Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Evolution 2.0: Now with rewind!

2»

Posts

  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    saggio wrote: »
    Andorien wrote: »
    CangoFett wrote: »
    So um, I just want to point out, even though im sure its common knowledge, that the belief in a created universe/intelligent design/magical sky wizard and evolution, arent mutually exclusive. There are plenty of non retarded creationists that see things like natural selection and evolution, and say, "Yeah, that makes sense" Its like reeses cups. Only now the peanut butter is God.

    And the chocolate is delicious science.

    Creationism, as it's currently used (IE, what people are trying to force into schools) hold that living creatures were, well, created in their current state, and have changed very little over time.

    In other words, nonsense that isn't in any way supported by evidence.

    I'd just like to point out that yes, it's possible to be a creationist while also accepting everything about modern evolutionary theory. And you even won't contradict yourself.

    No, it is not. Creationism by definition is a rejection of evolution. You are talking about theistic evolution, which is "Yeah, it totally happens, yay for science, that's just how God does his thing."

    Theistic evolution I would imagine is fine by most scientists. I don't think anyone has a convincing answer for "Yeah, but seriously, Why?" yet, just like we Physicists don't have a great answer for "Err, where did the big bang come from?"

    If you want to say "I reckon it's God", then that is a fine hypothesis. A scientist would ask you to produce a plan for a god detection experiment though to validate your hypothesis. Well, perhaps not a string theorist.

    Your puny weapons are useless against me
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    When I open a jar of peanut butter, there's still no life inside it. Fail.

    Seriously, though, this is definitely interesting work but I don't really see why it was necessary for the OP to invoke ID here. I don't think this does much to address any religious beliefs. It doesn't "prove" we came from apes any more than before.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Yar wrote: »
    When I open a jar of peanut butter, there's still no life inside it. Fail.

    Seriously, though, this is definitely interesting work but I don't really see why it was necessary for the OP to invoke ID here. I don't think this does much to address any religious beliefs. It doesn't "prove" we came from apes any more than before.

    We are apes so we have to come from apes.

  • TrevorTrevor Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Titmouse wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    When I open a jar of peanut butter, there's still no life inside it. Fail.

    Seriously, though, this is definitely interesting work but I don't really see why it was necessary for the OP to invoke ID here. I don't think this does much to address any religious beliefs. It doesn't "prove" we came from apes any more than before.

    We are apes so we have to come from apes.

    From my understanding we didn't "come from" apes so much as "share an ancestor" with apes. It's a subtle difference, but it's one of the common misunderstandings that many of the "We ain't monkeys!" creationists like to lean on.

    sigleftyp0.pngbaty8.pngzuneenderfinaltw6.png
  • Mr_RoseMr_Rose Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Yar wrote: »
    When I open a jar of peanut butter, there's still no life inside it. Fail.

    Seriously, though, this is definitely interesting work but I don't really see why it was necessary for the OP to invoke ID here. I don't think this does much to address any religious beliefs. It doesn't "prove" we came from apes any more than before.
    I didn't "invoke" anything. I idly speculated on what the inevitable reaction of the ID crowd would be to categorical proof that something they say does not occur has in fact occurred and can be replayed almost at will.
    Also, there are a number of vocal ID proponents who insist that ID has nothing to do with God or religion in general and is simply an alternate hypothesis of the origin of the diversity of life on Earth.

    Also, what has your jar of peanut butter got to do with evolution?

    ...because dragons are AWESOME! That's why.
    Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
    DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Trevor wrote: »
    Titmouse wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    When I open a jar of peanut butter, there's still no life inside it. Fail.

    Seriously, though, this is definitely interesting work but I don't really see why it was necessary for the OP to invoke ID here. I don't think this does much to address any religious beliefs. It doesn't "prove" we came from apes any more than before.

    We are apes so we have to come from apes.

    From my understanding we didn't "come from" apes so much as "share an ancestor" with apes. It's a subtle difference, but it's one of the common misunderstandings that many of the "We ain't monkeys!" creationists like to lean on.

    I mean we are a member of the great ape family.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape

  • TrevorTrevor Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Titmouse wrote: »
    Trevor wrote: »
    Titmouse wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    When I open a jar of peanut butter, there's still no life inside it. Fail.

    Seriously, though, this is definitely interesting work but I don't really see why it was necessary for the OP to invoke ID here. I don't think this does much to address any religious beliefs. It doesn't "prove" we came from apes any more than before.

    We are apes so we have to come from apes.

    From my understanding we didn't "come from" apes so much as "share an ancestor" with apes. It's a subtle difference, but it's one of the common misunderstandings that many of the "We ain't monkeys!" creationists like to lean on.

    I mean we are a member of the great ape family.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape

    Ah, fair enough. I prefer to consider myself one of the Grape Ape family of the Hannabarbarus, though.

    sigleftyp0.pngbaty8.pngzuneenderfinaltw6.png
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Right, guys, I wasn't trying to make an argument for ID... no one needs to tell me about apes. I'm saying I don't see how this experiment changes anything in that regard. Most creationists seem to believe that microbes can mutate but that this has no relevance to the origin of species.

  • Mr_RoseMr_Rose Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Titmouse wrote: »
    Trevor wrote: »
    Titmouse wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    When I open a jar of peanut butter, there's still no life inside it. Fail.

    Seriously, though, this is definitely interesting work but I don't really see why it was necessary for the OP to invoke ID here. I don't think this does much to address any religious beliefs. It doesn't "prove" we came from apes any more than before.

    We are apes so we have to come from apes.

    From my understanding we didn't "come from" apes so much as "share an ancestor" with apes. It's a subtle difference, but it's one of the common misunderstandings that many of the "We ain't monkeys!" creationists like to lean on.

    I mean we are a member of the great ape family.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape

    I personally am in favour of re-classifying our species as Pan narrans, the storytelling ape, as suggested by at least one eminent personage.

    ...because dragons are AWESOME! That's why.
    Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
    DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
  • TrevorTrevor Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Yar wrote: »
    Right, guys, I wasn't trying to make an argument for ID... no one needs to tell me about apes. I'm saying I don't see how this experiment changes anything in that regard. Most creationists seem to believe that microbes can mutate but that this has no relevance to the origin of species.

    It does poke a fairly large hole in what many consider the Creationists strongest point because it sounds plausible, which is the idea of irreducible complexity, or the idea that some parts of anatomy are so complex that they could have not possibly evolved because there would be no benefit from being half-formed. Since this experiment has shown that three separate mutations that were not completely beneficial in their own regard enabled the bacteria to successfully metabolize citrate, it pretty much fully debunks the idea. If Creationists paid attention to science, this would be enough to make them radically shift their beliefs. Unfortunately, they choose to manipulate the results and hand-wave the whole thing away.

    sigleftyp0.pngbaty8.pngzuneenderfinaltw6.png
  • Bionic MonkeyBionic Monkey Registered User, ClubPA
    edited July 2008
    Yar wrote: »
    Right, guys, I wasn't trying to make an argument for ID... no one needs to tell me about apes. I'm saying I don't see how this experiment changes anything in that regard. Most creationists seem to believe that microbes can mutate but that this has no relevance to the origin of species.

    Going into the deeper arguments, most discussions I've had with creationists that accept mutations always return to the loss of genetic information, and that nothing is ever gained. This experiment is clear undeniable proof of a brand new ability, never before seen in the species, as a direct result of a changed environment.

    sig_megas_armed.jpg
  • Zilla360Zilla360 Spaaaace! In Space.Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    ^Yup, relatively speaking, this as big a change for the Bacteria as it would be for a Human to gain an entirely new digestive system, and thus being able to consume foods that were once toxic.

    Like Sandwiches from Gas Stations. :P

  • Zilla360Zilla360 Spaaaace! In Space.Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Yar wrote: »
    Right, guys, I wasn't trying to make an argument for ID... no one needs to tell me about apes. I'm saying I don't see how this experiment changes anything in that regard. Most creationists seem to believe that microbes can mutate but that this has no relevance to the origin of species.

    Going into the deeper arguments, most discussions I've had with creationists that accept mutations always return to the loss of genetic information, and that nothing is ever gained. This experiment is clear undeniable proof of a brand new ability, never before seen in the species, as a direct result of a changed environment.
    Just to add:
    GATTACA as a code has a syntax too, like almost any language. The letters might get swapped around in repair, but rarely are they destroyed. :)

    Introducing just the right amount of chaos (a mutation) isn't always bad (or indeed disastrous) for a species.

  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    I guess I wasn't as knowledgeable about creationist beliefs as I thought.

    I still think this is more valuable as a "hey look at this cool new thing science found" thread instead of a "hey look, and screw you stupid fundies" thread.

  • PirateJonPirateJon Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Think of is as "hey look at this cool new thing science found, now can you crazy fundies please STFU about the earth being 6000 years old and let us teach actual science?"

    Right freakin now, 18 percent of americans believe the sun revolves around the Earth. I mean... DAMN!

    all perfectionists are mediocre in their own eyes
  • Zilla360Zilla360 Spaaaace! In Space.Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Man, we ought to have a thread dedicated to the awesomely cool stuff science does every day, but it's getting harder to keep up.
    Like Chinese guys solving crazy neat maths problems from the 1800's. 8-)

  • Bionic MonkeyBionic Monkey Registered User, ClubPA
    edited July 2008
    PirateJon wrote: »
    Think of is as "hey look at this cool new thing science found, now can you crazy fundies please STFU about the earth being 6000 years old and let us teach actual science?"

    Right freakin now, 18 percent of americans believe the sun revolves around the Earth. I mean... DAMN!

    I... what? That... that can't be true, can it? That means one in five people I meet is too stupid to let live.

    sig_megas_armed.jpg
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Don't underestimate the number of people who are against anything they deem to be the product of certain kinds of "larger questions" science.

    There are a lot of people who if you told them that scientists recently proved that the sky is blue, they'd tell you they don't believe it.

  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    PirateJon wrote: »
    Think of is as "hey look at this cool new thing science found, now can you crazy fundies please STFU about the earth being 6000 years old and let us teach actual science?"

    Right freakin now, 18 percent of americans believe the sun revolves around the Earth. I mean... DAMN!

    I... what? That... that can't be true, can it? That means one in five people I meet is too stupid to let live.

    12 % of my 100-120 person college class got the "why do we have seasons" question wrong. Which is rather similar.

    On topic: that is ridiculously awesome but hasn't something extremely similar to this been done before with viruses?

    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • Raiden333Raiden333 Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    PirateJon wrote: »
    Think of is as "hey look at this cool new thing science found, now can you crazy fundies please STFU about the earth being 6000 years old and let us teach actual science?"

    Right freakin now, 18 percent of americans believe the sun revolves around the Earth. I mean... DAMN!

    I... what? That... that can't be true, can it? That means one in five people I meet is too stupid to let live.

    12 % of my 100-120 person college class got the "why do we have seasons" question wrong. Which is rather similar.

    On topic: that is ridiculously awesome but hasn't something extremely similar to this been done before with viruses?

    From what I remembered from HS Bio, I thought viruses aren't considered "alive"?

    camo_sig2.png
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Seasons are due to the earth's tilt on it's axis, right?

  • TastyfishTastyfish Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    PirateJon wrote: »
    Think of is as "hey look at this cool new thing science found, now can you crazy fundies please STFU about the earth being 6000 years old and let us teach actual science?"

    Right freakin now, 18 percent of americans believe the sun revolves around the Earth. I mean... DAMN!

    I... what? That... that can't be true, can it? That means one in five people I meet is too stupid to let live.

    12 % of my 100-120 person college class got the "why do we have seasons" question wrong. Which is rather similar.

    On topic: that is ridiculously awesome but hasn't something extremely similar to this been done before with viruses?

    Plate out bacteria at a low dilution, then each colony is a clone of just one bacteria - you then take a sample from each colony and grow them up - dilute them down and repeat. With a virus its harder to isolate them and culture them, plus bacteria are easier to observe and any changes are a little more noticeable.

  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Yar wrote: »
    Seasons are due to the earth's tilt on it's axis, right?

    Yes. The classic wrong answer is when someone tells you it's because of varying distances from the sun in the Earth's elliptical orbit (which as it turns out are actually negligible to the temperature of the Earth).

    the people that give that answer typically use smaller, less precise words.

    vvvvvv-dithw.png
  • Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Daedalus wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    Seasons are due to the earth's tilt on it's axis, right?

    Yes. The classic wrong answer is when someone tells you it's because of varying distances from the sun in the Earth's elliptical orbit (which as it turns out are actually negligible to the temperature of the Earth).

    the people that give that answer typically use smaller, less precise words.

    You know, honestly I wouldn't judge someone too harshly if they thought it was the varying distance thing.

  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Daedalus wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    Seasons are due to the earth's tilt on it's axis, right?

    Yes. The classic wrong answer is when someone tells you it's because of varying distances from the sun in the Earth's elliptical orbit (which as it turns out are actually negligible to the temperature of the Earth).

    the people that give that answer typically use smaller, less precise words.

    You know, honestly I wouldn't judge someone too harshly if they thought it was the varying distance thing.

    Nor would I. The only answer I'd get angry with someone (over the age of 15 or so) for would be "I dunno."

    vvvvvv-dithw.png
  • Raiden333Raiden333 Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Daedalus wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    Seasons are due to the earth's tilt on it's axis, right?

    Yes. The classic wrong answer is when someone tells you it's because of varying distances from the sun in the Earth's elliptical orbit (which as it turns out are actually negligible to the temperature of the Earth).

    the people that give that answer typically use smaller, less precise words.

    You know, honestly I wouldn't judge someone too harshly if they thought it was the varying distance thing.

    especially since 90% of the maps of the solar system I've seen in my early schooling make the orbit look extremely exaggerated.

    camo_sig2.png
  • ElldrenElldren 3067-6294-6208Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Titmouse wrote: »
    Trevor wrote: »
    Titmouse wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    When I open a jar of peanut butter, there's still no life inside it. Fail.

    Seriously, though, this is definitely interesting work but I don't really see why it was necessary for the OP to invoke ID here. I don't think this does much to address any religious beliefs. It doesn't "prove" we came from apes any more than before.

    We are apes so we have to come from apes.

    From my understanding we didn't "come from" apes so much as "share an ancestor" with apes. It's a subtle difference, but it's one of the common misunderstandings that many of the "We ain't monkeys!" creationists like to lean on.

    I mean we are a member of the great ape family.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape

    I did an entire 4th grade research project on precisely this.

    My teacher interrupted my presentation and gave me an F....

  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Raiden333 wrote: »
    Daedalus wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    Seasons are due to the earth's tilt on it's axis, right?

    Yes. The classic wrong answer is when someone tells you it's because of varying distances from the sun in the Earth's elliptical orbit (which as it turns out are actually negligible to the temperature of the Earth).

    the people that give that answer typically use smaller, less precise words.

    You know, honestly I wouldn't judge someone too harshly if they thought it was the varying distance thing.

    especially since 90% of the maps of the solar system I've seen in my early schooling make the orbit look extremely exaggerated.
    Yeah that's why I asked... I didn't think this was supposed to be common knowledge to be considered a valuable human being. I mean, seasons are annual, and our orbit is annual, so it would make sense that it was the orbit.

  • ElldrenElldren 3067-6294-6208Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Yar wrote: »
    Raiden333 wrote: »
    Daedalus wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    Seasons are due to the earth's tilt on it's axis, right?

    Yes. The classic wrong answer is when someone tells you it's because of varying distances from the sun in the Earth's elliptical orbit (which as it turns out are actually negligible to the temperature of the Earth).

    the people that give that answer typically use smaller, less precise words.

    You know, honestly I wouldn't judge someone too harshly if they thought it was the varying distance thing.

    especially since 90% of the maps of the solar system I've seen in my early schooling make the orbit look extremely exaggerated.
    Yeah that's why I asked... I didn't think this was supposed to be common knowledge to be considered a valuable human being. I mean, seasons are annual, and our orbit is annual, so it would make sense that it was the orbit.

    Well, it is the orbit... relative to the tilt of the axis.

  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    PirateJon wrote: »
    Think of is as "hey look at this cool new thing science found, now can you crazy fundies please STFU about the earth being 6000 years old and let us teach actual science?"

    Right freakin now, 18 percent of americans believe the sun revolves around the Earth. I mean... DAMN!

    I... what? That... that can't be true, can it? That means one in five people I meet is too stupid to let live.

    12 % of my 100-120 person college class got the "why do we have seasons" question wrong. Which is rather similar.

    On topic: that is ridiculously awesome but hasn't something extremely similar to this been done before with viruses?

    Nah, seasons are much more complicated to explain. Most people would say the earth was closest to the sun in summer, and furthest away in winter, then remember the whole southern hemisphere thing and just be really confused.

    The whole axial tilt of the earth relative to its orbit round the sun isn't exactly trivial to understand, unlike the simple fact that "The earth goes around the sun"

    Your puny weapons are useless against me
  • Alistair HuttonAlistair Hutton Dr EdinburghRegistered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Going into the deeper arguments, most discussions I've had with creationists that accept mutations always return to the loss of genetic information, and that nothing is ever gained.

    For the audience at home I'd like to point out that this is, for me, anti-evolution propagandists' most bullshit and actively dishonest sayings. It was bullshit before this experiment and it is bullshit after it.

    Neither classical nor algorithmic information theory (not that Creationists ever define their terms) can be used to demonstrate a near guaranteed 'loss' of 'information'. Indeed, classical information theory, for example, would have the majority of mutations as a gain of information.

    I have a thoughful and infrequently updated blog about games http://whatithinkaboutwhenithinkaboutgames.wordpress.com/
    I made a game, it has penguins in it. WANG gets you money off.
    Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
  • DukiDuki Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Thanks for this article. This is pure awesomeness.

    I've always said that evolution is a fact, not a theory. Just like gravity.

    Ya know, we have a lot of this kind of discussion going on at http://s11.zetaboards.com/Roleplay_Adventures (go to the "current events" forum after the roleplay forums).

    OK, the science guys here sort of need to grasp the difference between a theory and a scientific theory before they convince anyone else about the difference.

    I know you probably know it, but shit, son. Shit.

  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Duki wrote: »
    Thanks for this article. This is pure awesomeness.

    I've always said that evolution is a fact, not a theory. Just like gravity.

    Ya know, we have a lot of this kind of discussion going on at http://s11.zetaboards.com/Roleplay_Adventures (go to the "current events" forum after the roleplay forums).

    OK, the science guys here sort of need to grasp the difference between a theory and a scientific theory before they convince anyone else about the difference.

    I know you probably know it, but shit, son. Shit.
    I've been making a conscious effort to use "hypothesis" in place of "theory" even when speaking as a layman because I think the distinction causes way too much confusion and bullshit. I encourage you all to do the same. Also kill anyone talking about "string theory".

  • Mr_RoseMr_Rose Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Going into the deeper arguments, most discussions I've had with creationists that accept mutations always return to the loss of genetic information, and that nothing is ever gained.

    For the audience at home I'd like to point out that this is, for me, anti-evolution propagandists' most bullshit and actively dishonest sayings. It was bullshit before this experiment and it is bullshit after it.

    Neither classical nor algorithmic information theory (not that Creationists ever define their terms) can be used to demonstrate a near guaranteed 'loss' of 'information'. Indeed, classical information theory, for example, would have the majority of mutations as a gain of information.

    See, from the material I've come across, it appears that, for some reason, the people claiming that mutation only destroys information have somehow conflated "information" with "physical genetic material" and have also decided that the only sorts of mutation possible are point deletions and rearrangements, neither of which add genetic material. The conclusion is therefore "mutation destroys information."

    Apart from being wrong on an information theory level, it is also wrong on a basic biological level: There are more kinds of mutation than point deletions. For instance, gene duplication and point mutation are responsible for mammals having up to eight different types of haemoglobin, depending on species, which is about eight times as many forms as ancestral creatures.
    And that doesn't even begin to cover retro-viral insertions.

    ...because dragons are AWESOME! That's why.
    Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
    DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
  • BedlamBedlam Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Yar wrote: »
    Raiden333 wrote: »
    Daedalus wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    Seasons are due to the earth's tilt on it's axis, right?

    Yes. The classic wrong answer is when someone tells you it's because of varying distances from the sun in the Earth's elliptical orbit (which as it turns out are actually negligible to the temperature of the Earth).

    the people that give that answer typically use smaller, less precise words.

    You know, honestly I wouldn't judge someone too harshly if they thought it was the varying distance thing.

    especially since 90% of the maps of the solar system I've seen in my early schooling make the orbit look extremely exaggerated.
    Yeah that's why I asked... I didn't think this was supposed to be common knowledge to be considered a valuable human being. I mean, seasons are annual, and our orbit is annual, so it would make sense that it was the orbit.
    Except that would imply that the entire earth goes through the same season at the same time right? When the reality is that the opposite side is going through the opposite season.

2»
Sign In or Register to comment.