly paid for by local property taxes, not federal income taxes."

Sounds like he also hasn't grasped that the problem with our school system isn't money, but rather things like attitudes of entitlement, low expectations, the teachers union, the inability to punish problem children, etc.

In my great-grandfather's time, for instance, per-capita spending was about 1/5 what it is today, even in inflation-adjusted dollars. And yet he was taught Latin and calculus starting in the 8th grade.


RE: Damage Control?
By Screwballl on 6/24/2008 2:41:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Florida's a great example of this phenomenon, where the graduation percentage in some counties is less than 50% - were science test scores on standardized test are in 30% range.


Major flaw in your post.
Several of the best rated school districts in the entire state of FL are where? In the very conservative republican majority panhandle. Okaloosa and Santa Rosa counties has had some of the longest running A+ schools in the state. Add in some of the longest running of high placement on FCAT scores and it is plain to see that the conservative counties have the best scores, not the worst.

Now the kicker, what are the lowest rated schools and counties in the state? In the Democrat based counties such as Broward. The lowest rated schools, the most liberal counties of the state, the highest per capita of welfare recipients AND least per capita number of high school graduates.
Another real shocker, those schools that are doing the worst have constantly had their budgets increased by the very conservatives you speak of. Yet the high ranking schools either have to deal with the same or lower budgets than previous years.

Pokes holes in your tissue paper boat.


RE: Damage Control?
By Ringold on 6/25/2008 5:27:56 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly. If the OP were actually familiar with Florida and its school system, he would see that the variation across the state occurs along political and cultural lines. Mdogs I believe pointed out, even if the schools themselves could be reformed in areas where they are failing, the cultural background of the students is not conducive at all to giving a damn about education. In near-by Orange Country, they've thrown just about everything they could and what was once a reputable high school, Oak Ridge, including bringing a fantastic principle (based on her record) out of retirement. No effect. Even schools crippled by teachers unions can bring kids to the water, but they cant make them drink.


RE: Damage Control?
By BMFPitt on 6/24/2008 10:05:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well, have they ever considered that those jobs require a certain amount of intellect...
I would like to think so, but there's ample evidence to the contrary.


RE: Damage Control?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/24/2008 10:10:47 AM , Rating: 2
> "One of the great right wing moans over the years is that teaching and the media is dominated by the left. Well, have they ever considered that those jobs require a certain amount of intellect... "

Coming from somoneone who has both written media reports and taught at the university level, I can safely say-- it takes very little. Certainly much less than a day on the job in private scientific or engineering R&D.


RE: Damage Control?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/24/2008 11:44:13 AM , Rating: 2
masher2,
I don't know how many different universities or media companies you worked for... But would it be fair to say your bosses (the guys in charge of money, hirings, and promotions) that they tended to be left wing, and that they tended to favore only those whom agreed with their way of thinking?


RE: Damage Control?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/24/2008 1:57:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But would it be fair to say your bosses (the guys in charge of money, hirings, and promotions) that they tended to be left wing, and that they tended to favore only those whom agreed with their way of thinking?
In the scientific and engineering fields of academia, not really. In the "soft" sciences and liberal arts realm and (most especially) within the mainstream media, it's a significant facet.


RE: Damage Control?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/24/2008 12:19:12 PM , Rating: 2
One of the great right wing moans over the years is that teaching and the media is dominated by the left. Well, have they ever considered that those jobs require a certain amount of intellect...

The common phrase is, those that can not do - teach. It's the intellect that can start and make a successful business on his own and not live underneath the easier path of a protected already existing work environment. Of course there is nothing wrong with working for an existing place, we can not all be creative leaders...need followers too - that's what liberals are good at, most liberals tend to like to be told what to do. They just do not like being told they are being told what to do. Conservatives do not like being told what to do. They except they have rules and restrictions to work within, but they are going to do what they believe is right and good for them. If others agree with them, they have success if other disagree they fail.
Most media companies are owned by far left liberals. That does not mean they were started by liberal nor does it mean they have Intellectuals. As of lately the more left wing new CEO's who have been coming into power have been causing followers to leave their media company (liberal lies and missing leading statements) - therefore less sales, less money...less success. Just ask CNN, New York times, Washington post, and others why they just keep loosing subscribers. Then ask yourself just what level of intellectual skills does it take to drive away your customers?


RE: Damage Control?
By Proteusza on 6/24/2008 10:03:49 AM , Rating: 2
There is a lot more consensus on evolution than global warming, and 200 years is more time than a lot of other sciences have had, such as nuclear physics.

Also, left or right wing bias should have nothing to do with the teaching of science in the classrooms. This is science, not personal beliefs. I dont need to believe in gravity to teach it to others. If right wing teachers believe in creationism, thats fine for them. But they need to understand that as far as science is concerned, evolution is the best theory we have, and ID isnt a theory at all. As I said, there is no debate, there is no dissent. If I dont believe in maths, should I be allowed to teach that 2 + 2 = 5? No! And its the same with evolution - teach the science, and teach it correctly, or dont teach anything at all.


RE: Damage Control?
By Curelom on 6/24/2008 11:33:52 AM , Rating: 2
I don't believe we should teach creationism in schools either, but I do believe it would be reckless to teach evolution without mentioning some of its problems. The teachers do not need to have a solution for the problems, such as intelligent design, just that there are issues that still need to be worked out, if they ever can be worked out. They should detail some of these issues as well.
The moment you say there is "no debate" is when you are no longer science, but religion. What are you afraid of? That somebody may come out with a better theory?


RE: Damage Control?
By math is fun on 6/24/2008 12:10:43 PM , Rating: 2
there are no problems with the theory of evolution that don't require a college level or better education in biology. we don't tell junior high and high school students about the problems with the atomic theory we teach them. in fact, we don't even teach them anything about quantum mechanics unless they are in optional high level classes.


RE: Damage Control?
By Curelom on 6/24/2008 12:22:30 PM , Rating: 2
If you are teaching something to students who can't understand the problems, then you shouldn't be teaching them. I believe high school students, even junior high can understand these issues at a more basic level. To say only college students can understand this is a farce.


RE: Damage Control?
By math is fun on 6/24/2008 12:37:30 PM , Rating: 2
i personally have never taught anyone below the college level. i was speaking from what i have read about school curricula. the problem isn't students' ability to understand the problems, the problem is a lack of knowledge base. actual controversy in evolution has nothing to do with the basics. there are no problems with the basic theory of evolution. if you think there are you should look up what you think are problems at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/


RE: Damage Control?
By Curelom on 6/24/2008 1:40:30 PM , Rating: 2
The link you gave has some interesting responses to some problems, but some, not all, of these responses as merely hypothesis without experimentation or detail to back them up. That's one area where science has the disadvantage. You may come up with a reasonable explanation, but then you have to back it up.

I would say that there are high school students that are dumber than plants. Maybe that's evidence of evolution ;)


RE: Damage Control?
By root mean sq on 6/24/2008 1:43:30 PM , Rating: 2
you're right. i wasn't taught about the d-block in chemistry until 6th form. before, all we had to know was up to Ca.


RE: Damage Control?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/24/2008 10:12:34 AM , Rating: 2
> "Im fairly impartial to evolution or creationism, since both have serious holes and flaws"

There are no "flaws" in evolutionary theory. There are parts we don't fully understand yet of course, but nothing that leads us to suspect the theory as a whole is in the slightest way incorrect.


RE: Damage Control?
By jahwarrior on 6/24/2008 3:33:24 PM , Rating: 1
There are so many flaws, Just to name a few:

http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html#Rea...


RE: Damage Control?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/24/2008 7:17:46 PM , Rating: 3
Those are just the usual misunderstandings and distortions, rehashed. The probability argument is the worst of the bunch, compiled by someone with an 8th-grade knowledge of statistics who cannot tell the difference betweeen a dependent and an independent event. (hint: we compute the probability quite differently between the two).


RE: Damage Control?
By MrHanson on 6/24/2008 10:02:13 AM , Rating: 1
"You would have the same reaction if someone tried to tell you that the Earth is flat or the sun rotates around the earth (at least I hope you would)."

Well you would probably have the same reaction if I told you that the cell was a simple blob of jelly as Darwin thought it was. We all know now how that turned out.

"Religion stays in the church and science in the classroom"

Atheism and perpetuating an idea about origins is a form of religion. Especially if it goes against the deeply held belief of someone else. Evolution is not just a simple theory about origins it is a whole world view.

"Well I hate to say it, but you are. There is no reason for not accepting it. It has been proven to be true over the past 200 years, by the same science that has produced your computer and tv set."

Surely no one from Darwin’s day through the 1950s could have imagined that the secrets of life would depend on complex, precision machinery, with moving parts, made out of molecules, manufactured to spec from coded instructions.
Where do coded instructions come from? An intelligent source.


RE: Damage Control?
By Proteusza on 6/24/2008 10:14:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well you would probably have the same reaction if I told you that the cell was a simple blob of jelly as Darwin thought it was. We all know now how that turned out.


And how was that particular dilemma solved? Through science, through investigation and discussion. No prayer was involved. And because of that, countless millions of lives are saved due to antibiotics and other revolutionary medicines. The point is, yes Darwin had it wrong. But that got corrected in time. Science corrects itself, some theories need adjusting.

quote:
Atheism and perpetuating an idea about origins is a form of religion. Especially if it goes against the deeply held belief of someone else. Evolution is not just a simple theory about origins it is a whole world view.


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

Evolution says NOTHING about the origin of life. How can you dispute a theory when you dont know the first thing about it? The correct term for the theory that life arose from complex chemicals is called abiogenesis, and its still being investigated. Abiogenesis and evolution have nothing in common - one isnt required for the other to be true. Understand both of them and you might understand why.

Besides which, why does evolution go against your world view? What makes it challenge your religious convictions? The Bible doesnt say that evolution cannot possibly be true. It does at one point imply that the sun rotates around the Earth - what do you think about that?

Besides which, as I mentioned before, evolution is held to be true practically everywhere else in the world, and is the basis for most modern biology. There exists the term, "Face the Facts", and it seems to apply here. However, no one says that evolution implies there must be no God - only fundamentalist Christians imply that. The rest of science couldnt be bothered.


RE: Damage Control?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/24/2008 10:38:28 AM , Rating: 2
> "The point is, yes Darwin had it wrong. But that got corrected in time. "

But Darwin didn't get it wrong. He simply had it incomplete...a crucial difference.

Yes, he didn't know about the internal structure of cells, meaning he couldn't explain exactly how mutation occurred, or why offspring were similar to their parents. But the essentials of his theory didn't change in the least once we had that knowledge. We simply filled in the blanks.


RE: Damage Control?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/24/2008 12:44:07 PM , Rating: 2
I tried using your logic growing up in math class. I could look at a complex math problem and know the anwswer was "5" and be correct. However, I could not always show the work on paper to get to the answer of "5". So the teacher said, I was wrong. Later I talked with the teacher and said, "I knew the answer and it was correct". He said, yes, but you can not show me how you know its correct...so you are wrong.

So per my teacher - Darwin has it wrong. :)


RE: Damage Control?
By jbartabas on 6/24/2008 1:53:47 PM , Rating: 2
It's probably because the important thing with the test was not to find that the right answer was 5, but more important was to prove it, or understand how to reach that conclusion with relative certainty. The fact that your intuition lead you to the correct answer that particular time is irrelevant. Intuition is too unreliable to be a good way to find results ;-)

Similarly, everybody's intuition could help them tell this species and that species are very different, a bit different or rather similar. It requires intellect to determine rationally in what they differ or resemble each other... and maybe explain why.

Great scientific discovery definitely require intuition for a start, but one needs more to become a Darwin or an Einstein. That intuition we all have may be the reason why sometimes invention or discoveries seems so "obvious" to us afterward: we have the vague intuition of how it could work, but only the brilliant mind makes the final leap to make it all come together.

My 2 cents ... solely based on my intuition :-)


RE: Damage Control?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/24/2008 2:04:55 PM , Rating: 2
> "So per my teacher - Darwin has it wrong. :) "

I'm sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong. Darwin didn't just "intuit" the correct answer, he arrived via a set of self-evident postulates (e.g. children are similar to their parents) and data such as the fossil record.

However, with modern technology we can SEE evolution happening within the very DNA structure itself. But Darwin's ignorance of molecular biology doesn't mean he was wrong. His theory didn't require knowing exactly 'how' changes replicatede within DNA. He just had to know there was *some* sort of process to do so.

By analogy, a blind man can know a fire is hot, simply by putting his hand over it. He doesn't need to know the chemistry of combustion, or the laws of thermodynamics. He can prove it wholly independently.


RE: Damage Control?
By phattyboombatty on 6/24/2008 2:25:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
By analogy, a blind man can know a fire is hot, simply by putting his hand over it.

Why the use of a blind man in your analogy? I'm struggling to see how blindness plays a role in the analogy. Maybe you were just spicing up the analogy and could have just as easily used Catholic Priest or Irishman.


RE: Damage Control?
By Digimonkey on 6/24/2008 2:13:18 PM , Rating: 2
Logically however you weren't wrong. This is more of just a safe guard against cheating, lucky guesses, or having some method that is completely wrong of figuring out an equation but luckily comes up with the right answer.


RE: Damage Control?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/24/2008 10:24:23 AM , Rating: 2
> "Surely no one from Darwin’s day ... could have imagined that the secrets of life would depend on complex, precision machinery"

That was the impressive thing about Darwin. He deduced evolutionary theory even before knowing the exact mechanics of how it occurred, simply from the fossil record and basic principles of reproduction.

That said, molecular biology makes a wholly independent (and indeed, much stronger) case for evolution, without having to rely one whit on fossils.

> "Where do coded instructions come from? An intelligent source. "

It's the height of human foolishness to believe human intelligence is too complex to evolve on its own...yet to simultaneously believe a much greater intelligence could somehow do just that.


RE: Damage Control?
By Cheapshot on 6/24/2008 10:12:42 AM , Rating: 3
There are no intermediate fossils... to me thats a pretty compelling "fact" that evolution may be wrong.

The exponential growth rate is another "fact" people seem to ignore. If you follow the exponential curve backwards it eventually comes to a point (0).

I suggest you google it and see what you come up with and then explain away why the exponential (scientific) approach doesn't apply.

I would love to hear your response.

The fact that many believe it to be true does not make it true. The fact that America, a nation founded on religious and moral beliefs still holds to its beliefs only stays off the unquestioned majority rule that you are trying to convince others of accepting.

If you want to have faith that we are all accidents... that somehow every chromosome, nuecleotide, ester bonds all came together by accident... I suggest you research the mathmatical possibilities of that actually happening.

If I recall the probability was somewhere in the area of 7 x 10^18 that our DNA could have been formed from Chaotic joining, and that the balance of genomes of all living things only adds to that probability in the wrong direction of your argument.

Have faith in evolution if you wish. Just don't expect everyone with a brain to agree.


RE: Damage Control?
By isorfir on 6/24/2008 10:28:24 AM , Rating: 2
The bullshit is strong with this one...
quote:
There are no intermediate fossils

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

quote:
If you want to have faith that we are all accidents

Apparently you weren’t paying attention when you were taught Natural Selection or you'd know that we're anything but "accidents"

quote:
If I recall the probability was somewhere in the area of 7 x 10^18 that our DNA could have been formed from Chaotic joining

This shows your misunderstanding of evolution. We didn't start with the finished product of DNA, it evolved slowly over a long time period.


RE: Damage Control?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/24/2008 10:33:11 AM , Rating: 2
> "There are no intermediate fossils... to me thats a pretty compelling "fact" that evolution may be wrong."

Oh god, please not the myth of the "missing link" again. May I strongly suggest you spend at least fifteen minutes learning about a theory before you attempt to challenge it?

In addition to the thousands upon thousands of such intermediate fossils long since discovered, there is the fact that molecular biology makes a wholly independent (and far stronger) case for evolution than the fossil record ever did.

> "If I recall the probability was somewhere in the area of 7 x 10^18 that our DNA could have been formed from Chaotic joining"

I suggest you read a work such as the The Blind Watchmaker which handily debunks such amateurish attempts to assign probabilities to evolutionary events.


RE: Damage Control?
By phattyboombatty on 6/24/2008 10:53:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
there is the fact that molecular biology makes a wholly independent (and far stronger) case for evolution than the fossil record ever did.


Well, based on the above article, I'm not sure how you can claim molecular biology is wholly independent, when the premise of the article is that serious flaws in molecular biology are being corrected by extrinsic evidence.


RE: Damage Control?
By Phil Harris on 6/24/2008 10:59:44 AM , Rating: 2
The fact that you put a number on the possibility of it happening pretty much proves it happened.

No matter how small that number is, you have to realize that in an infinite universe, over an infinite amount of time, it will happen... Why should we limit it to one big bang? It seems far more likely that there should be an infinite number of big bangs, separated by billions of years of expansion and contraction of the universe.

So, given that you accept it as a possibility, however numerically minuscule, sort of proves that it has happened hence, and here we are....


RE: Damage Control?
By AnnihilatorX on 6/24/2008 11:29:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If I recall the probability was somewhere in the area of 7 x 10^18 that our DNA could have been formed from Chaotic joining, and that the balance of genomes of all living things only adds to that probability in the wrong direction of your argument. Have faith in evolution if you wish. Just don't expect everyone with a brain to agree.


Ok let's put it the other way
Logically the probability of an onmipotent, powerful and intelligient being (God, Alien whatever) exists and created us is far far lower than the probability of us evoluting from bateria, since it brings about an infinite loop of who created that intelligient being and who created the creator of those intelligient beings.
You have thus have to assume the intelligient beings are themselves evolved from simplier beings, rather than created by an even more intelligient beings, to avoid the infinite exponentially growing loop problem.
As a result of this conjecture, while it doesn't disaprove such an intelligient design is possible (that they evolved and created us), the probability is much less than evolution of ourselves.


RE: Damage Control?
By AnnihilatorX on 6/24/2008 11:33:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
while it doesn't disaprove such an intelligient design is possible


Sorry I meant to say impossible in that sentence.

Well also note that the age of Earth is 4.5 billion of years.
Don't underestimate that number. It is hard to put into perspective how such enormous number really means.
There is ample of time, especially since Earth has a favourable enviornment for life, to evole as complex of lifeform as us.


RE: Damage Control?
By just4U on 6/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: Damage Control?
By Proteusza on 6/24/2008 10:32:38 AM , Rating: 2
I quote wikipedia on this one:
quote:
The word "theory" in "the theory of evolution" does not imply doubt in mainstream science about the validity of this theory


No, you are right, technically it has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. But then again, as far as I know Einstein's work is also all theories.

Even so, it is by far the best theory we have, and in fact I dont even know of any competing scientific theories. You will notice that I dont include Intelligent Design, because it is not scientific, nor is it a scientific theory.

But hey, evolution has only been verified by 200 years of tests and observations and is only the basis for most modern biology. Guess we should scrap it hey.


RE: Damage Control?
By just4U on 6/24/2008 10:47:19 AM , Rating: 2
I totally agree with you it is the best theory but we can't be going around saying it's a fact.. Science always leaves room to modify what we know as we learn more. It's crucial that people understand the difference.


RE: Damage Control?
By Proteusza on 6/24/2008 10:51:17 AM , Rating: 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_a...

Read that.

According to that, its as much a fact as gravity is.

Yes, its important that people understand science is never really "finished". But its also important to understand that this in no way implies that evolution is wrong, or that there are better theories. There arent.


RE: Damage Control?
By just4U on 6/24/2008 10:59:28 AM , Rating: 2
It's also important to know that for the most part we don't know a whole helluva lot about anything. The theories we believe in today will possibly (and more then likely) be laughed at someday in the future.


RE: Damage Control?
By Fluxion on 6/24/2008 3:23:26 PM , Rating: 2
You're correct, and incorrect.

When you observe a creature change, that observation can be considered fact, especially if the change can be reproduced on additional specimens. So if the creature evolved, say, it greatly thickened its shell over time for greater survivability in a more hostile environment, and you observed that changed, that change can be considered fact, because it's observable, so in this regard, evolution is a fact.

However, seeing the creature change, tells you nothing about why it changed. Perhaps a harmful environment, such as more acidic soil or water. Perhaps to prevent a predator from cracking its shell. Perhaps it simply wanted a thicker shell. However, when you hypothesize and test for why it evolved, that becomes a hypothetical model, and with enough observations, tests and confirmations, a theory. But it is just that - a theory, and while you may have essentially isolated the best possible reason for its evolution, you cannot say with 100%, non-changing assurance, that the reason you have, is the reason why it evolved. So in this regard, you added/formed a "theory of evolution" for that creature.


RE: Damage Control?
By NightAngel1981 on 6/24/2008 7:14:17 PM , Rating: 2
There is a very big difference between an animal exhibiting a different feature of its already designed genetic code and an animal adding a new wholly useful feature never before in its DNA.

Its called micro and macro evolutions.

Different shades of green and longer hair has nothing to do with Man and Ape having a distant relative.


RE: Damage Control?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/24/2008 8:42:15 PM , Rating: 2
> "There is a very big difference between an animal exhibiting a different feature of its already designed genetic code and an animal adding a new wholly useful feature never before in its DNA."

What "wholly new" feature does man have in its DNA that apes do not? The ability to disco?


RE: Damage Control?
By illuvatar81 on 6/25/2008 9:52:12 AM , Rating: 2
let's start with a question. If we are so similar to apes, than why dont we use their organs for transplant?

The answer: We are not similar. This is a fact that displays the limited abilities to look at two pieces of DNA and say "these two are so close they must share a common ancestor". Just because some genomes look like one another does not mean that the owners share anything in common.

Two DNA strands can be 98% identical, as i believe apes and man's are, and yet a simple thing like heart valves cannot be shared because they are each so different and unique.

We use pigs hearts for use in humans, why because they are closer in match to ours. There are enormous differences between humans and apes, if you can't see them with your own eyes nothing I say will convince you.


RE: Damage Control?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/25/2008 11:01:44 AM , Rating: 2
> "If we are so similar to apes, than why dont we use their organs for transplant?"

Err, we have-- starting all the way back in the 1960s. We don't use pigs today because they're a better match than chimps, we use them because chimpanzees are a protected species:

quote:
The easiest way to deal with immune-system rejection of xenotransplants would be to sidestep them-to use organs from the animal that is the closest possible to human beings. That, of course, is the chimpanzee, whose genome is more than 98 percent identical with the human genome.

But chimpanzees are an endangered species. They are costly to raise, and they grow slowly to adulthood. Chimpanzees may also harbor unknown viruses that do them no harm but that might cause devastating diseases in humans-diseases that might be transmitted to other people. For example, researchers have strong evidence that HIV crossed into humans from chimps

http://science-education.nih.gov/snapshots.nsf/sto...


RE: Damage Control?
By NightAngel1981 on 6/25/2008 7:21:36 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm, Ok, Umm,Got me.

Did not know about the use of apes organs, tried to find some more info on that and there isnt much, but apparently many animals have better biological matches to humans than apes do. Horses hemoglobin is closer and pigs insulin is more similar. Give and take.

How about extra vertebrae different skull location on the spinal column, opposeable thumbs, different ear canals, speech ability, brain cavity, all things that are very different and/or not present in the other species.

There appears to be two species of fly that only share 50% DNA match. Whats up with that, want me to believe that two flies nearly identical are not related and man and apes with very apparent differences are. Just because of some protein segments, which btw are only fraction of available protein segments to match, there has never been an ape genome project and so we don't really know how close or how unclose man and ape DNA really is.