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!
Posts
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.
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.
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?
DropBox invite link - get 250MB extra free.
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.
I personally am in favour of re-classifying our species as Pan narrans, the storytelling ape, as suggested by at least one eminent personage.
DropBox invite link - get 250MB extra free.
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.
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.
Like Sandwiches from Gas Stations.
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.
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.
Right freakin now, 18 percent of americans believe the sun revolves around the Earth. I mean... DAMN!
Like Chinese guys solving crazy neat maths problems from the 1800's. 8-)
I... what? That... that can't be true, can it? That means one in five people I meet is too stupid to let live.
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.
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.
From what I remembered from HS Bio, I thought viruses aren't considered "alive"?
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.
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."
especially since 90% of the maps of the solar system I've seen in my early schooling make the orbit look extremely exaggerated.
I did an entire 4th grade research project on precisely this.
My teacher interrupted my presentation and gave me an F....
Well, it is the orbit... relative to the tilt of the axis.
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"
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.
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.
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.
DropBox invite link - get 250MB extra free.