backtop


Print 127 comment(s) - last by JKflipflop98.. on Jun 29 at 12:15 AM


A 3D-rendering of the E. Coli bacteria  (Source: JEFF JOHNSON Hybrid Medical Animation)

Stained E. Coli bacteria  (Source: LBL)

GroEL and GroES, E. Coli Heat Shock Proteins (HSPs), visualized  (Source: Tulane University)

The Chaperonins play a critical role in bacterial heat shock systems (see the bottom left).  (Source: Biomol)
Results offer important insight into evolution, could lead to hardier genetically engineered animals

Natural selection -- the theory that organisms retain favorable traits by surviving and reproducing and conversely removal of unfavorable traits by the opposite effect -- is thought to play a critical role in evolution.  As just a handful of modified proteins or protein levels can cause profound anatomical and physiological changes, natural selection may in part have helped mammals to evolve from early reptiles, a road which would eventually lead to ancient hominids and, finally, man.

A new study has provided one of the first compelling examples of what appears to be natural selection in a controlled laboratory setting.  Researchers at the Technische Universitaet Muenchen's (TUM) ("Technical University of Munich") Department of Chemistry and Center for Integrated Protein Science Munich, Germany, carried out the study.

They began by taking a single E. coli  bacteria, the type of bacteria that resides in the human gut.  E. coli typically enjoys life at our pleasant body temperature of around 37 degrees Celsius.

They then slowly turned up the heat on the bacteria, inducing heat shock.  Three lines of bacteria, propagated from a common ancestor and living under heat shock conditions were cultured over hundreds of generations.  Wild-type E. coli can only survive up to 44 to 46 degrees Celsius.  But by carefully bumping up the temperature over two years to 48.5 degrees, the E. coli developed adaptations that allowed them to survive.

A control line of bacteria was also derived form a common ancestor and kept at 37.5 degrees Celsius.  All of the bacteria were kept isolated from their sister lines and from any other outside bacterial or viral contaminants (to prevent accidental DNA transfer).

By analyzing extensively the proteins in the adapted cells, the researchers found they only had one key difference -- elevated levels of molecular "chaperone" proteins GroEL and GroES -- intracellular machines that can stabilize folding proteins under stress.  Mutations were shown to have allowed for increased transcription of these proteins. 

All three lines showed elevated levels of protein -- with an average of a 16-fold increase from the control line.  The GroE proteins appear to play a unique role in surviving hotter conditions.  Interestingly the study also confirmed the idea that natural selection is a game of tradeoffs -- by increasing the level of heat shock proteins, the cell consumed valuable resources.  While this allowed it to survive, it came at the cost of reduced growth.

The changes were shown to persist for over 600 generations -- indicating that E. coli that lost the changes likely died of heat shock and were likely selected out.

Dr. Jeannette Winter, who helped lead the research says that the results not only provide evidence in support of the theory of natural selection, and the broader theory of evolution, but also could yield genetic engineering advances.  She states, "The correlation between genetic changes and chaperones has been shown not only in bacteria, but also in eukaryotes such as yeast, fruit flies, and fungi.  Better understanding of chaperones might also open the way to targeted generation of organisms for specific purposes -- enhancing their ability, for example, to live under stressful conditions, to break down harmful pollutants, or to produce specific, biotechnologically relevant proteins."

The study is published here in the June 18 edition of the Journal of Biological Chemistry.

It was funded by the Emmy-Noether program of the German Research Foundation (DFG), the Elitenetzwerk Bayern, the Fonds der chemischen Industrie, and SFB 594


Comments     Threshold


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

Natural Selection
By bhougha10 on 6/17/2010 6:22:45 PM , Rating: 3
You know ,that no one disputes Natural Selection. It would be like disputing selective breeding. But that is all it proves. So, I guess I don't understand the intent of the experiment.
Need to teach these little things how to eat oil and send them down to the gulf to help clean up.




RE: Natural Selection
By phattyboombatty on 6/17/2010 6:45:42 PM , Rating: 2
I'm with you on this one. This seems to be an experiment that proves the extremely obvious; so I'm not sure what the researchers were trying to learn that everyone doesn't already know.


RE: Natural Selection
By inighthawki on 6/17/2010 7:50:10 PM , Rating: 5
Whether or not something seems obvious, every scientific theory still needs proven. Not to mention how many people out there still believe it's all a lie. What better way to shut them up than to show them how it works...


RE: Natural Selection
By piroroadkill on 6/18/2010 5:03:23 AM , Rating: 2
You don't seem to get it. The unintelligible people that spout creationist garbage don't care about facts, or repeatable experiments resulting in proof. Faith means you don't need any of that, because you know you're right


RE: Natural Selection
By SPOOFE on 6/18/2010 5:57:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The unintelligible people that spout creationist garbage don't care about facts, or repeatable experiments resulting in proof.

But creationists aren't the exclusive group of people that don't accept the tenants of evolution. Some people just don't "get" things that are greatly outside their day-to-day experiences without some robust method of demonstrating it.

This experiment demonstrates that a change in a species' environment can change that species. That is all. While it won't shatter the wall of ignorance that some folk have, it can readily shed light on what is otherwise just a murky and confusing subject for others.


RE: Natural Selection
By ReKTeK on 6/19/2010 9:11:03 AM , Rating: 3
I don't see evolution here, only natural selection.


RE: Natural Selection
By ReKTeK on 6/19/2010 9:05:51 AM , Rating: 5
Natural Selection is accepted by creationists, so there is no conflict here.


RE: Natural Selection
By Reclaimer77 on 6/17/10, Rating: -1
RE: Natural Selection
By sgw2n5 on 6/17/2010 8:08:05 PM , Rating: 5
Many plants have actually adapted yield delicious, easy to get berries. Animals eat the berries and poop out the seeds. This serves two purposes... seed dispersal and when the seeds are dispersed far and wide, they are conveniently in little clumps of rich fertilizer.


RE: Natural Selection
By Reclaimer77 on 6/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: Natural Selection
By Divineburner on 6/17/2010 8:15:58 PM , Rating: 5
The plants with tastier and more brightly coloured fruits are propagated more successfully than those who don't. Thus, the genes of tastier and more brightly coloured fruits are propagated more successfully, allowing more of them to survive.
And amongst those, the even tastier ones and even more brightly coloured ones gets favoured by the animals, and so on...


RE: Natural Selection
By afkrotch on 6/18/2010 12:00:22 AM , Rating: 5
It's kind of odd. Cause you have brightly colored animals, that tends to show that the specific animal is poisonous and deadly. Like some fish, snakes, or the poison dart frog. It tells other animals that they are deadly and not to eat them.


RE: Natural Selection
By SPOOFE on 6/18/2010 6:03:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It tells other animals that they are deadly and not to eat them.

Arguably bad for the individual (because they'll be noticed, and predators that don't know to avoid the bright colors will still bite), good for the species (because even if one individual will die from an ignorant predator, that one predator will then not eat, or be incapable of eating through death, other members of that species, thus increasing the overall population's odds of reproducing).


RE: Natural Selection
By nafhan on 6/18/2010 9:09:38 AM , Rating: 4
It's also worth noting that this argument, although valid in general, doesn't really apply to most cultivated plants. Selective breeding and stuff tend to do things that would be very unlikely to happen naturally. Compare wild strawberries to the ones in the grocery store for example.


RE: Natural Selection
By sgw2n5 on 6/17/2010 8:17:17 PM , Rating: 4
You are correct, the plant doesn't "know" anything. However, the blueberry plant that yields tasty berries tends to be the one that has a higher "fitness" (ability to reproduce), thus it is the genes from that plant that get passed on in higher numbers relative to the bitter, thorny blueberries.


RE: Natural Selection
By Reclaimer77 on 6/17/10, Rating: -1
RE: Natural Selection
By oralpain on 6/18/2010 1:41:44 AM , Rating: 5
You are being down-rated because you say stupid things.


RE: Natural Selection
By freeagle on 6/18/10, Rating: 0
RE: Natural Selection
By Anoxanmore on 6/18/2010 9:03:52 AM , Rating: 2
No, he is asking stupid questions. Reclaimer is no more serious about learning Natural Selection than reader1 is about learning anything bad about Apple.


RE: Natural Selection
By freeagle on 6/18/2010 10:22:39 AM , Rating: 2
No, he is not :) I dont care what his "agenda" is, if he wants to just make fun or not. But people do ask those kind of questions when they start to think about natural selection and evolution


RE: Natural Selection
By Anoxanmore on 6/18/10, Rating: 0
RE: Natural Selection
By freeagle on 6/18/2010 12:19:10 PM , Rating: 2
No, I'm not new around here, I am a bit familiar with Reclaimer77' reputation. I just dont care that he is the one that asked those questions. People unfamiliar with natural selection ask those same/similar questions. And they are not stupid


RE: Natural Selection
By Anoxanmore on 6/18/10, Rating: 0
RE: Natural Selection
By freeagle on 6/18/2010 12:33:02 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, I'll put it differently.

There is a quite reasonable saying, that to a stupid question you'll only get a stupid answer. If his questions are stupid, how come the answers are so logical and elaborate?

Whatever his intent was, he somehow managed to output a reasonable questions, without even realising it.


RE: Natural Selection
By Anoxanmore on 6/18/2010 12:37:03 PM , Rating: 1
Not all the answers were logical and elaborate... ;)

Just scroll down a little bit further.


RE: Natural Selection
By freeagle on 6/18/2010 12:46:02 PM , Rating: 1
There were some, my point stands. Your answer does not disprove what I wrote above.


RE: Natural Selection
By Anoxanmore on 6/18/2010 1:09:46 PM , Rating: 1
It does, but you omitted the modifier to make it completely false.

I don't think you want to argue semantics with me, especially about English. :P


RE: Natural Selection
By freeagle on 6/18/2010 1:26:45 PM , Rating: 2
I want to argue logic with you :)

We both assume the initial saying as true:

stupid question => (implies) only stupid answer

Check the table for implication when it's true and when it's not.

There are some non-stupid answers, so the right side of the initial implication is 0. 1 => 0 is false, so either the saying is incorrect or the question was not stupid, because 0 => 0 is true ( non-stupid question has at least one non-stupid answer ). Since we assume correctness of the saying, the questions are not stupid.


RE: Natural Selection
By Anoxanmore on 6/18/2010 2:09:37 PM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure you don't. ;)

I never subscribed to stupid questions = stupid answers.

I will subscribe to Reclaimer's stupid questions = stupid answers and that has been proven true, you always get outliers within any sample size that doesn't make it less true. You can use logic to show this is true overall and majority trumps outliers.

Your assumption that his questions were not stupid is proven mostly false by the majority of stupid responses that have come from this coorelation.

@Reclaimer77: I'm sorry honey, but you are the Pirks(most of what he says is BS and intelligible but sometimes some light shows up) of the right side(You aren't as far gone as FITCamaro though). Perhaps you could try to fix this and I can apologize and take it back, but until you do, it is very true.


RE: Natural Selection
By freeagle on 6/18/2010 2:31:10 PM , Rating: 2
1. It's true you did not subscribe to it, but you also did not say you don't. State clearly you don't and we have nothing to argue about, since it boils down to opinions, which we clearly do not share :)

2. I have stated several times that Reclaimer77's person does not play any role in it for me, I'm arguing just the stupidity/non-stupidity of the questions, regardless of their origin

3. Very important part of the assumption was the word only stupid answers. You cant make a negation of "stupid answers", since it contains no quantification.

4. that's true only if formulating the initial saying without the word only


RE: Natural Selection
By Anoxanmore on 6/18/2010 2:38:02 PM , Rating: 2
1. We don't have anything to argue about you just want to argue with me. Which I am happy to oblige, as long as we keep it civil as it has been. :)

2. Reclaimer's person has to be taken into context otherwise any conclusion drawn is flawed because you are removing one of the key variables of said context.

3. This is why you need to include the persona we are talking about, it leaves out key variables.

4. It is still true because you left out one of the prime variables, his online persona. :P


RE: Natural Selection
By freeagle on 6/18/2010 3:12:53 PM , Rating: 2
1. Clearly we both want to argue, otherwise this discussion would end much sooner :)

2-4. Then we should probably leave it where it is, because I'm not going to include his person in it, you are not going to exclude it :)


RE: Natural Selection
By Anoxanmore on 6/18/2010 4:31:34 PM , Rating: 2
1. Arguing can be a lot of fun, you can't deny that. :P

2-4. You have to include this variable, otherwise it is like saying gravity is real while excluding the falling apple.


RE: Natural Selection
By YashBudini on 6/20/2010 9:22:32 PM , Rating: 2
+38


RE: Natural Selection
By Reclaimer77 on 6/18/2010 1:33:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Reclaimer77 = Pirks.


That's hurtful. Honestly, that was uncalled for.


RE: Natural Selection
By YashBudini on 6/20/2010 9:21:21 PM , Rating: 2
+27


RE: Natural Selection
By drando on 6/17/10, Rating: -1
RE: Natural Selection
By Reclaimer77 on 6/17/10, Rating: -1
RE: Natural Selection
By Spivonious on 6/18/2010 10:05:43 AM , Rating: 1
What would a sandy vagina man look like? I have a feeling he was teased as a sandy vagina child.


RE: Natural Selection
By YashBudini on 6/20/2010 9:25:22 PM , Rating: 1
"Your level of ignorance is staggering. You could spend just a little time educating yourself on the issue but instead you post uninformed and erroneous comments to publicly display your extreme lack of knowledge. Why do you do it? "

Because that's what followers do? Because he would have to think? That's work you know.


RE: Natural Selection
By jimhsu on 6/17/2010 9:59:16 PM , Rating: 3
All the above answers are not entirely correct. Most blueberries that you find in supermarkets are cultivated -- they were selected by humans to BE tasty and delicious, and only the species that expressed genes that improved their taste were selectively bred. Call it "artificial selection", if you will.

The most striking example is corn. "Wild" corn is teosinte - small, full of seeds, and generally not tasty. Almost all produce that you find in a typical supermarket are horribly mutated versions of the wild species that have a very low fitness score in the wild -- corn, apples, oranges, you name it. Yet because of human agriculture, the seemingly maladaptive traits that they possess are preserved.

An example closer to home would be obesity -- Japan's famous Kobe Beef essentially comes from horribly maladaptive, obese animals that wouldn't have a chance in the wild. Yet cattle were selected for their intense marbling, thus leading to the genes that cause the marbling to survive because of breeding. If natural selection (without human intervention) had taken its course, we wouldn't have them today.


RE: Natural Selection
By afkrotch on 6/18/2010 12:20:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
An example closer to home would be obesity -- Japan's famous Kobe Beef essentially comes from horribly maladaptive, obese animals that wouldn't have a chance in the wild. Yet cattle were selected for their intense marbling, thus leading to the genes that cause the marbling to survive because of breeding. If natural selection (without human intervention) had taken its course, we wouldn't have them today.


I don't think a cow requires much to survive in the wild. They eat just about every kind of plant. There are few predators they'd have to worry about, due to their sheer size and weight. Only the calves would be in any real kind of danger.

The only reason you even see obese cows, is due to farming conditions. Wagyu cattle are jammed into small pens (Japan doesn't have a whole lof of room), feed, and massaged. Ya, not really surprised they just grow fat.

If you left them to roam, I'm sure they'd do quite well. Now if all cattle were left to roam, yes. We probably would have many full blood wagyu cattle. Probably wouldn't have any kind of full blood cattle.


RE: Natural Selection
By JKflipflop98 on 6/18/2010 7:02:19 AM , Rating: 2
LOLwut?

Cows are prey for all predators in the area. Size and weight mean nothing when there's a pack of wolves all over you.

Notice how their eyes are on the sides of the head, instead of together on the front? That's the sign of something that's expecting to be eaten at any given point.


RE: Natural Selection
By Reclaimer77 on 6/18/2010 8:19:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Cows are prey for all predators in the area. Size and weight mean nothing when there's a pack of wolves all over you.


Well so were the North American buffalo, and their population soared into the tens of millions or something at one point.

That reminds me, I know a place where you can get a buffalo burger around here. Mmmmmm, buffalo... /Homer drool


RE: Natural Selection
By jimhsu on 6/18/2010 12:43:01 PM , Rating: 2
Hence their reproductive strategy is to consume massive amounts of energy (grass), digest it well (having a massively complicated GI tract), and reproduce like crazy. Bison would still probably do much better than cows in the wild (excluding human factors), largely because of social effects (i.e. dominance hierarchy).

I don't study agriculture, so if anyone has a better idea, please contribute.


RE: Natural Selection
By stromgald30 on 6/18/2010 7:39:58 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't say that they reproduce like crazy or consume massive amounts of energy. They reproduce efficiently. For example, rabbits, who reproduce like crazy (each litter has multiples and can mate many times each year), have fairly high attrition rates since many of their young or whole families can be killed by predators. They area also very active/fast animals and consume/use a lot of energy.

In contrast, buffalo/bison don't reproduce that often and usually only have one calf at a time. However they move in large packs and protect their young (and themselves) very well in packs. Even a group of wolves would be stupid to attack a pack of buffalo.

Buffalo/bison are also fairly slow moving, lazy animals that don't expend much energy unless they have to (e.g. fending off an attack). A single one probably doesn't consume much more than a few rabbits, despite the obvious size difference.

JKflipflop's statement about eyes on the side of the head isn't exactly correct either. It isn't an indication of an animal ready to be eaten at any time, it simply provides the best coverage for a mostly defensive animal. In contrast, predatory animals have eyes together, on the front of their heads.


RE: Natural Selection
By JKflipflop98 on 6/29/2010 12:15:02 AM , Rating: 2
I like how you quoted what I said, determined how I was wrong, then corrected me by saying exactly what I said in the first place. Good job.


RE: Natural Selection
By gralex on 6/18/2010 7:19:35 PM , Rating: 2
Speaking of "not entirely correct"... ever taste a wild strawberry?


RE: Natural Selection
By FaceMaster on 6/18/2010 4:13:16 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Yes but the plant can't possibly "know" the function of it's fruit is to propagate it's species.


Reclaimer77 is proof that natural selection fails.


RE: Natural Selection
By Reclaimer77 on 6/18/2010 8:58:44 AM , Rating: 4
Sigh... satire is too high brow for DT apparently.


RE: Natural Selection
By FaceMaster on 6/18/10, Rating: 0
RE: Natural Selection
By YashBudini on 6/20/2010 9:28:49 PM , Rating: 2
+49


RE: Natural Selection
By Kaleid on 6/18/2010 6:37:07 AM , Rating: 1
It doesn't know.

There's a gene variation with different geno-and phenotypes.

The fittest one(s) survive.


RE: Natural Selection
By Spivonious on 6/18/2010 10:04:35 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Yes but the plant can't possibly "know" the function of it's fruit is to propagate it's species.


Huh? That is the whole point of fruit. It's the egg of the plant world.


RE: Natural Selection
By Ursu on 6/17/2010 8:24:29 PM , Rating: 2
Hi! Of course plants don't make rich fruits for free. There is a selective advantage in doing that: when animals eat fruits, they swallow the seeds inside the fruits, but they survive the digestion, so when the animals elimenates them, the seeds propagues.
Besides natural selection, there is also neutral selection, in that case characters without selective advantage can pass the generation due a fortuite event.


RE: Natural Selection
By Fritzr on 6/17/2010 8:31:33 PM , Rating: 2
The plant did not evolve "delicious stuff to eat". The plants that evolved characteristics that made them more likely to grow well were the survivors. That those traits are regarded as pretty to look at and tasty when eaten is just a natural side effect of the technique that was developed to use animals to disperse and fertilize the seeds :)

It can backfire. The Dodo ate the fruit of one particular tree. Nothing else eats that fruit. Great for the Dodo as there was no competition for the food. Bad for tree as the adaptations that made the Dodo a great seed spreader also left the seeds unable to sprout until they had been eaten by a Dodo. The last few surviving trees are now at the end of their long life spans and will soon be as dead as the Dodo. Over specialization can be deadly :)


RE: Natural Selection
By straycat74 on 6/17/2010 8:36:23 PM , Rating: 1
So as we see species die off, where are the ones replacing them?


RE: Natural Selection
By sgw2n5 on 6/17/2010 8:44:08 PM , Rating: 5
Nothing dictates that as a species dies off, their niche ABSOLUTELY HAS TO be occupied by another species.

Evolution does not work that way friend.

However, if the extinct organism results in more availability of common resources (sugars, sunlight, minerals) that can be readily utilized by other organisms, they will most certainly do so.


RE: Natural Selection
By straycat74 on 6/17/2010 8:51:53 PM , Rating: 1
You missed the point. If situation are observable such as the Dodo-plant thing, there are two less species. There would have to be created, or evolved species to not only take their place, but increase the number of diversified species. Or else we are headed to the inevitable loss of all species. We can observe species disappear, how about appear?


RE: Natural Selection
By Divineburner on 6/17/2010 8:58:58 PM , Rating: 2
Appear, why not? When a common species is introduced to diverse environment, it could adapted to both in differently. Overtime, one could reasonably say that a new species has emerged.


RE: Natural Selection
By sgw2n5 on 6/17/2010 8:59:31 PM , Rating: 2
Again, nobody says that something has to evolve to take the place of a lost species. Can it happen? Yes. Does it happen? Yes. Does it HAVE TO? No.

And check the article about E. coli evolving to metabolize citrate. The ability (or rather inability) of the bacterium to metabolize citrate has long been one of the defining characteristics of E. coli. Now that there is a variant that can, you have a new species.

In order to see speciation happen in "animals" you simply need to look at the fossil record. These things happen over loooooong periods of time.


RE: Natural Selection
By straycat74 on 6/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: Natural Selection
By sgw2n5 on 6/17/2010 9:58:59 PM , Rating: 2
OK, that's a good question.

Lets take dogs for an example. 10 million years ago, all we had were wolfs. How many different varieties of dogs do we have today?

In another 10 million years, I'd say there is a good chance that new some species will have diverged from wiener dogs, and another drastically different species could evolve from something like saint bernards. Even if every other breed of dog dies in that time span, you still have 2 distinct species that ultimately were derived from wolfs.

Just the speciation of dogs within the last eon more than makes up for the number of animals that have gone extinct... and that's not even taking into account rapidly evolving organisms like bacteria, fungi, or even insects.

We have waaaaaay more species now than we did even 500 years ago. The thing is, these new species are not under any selective pressure to fill a niche that has been left unoccupied by an organism that has gone extinct.

Hope that answers your question.


RE: Natural Selection
By xkrakenx on 6/18/2010 10:31:32 AM , Rating: 2
no, Canis lupus familiaris is highly variable.
all varieties of dogs are the same species derived from the gray wolf.

your argument is uninformed and not valid.
many spp of flora also possess high variability within the same sp.

diversity rises and falls over time, there are crashes, explosions, plateaus, cycles etc.



RE: Natural Selection
By sgw2n5 on 6/18/2010 12:24:57 PM , Rating: 2
Absolutely, but what we are witnessing with canines is extremely fast speciation (albeit with human interference) and vast variation. Yes, dogs are of course all the same species... for now. But that's just taxonomy. If an alien came to earth who had no prior knowledge of dogs, do you think that it would consider a chihuahua and an irish wolf hound to be one and the same?

If one species has enough bio-vars that continually are selected to diverge, at what point do you call one or the other a different species? There are many instances of dogs that are too different to breed and yield viable offspring. If one dog cannot produce offspring with another dog because it is too different, is it still a dog? It's just taxonomy and re-naming at that point.


RE: Natural Selection
By xkrakenx on 6/18/2010 10:00:37 PM , Rating: 1
taxonomy isnt arbitrary or superficial, if your alien had his shit straight he would lump them all together because he would recognize the link between them. No need to bring an alien into it anyway, typical run of the mill internet wiz kids don't seem to grasp classification either.

which breeds of dogs cannot produce viable offspring between them? is it a pool problem or have they really diverged?


RE: Natural Selection
By Calindar on 6/17/2010 11:34:51 PM , Rating: 2
Humans have done an excellent job of spreading out and consuming natural resources that other animals used to consume. Many, many species have been driven to endangerment or extinction, and our existence inhibits other species from taking those roles and niches. When human beings are gone, speciation will accelerate again.


RE: Natural Selection
By HeavyB on 6/18/2010 10:41:52 AM , Rating: 1
The above exhibit is direct proof that mother nature is still working the kinks out of natural selection.


RE: Natural Selection
By Reclaimer77 on 6/18/2010 10:50:15 AM , Rating: 2
Our health care advancements make natural selection in humans, for the most part, irrelevant. Things that uses to kill or condemn millions of people to a shorter life are now easily preventable. Traits that would be "bred out" are continued and passed on, combined with the fact that we're no longer living in the wild or crappy villages and fighting for our food and survival on a daily basis.

I know I know, that's too bad. I should have died as a baby because I made a bad joke on Daily Tech.


RE: Natural Selection
By morphologia on 6/18/2010 2:26:41 PM , Rating: 1
Humans have forced natural selection in many cases..it's called agriculture. The plants with pleasant produce are cultivated and the ones with not-so-pleasant traits are neglected or destroyed. It's essentially manipulation of the natural forces that cause them to adapt...in the wild it's biological success that allows for the success of an organism, but in artificial settings we determine what stays and what goes.


RE: Natural Selection
By Calindar on 6/17/2010 6:51:16 PM , Rating: 5
Natural selection is a basis for evolution. Natural selection leads to micro-evolution, which in turn builds into so called "macro"-evolution. Disputing evolution is disputing natural selection.


RE: Natural Selection
By seamonkey79 on 6/17/10, Rating: -1
RE: Natural Selection
By sgw2n5 on 6/17/2010 7:55:33 PM , Rating: 2
You have a very poor understanding of evolution.

"evolution sort of falls apart since the intermediate animals between evolutionary steps would tend to naturally be selected out"

Umm... no. Take a high-school biology class ffs.


RE: Natural Selection
By straycat74 on 6/17/10, Rating: -1
RE: Natural Selection
By sgw2n5 on 6/17/2010 8:10:54 PM , Rating: 2
OK... I'll bite.

Tell me exactly which component of evolution you believe to be false.


RE: Natural Selection
By straycat74 on 6/17/2010 8:30:58 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Tell me exactly which component of evolution you believe to be false.

A debate on the internet about evolution, very tempting. I was speaking to your waste of a post and phrasing of your (lack of) argument. Nothing I say will matter, you will make some snide remarks about my intelligence, ask how many teeth I have left, and quote from the scriptures of the flying spaghetti monster. You will proclaim how smart you are that you figured out the meaning of life, while I "only" have the Bible to cling to and accuse me of not being able to think for myself, because haven't I heard, people tell me we evolved from ooze, and it solves all of the questions about our purpose and reason we ever existed in the first place.

Sounds like fun, but no thanks.


RE: Natural Selection
By sgw2n5 on 6/17/2010 8:39:28 PM , Rating: 2
Nice cop-out, slick.

I promise I won't make any snide remarks... If somebody doesn't "believe" in evolution (which at this point is like not "believing in gravity), it is likely because they do not understand it.

Again, I am just wondering what part of evolutionary theory you have a problem with, and why?

I'm just here to help bro.


RE: Natural Selection
By straycat74 on 6/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: Natural Selection
By sgw2n5 on 6/17/2010 9:49:56 PM , Rating: 2
"Truths" come from empirically derived and reproducible data, that's what makes it right. No authority needed, and it doesn't require faith. Why wouldn't you consider something that can be reproducibly proven to be true?

Science... it works!!!


RE: Natural Selection
By straycat74 on 6/17/10, Rating: -1
RE: Natural Selection
By sgw2n5 on 6/18/2010 12:39:01 AM , Rating: 2
How so? You asked me what denotes something as "truth", and I answered (fairly clearly I think).

What, then, is your point?


RE: Natural Selection
By seamonkey79 on 6/18/2010 1:01:04 AM , Rating: 1
Truth doesn't matter so long as people think they're smarter than other people.


RE: Natural Selection
By straycat74 on 6/18/2010 7:39:51 AM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately, in some respects, you win.


RE: Natural Selection
By LRonaldHubbs on 6/18/2010 8:36:47 AM , Rating: 2
This post of yours is very ironic given that you start by accusing the other guy of having no argument and then immediately attempt to bow out of the discussion whilst reciting a series of clich├ęd and condescending remarks.

But I will address these remarks nonetheless. Evolution explains the diversity of life, not the meaning or origin of it.

The meaning of life is whatever you make of it -- there is no one answer. Some people derive meaning from the simple things, from their own experiences. If you want the meaning to be more complex, that is your choice to subscribe to a particular set of beliefs.

If you want to hear about the origins of life (starting with the origin of the universe) you can go talk to an astrophysicist about the Big Bang theory or various others. But regardless of if you believe in a scientific explanation or a religious one, evolution picks up after matter already exists; after the begging ends, in other words. If you want to offer some other explanation for the origin of the universe, fine, Old Earth Creationism does just that and is compatible with evolution. Young Earth Creationism, however, is supremely arrogant in that it denies reality.

Science, evolution included, is not a matter of people proclaiming how smart they are; it is a matter of observing and developing explanations for how the world around us functions. There are some explanations which are flat out wrong (aka 'not even wrong').


RE: Natural Selection
By Calindar on 6/17/2010 11:43:38 PM , Rating: 2
" the jump from micro-evolution that is observed to macro-evolution which is anything but observable, is somewhat silly, since there's no concrete evidence of any single 'hop' animal."

This overly used argument does nothing but show ignorance on the subject. "Macro" evolution is nothing more than many steps of micro evolution. It's like adding 1 + 1 over and over again. It takes a while, but eventually you can get to a nice high number. Divergences along the way is how you get different species from one.


RE: Natural Selection
By LRonaldHubbs on 6/18/2010 8:11:22 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I'm afraid that disputing evolution has nothing to do with disputing natural selection

This statement is patently false. You could say that disputing evolution is not as simple as disputing natural selection in specific, and that would be a true statement since natural selection is only a portion of evolutionary theory (albeit a VERY large portion). You cannot, however, disconnect the two and dispute one entirely separately from the other, as they are inherently related.

quote:
...using natural selection, evolution sort of falls apart since the intermediate animals between evolutionary steps would tend to naturally be selected out...

You seem to be making the very common mistake of imagining mutations as significant, life-limiting features, such as a child born disfigured. These types of mutations surely would be selected against. However, the overwhelming majority of mutations are so subtle that you'd never even notice them; they are the minuscule changes that happen to your own DNA on a daily basis, and they happen everywhere in nature. This process of mutation->selection is happening in parallel across an entire given species over extremely long periods of time, and so we are dealing with huge numbers of tiny mutations, resulting in gradual changes in traits. 'Intermediate animals' are not significant discrete steps but rather tiny ones which either get passed on or phased out.

quote:
if modern observations have any weight at all on such subjects, which it doesn't seem to

Modern observations absolutely do carry weight. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to share these examples. In other words, please cite your source.

quote:
..the jump from micro-evolution that is observed to macro-evolution which is anything but observable, is somewhat silly...

Let's put aside the science aspects of this discussion for a moment. Are you familiar with the mathematical concept of an integral? An accumulation over time of infinitesimal quantities adds to produce a larger quantity. This concept is used in many [read as 'all'] fields of science, either directly in equations/calculations or indirectly (as in the case of evolution) by analogy. It may not be a completely intuitive concept, but it absolutely is a logical one, and it is anything but silly. To someone with a background in mathematics it is very easy to picture evolution as simple integral of mutations over time.

quote:
...since there's no concrete evidence of any single 'hop' animal.

There is evidence; lots of it, actually. If you want to ignore it that's your call, but the evidence does exist and so this is not a debatable point.


RE: Natural Selection
By sgw2n5 on 6/18/2010 12:54:57 PM , Rating: 2
very good, thoughtful post there guy. who knows why that got downrated.


RE: Natural Selection
By LRonaldHubbs on 6/18/2010 7:44:15 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you :)


RE: Natural Selection
By seraphim1982 on 6/18/2010 1:33:59 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't selective breeding part of Natural Selection?!?!


RE: Natural Selection
By michael2k on 6/19/2010 11:55:12 AM , Rating: 2
Uh, plenty of people dispute natural selection.

They dispute that natural selection can be the cause of "big" changes.

They dispute that the combination of several smaller changes can become a big change.

An example would be how natural selection made cats different than dogs.


Longer and More Interesting Study
By MozeeToby on 6/17/2010 5:55:08 PM , Rating: 5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evo...

A similar study that has been carried out for over 20 years, with larger sample sizes, stronger controls, and much more interesting results. Specifically, they periodically freeze a portion of the samples, allowing them to 'rewind' the experiment to an earlier point which has allowed them to verify experimentally the evolution of an 'irreducibly complex' adaptation.

Basically, one of the 12 lines they culture suddenly, after tens of thousands of generations, developed the ability to metabolize citrate, a chemical used to make up the bulk of the culturing media without adding any energy into the system. This is a completely new ability never before seen in E. coli bacteria, not merely selecting for a gene that is present but uncommon. They were able to unfreeze samples from earlier in the experiment and showed that only samples taken after a specific generation ever redeveloped the citrate metabolizing abilities. There was a much earlier mutation that had to be present in order for the new mutation to have any effect.

A very well thought out and well executed experiment. I would say undeniable evidence in support of evolution, but I'm sure someone will argue with that statement so I'll settle with 'almost undeniable' instead.




RE: Longer and More Interesting Study
By Motoman on 6/17/2010 6:31:50 PM , Rating: 4
Anything can be denied. Just take one sweep past antivaxxers, alternative medicines, etc. and you'll see all you need to.

Best just to hope that natural selection removes them from the gene pool.


RE: Longer and More Interesting Study
By straycat74 on 6/17/2010 7:40:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Best just to hope that natural selection removes them from the gene pool.


Could you elaborate, elitist?


RE: Longer and More Interesting Study
By sgw2n5 on 6/17/2010 8:04:37 PM , Rating: 4
It is ostensibly retarded to deny evolution (thus natural selection) occurs in biological systems.

You could fill an entire city library with peer reviewed data that support every single facet of evolutionary theory and still have a mountain of supportive data left over.

Evolution is one of the best understood and accurately described natural phenomena that science has given us.


RE: Longer and More Interesting Study
By straycat74 on 6/17/2010 8:43:20 PM , Rating: 2
so, tell me how you feel about the Jews?


RE: Longer and More Interesting Study
By sgw2n5 on 6/17/2010 8:50:07 PM , Rating: 3
Jews are good people. Surely there have been a few bad apples, but what ethnicity doesn't have those?

Why do you ask?


RE: Longer and More Interesting Study
By straycat74 on 6/17/2010 8:56:53 PM , Rating: 2
There have been times throughout history where some people believed that groups of people weren't worthy of life, and thought they were a good judge of what constituted being worthy of life.
So when you defend the idea of people being naturally selected out of the gene pool, it makes me wonder.


RE: Longer and More Interesting Study
By sgw2n5 on 6/18/2010 12:28:43 AM , Rating: 4
Wow, did you just compare evolution and natural selection to genocide?!?


RE: Longer and More Interesting Study
By straycat74 on 6/18/2010 7:54:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wow, did you just compare evolution and natural selection to genocide?!?

Let's go back to the beginning..
quote:
Best just to hope that natural selection removes them from the gene pool.


That is where you came in, to defend that comment.
Did he say that 'they(them)' should be killed? No. Does he hope they cease to exist?


By sgw2n5 on 6/18/2010 12:49:52 PM , Rating: 2
So you're saying that my response was not intellegently designed?


By geddarkstorm on 6/18/2010 1:37:04 PM , Rating: 2
Just a minor correction:

Citrate is part of the TCA cycle of metabolism. E.coli does indeed use citrate in this cycle for energy, as do us, and almost all cells out there eukaryotic or pro. It wasn't the -use- of citrate for energy that was unique to these clones, it was the ability to -transport- exogenous citrate into the cell. E. coli lacks the ability to uptake citrate outside of itself, that's what was gained.

It's a far, far simpler change than learning to use something for energy, and harkens back to the mutations commonly seen that help confer drug resistance, where cells learn to pump out a toxic substance (even our own cancer cells can adapt and gain these sorts of mutations in our life times, which shows how simple they are).


Misleading phrasing
By freeagle on 6/17/2010 8:24:05 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
the E. Coli developed adaptations that allowed them to survive.


This is not a correct way to describe what happened. It suggests that the E. coli bacteria had intent to change in order to survive. That is not natural selection. The enviroment allowed survival of only a few already present variations of the E. coli bacteria.




RE: Misleading phrasing
By Divineburner on 6/17/2010 8:36:40 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Massively and permanently elevated levels of the GroE proteins were found in bacteria adapted, step-wise over a period of years, for growth at 48.5 degrees C.

Quoted from the the study link above.

The variations were not pre-existing, they adapted throughout the study in order to survive in the experiment.


RE: Misleading phrasing
By freeagle on 6/17/2010 8:47:24 PM , Rating: 2
It is a common practice to say, that something adapted to the changes in the environment, but that is very misleading to a person that do not really understand the mechanisms of natural selection. The authors of the article know what they mean by it, but it suggests an intent to someone that understands only tha basic concept of natural selection.


RE: Misleading phrasing
By freeagle on 6/17/2010 8:48:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The authors of the article know...


I meant authors of the study know...


RE: Misleading phrasing
By jimhsu on 6/17/2010 10:05:18 PM , Rating: 2
Replace "they" with "the population" or "the strain" and the above makes more sense. Individuals don't adapt - that's Lamarckian. Species do.


my take on the fruit...
By zodiacfml on 6/17/2010 10:36:49 PM , Rating: 2
i just wonder why is it some plants need to bear fruit and changes color when ripe.
i also wonder why some plants have flowers that are colored other than the shade or hue of their leaves.




RE: my take on the fruit...
By sgw2n5 on 6/18/2010 12:36:42 AM , Rating: 4
Flowering plants have brightly colored petals to attract insects. The insects are imperative for pollination and thus sexual reproduction in these plants. That's just the way evolution went... insects are attracted to bright colors and so the prettiest flowers were the more successful plants at passing their genes along.

The ripening of fruits is simply chemical maturation where starchy precursors are broken down into simpler sugars. The biochemistry behind this is very well understood, but it happens because sugary fruits tend to get eaten by animals and the seeds dispersed more than non-sugary fruits.


Underwhelmed
By wgbutler on 6/18/2010 7:01:49 AM , Rating: 1
This is nothing new. We already knew that bacteria had the ability to make adaptations in order to survive. For example, the way bacteria mutates (as in the case of malaria) to adapt anti-biotic resistance.

This is just as much an argument for Intelligent Design as it is for macro-evolution. If species couldn't make minor changes in response to environmental stimuli, most of them would die out extremely fast.

But the idea that these bacteria can someday evolve into a human (i.e. macro-evolution) is ridiculous and one of the wildest fairy tales ever created. To think that anyone can seriously entertain this notion boggles the mind.

From pg. 153 of Who was Adam? (written by Hugh Ross)

According to various calculations based on physical conditions, it is extremely improbable that modern humans evolved from bacteria through natural means, given the brief time window of Earth's habitability.

In one study, astrophysicists John Barrow, Brandon Carter, and Frank Tipler comment on the surprisingly large number of highly improbable steps in the supposed natural evolution of an intelligent species on Earth. Moreover, the number of such steps merely represents a lower limit; evolutionary biology has not yet advanced sufficiently to determine their actual number. Restricting the count to just the known problem steps (which are statistically independent) in the evolution of Homo sapien sapiens, the trio produced a probability figure for the emergence of humans from a suite of bacterial species in 10 billion years or less: 10^-24,000,000. (In other words, a decimal point 24 million places to the left of the 1.)

An independent calculation done by evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala places the probability for humans arising from single-celled organisms at 10^-10,000,000. As Ayala and others pointed out, animals on ancient Earth did not know they were supposed to evolve in such a way that human beings could later appear. Natural selection operates only during an animal's lifetime. It cannot select a portion of a genome with the intent of using that genome portion 1, 2, or 3 billion years later.

To put the calculated probabilities for humans arising from single-celled organisms into perspective, if every proton and neutron in the universe were a planet, and if each of these planets contained as many single-celled organisms as Earth does today (a trillion quadrillion single-celled organisms ) the probability that humans could have arisen once in the universe would be 10^-999,921, according to Ayala's calculations. According to Barrow, Carter, and Tipler's calculation the number would be 10^-23,999,921.

Brandon Carter, "The Anthropic Principle and Its Implications for Biological Evolution," Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Astronomical Society A 370 (1983): 347-360
John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), 510-573 and 557-566

Frank J. Tipler in "Intelligent Life in Cosmology," International Journal of Astrobiology 2 (2003): 142




RE: Underwhelmed
By sgw2n5 on 6/18/2010 12:41:26 PM , Rating: 2
That old and tired argument is completely invalidated once you factor in selection pressure.

quote:
This is nothing new. We already knew that bacteria had the ability to make adaptations in order to survive. For example, the way bacteria mutates (as in the case of malaria) to adapt anti-biotic resistance.

This is just as much an argument for Intelligent Design as it is for macro-evolution. If species couldn't make minor changes in response to environmental stimuli, most of them would die out extremely fast.

But the idea that these bacteria can someday evolve into a human (i.e. macro-evolution) is ridiculous and one of the wildest fairy tales ever created. To think that anyone can seriously entertain this notion boggles the mind.


The derp is strong with this one.


Religious and a scientist
By cscpianoman on 6/18/2010 7:25:55 AM , Rating: 3
It's funny, maybe I'm an anomaly, but I am religious and I "believe" natural selection/evolution. Why would I not believe it, based on the preponderance of evidence suggesting that evolution occurs?

I also believe in a God. I also don't believe science and religion have to be mutually exclusive. This is not separation of church and state. I like to think of the whole religion vs science thing as one large puzzle. If a piece does not fit in one spot, it doesn't mean you should throw the piece away. There are obviously holes in our collective scientific understanding, just like there are holes in our religious understanding.

I like to think of God as a master scientist who understands all the laws of nature, not just Newtonian physics, but progressing through Einstein's theories and beyond. In other words, somewhere in the midst of all this there is a law of nature that states water can be turned to wine. Maybe it will take fusion to figure it out, but somewhere down the pipe we just might figure it out.

Seeds still get pooped out and grow into better plants, but the more I understand about science the more I appreciate the religion side as well.




E. coli, not E. Coli
By Garfield3d on 6/17/2010 7:35:45 PM , Rating: 2
It's just a slight capitalization error, so I'm sure no one cares, but the "C" should not be capitalized in E. coli. It's standard in genus/species nomenclature to keep the species in lower case.




NAtural Selection
By SuckRaven on 6/18/2010 12:26:45 PM , Rating: 2
We should start a group of human volunteers to subject themselves to increasingly harsher environmental conditions such as airborne pollutants, radiation levels, etc., for a few thousand generations (assuming we are all still here by then.) Ironically we probably won't be as we will be unable to adapt fast enough to keep pace with their rate at which we are screwing up our planet. But anyways... E. coli have a textbook doubling time of 20 minutes under ideal (optimal) growth conditions. The article said that they were able to increase the amount of chaperone proteins after about to years to the point that they could survive a 2.5 degree increase at the upper temperature threshold. 2 years = 1 051 897.53 minutes, so the E. coli double 52,594 times. Now neglecting the log, log, and death curve, lets still only assume that 52,594 divisions occur. If we were to translate that to human generations, assuming an average lifespan of 75 years per person, and probably an average of 25 years old for having kids, each new generation would appear about every 25 years, and we would need to do this for 52,594 generations, so 1,314,850 years from now, we will have evolved proteins that will enable us to thrive in a climate that is 2.5 degrees warmer. =)

This of course is a fallacy, and assumes a million things, and in all actuality is probably complete bullsh*t. But you get the idea. This type of directed selective pressure can only be effective on organisms that have insane doubling rates, and even then only to minimal effect. There is a reason why evolution happens sloooooooowly over geological time periods.

I also think it's a bad idea to upset the equilibrium between the evolution of pathogens and their hosts. This will undoubtedly have detrimental consequences.

On second thought, I'm going to go have a beer.... Cheers !




A drop in the ocean
By todda7 on 6/18/2010 2:29:44 PM , Rating: 2
This is just a drop in the ocean of all the proof for evolution (by natural selection).

There are loads of similar, more thorough experiments lasting over longer periods of time proving exactly the same. Not a single have failed.

And of course this is just the practical experiments of testing evolution by natural selection, not to mention the distribution of genes and species around geographical areas, the structure of DNA, the development of an embryo and so on which all indisputedly favors evolution by natural selection.
If you want to know the (technical) details, read "The Greatest Show On Earth" by Dawkins. It's quite long and really thorough but the audiobook is a joy to listen to.




Sigh...
By morphologia on 6/18/2010 2:33:50 PM , Rating: 2
I still don't understand why some people think that disagreeing with the generally accepted explanation for a phenomenon constitutes an alternate explanation. No matter how someone attempts to discredit evolution, the only effort at an alternate explanation that they ever give equates to "it just happened."




Why use heat
By aguilpa1 on 6/19/2010 10:46:11 AM , Rating: 2
Why not use PH levels or something similar. Why create a string of E. Coli that is resistant to the bodies own defense mechanism of fever. Hey lets make a make a mutant super E.Coli that the body can't fight off. Fail




Bio Indicators for Validation
By jdietz on 6/19/2010 11:31:13 PM , Rating: 2
To validate a steam sterilization process (prove that it works), G. Stearothermophilus are typically used.

Manufacturers (I think) use selective breeding to produce strains that have a desired target D-value (number indicating resistance to steam sterilization).




That proves nothing
By PrinceGaz on 6/17/10, Rating: -1
RE: That proves nothing
By Cixelsid on 6/17/2010 7:20:10 PM , Rating: 2
His noodly appendage came to me one night and checked my prostate.


RE: That proves nothing
By straycat74 on 6/17/2010 7:35:40 PM , Rating: 2
What, what? In your butt?


RE: That proves nothing
By Divineburner on 6/17/2010 8:23:39 PM , Rating: 2
It's things like this that makes me chuckle.

Every single experiment could be said as a 'god' from intelligent design that specifically changed the beings that way. Or it could be a merciful god that changed the animal a little to allow it to survive a little better, without natural selection at all.

There are million of possibilities, especially absurd, for everything. You could well be a computer program that was designed to study 'ancient humans' in a lab 10,000 years into the future (Think Matrix). You have no way to disprove it. Does that make it right?

Science does not attempt to address infallible questions, including intelligent design. Science merely provides the most plausible scenario, and in this case, it is the most plausible by far.


RE: That proves nothing
By sgw2n5 on 6/17/2010 8:29:31 PM , Rating: 1
If something cannot be empirically proven (or dis-proven), it is definitely NOT science.

...But but but GOD did it!!!!

..Prove it.

...ZOMG, you are questioning his greatness!!!

..No, I just like to see evidence before I believe something to be true.

...BURN HIM!!!


RE: That proves nothing
By tmouse on 6/18/2010 8:15:03 AM , Rating: 2
The problem is both groups are asking and replying to different questions. Science answers HOW something happens, WHY is by and large irrelevant. It could be random chance as a macro extension of uncertainly theory or it could be by the will of a divine being, doesn't really matter. Theology concerns itself with WHY something happens. Nowhere in any of the basic texts is a specific mechanism (ie: how) specified. HOW is really irrelevant to theology, would it destroy the existence of a divine being if he/she/they used natural selection as a mechanism? Basically genesis does follow a logical trend with the creation of a planet, water, plants, animals and man (the only weird part is plants before the sun, but hey maybe there was a transcription error by the humans). When theologists try to answer how and scientists try to answer why problems occur.


RE: That proves nothing
By axias41 on 6/18/2010 8:46:14 AM , Rating: 2
How can you prove that God did that?
I think there is no experiment that could convince you, when you think you are right.


RE: That proves nothing
By morphologia on 6/18/2010 2:38:56 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah, I suppose gravity is just invisible angels holding onto our feet and pulling us toward the earth. And quantum entanglement is just God poking each particle in an entangled pair at the same time.

I'm seeing a CSI-type situation, in which some Intelligent Design-oriented lawyer claims that the knife was divinely whisked from his client's hand and planted in the victim's chest, despite the clear evidence that shows the client actually stabbed the victim.


RE: That proves nothing
By wgbutler on 6/18/2010 2:49:51 PM , Rating: 1
quote:

Yeah, I suppose gravity is just invisible angels holding onto our feet and pulling us toward the earth. And quantum entanglement is just God poking each particle in an entangled pair at the same time.


I know you desperately want to make people who disagree with you look stupid, but fabricating tales and putting words in their mouth only makes you look like a snide and condescending little twerp.

quote:

I'm seeing a CSI-type situation, in which some Intelligent Design-oriented lawyer claims that the knife was divinely whisked from his client's hand and planted in the victim's chest, despite the clear evidence that shows the client actually stabbed the victim.


You've got it all backwards here. The Intelligent Design-oriented lawyer, as you put it, would instead be making the case that an intelligent agent (i.e. the murderer) stabbed the victim with the knife, while the everything-is-caused-by-blind-forces lawyer would be making the case that a small rock got stuck in the victim's skin, and over a long period of time took on more particles and grew into a knife, ultimately killing the victim.


RE: That proves nothing
By morphologia on 6/18/2010 3:15:52 PM , Rating: 3
My point remains that the only evidence in existence points to evolution, and that those who deny it have nothing more solid on which to base their argument other than that they don't want to believe anything that contradicts the vague, fearmongering supersition with which they were raised. They might as well just put their fingers in their ears and hum "What A Friend We Have In Jesus."

It's like they were raised in a 10'x10' cell and despite having been set free, they refuse to venture beyond the limits with which they've become familiar. On average, it takes about 200 years for a religious society to accept new ideas, despite overwhelming validation of those ideas. I guess that means people will have ceased trying to deny the obvious by 2060.


"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki