digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

See the original image at arstechnica.com —

Misperceptions meet state of the art in evolution research:

arstechnica.com — A panel at the American Association for the Advancement of Science tells us what we should know about what we know when it comes to major events in evolution.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • ibanezdtx120, on 02/28/2008, -4/+17A great panel discussing why the perception of evolution is sometimes skewed by the public. Bravo.
  • mcduckov, on 02/28/2008, -8/+25Evolution is not a theory that can be buried--unlike articles about evolution that can be buried.
    • kelly, on 02/28/2008, -35/+8Evolution is indeed a theory.
      Diggers typically respond by saying that evolution is a theory then like gravity is a theory. That too is incorrect. Gravity is a law... (law of gravity.) We can see it test it and know it. The same is not true with regard to evolution. There are several things that point to this as being possible... albeit with some pretty large gaps that require faith to accept the full package but there's enough there for people to consider it a possibility.

      There is as much if not more pointing to other "theories" of how we and all the animals came to be. These aren't as prevalent in today's secular society despite being backed by as much scientific evidence, (yet also requires an equal amount of faith to address that which we don't/can't know). They aren't accepted primarily because to accept them means you also have to accept God and that there is an absolute moral authority. For too many, this is too much to ask.... hence the prevalence of evolution.
      • michael43, on 02/28/2008, -25/+4Thank you! You'll soon be dugg down of course, because your view is unpopular on digg. From what I've seen, that should only give it more credibility.
        • gudnbluts, on 02/28/2008, -3/+16Because he's wrong. He doesn't understand what a theory is. The word "law" is largely anachronistic, especially in Physics, Chemistry and Biology. The "laws of thermodynamics" for instance are no such thing. They're theories.
          • vikingcoder, on 02/28/2008, -1/+6There are 4 terms that need to be understood in the realm of science - hypothesis, theory, law & fact. They are all separate & distinct, except for the only progression that occurs - hypothesis => theory.

            A fact is what has been carefully observed.
            A law describes that observation.
            A theory seeks to explain that observation & has been confirmed by considerable evidence and has endured all attempts to disprove it.
            A hypothesis is a proposal intended to explain that observation.

            example:

            Fact
            Objects fall at the same rate regardless of mass.

            Law
            Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation (the formula)
            http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/Class/c ...

            Hypothesis => Theory
            Mass causes a curvature of spacetime which creates the effect of gravity.
        • talonstriker, on 02/28/2008, -3/+8How does being dugg down result in him having more credibility?
          Buried for lunacy.
          • michael43, on 02/28/2008, -11/+4Because you are stupid and stupid people vote for stupid things, therefore a negative vote from you is a plus.:)
          • JDove6, on 02/28/2008, -2/+3Wow, what an argument...Lunacy it is.
          • JDove6, on 02/28/2008, -2/+3@michael43
            What a good Christian you are, not. God is the only judge, now go be a good little boy and repent for your trespasses.
          • michael43, on 02/29/2008, -2/+1@JDove - Calling someone stupid isn't wrong, at least if it's true like in this case. Believing in God doesn't preclude me from having an opinion, that's a misrepresentation people like you put out. It's humorous how non believers immediately try to hold believers to the highest moral standards while slinging accusations and disrespecting other people's views.
        • buhbyebot, on 02/28/2008, -2/+2So, when all those girls turned you down for dates, you see it as a positive? That's just my theory. Can I get a ruling on that?
      • tattertech, on 02/28/2008, -1/+8But the law of gravity is complete, Gravity is a theory.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity
        • Corvidae, on 02/28/2008, -0/+5*incomplete
          It's gotten pretty accurate, but it's still not complete.
          • tattertech, on 03/02/2008, -0/+1Actually, to be fair only the EFFECT is pretty complete (hence the law), but the how/why is still some degree of mystery (even with big leads there are still potential question marks). Hence my point, which ignores the stupidity of claiming that a theory implies being incomplete. In reality a theory means that there's a vast body of work that combines many different facts to create a comprehensive view.
      • slvrbullet87, on 02/28/2008, -5/+18God has no basis in fact. Therefore he/she/it cannot be used as evidence for a theory
      • ianam, on 02/28/2008, -2/+10There's no such thing as the "law of gravity". There is the inverse square law, but that doesn't explain gravity, which is what a scientific theory does -- it explains an observed phenomenon, the way the theory of evolution explains the observed phenomenon of evolution. Which is indeed observed, both in the lab, in the field, and by inference from a huge mass of data. No "faith" is required to accept this, only knowledge of the evidence -- evidence too massive for any one person to be completely familiar with, but sadly evidence of which most people are almost entirely ignorant.

        There is not "as much if not more pointing to other 'theories'" -- this is a lie, a hoax, a fraud perpetrated by the so-called Discovery Institutute, which is engaged not in science but in religious proselyzation and propaganda.
      • Logicexe, on 02/28/2008, -1/+13"Gravity is a law... (law of gravity.)"

        This is possibly the biggest red flag for someone who has absolutely no idea what they're talking about. Laws and theories are different things. They do not represent degrees of certainty, as in we're really really sure about the laws but only somewhat sure about the theories.

        Laws are simply mathematical equations or models. You drop a ball, measure how fast it falls, make an equation to describe its acceleration, do the same with something else, test your equation over and over again. Eventually you can be reasonably sure that your equation accurately describes what something does as it falls you have successfully created a model, or a Law. However, this law does not describe why the model works the way it does.

        The law of gravity is an attempt to describe and predict things that happen, theories take the laws and look for the underlying mechanism that explains why/how the laws work. Evolution will never, ever be a law.
        • geomon, on 02/28/2008, -0/+9"Evolution will never, ever be a law."

          And it doesn't have to be a law to be useful. It just has to be the best explanation of the data we observe.

          For the last ~150 years, it has served just that function. It has been modified, but never been replaced.
      • geomon, on 02/28/2008, -3/+9"They aren't accepted primarily because to accept them means you also have to accept God and that there is an absolute moral authority."

        Which God?

        This is the unfortunate problem that theistic "proofs" have in their utility as scientific evidence. There is no *objective* criteria to test which God claim is the right one.

        All religions, without exception, claim to be worshiping the *right* God. Pick your flavor:

        http://adherents.com/
      • cranium, on 02/28/2008, -3/+10"Accepting God" is indeed too much to ask. You have the burden of proof on that question, and that you've failed miserably to provide any objective evidence whatsoever.

        It's ironic that religious types can be aggravatingly pedantic about scientific questions (in a very ignorant sort of way) while at the same time swallowing your silly superstitions hook, line, and sinker no questions asked.
      • shakbhaji, on 02/28/2008, -2/+3"There is as much if not more pointing to other "theories" of how we and all the animals came to be."
        Others have already addressed some of your many false statements, so I'll take this one.
        First of all, evolution is not a theory that attempts to explain the origin of anything, neither the cosmos nor life on Earth. That is a completely different subject that biologists don't have a definitive explanation for. That's why scientists at NASA and the ESA are so interested in planets and moons (like Titan) that have large amounts of organic molecules that are considered the precursors to life as we know it. They want to study these places because they're still not sure how life began (and these places would provide clues) and no biologist is claiming to have a definitive scientific explanation. For you to claim that evolution is a theory that tries to explain "how we and all the animals came to be" demonstrates that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
        Secondly, there is absolutely no scientific evidence pointing to other "theories," as you called them. These aren't scientific "theories," but rather 2000 year old folk tales about a man in the sky. The bible doesn't count as scientific evidence, sorry.

        Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. Studying biology without considering evolution would like studying chemistry without considering thermodynamics.
      • Daz3, on 02/28/2008, -1/+5"Diggers typically respond by saying that evolution is a theory then like gravity is a theory. That too is incorrect. Gravity is a law... (law of gravity.) We can see it test it and know it."
        The phenomena we know as gravity is explained by the theory of general relativity. The phenomena of life adapting to its surroundings is explained by the theory of evolution. A theory is a framework deduced after examining the empirical evidence; this framework is then used to make predictions which will either corroborate the theory (in the case of evolution and general relativity) or falsify the theory, in which case the theory will need to be reworked or - in extreme cases - completely scrapped. I suggest you do a little real research to further your understanding of the scientific method, evolution and general relativity.

        "There is as much if not more pointing to other "theories" of how we and all the animals came to be."
        Give me one piece of evidence that points towards an intelligent designer. There is no empirical evidence that could possibly lead you to deduce that life was created by a God; as you will prove, this type of reasoning is caused by the use of logical fallacies in your arguments.

        "These aren't as prevalent in today's secular society despite being backed by as much scientific evidence"
        There is no scientific evidence supporting ID, as opposed to evolution which has the entire fossil record and observed evolution in laboratories.
        "They aren't accepted primarily because to accept them means you also have to accept God and that there is an absolute moral authority. For too many, this is too much to ask.... hence the prevalence of evolution."
        Yes this is too much to ask, you are asking me to believe in a deity that has no empirical or even philosophical evidence of existing. You are asking me to devote my life to arguments riddled with logical fallacies and to ignore all common sense.

      • bigfatpaulie, on 02/28/2008, -1/+5your post is the next evolutionary stage of EPIC FAIL
      • imakecomments, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1Hey Kelly, here ya go: http://www.notjustatheory.com/
    • InfiniteNothing, on 02/28/2008, -1/+12We can see evolution in practice. Give me some fruit flies, some maltose, and some some starch. You also fail to realize that gravity is still not fully understood.
      • diggduggjoe, on 02/28/2008, -3/+6No one really knows what gravity is. We see its effects and it permeates our existence, but there is no clear mechanism like electromagnetism for us to experiment with. Even particle physics gets to create new stuff and test. Gravity still eludes us. That said, nobody is claiming that gravity does not exist. The creationists need the ego boost of being baked in god's kitchen. The evidence that we share our biology with the rest of the life on this planet is everywhere. Only those who do not wish to be a part of the biologic Earth, but of the heavens, seem to be blind to it.
        • Daz3, on 02/28/2008, -2/+4Heard of general relativity?
          • diggduggjoe, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2Yes, but I do not feel that is a detailed explanation for gravity that allows mankind to solve all the theories relating to gravity. They are still looking for the gravity waves or gravitons. Once we can find them and recreate them our understanding will be deeper. Most of our gravity theories are descriptions of the effects. Where is the Ohm's law of gravity or a gravitational engineer? We do not have the understanding of gravity that we have of E&M.

            There is still plenty of debate with the details, but few will claim the we will float of the planet anytime soon. That was my point. Evolution is obvious by looking as life on earth. How evolution works is where the real arguments are in the scientific community.
      • michael43, on 02/28/2008, -16/+1Why don't you just "evolve" a fricking fruit fly?
        • cranium, on 02/28/2008, -1/+11For the same reason you can't count to 1,000,000,000,000.

          Even though the process is understood, It takes longer than the time you have available.
          • michael43, on 02/28/2008, -17/+2Wrong. That analogy isn't logical. It's a cop out. It's a blow to your ego, but only God creates life.
          • eir574, on 02/28/2008, -1/+15@michael43:
            Why isn't that logical? It makes perfect sense to me. Also, I'm not sure where your ego comment came from. I've heard many Christians say that the idea that life evolved without the help of a deity detracts from the marvel of the natural world. For me, it's the exact opposite. I think the result of evolution is absolutely extraordinary.
          • cranium, on 02/28/2008, -1/+11@michael43
            That's a neat trick for a fairy tale.
        • ostracize, on 02/28/2008, -0/+7The other half to cranium's answer is we don't completely understand every single nuance of evolution (and probably never will). Scientists probably couldn't evolve a single-celled organism into a fruit fly, not just because it takes to long, but because we don't have the tools or knowledge yet to undertake such a complex task.

          However, with the understanding we have today, we are actively provoking the evolution of new species (eg. http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11876& ... ) and are using it to our benefit.
        • JDove6, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3see Stem Cells and Transgenics.
  • EatingPie, on 02/28/2008, -43/+12I'm not sure where the dialog of ethics and religion came in. The closest we got was one scientist stating that evolution was a foregone conclusion. "The evidence is so overwhelming that Relethford feels that any remaining argument is simply between two religious perspectives on that fact; science has moved on."

    That statement is not explained in the article, and I couldn't find a transcript.

    I appreciated the admission that the *origin* of life is ultimately a mystery. However, life was defined as "capable of darwinian evolution."

    In a sense, these scientists are completely foregoing any debate on the ethical and religious elements. They define life in terms of evolution, so the theory of evolution must be accepted if we accept that life exists at all. Then they say the evidence makes evolutiuon a foregone conclusion. It can't be challenged or questioned. Where is the debate or discussion in this? What if the evidence is wrong? What if we disagree with the definition life -- Newton defined it saying "growth is the only sign of life." And how do we determine if any life form *is* capable of darwinian evolution?

    I for one believe the religious debate belongs at the philosophical level -- a level they acknowledged in the "origin" debate -- not the scientific. Evolution does not -- and never will -- preclude the existence of God. And vice-versa. But my sense is that these scientists are leaving no room for question or debate, nor did they even come close to addressing anything their panel title suggested they would discuss.

    -Pie
    • rollem, on 02/28/2008, -6/+32"Then they say the evidence makes evolutiuon a foregone conclusion. It can't be challenged or questioned. Where is the debate or discussion in this? What if the evidence is wrong?" If one piece of evidence is wrong, then hopefully it will be caught by the peer review process or later generations. But the fact is that evidence has been piling on for 150 years from very different realms of knowledge, from geology, archeology, morphology, population genetics, molecular genetics, behavioral experiments, and more.
      Thousands of very smart people have built careers out of trying to find evidence to the contrary, and it hasn't been found. But the theory of evolution is falsifiable, that's what makes it scientific. A fossil rabbit in the precambrian, an organ or organelle that could not have arisen by small, incremental improvements over a very rudimentary system. The eye, btw, was used by Darwin as a great example of how complex organs could arise, and even today people use it as evidence that evolution by natural selection is wrong. They've also added the immune system and flagella, two systems that also have very complex structures, but nonetheless have known evolutionary histories.
      Creationism/ID is not falsifiable, if something doesn't meet expectations, then poof! it's God's will.
      "Evolution does not -- and never will -- preclude the existence of God." True, but extraordinary claims generally require extraordinary reason for belief. And the fact that your parents believed it isn't really good evidence. Furthermore, though you can't prove that God does not exist (just as I can't prove that there isn't an easter bunny) you can see that evolution by natural selection makes a personal god whose image we are created in a difficult proposition to accept. That version of god is central to many Christians' beliefs, and it just doesn't make sense in light of what we know about how things work.
      • BigManOnCampus, on 02/28/2008, -1/+11Great response. That's about as fair as you can be. Evolution *does not* preclude the existence of God. However, if your definition of God is based on a literal interpretation of biblical accounts, then Evolution does tend to at least falsify that story, if not provide cause for a major re-write of the bible.
      • TopherD, on 02/28/2008, -8/+4One simple fact remains, which evolutionists will never overcome, just ignore. We know, life does not/cannot come from non life. We have never seen it happen, ever. This is the same logic used to discredit God. But when it comes to your own beliefs, it's now exceptable. The entire belief of evolution is based on this one fact or more so the opposite of the fact. SOMEHOW a living cell was produced by elements that were not living. You have not, cannot and will not prove that life comes from non living. That's a big thing for the evolutionist, if you have a theory, show evidence for it. Science is not coming up with a theory and saying prove me wrong. You create a hypothesis, expiriment, re-test, and draw the conclusions, most of the time to re adjust your hypothesis. This debate is never gonna be won in one statement. It will be won, one person at a time. I think it's funny to see though that people that switch from evolution to creation mostly is because they see the evidence doesn't support evolution. Most of the people who go from creation to evolution are mad at God for one reason or another and it shows in discussions.
        • Scienceisfun, on 02/28/2008, -1/+6It hasn't happened yet, but what if it does one day? What if scientists in a lab do actually get life to spring out of nothing? Would that be enough for you to question your beliefs?
        • pineutrino, on 02/28/2008, -0/+5"We know, life does not/cannot come from non life."

          Dude.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
          • bitspace, on 02/29/2008, -1/+4Haha, I love the first line of that entry: "This article focuses on modern scientific research on the origin of life. For religious beliefs about the creation of life, see [creation myth]."
        • eir574, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3As I imagine pineutrino was saying, evolution is not intended to answer every question about life, the universe, and everything. And, at the very least, we do know that chemicals that are important for life can be created under the right circumstances. From there, deciding what's alive and what's not, or what we'll officially call the first precursor to a cell, is perhaps a matter of settling on a definition.

          And, I have no quarrel with any deity.
        • geomon, on 02/29/2008, -2/+2"One simple fact remains, which evolutionists will never overcome, just ignore."

          Here we go...

          "We know, life does not/cannot come from non life. We have never seen it happen, ever."

          So God (whom I assume is alive in your reckoning) has always been alive? Then that busts your argument right there. God (alive) came into being from non-life (always been around).

          Strange how you can apply the life-from-non-life argument to God, but when someone postulates a theory that argues life-from-non-life without supernatural intervention you immediately spin it as "never happened".

          Now you know why the Bible can never be replied upon as a science text.
        • nitsuj, on 02/29/2008, -2/+5"One simple fact remains, which evolutionists will never overcome, just ignore. We know, life does not/cannot come from non life. We have never seen it happen, ever."

          You really haven't thought this through. There are many hypothesis about how life originated but let's take the two that seem to get most debate here: abiogenesis and supernatural creation.

          In either case you could say that living matter came from non-living matter. Either chemical interactions occurred through natural processes else god created life from non-living matter.

          A more interesting question might be: what is 'living' matter?

          All matter is composed of atoms. There is no such thing as a 'live' atom or a 'dead/non-living' atom. Your entire body is made of atoms - with no evidence for anything else no matter how much you'd like to believe in a spirit or soul. If your body was picked apart atom by atom you'd have...a bunch of atoms.

          The evidence points to 'life' being an emergent behavior of matter given the correct conditions, not some mystically created magical intangible.
          • kfed2, on 03/02/2008, -2/+2There is not a shred of evidence in support of abiogenesis. How could there be evidence supporting a specific chemical reaction that happened so long ago?? You must be referring to a hypothesis or 2, which amounts to an educated guess at best, and superstition at worst. Have we ever observed order coming from chaos, or greater order coming from lesser order apart from the assistance of greater order? I submit to you that if we have not, then believing that it happened at some point in the past is bordering on superstition. Scientists have not been able to create a living cell despite all their efforts over the last several decades. Saying it could happen unintentionally is like saying an equally complex device could arise by chance.
          • hklrs, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1The hypothesis that a "god" created anything is one that gives more questions then it answers (most of them impossible to answer, due to the "supernatural" elusive characteristics of "god"), that's why it wont be examined by most scientists.
            On the complexity of the issue you are relating to, read this: http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/state-of-t ...
    • eir574, on 02/28/2008, -2/+19It's not that evolution isn't up for debate, but just that the given the amount of time the theory has been around and the amount of evidence we have for it, the price of admission to that debate is high. In any field of science, challenging the status quo is difficult (sometimes more than it should be), but not impossible. Let's suppose for a moment that the scientific community is fundamentally wrong about some aspect of how natural selection works, but the vast majority of scientists don't realize it. If someone could come in and change the paradigm, that would be huge. Yes, it would require extraordinary proof and probably a decent amount of persistence on the part of the scientist who proposes a fundamental change to evolutionary theory. Once those obstacles were overcome, I don't think scientists would be as turned off from the idea as some people seem to think they'd be. I speak as a scientist who works in fields that are built on top of evolutionary theory.
      • TopherD, on 02/28/2008, -6/+3The problem we see across the board is exactly what we see in your response, sir. You interchange the word evolution and natural selection. The word evolution with adaptation. No creationist disputes natural selection or adaptation. We dispute ,I know people hate the word, "macro-evolution" or molecule to man evolution. You simply cannot take small changes like a moth being born with 6 wings instead of 4 and say it's evidence it used to be a totally different variety of creature.

        The second problem we see in these comments you made, "If someone could come in and change the paradigm, that would be huge. Yes, it would require extraordinary proof and probably a decent amount of persistence on the part of the scientist who proposes a fundamental change to evolutionary theory. Once those obstacles were overcome, I don't think scientists would be as turned off from the idea...." Scientists should know better than this. It's not about someone coming in and proving you are wrong. It's about you proving you're right. Essentially you're saying, "I'm going to believe this theory until someone proves me otherwise." That's not science in it's full potential. You need to show the examples of intermediate changes along the way of evolution. Darwin himself said there should be thousands. A question to you, how many transitions should there be between apes and humans? Why do we not have transitions that are more solid? Why aren't ther simply, more? And what's not to say that the one or two you may present would be anything but an entirely different kind of ape defined on its own and not an actual transition?
        • geomon, on 02/29/2008, -2/+5"You simply cannot take small changes like a moth being born with 6 wings instead of 4 and say it's evidence it used to be a totally different variety of creature."

          Then your problem is a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. Creatures do not morph from one form to another. They evolve from common ancestors.

          "A question to you, how many transitions should there be between apes and humans? "

          None. We share a common ancestor.

          There is the weak link in your understanding of evolution.

          Contemplate that for a bit before posting again.
        • eir574, on 02/29/2008, -1/+2Let's say that we have a community of moths with four wings, and for some reason, a portion of that community becomes geographically isolated from the rest of the moths. One day, your six winged moth is born in this geographically isolated community, and the six wings turn out to give the moth an advantage in producing offspring. Eventually the trait may spread through the whole community. Things like this keep happening to both communities, until one day some scientist notices that there are so many differences between the two communities that they're no longer the same species. Some say that you know that you're looking at two different species when they can no longer breed together and produce fertile offspring, but I think we can agree that the definition is a bit fluid.

          In general, you are correct that if I want to advance a new scientific hypothesis, I need to provide as much supporting evidence for it as I can (more accurately, I need to do everything I can to disprove it, and show that it holds up in the face of that effort). Once that's done and the hypothesis becomes a theory, though, the price of admission to the debate increases. This is *not* the same as making up a hypothesis without offering any kind of proof and expecting the rest of the scientific community to fall in line with me.
          In practical terms, it's not enough for you to ask why we don't see more so-called transitional fossils than we do. If there were x of these, you could always ask me why there aren't x+1. If you truly believe that your claim disproves evolution, then you need to explain why the fact that we don't see x+1 transitional fossils causes the whole theory to collapse.
    • geomon, on 02/28/2008, -6/+23"In a sense, these scientists are completely foregoing any debate on the ethical and religious elements."

      Where is the religious and ethical element with respect to the Carnot Cycle? You don't know.

      Neither do I. And it isn't relevant to the study of thermodynamics. Neither is religion or ethics relevant to the study of evolution. It is a study of how life has progressed. The scientific method shouldn't be modified because the subject matter changed to how life has adapted throughout time.

      "They define life in terms of evolution, so the theory of evolution must be accepted if we accept that life exists at all."

      The theory of evolution explains a lot of observations in nature. That is why it is accepted.

      "Then they say the evidence makes evolutiuon a foregone conclusion."

      What else would you rather have us say? That we should ignore the evidence?

      "It can't be challenged or questioned."

      You're coming late to the discussion. If you want to see the debate over evolution, you should step back about 150 years and read the pros and cons as they have progressed over time. There have been A LOT of questions about evolution. The fact that you have not availed yourself to the prior discussion is not our fault.

      "Where is the debate or discussion in this?"

      150 years in the past.

      "What if the evidence is wrong?"

      Which evidence is "wrong"? The fossil evidence? The radiometric data? The geologic data? Pick a point and head over to talk.origins. You will find your questions already have answers (probably not the ones you want).

      "What if we disagree with the definition life -- Newton defined it saying "growth is the only sign of life." And how do we determine if any life form *is* capable of darwinian evolution?"

      Time to come in from the rain.

      "Evolution does not -- and never will -- preclude the existence of God. And vice-versa."

      Okay, now we have gotten to the point of your objection.

      You hate the scientific method being applied to the origin of life. You don't mind all of the benefits that science brings as long as no one puts the origin of life under the microscope. Because if anything remotely challenges your perceived notion of how life developed (or, more likely, what you were told), then you are ALL OVER how the scientific method is being applied.

      Where is your objection to how the scientific method is being applied to particle physics? What does the Bible say about quantum strangeness? How about electron tunneling? Is there a psalms covering that topic?

      "But my sense is that these scientists are leaving no room for question or debate, nor did they even come close to addressing anything their panel title suggested they would discuss."

      You are spilling your ignorance out in front of the entire world to see. You know NOTHING of how the scientific process works. If I make a claim about *anything* in my field of study, I have to publish it in a peer reviewed journal to get any credibility. I expect to get debate, I expect to be challenged. And that challenge and debate occurs before the paper is even published. That is how the process works.

      I know that sounds like a group of elites working in an echo chamber, but the data will eventually work itself to the surface. The history of scientific inquiry is riddled with examples of poorly constructed studies and self-supported theories, but they eventually find their way into the dust bin of history.

      The universal truth about all of those failed studies and theories, though, is that they were put in the dust bin by other scientists.
      • eir574, on 02/28/2008, -1/+13I think something non-scientists tend not to realize is that most of us in science *want* to see paradigms challenged. Most of us will toil in relative obscurity, and will probably never even be close to something that's exciting on the kind of fundamental level that a scientifically sound challenge to evolution would be. This is not to say that I expect that it could happen in this particular case, but I just wanted to make the point. Incremental improvement in science is fantastic, and it's essential, but nothing is more fun than seeing a major paradigm shift happen before your eyes.
      • norman619, on 02/28/2008, -11/+3"If I make a claim about *anything* in my field of study, I have to publish it in a peer reviewed journal to get any credibility." This is the only problem I have with the system. I would expect good solid research and experimental data to be a bit more important than getting published in a journal. Maybe that's just me being crazy.
        • ToadLeg, on 02/28/2008, -1/+11Your comment makes no sense. What would you publish in a peer reviewed journal if you had not done research? If you had done research, how would you let others know about it? Publish it in a peer reviewed journal.
          • norman619, on 02/28/2008, -12/+1You can do great research, have solid data to support your theory, not get published, and not be taken seriously simply because you weren't published in some industry journal. THAT is my point. It looks like reading comprehension isn't your thing. Being published in a journal should not be a prerequisite for your work to be given credibility.
          • Abaddon1125, on 02/28/2008, -0/+11Your comment still makes no sense. WHY would you NOT want to publish your data and discovery, assuming you had research to back it up? Science needs to be testable and falsifiable in order to be considered, which means you need to offer your work up for other scientists in the field to test before your conclusions are considered correct. It's a checks and balances sort of thing to keep crackpots from just saying whatever they want and having people accept it as true.
          • geomon, on 02/28/2008, -1/+8@norman619
            "Being published in a journal should not be a prerequisite for your work to be given credibility."

            Because knowing something and not communicating it is irrelevant. That is true for science and religion, no?
        • zengonzo, on 02/28/2008, -2/+9That's exactly what the peer-review journals are for, norman. These are science journals, and they are the means by which various scientific fields share and validate data. We're not talking about Ladies' Home Journal. There is a process.
          • norman619, on 02/28/2008, -10/+1So you are saying if your work isn't in the journal no one will be willing to look at your work and validate it if it's not in there?
          • zengonzo, on 02/28/2008, -0/+8No. Just that that's generally how the community DOES get their work across. If you want to reach others in your community, you have to disseminate your materials somehow.
        • ianam, on 02/28/2008, -0/+8Uh, Norman, "peer reviewed" is a gateway for establishing that one has produced good solid research and experimental data.
      • EatingPie, on 02/28/2008, -4/+6"You hate the scientific method being applied to the origin of life. "

        Unfortunately, you put these words in my mouth. They are entirely untrue. I do believe in the study of the origins of life, and even in the study of evolution in particular.

        But science deals with the "how?" not the "why?" and the latter is the realm of Philosophy and Religion. And nothing discovered in science gives us the "why?" -- why order? why life? why human value? Any of these questions fall in the realm of philosophy, not science. And I believe we should study these questions as well -- using logic and reason, just as we do in science.

        -Pie
        • geomon, on 02/28/2008, -4/+8"But science deals with the "how?" not the "why?" and the latter is the realm of Philosophy and Religion."

          Science *is* Philosophy. It belongs to the subbranch called Natural Philosophy. It was initially coined to counter a now discredited movement, popular at the time of Natural Philosophy's beginnings: the Occult.

          "Unfortunately, you put these words in my mouth. They are entirely untrue. I do believe in the study of the origins of life, and even in the study of evolution in particular."

          No, I just take your words to their conclusions. You see the results of science's investigations into the origins of life and you immediately infer that we "preclude the existence of God." (your words)

          Not only is that COMPLETELY irrelevant to the *scientific* study of life, but is an *insult* to the *hundreds of thousands* of research scientists working in the field of the earth and life sciences who believe in some form of spirituality. It is the height of *conceit* to presume that just because these people think differently than YOU that they have come to the conclusion that their work "preclude(s) the existence of God."(my emphasis added)

          Your premises are busted and your understanding of the scientific method is murky at best.
        • EatingPie, on 02/28/2008, -2/+4Indeed, in the broad definition Science is a Philosophy. But it's pretty obvious I was speaking specifically of the discipline "Philosophy." As in, "I am a Philosophy major." And my brief assessment was accurate: Philosophers ask "why does the universe exist?" while Science asks "how does the universe exist?"

          Indeed you took my words to *a* conclusion, but the wrong one. As I said, I have nothing against the studies of the origins of life, nor of evolution. You certainly stated that I believe otherwise, but as I said, that is incorrect.

          In terms of jumping to a conclusion. I was speaking a SPECIFIC scientist who made the statement about the origin of life. HE claimed to be speaking for other scientists, I did not. I only repeated his statements.

          I need to point out once more that the talk was entitled "Science, Ethics and Religion." I was not commenting on "scientific method" at all, but only on the focus on one subject in the talk's title.

          -Pie
        • geomon, on 02/28/2008, -3/+2@EatingPie

          "Indeed, in the broad definition Science is a Philosophy. But it's pretty obvious I was speaking specifically of the discipline "Philosophy.""

          Science is Philosophy and you were talking about Philosophy. What is the problem again?

          "As in, "I am a Philosophy major.""

          Well, I studied Geology. I am working on my Masters. I have studied the Philosophy and History of the Natural Sciences. I also studied the Philosophy of the 19th Century for kicks as a junior in college.

          What does that have to do with the issue at hand again?

          "And my brief assessment was accurate: Philosophers ask "why does the universe exist?" while Science asks "how does the universe exist?""

          Okay.

          "Indeed you took my words to *a* conclusion, but the wrong one."

          The conclusion was your own words. You shouldn't type things into your keyboard without first thinking through the implications of what people will think. That is something a Philosophy Major should do as a natural course of daily ritual, no?

          "As I said, I have nothing against the studies of the origins of life, nor of evolution."

          Except that you infer that the results "preclude the existence of God." (your words)

          "You certainly stated that I believe otherwise, but as I said, that is incorrect."

          They are your words.

          "In terms of jumping to a conclusion. I was speaking a SPECIFIC scientist who made the statement about the origin of life."

          Really? Here's the quote: "I for one believe the religious debate belongs at the philosophical level -- a level they acknowledged in the "origin" debate -- not the scientific. Evolution does not -- and never will -- preclude the existence of God. And vice-versa. But my sense is that these scientists are leaving no room for question or debate, nor did they even come close to addressing anything their panel title suggested they would discuss."

          The term "these scientists" negates the idea that you were speaking about 'one scientist'. If you were speaking about 'one scientist' you should have been more clear. The paragraph before also spoke broadly about 'scientists' not 'one scientist'

          If you want clarity, write more clearly.

          "HE claimed to be speaking for other scientists, I did not. I only repeated his statements."

          Well, perhaps. You weren't clear.

          "I need to point out once more that the talk was entitled "Science, Ethics and Religion." I was not commenting on "scientific method" at all, but only on the focus on one subject in the talk's title."

          But your conclusions are more damning. When you make the claim that evolutionary science "preclude(s) the existence of God."(my emphasis added), you are painting with a rather broad brush. If you want to restrict your critique to the panel discussion, perhaps you should preface them first.
    • EatingPie, on 02/28/2008, -7/+4Though dugg down, I appreciate the tone of the follow-up comments.

      "Neither do I. And it isn't relevant to the study of thermodynamics. Neither is religion or ethics relevant to the study of evolution. It is a study of how life has progressed. The scientific method shouldn't be modified because the subject matter changed to how life has adapted throughout time."

      In this situation I agree. However, my question arose because the panel claimed the be about "SCIENCE, ETHICS and RELIGION." That was that apparently stated goal of the panel. And that's the only reason I brought the issue up. It struck me that the panel only addressed the "science" aspect, without considering ethics and religion.

      In terms of your questions about the Bible, I believe you jumped to a conclusion. Once again, I was commenting based on the Panel's Title. However, I believe religious elements -- specifically *moral* precepts -- do have a bearing on science.

      I general, I believe that modern science completely lacks an moral/ethical barometer, and it's something we desperately need. Science is awesome, and wonderful. But are there places we humans aren't prepared to tread? Look at the atom bomb. Yes, it ended WWII. But now it's huge moral and ethical challenge to society. Surrogate Mothers have raised intense moral questions -- and has been devastatingly life altering for some women involved.

      In the book Jurrasic Park, the characters cloned dinosaurs for an amusement park. Pretty innocuous in itself, but as the story progress, things get out of control... eventually leading to the (implied) end of the world. This is science without any moral foundation. Science without consequence. It's something we do need to discuss -- maybe not in evolution, but certainly other areas -- but it's a discussion completely lacking. Even in a Panel entitled "Science, Ethics and Religion"!

      -Pie
    • buhbyebot, on 02/28/2008, -4/+0I just dug your ass down for signing your ***** post.

      -bot /sarcasm
  • Gabberwok, on 02/28/2008, -7/+5The RNA world hypothesis is fascinating, but frankly it is not part of the evolutionary debate. It is a theory for what happened before evolution. The transition from RNA world to modern life requires changes that cannot be explained by outright heredity and require a lot of environmental factors and chance.
    • supras, on 02/28/2008, -5/+8Yes it is part of the evolutionary debate. Molecules and chemicals evolve just as animals do under the right circumstances.
      • Gabberwok, on 02/29/2008, -1/+1Evolution requires heritable variation, which is not enough to explain all of the developments necessary to get from the RNA world to a unicellular organism. RNA molecules can be driven to evolve in laboratory conditions, but evolution simply by definition cannot produce abiogenesis (which is a necessity for the origin of life). I'm not arguing against the RNA world, I'm just saying that the processes that get from it to unicellular organisms are not all governed by natural selection. The biggest problem is getting the biochemical reactions necessary for life inside of a membrane - it had to happen by chance first and then RNA molecules adapted to that scenario and started exploiting it. That's not something you can attribute to evolution as it is most commonly defined, although there are completely plausible scientific explanations for how it happened.

        Evolution is a great explanation once you have cells, but before that the problem is much much murkier. Obviously you still have replicating molecules involved, but you can't describe the processes as pure evolution.
    • norman619, on 02/28/2008, -0/+7Evolution is not just about biological systems. Evolution is about changes which occur in a system due to external pressures. Evolution is just a system's attempt to reach equilibrium with the environment it is in.
      • McHoffa, on 02/28/2008, -3/+1I thought that was adaptation.... or microevolution maybe.
      • InfiniteNothing, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3That's pretty deep. Ironically on a chemical basis we only live by constantly disrupting our own chemical basis out of equilibrium. Only in death is there chemical equilibrium.
        • JDove6, on 02/28/2008, -1/+2This is also true for our earth. NASA realized in looking for possible life on planets that the easiest sign to look for was an atmosphere that was out of equilibrium. Our planet has remarkably remained at a constant state of disequilibrium for millions of years to be able to support carbon-based life.

          Look up GAIA hypothesis
        • Kalessian, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1One of my professors would define life as an "Entropy Reduction Machine"
      • Gabberwok, on 02/29/2008, -1/+1I never said molecules can't evolve. Just that there are steps involved in the transition from RNA world to unicellular organisms that require events that do not fall under the definition of evolution. Cell membranes, transition from RNA to DNA as genetic material - all of these things required dramatic changes that could not exactly be inherited from one generation of molecules to the next. I don't believe in creationism or intelligent design, but I don't think people are doing science any favors when they expand the definition of evolution to things that it doesn't really apply to - like abiogenesis. The principles are still important, but other random events become much more important.

        Good example of an "adaptation" that doesn't really qualify as evolution: the transition from prokaryote to eukaryote. It was a freak accident that wasn't encoded in either organisms genome. Were there evolutionary principles involved? Yes, but the idea of heredity is stretched to the point it doesn't really apply in the complete explanation.
    • Pinkertinkle, on 02/28/2008, -0/+4The RNA world must have crapped its pants when it first saw the resilience of RNAses.
      • Gabberwok, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2The ubiquitous nature of RNAses is actually considered to be strong evidence for the RNA world... that said they are a pain in the ass.
  • philodygmn, on 02/28/2008, -2/+5Anyone ever read A New Kind of Science?

    http://www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/toc.html

    Complexity theory and its giving rise to computational equilavence makes it obvious that life and life forms are an aggregate which perception identifies to be an essential instance of "life", in other words, enough diverse-enough chemicals bumping into each other and there are eddies of identifiable, self-determinate clusters or life forms.

    • kapsar, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1Another book along those lines, which I'm currently reading is Notes from the Holocene. it's written by Dorian Saga, An interesting read. He brings together scientific knowledge, sci-fi, and the debate of evolution. He does a really good job explaining how everything is interconnected.
  • soupr, on 02/28/2008, -4/+3Who needs the AAAS when you have that funny picture of a chimp evolving into a man on a computer
  • DiggMyComment, on 02/28/2008, -40/+4no one ever digg's my comments :[
    Please make a sad man happy for today?
    • Cronikeys, on 02/28/2008, -1/+11I was about to, but then I realized your name was "DiggMyComment"... wtf.
    • macweirdo42, on 02/28/2008, -2/+6Just ignore the minus sign, and everything will be fine.
    • buhbyebot, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1I dug you up little acorn. Maybe someday you'll grow into a giant oak tree.... for now though, I'll just think of you as a little nut.
  • ryryindo, on 02/28/2008, -4/+2the headers for each paragraph make it seem like the following words were going to explain it. instead they didn't at all.
  • DiggerUpper, on 02/28/2008, -27/+10I'd rather go to heaven. (I know, I'm getting dugg down.)
    • macweirdo42, on 02/28/2008, -3/+10What kind of merciful God would allow such a stupid remark to be made?
    • Nanobe, on 02/28/2008, -2/+9If your god would damn you to eternal pain and suffering just because you sought to expand your understanding of the universe, then that's not a god I would ever choose to worship. It's like any of the other dictators in history, but even worse. And being non-human or the origin of our existence doesn't excuse it for being evil.

      Of course, there are many Christians who believe in a much more reasonable and benevolent god, so that's different.
    • diggit83, on 02/28/2008, -2/+4Me too....to bad it doesn't exist.
    • gudnbluts, on 02/28/2008, -1/+1The gay night club? Each to his own.
    • buhbyebot, on 02/28/2008, -0/+0Dug your ass down. Why? Because I think you're a ***** idiot, that's why.
  • plecostomus, on 02/28/2008, -2/+3Good read.
  • shcforward, on 02/28/2008, -0/+10I like what this article tries to accomplish. The fact of the matter is that what the public sees and the media portrays as evolutionary theory is not always accurate (go figure). Many of the common counter-arguments to evolution can be chalked up to bad public relations, people explaining things incorrectly, or in some cases simple bad science.

    Anyone who has followed the debate knows about the forged embryo drawings and things like that - the problem is that Creationists try to make people think that these individual people misleading the public is a logical counter-argument to the actual theory. It's not. It's just particular people being dbags. It is just as silly as atheists saying that Christianity is wrong because of the Crusades - it was just a bunch of war-mongering, greedy a-holes living in a pro-warfare culture who used Christianity as an excuse. Sometimes it is hard to see the forest from the trees, I guess.
  • macweirdo42, on 02/28/2008, -5/+37Let's be frank - the only misperceptions about evolution stem from the fact that some people don't want to believe in evolution. It's not a simple misunderstanding - it's deliberate deception perpetuated by a bunch of yahoos who are terrified that the forces of science, logic, and reason will put an end to their lucrative careers collecting money in the name of God. They're nothing but a bunch of filthy beggars in sharp suits. It's just disgusting. If there is a God, I truly feel nothing but pity for Him, being treated the way he is.
    • michael43, on 02/28/2008, -9/+7All Christians are not "filthy beggars in sharp suits" It's obvious that the basic message of Christianity has eluded you. Why don't you stop and think about how the world would be if everyone treated others the way they want to be treated, if everyone loved their neighbor as their self, if no one murdered, raped or stole, if we all honored our parents and lived in peace. Sure, there are people who profit off of organized religion, but their are sincere, good God fearing people there working in the churches as well.
      • Logicexe, on 02/28/2008, -2/+12He never said that all Christians were filthy beggars in sharp suits, I suggest you reread his post. As for your long list of things that would be great for the world, none of those things are exclusive to the Christian religion, but anyway, that's a discussion for another day.
        • michael43, on 02/28/2008, -6/+4What are you, his lawyer? I suggest you reread his comments and mine..then explain to me why you feel you need to defend him. You Atheists sure do stick togeather, but then again, so does most forms of crap.
          • Logicexe, on 02/28/2008, -2/+7Wow, no need to get so defensive and immature. Do you always get angry and resort to name calling when someone disagrees with you? Do you praise Jesus with that hate filled mouth?
          • geomon, on 02/28/2008, -1/+5What a wonderful representative of the Christian faith you seem to have become. Nowhere in the original post was the word "Christian" even implied.
          • macweirdo42, on 02/28/2008, -0/+5In fact, I intentionally avoided the use of the word "Christian" because I feel those idiots are not a fair representation of what Christianity is all about. Okay, so no, I'm not a Christian. No, I don't even buy into any religion. Nonetheless, I simply cannot stand it when I see people being used. Every day, I see Christians being used by corrupt bastards with no morals or scruples whatsoever - all I wanted to do was raise the issue, because I don't think it's right in the least.
          • Ramble, on 02/29/2008, -0/+3Christian persecution complex. Nothing more.
        • michael43, on 02/28/2008, -7/+2Let's see...anybody that disagrees with you is immature. Ok. I don't hate you though, I actually feel sorry for you. It does get old trying to live up to what an Atheist thinks a Christian should be. Christians are not perfect and neither are you, we are all sinners. The only differance is that one is forgiven and the other one isn't. All anybody has to do is ask though. On a personal level, I think that old saying "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen" fits you to a tee.
          • Logicexe, on 02/28/2008, -2/+6You're a funny guy, you have a great talent of taking things people say and totally misunderstanding their point. I accused you of being immature for resorting to ad hominem attacks, not for disagreeing with me. It's good that you don't hate me, I don't hate you either, but I do think you have some anger issues you should take a look at, then again it could just be your online tough guy persona.

            Take your false pity somewhere else, I really don't care what you think about me and I know that you don't either.

            I don't know where you got the idea that I think I'm perfect, or where you got the idea that I think Christians should be perfect, for that matter I don't remember ever mentioning whether I was an Atheist or not. You seem to like making baseless assumptions about people you barely know, why is that?
          • geomon, on 02/28/2008, -2/+6"Let's see...anybody that disagrees with you is immature."

            No, but you certainly have a huge chip on your shoulder. Where in this thread did the word "Christian" enter?

            Your post?
          • michael43, on 02/29/2008, -1/+1@Logicexe & Geomon & the rest - Listen ladies, try not to get your panties in a knot. I realize it's hard to present a coherent argument with the limited facilities you have, but do your best. Instead of ganging up like jackals with a fresh kill, why not put a little thought into your responses. At least try to be entertaining. I don't know if any of you will check this post today, but if you do, I eagerly await your nest post. Each and everyone of you really are "special", that's why you get to ride the short school bus.
          • Logicexe, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1Michael, I can feel your Christian love emanating from every pore in your body. Have a nice day.
          • Ramble, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2Michael, do you even read what people are writing, and especialyl what you're writing? You're the only one being offensive and rude here.
        • michael43, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1@ logicexe - Is that the best u can do?
      • dropbox, on 02/28/2008, -2/+0Ever hear the phrase "The pursuit of happiness?" It eloquently describes that peace is a never-ending goal, infinitely unobtainable, yet universally understood. Why infinitely unobtainable? Because the mere notion of peace is rooted in happiness. Yet happiness is completely different from person to person. So if a society was to "live in peace", the entire community would have to be docile sheep living out their lives in complete obedience to the main ideal. But this isn't a world of progress, it's a nightmare of everlasting conservatism. Therefore there can't be peace, that is unless you define peace as continual progress granted by respectful argumentation.
        • michael43, on 02/28/2008, -2/+2And the psychoanalyst from South Park has checked in.....
      • macweirdo42, on 02/28/2008, -1/+7What's your bag, man? As has already been explained, I wasn't referring to "all Christians." Hell, a good percentage of Christians don't even reject evolution. I'm saying that the reason that some Christians do question evolution is simply because scumbag televangelists convinced them to, and only for the sake of protecting their own personal brand of *****. Christ, I may be an atheist, but this was not meant as an attack on religion - I was simply pointing out how good-hearted people with nothing but good intentions are being bilked by a bunch of slimeball scam artists, and suddenly I'm getting the third degree?
        • michael43, on 02/28/2008, -5/+2You didnt' say anything like that, I see that any response other than "go weirdo" is catagoried as the third degree. I realize now that you are a saint...change your nick to St. McWerido. By the way, you have your own personal brand of ***** too, and it stinks as bad as any.
          • macweirdo42, on 02/28/2008, -2/+5No, in fact, I appreciate criticism. You just seemed to be going off on a misunderstanding. I never attacked Christianity. I never attacked Christians. I merely attacked those sleaze bag televangelists who don't even deserve to be called Christian. That's who I meant by "filthy beggars in sharp suits." Who else could I possibly be talking about? Really - I'm not against Christianity. I think you guys have got a fine religion worked out for yourselves... It's just that you have to acknowledge that you do tend to be easily persuaded by jerks who enjoy abusing power.
        • geomon, on 02/28/2008, -1/+7"...change your nick to St. McWerido."

          Add the ad hominem attack and BOOYAH! - A triple hat trick!

          You are losing ground quickly.

          Did it ever occur to you that in order to persuade people to see your point of view you must: 1) be semi-courteous of their point of view, 2) avoid name calling, and 3) have a point?
          • michael43, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1Did it ever occur to you that I don't give a rat's ass what u think?
          • Ramble, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1It's fine if you don't care what he thinks, but if your only defense is personal attacks, then no-one will care what you think.
          • Logicexe, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1Why do you keep posting unless you care about what others think? Why not just walk away and forget about this thread?
    • dropbox, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3Exactly. The article's first point, "The origin of life," is a direct link to such deliberate misinformation. Since when does Evolutionary theory entail Abiogenesis?
  • Cerebron, on 02/28/2008, -2/+4'He started by noting that simply defining life is as much of a philosophical question as a biological one. He settled on the following: "a self replicating system capable of Darwinian evolution," and focused on getting from naturally forming chemicals to that point.'

    Let me know when they develop sustainable 'self replicating' systems. That would go a long way in solving our energy crisis.
    • wonderchemist, on 02/28/2008, -0/+8Life isn't a sustainable 'self replicating' system. Life requires the input of outside energy, almost all life on earth is directly dependent on the sun.
    • kfed2, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2Is a computer virus a life form? There are more qualifications than reproduction.
  • offcenter, on 02/28/2008, -14/+6FTA: "...due to the highly technical material and a flood of misinformation on the topic, the public (and even many scientists) simply don't know what the current state of knowledge is when it comes from evolution."

    It's a completely dogmatic argument that no one wants to admit they are having. People who state the obvious about evolution are branded religious nuts. Meanwhile life just gets more complex with each new discovery, while the other side blindly claims that

    Chaos + Time = Information.

    When the state of the argument is as low-brow and nasty as it is -- what else should we expect?





    • cranium, on 02/28/2008, -4/+4I see you're not above using a low-brow straw man argument.
    • eir574, on 02/28/2008, -1/+3What are you talking about when you refer to people who "state the obvious about evolution?" I find that when non-scientists talk about common sense and "obvious" problems with scientific theories, they often forget that common sense only gets you so far in science. Our brains look for patterns in noise all the time, and that results in us seeing order that isn't there. Randomness tends not to be an intuitive concept for people (which is not to imply that I'm calling natural selection a random process -- the mutations it acts upon are random). We're also bad at understanding very long periods of time.
      • offcenter, on 02/29/2008, -1/+2If someone skeptical of evolution questions abiogenesis, for instance, you get the "you're only saying that because..." bit. It's lame.

        The truth of the matter is that evolution happens so slowly that it can't be tested. It isn't useful moving forward either -- except in terms of living in a world that only "appears" to be very, very, very, very, very,

        very...

        ...finely tuned.

        There was a time when people like Kant, Descartes, Kierkegaard, Aquinas, Augustine of Plato could throw around the concept of God -- life, the universe and everything responsibly (and constructively.)

        Those days are gone.
        • eir574, on 02/29/2008, -0/+4When people say that they're skeptical of evolution because it does not explain abiogenesis or the origins of the universe, the standard answer is that evolution is not meant to explain those things. Is that what you're saying is lame? Why? The theory of evolution is very clear about what it's starting point is. If you believe that the universe could never have gotten to that starting point on its own, that still does not invalidate evolution.
          We can observe natural selection on a small scale, as in the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. I even read somewhere that the average tusk length in elephants has decreased, most likely due to the selective pressure poachers put on the elephant population when they prefer to kill elephants with larger tusks.
          Assuming you accept the antibiotic resistance example, I assume you will then say that this is microevolution (change within a species), but not macroevolution. I wish I knew which digg commenter originally said this, but is that like the difference between microwalking, which gets me to the end of the block, and macrowalking, which could, given enough time, get me across the country?

          In the end, natural selection is useful as a theory because it is predictive. In that sense, one can think of any scientific theory as a model for how the universe works. If you learned anything about quantum chemistry in high school, you were probably given oversimplified explanations of the quantum mechanical world. But, those simple explanations formed a model that helped you understand more about chemistry. They would also have helped you predict other observed phenomena.

          If you went on to study quantum mechanics in college or beyond, you would have replaced that oversimplified model with a more detailed one. But, still, do we really know that the model we call quantum mechanics reflects some absolute truth about the universe? Probably not. If it in some way helps us to understand existing observations and to predict new ones, then it's useful. If evidence comes along that isn't consistent with the model, then the model changes, and we hope it's closer to that absolute truth than before. Perhaps one can view evolution in the same way.
    • TheCatsPants, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1oops - wrong place
  • Abaddon1125, on 02/28/2008, -3/+6Scientifically speaking, there's no evidence for a god, so I won't wast any time feeling anything for one. That said, I agree with the rest of your comment wholeheartedly. Evolution is a valid theory that has made predictions which have been tested for well over a century, and has not been disproved. The only debate comes from people who listen to the weak arguments creationists bring to the table and believe them, for whatever reason. The only debate about whether evolution happens or not comes from religious camps and conspiracy theory types, and I think it's safe to say these nutters don't know what they're talking about.
    • kfed2, on 02/28/2008, -4/+3All the major world religions have some significant evidence supporting them. I don't want to get into it because that is an exhaustive discussion, I probably have 1000 cumulative hours studying this subject.
      I studied several different faiths, including atheism. I chose the belief system that required the smallest jump between the verifiable evidence in support of the belief, and the conclusions drawn by that faith group. I did this because I am a man of little faith.
      Personally, I believe Atheism requires the most faith because it has too many gaping holes in it (i.e. where did the stuff that the big bang is made out of come from, and/or how long did it have to wait before it expanded, and what caused the expansion?) I know the occurrence of the big bank is now in question, but you get my point.
      I encourage you to take a look at the evidences supporting different faith groups, especially while you are still alive.
      • eir574, on 02/28/2008, -1/+4There's another viewpoint that you may not have considered. I can't fill all of the "gaping holes" you see in atheism's ability to explain the universe, but I don't need to. I don't need to know where the universe came from. Sure, it would be nice to know, but I've made peace with the idea that I may never have that answer. While we're on the topic of the big bang, though, I'd like to point out that just because many people say we don't know where the "stuff that the big bang is made out of" came from, that doesn't mean there aren't people who have at least a partial answer/hypothesis. For instance, look up vacuum fluctuations. Unfortunately, most of us don't find quantum mechanics to be very intuitive, and that's the realm where a lot of answers to questions such as yours lie. So, I have also accepted the fact that even if/when humanity finds answers to some of the big mysteries of the universe, I may not personally be able to understand them fully.
        • kfed2, on 02/28/2008, -3/+2I see your view, and you are right, I did not consider it. I have a degree in a science, and my current profession is based on the same line of thought - deducing facts based on available evidence. Call this a handicap if you will, but I cannot believe something when there is a competing theory that is much more supported by the evidence. The best alternative is to believe that all theories are potentially right, and delay making up your mind.
          You appear to be betting that your view will eventually be verified by advances in science. That is a legitimate faith, and nobody can argue that future discoveries will not come through for you.
          By the way, what little I know about quantum mechanics is fascinating. I can't wait to see what that field will produce.
        • eir574, on 02/28/2008, -1/+3kfed2: I am not betting that my view will eventually be verified by advances in science. I'm saying that regardless of whether questions are answered by science in the future, I'm okay with that. If the available evidence is not strong enough to provide me with a scientific answer to a question, then I don't need to look elsewhere -- the question remains unanswered, potentially for the rest of my life and beyond. If science couldn't tell me why the sun rose in the morning and set in the evening, I would not turn to supernatural causes to look for an answer. Perhaps we have a different opinion of what constitutes evidence. It sounds like you consider religious answers to questions to be competing theories. I don't, because those answers are not falsifiable, and furthermore, they don't help me predict answers to other questions. My lab researches control over gene expression. If you were to tell me that you believed that a deity controls which genes are turned on and off, that wouldn't be very predictive (particularly if you also told me that I can never know the mind of the deity). Plus, I'd probably just ask you where the deity came from. To me, that's no better than not knowing where the universe came from.
          • kfed2, on 02/29/2008, -1/+2Blind faith is believing without empirical reason. I equate that with superstition. Sadly, most religious people seem to operate on blind faith.
            I have never considered religious answers to questions unless they came from a credible source. I will borrow the following from something I posted earlier:
            All major religions have some empirical evidence in their support. Read what the people thought of Muhammad's Koran - this kid, probably 14 years old, goes into a cave, and comes out with information in the form of a work of literature that he could not possibly have produced.
            The Roman equivalent to a media was hurting for stories around the time of Jesus - read what people wrote about his death and resurrection. I can't remember if it was 120 or 220 books that were written about him during and shortly after his life.
            Bottom line is that you cannot consider any religious teachings valid unless it is intellectually justifiable to you. That is, can you reasonably accept the conclusions drawn by that faith based ENTIRELY on the empirical evidence in support of that faith?
            Historians know Jesus existed and lived the life described in the Bible. What is disputed are the supernatural acts, such as the resurrection, and His claim to be God. If you find the evidence in support of his resurrection and claims strong enough to convince you, then you are free to consider believing that what Jesus said about the future will come true. Since future events cannot be verified, this belief is a trust (AKA faith) in the belief system.
          • nitsuj, on 02/29/2008, -1/+1"I can't remember if it was 120 or 220 books that were written about him during and shortly after his life."

            You can't remember? Let me remind you: 0 for books written about him during his life.
          • kfed2, on 03/02/2008, -0/+1citation?
      • geomon, on 02/28/2008, -1/+5This subject has NOTHING to do with evolution, but hey, you posted it:

        "All the major world religions have some significant evidence supporting them."

        Care to provide any of this evidence?

        "I don't want to get into it because that is an exhaustive discussion, I probably have 1000 cumulative hours studying this subject."

        Yeah, just posting a claim is much easier than posting proof. That is why the scientific method requires that you publish your result so that your peers can pound the living ***** out of you.

        Much more robust than making flimsy claims with absolutely no supporting evidence.

        "I studied several different faiths, including atheism."

        Then you never studied "atheism" or you would have run smack dab against the Greek roots of the word: a (no) theism (religion).

        "I chose the belief system that required the smallest jump between the verifiable evidence in support of the belief, and the conclusions drawn by that faith group. I did this because I am a man of little faith."

        And little education as well. To become a Rabbi in the Jewish Orthodox faith requires significantly more than the 1000 hours you were willing to commit. Becoming a licensed Cosmetologist in most states requires more education than you've dedicated to your spirituality.

        "Personally, I believe Atheism requires the most faith because it has too many gaping holes in it (i.e. where did the stuff that the big bang is made out of come from, and/or how long did it have to wait before it expanded, and what caused the expansion?)"

        Well, since atheism (you don't need to capitalize it, really) is the *absence* of belief, we don't need to prove anything. There is nothing in the universe that can't be explained without resorting to a supernatural force. What happens outside of the universe is irrelevant (to me).

        "I know the occurrence of the big bank is now in question, but you get my point."

        The occurrence of the big bank? Chase-Manhattan or CitiGroup? No, I don't get your point.

        If you are talking about the Big Bang, then perhaps you would be so kind as to provide the citation for the peer reviewed journal where that theory is called into question.

        I would like to read that paper.

        "I encourage you to take a look at the evidences supporting different faith groups, especially while you are still alive."

        Looking at the evidences after we are dead would be impossible.
        • kfed2, on 02/28/2008, -3/+1You seem to have quite a bit of time on your hands. more than me, I quit reading when you said I was not qualified of being a Rabbi.
          I am not going to go through the evidence I looked at in detail any more than the other poster is going to post the details about vacuum fluctuations. If you are truly curious about this evidence you don't seem to accept or be aware of, here is a starting place:
          Read what the people thought of Muhammad's Koran - this kid, probably 14 years old, goes into a cave, and comes out with information in the form of a work of literature that he could not possibly have produced.
          The Roman equivalent to a media was hurting for stories around the time of Jesus - read what people wrote about his death and resurrection. I can't remember if it was 120 or 220 books that were written about him during and shortly after his life.
          It is no secret, look it up any day you want. Just make sure you do it before you die FOR THE SAKE OF THE SOUL you might find yourself owning.
        • geomon, on 02/28/2008, -1/+2"You seem to have quite a bit of time on your hands. more than me, I quit reading when you said I was not qualified of being a Rabbi."

          You quit reading LONG before that statement.
        • nitsuj, on 02/29/2008, -1/+3"I can't remember if it was 120 or 220 books that were written about him during and shortly after his life."

          I'd like you to post references to these books written *during* his supposed life. For myself, I seem wholly unable to find such evidence.

          "Just make sure you do it before you die FOR THE SAKE OF THE SOUL you might find yourself owning."

          Weak. hollow threat. Is this because your beliefs are, at their core, grounded in fear of death?
          • kfed2, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1I am not going to dig up your books, that is your job. My beliefs are grounded in the facts, and the advice I gave you is a result of those facts. Without the facts there is no fear.
          • nitsuj, on 02/29/2008, -1/+1I think we may have a different definition for the word 'fact'. The reason that you can't reference the books written during his life is because they do not exist.
          • kfed2, on 03/02/2008, -0/+1What I am telling you is common knowledge among historians. I will not bother to reference something you can google in 10 seconds. I have a VERY well researched position, and it is your freedom to attack and insult me because I choose not to reproduce 1000 or so hours of research here on digg.
            If you have something to say, you are welcome as far as I am concerned, but please leave the insults home.
      • flatlinebb, on 02/28/2008, -1/+1You got served!
    • MisterEX, on 02/28/2008, -2/+3You can't disprove there's a god anymore than you can try and prove there's a god. It's a stalemate. And in the end, no matter how much evidence science can gather about evolution, it will still never disprove the existence of a god. Why does it always have to be EVOLUTION vs. RELIGION. Can not the two co-exist?
      • kfed2, on 02/28/2008, -4/+1They can co exist. I only said that evolution is, by itself, inadequate.
        I also agree that Gods existence cannot be proven or disprove, that is why I go by evidence.
        • kfed2, on 02/28/2008, -3/+1.
        • nitsuj, on 02/29/2008, -1/+3What 'evidence'? A bunch of hearsay and ancient superstitious texts?
          • kfed2, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1If you don't agree with me, that is OK, but please take the bigoting elsewhere. According to "hearsay and ancient superstitious texts" Christopher Columbus discovered America. Don't be so quick to dismiss historical findings before you look into them yourself. You should make up your own mind, after examining ALL the evidence.
          • nitsuj, on 02/29/2008, -1/+1It's not being bigotted. You're the one talking about evidence whilst being wholly unable to provide any. I'm just calling you on it and like a religious sour-puss you don't like it.

            Also, you should be aware that Christopher Columbus did not discover America. Maybe you should make up your mind after understanding what evidence is.
          • kfed2, on 03/02/2008, -0/+1Nothing personal, but you come across as about 15 years old and angry. I would work on credibility if I were you.
      • geomon, on 02/28/2008, -1/+3"You can't disprove there's a god anymore than you can try and prove there's a god."

        The discussion is irrelevant to the *scientific* of the origin of life. You can construct a *scientific* theory of the origin of life without having to rely on supernatural intervention. You can explain the workings of the universe without having to rely on supernatural intervention. That is why religious people continue to make the claim that science cannot tell the "why" of the universe despite providing theories for "how" it began.

        "It's a stalemate."

        Only if you care about *which* God you invoke.

        http://adherents.com/

        Pick your deity. You have no objective way to prove or disprove the existence of *any* of these mythical characters.

        "And in the end, no matter how much evidence science can gather about evolution, it will still never disprove the existence of a god."

        But that is because evolution isn't asking that question. You are building your argument on a false premise.

        You don't see that, do you?

        "Why does it always have to be EVOLUTION vs. RELIGION. Can not the two co-exist?"

        Not as long as you keep constructing false tautologies.
      • cranium, on 02/29/2008, -1/+5- You can't disprove there's a god anymore than you can try and prove there's a god. It's a stalemate. -
        Wrong. Logically, the burden of proof is on those who claim some god exists, NOT on those who are skeptical. So far, that side has offered NO evidence. Their utter failure to support their position is far from a "stalemate".
  • Hetman, on 02/28/2008, -0/+7I never understood why people thought that evolution explained the orign of life. Seriously it is a totally different subject. It is sad though because you cannot have an intellegent conversation with anyone with out someone screaming "WELL THEN WHEN DID THE FIRST ORGANISM EXIST." Im like cool down evolution just explain how simple organism evolved not how they were created.
    • kfed2, on 02/28/2008, -0/+4When you present evolution to people, they are expecting an explanation for life on earth. If evolution is only part of the picture they will inevitably see evolution as incomplete, which they likely equate with incorrectness.
    • Hetman, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3I agree with you. But people never deny that gravity exists. And we are not even close to fully understanding all of its effects.
      • kfed2, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1Explaining the effects and cause is not the same as explaining the fact that it exists.
  • garryw, on 02/28/2008, -11/+4I think there is far more life in the universe than we know about. I also believe God created it all. Good luck proving me wrong.
    • loopis, on 02/28/2008, -3/+6Sheep.
      • MisterEX, on 02/28/2008, -4/+3Sheep? You call him a sheep? I would bet he believes more in a God than anything you can grasp. A sheep does not believe in something with a great passion and love that many religious people do. A sheep stands emotionless "baaing" as things pass it by, which is not unlike what you are doing. Let him be.
    • Hetman, on 02/28/2008, -3/+3Well I did create everything in the universe and their is life through out the entire universe. I have decided not to use my powers anymore because I want people to have faith in me. So I should not need to show them proof. Good luck trying to prove me wrong.
      • gudnbluts, on 02/28/2008, -4/+0Does anyone have two planks and a bunch of nails handy?
        • gudnbluts, on 02/29/2008, -0/+0Dunno why I'm getting dugg down. Just a joke, folks.
      • Hetman, on 02/28/2008, -2/+4Go for It I will rise in 3 days. or 4 depending on what time of day Im cruxified. Give me your undieing faith and you will be born into eternal life. Peace be with you.
    • heffae, on 02/28/2008, -1/+11I believe there is a small china teapot orbiting Jupiter. It is unfortunately too small to be seen by our telescopes. Good luck proving me wrong.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
    • Daz3, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3"Good luck proving me wrong."
      I give you the benefit of the doubt; I sensed a lot of sarcasm in your post :)
      However, if you are being serious then the burden of proof is on you buddy, not us. We can not prove you wrong until you have at least a coherent argument backed up by empirical evidence that points towards the existence of God.
      • MisterEX, on 02/28/2008, -2/+3Well, I believe his argument would be, "Just wait, when your life comes to an end, you'll see all the proof you need."
        • JDove6, on 02/28/2008, -0/+4What a cop out.
        • Daz3, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1That argument holds no wait, in fact, that argument in its entirety is just a manifestation of the 'appeal to consequence' logical fallacy; not a hard argument to dismiss. That is two attempts at creating an argument in favor of God and two logical fallacies - nice strike rate.
    • buhbyebot, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3Poe's law is all over the place here today.
      Seriously, the proof is on you to deliver, not the other way around.
      I also believe there is another earth orbiting the opposite side of the sun to our planet. We cannot se it because it is on the exact opposite side. There is an entire race of people like here, and I have an exact replica over there in every way as do we all. Prove me wrong.
    • SupaFurry, on 02/28/2008, -1/+3If you think science can "prove" God did not create the whole shebang, then you really do not understand the nature of science, logic, or religion.
  • Pinkertinkle, on 02/28/2008, -11/+3God created the earth and everything on it 6000 years ago, end of story. It says so in the HOLY bible. No eggheads with too many letters behind their names are going to convince me otherwise
    • cranium, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2You've brought Poe's Law to mind:
      http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Poe ...
    • talonstriker, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1/sarcasm
      //sarcasm
    • br0k3nglass, on 02/28/2008, -2/+3Santa brings me presents and lives in the North Pole, end of story. I saw him in a movie that I watched. You'll never convince me otherwise.
    • buhbyebot, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2Peterthinklittlle, your comment is missing a few things, oh right, facts. I'm claiming "Poe's Law" here as well.
    • Pinkertinkle, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2Wow I didn't know there was a named law for this kind of thing
    • JDove6, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2by "HOLY" do you mean "holes throughout." So I guess you think people were smarter and knew more back when they were cutting holes in their skulls to cure headaches? When their state of the art material was bronze? Oh wait, God allowed us to learn more as to test our faith...Give me a break. Who created God out of nothing?
    • DopplerDuck, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1The real truth is that I may be a donut, but you're a cube!
      :-D
    • Hetman, on 02/28/2008, -0/+5The only person who created God out of nothing was some primate who didnt understand what the hell lightning was. And I dont blame him that some scary *****.
  • CasualReader, on 02/28/2008, -1/+15As a science teacher, I often find myself defending evolution to both students and adults. Most of the religious creationists I have talked with are not stupid or thoughtless. The do however, seem to have a different way of defining "Truth" than I do. First, they are insulted that the school system and the scientific establishment seem to insult their faith, they take it personally! This sets up a BIG roadblock. Second, they feel that evolution takes away the "meaning" of human life, the idea that man was created by God for a given purpose rather than evolving through random events over time. Third, they have a warped idea of how science works, usually equating the scientific process with the way religious groups discuss beliefs and moral concepts. Trying to sell evolution to these people without taking into account their mindset is doomed to failure, and worse, to anger. I have had some (limited) success by explaining evolution in a non threatening way and trying to explain how science and religion approach things in a different way. It ain't easy ........
    • eir574, on 02/28/2008, -0/+6I'd be very curious to know what techniques you've found to be successful.
      • CasualReader, on 02/28/2008, -0/+4Nothing simple, unfortunately. Sometimes I describe a scientific theory as being able to predict something new, something useful to researchers, doctors, etc. Creationism, even if "true", doesn't help a doctor trying to understand how bird flu might become the next pandemic or a biologist to predict what happens to a population of deer when wolves are reintroduced to the local environment. So a creationist might see evolution as "useful" without having to necessarily accept it as "true" in the religious sense. This allows him to think about it without his faith shutting him down.
        I once commented to a ninth grade student who was an ardent creationist that he should study evolution theory (the real one, not the distorted version described in creationist literature) in order to fight it. His face lit up and he really applied himself!
    • flatlinebb, on 02/28/2008, -0/+4You are doing the Lord's work, CasualReader.
  • st1nkf1nger, on 02/28/2008, -13/+3Evolutionists are like UFO believers.. They keep piling up this disconnected "evidence" to lend credence to their arrogant theories because they want so badly for it to be true..

    Where are the modern crossover stages?

    Where are the little green men?
    • Hetman, on 02/28/2008, -0/+8You obviously didn't read the article. Or you would have read the part about transitional fossils. I would post a link for you. But it would be easier for you to just go up click on the link and read the article. And it is more than one page so passe yourself I wouldn't want you to get over loaded or anything.
    • cranium, on 02/28/2008, -0/+6That's really funny. Every piece of evidence in existence is consistent with evolution.

      Where's your evidence for God? Oh that's right, you don't have any. Hypocrite.
    • SupaFurry, on 02/28/2008, -0/+6Oh look, a poster to an internet discussion board just made himself look absolutely retarded via some absurd and blatantly idiotic statements. Amazing.
    • geomon, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2talk.origns
  • DopplerDuck, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2Beautiful.
  • Haytoe, on 02/29/2008, -0/+0:
  • lopla, on 02/29/2008, -5/+1MORE ATHEIST PROPAGANDA YOU ALL THINK YOU'RE SO CUTE WITH YOUR SCIENCE AND LIES!! HOW'S THIS FOR A LAW YOU BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION THEN BURN IN HELLFIRE FOREVER! 78% OF AMERICANS ARE CHRISTIANS AND WE WILL NOT STAND FOR THIS!!
    • turboblake, on 02/29/2008, -0/+7lopla, I was really surprised by this comment and wasn't sure if you were being sarcastic or not. So I went and read some of your other comments that you've posted and I've got to say that as someone who claims to be such a devout Christian you seem to constantly be preaching hate. Christianity teaches us to have love for our fellow man, and I can absolutely say that its people like you that really turn people away from having any faith. God and religion can be a very positive thing, but what you preach is hatred and judgment, and I think the latter job belongs to God, don't you agree?
  • Ramble, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2I'm willing to be convinced by any religion. Please just show me evidence (proper evidence, not what a book says) that it's true and I'll join you.
  • ozziedog, on 03/01/2008, -0/+5More people know about American Idol than they do about evolution. There is a lot of proof for evolution but that would require actually reading when every Sunday they get a competing theory with no proof at all that they aren't going to read either. Religion is a guidebook for the intellectually lazy.
  • lolo2007, on 06/24/2008, -0/+0I never understood why people thought that evolution explained the orign of life. Seriously it is a totally different subject. It is sad though because you cannot have an intellegent conversation with anyone with out someone screaming "WELL THEN WHEN DID THE FIRST ORGANISM EXIST." Im like cool down evolution just explain how simple organism evolved not how they were created

    http://vb.paramegsoft.com/12620.html
    http://vb.paramegsoft.com/12616.html
    http://vb.paramegsoft.com/12615.html
    http://girls.paramegsoft.com/category/2/2
    http://girls.paramegsoft.com/category/7/7
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.