Evolution. The proof you've been requesting.

For those who haven't been following this closely, it seems that Mr. Lenski and Mr. Behe have been having their own little arg ument mirroring this thread.

In his last response to Behe, Lenski said the following:

It is my impression that you seem to think we have only paper and electronic records of having seen some unusual E. coli. If we made serious errors or misrepresentations, you would surely like to find them in those records. If we did not, then - as some of your acolytes have suggested - you might assert that our records are themselves untrustworthy because, well, because you said so, I guess. But perhaps because you did not bother even to read our paper, or perhaps because you aren't very bright, you seem not to understand that we have the actual, living bacteria that exhibit the properties reported in our paper, including both the ancestral strain used to start this long-term experiment and its evolved citrate-using descendants. In other words, it's not that we claim to have glimpsed "a unicorn in the garden" - we have a whole population of them living in my lab! [en.wikipedia.org...] And lest you accuse me further of fraud, I do not literally mean that we have unicorns in the lab. Rather, I am making a literary allusion. [en.wikipedia.org...]

My sentiments exactly.

[edit on 25-6-2008 by schrodingers dog]

A full copy to Mr. Lenski's reply to Mr. Behe and conservapaedia can be found here.

Just as a taste, here is an excerpt from the end of his letter:

P.S. Did you know that your own bowels harbor something like a billion (1,000,000,000) E. coli at this very moment? So remember to wash your hands after going to the toilet, as I hope your mother taught you. Simple calculations imply that there are something like 10^20 = 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 E. coli alive on our planet at any moment. Even if they divide just once per day, and given a typical mutation rate of 10^-9 or 10^-10 per base-pair per generation, then pretty much every possible double mutation would occur every day or so. That's a lot of opportunity for evolution.

P.P.S. I hope that some readers might get a chuckle out of this story. The same Sunday (15 June 2008) that you and some of your acolytes were posting and promoting scurrilous attacks on me and our research (wasn't that a bit disrespectful of the Sabbath?), I was in a church attending a wedding. And do you know what Old Testament lesson was read? It was Genesis 1:27-28, in which God created Man and Woman. It's a very simple and lovely story, and I did not ask any questions, storm out, or demand the evidence that it happened as written at a time when science did not yet exist. I was there in the realm of spirituality and mutual respect, not confusing a house of religion for a science class or laboratory. And it was a beautiful wedding, too.

P.P.P.S. You may be unable to understand, or unwilling to accept, that evolution occurs. And yet, life evolves! [ en.wikipedia.org...] From the content on your website, it is clear that you, like many others, view God as the Creator of the Universe. I respect that view. I find it baffling, however, that someone can worship God as the all-mighty Creator while, at the same time, denying even the possibility (not to mention the overwhelming evidence) that God's Creation involved evolution. It is as though a person thinks that God must have the same limitations when it comes to creation as a person who is unable to understand, or even attempt to understand, the world in which we live. Isn't that view insulting to God?

P.P.P.P.S. I noticed that you say that one of your favorite articles on your website is the one on "Deceit." That article begins as follows: "Deceit is the deliberate distortion or denial of the truth with an intent to trick or fool another. Christianity and Judaism teach that deceit is wrong. For example, the Old Testament says, 'Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.'" You really should think more carefully about what that commandment means before you go around bearing false witness against others.

Pretty much sums up the absurdity of creationism and Mr. Behe.
Who said scientists don't have a sense of humor.

Here's a new one for y'all:

Nature 453, 1199-1204 (26 June 2008) | doi:10.1038/nature06991; Received 22 November 2007; Accepted 9 April 2008


Ventastega curonica and the origin of tetrapod morphology
Per E. Ahlberg1, Jennifer A. Clack2, Ervns Lukevis3, Henning Blom1 & Ivars Zupi4

Abstract
The gap in our understanding of the evolutionary transition from fish to tetrapod is beginning to close thanks to the discovery of new intermediate forms such as Tiktaalik roseae. Here we narrow it further by presenting the skull, exceptionally preserved braincase, shoulder girdle and partial pelvis of Ventastega curonica from the Late Devonian of Latvia, a transitional intermediate form between the 'elpistostegids' Panderichthys and Tiktaalik and the Devonian tetrapods (limbed vertebrates) Acanthostega and Ichthyostega. Ventastega is the most primitive Devonian tetrapod represented by extensive remains, and casts light on a part of the phylogeny otherwise only represented by fragmentary taxa: it illuminates the origin of principal tetrapod structures and the extent of morphological diversity among the transitional forms.

linky

New fishapod!


[edit on 26-6-2008 by melatonin]

Much of the unfounded opinions expressed on this thread from those who reject evolution are based on the following false premise:

God of the Gaps syndrome.

God of the Gaps is the method of claiming God (or gods) exists by pointing to gaps in our present knowledge of how things work. For example, ancient Scandinavians who did not know what caused thunder and lightning chose to see them as evidence for their own chief deity, Thor, driving his chariot through the sky and hammering with Miolnir. Present-day creationists and IDists employ the same method by claiming that our gaps in the knowledge of abiogenesis and evolution mean that an intelligent designer must have been involved.
The weakness of "God of the Gaps" methodology is that the existence of God is, of course, endangered every time scientists filled the gaps with knowledge. Howard J Van Till, a theistic evolutionist, warns against this risk, and proposes instead to see the whole of the evolutionary saga as a pointer to a creative and generous God, no gaps needed. Also, when science fills a gap in knowledge with observed facts, science is satisfied. Creationists, on the other hand, generally declare that, rather than filling a gap, a new piece of information simply generates two gaps, one on either side of the newly-established fact -- meaning that additional information is understood to diminish the observational base from which the theory of evolution derives, rather than to reinforce it, as more insightful commentators argue.
The God of the Gaps argument indicates enormous conceit because, by implication, a believer indicates that he (or she) has understanding of all there is, except those things God did, and therefore declares that a miracle is necessary to make him (or her) fail to understand. It needs hardly to be said that this belief system has little do to with observation, and much to do with blind belief in the unknown.
Some creationists (for example Werner Gitt, in Schuf Gott durch Evolution?) try to refute this refutation of their arguments by saying that for them, God is not just a gap filler. But that is beside the point. For anyone switching to creationism because of the God of the Gaps argument, God would be. This is why the argument does not work.
Wikipedia

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
Simple calculations imply that there are something like 10^20 = 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 E. coli alive on our planet at any moment. Even if they divide just once per day, and given a typical mutation rate of 10^-9 or 10^-10 per base-pair per generation, then pretty much every possible double mutation would occur every day or so. That's a lot of opportunity for evolution.

and yet, how long has e.coli been around? for something that has so much potential for evolution it hasnt changed much has it. even when it does change, its it still e.coli?

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
Simple calculations imply that there are something like 10^20 = 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 E. coli alive on our planet at any moment. Even if they divide just once per day, and given a typical mutation rate of 10^-9 or 10^-10 per base-pair per generation, then pretty much every possible double mutation would occur every day or so. That's a lot of opportunity for evolution.

and yet, how long has e.coli been around? for something that has so much potential for evolution it hasnt changed much has it. even when it does change, its it still e.coli?

Yep and THAT is the cross evolutionists carry, they don't have gaps in their theory, they have gulfs, cast huge chasms of unexplainable ideas, speculations they have now deemed are facts under the new Darwininan vernacular for Science which suggest if their is NO evidence to prove macro evolution then it is perfectly suitable to suggest that NO evidence ever found "disproves" evolution.

You will never see a bigger construct of science predicated on more liee and deceptive practices than the Science Atheists have created to justify their lives of sexual promiscuity, sexual depravity, homosexuals can now just claim the are a product of their genetic makeup so back off I can't help myself. The lines of morality get lowered as the bar comes down we will see the same stupid insignificant dumb idiotic logic used to excuse the behavior of pedophiles and just about every other flesh indulgence or drug induced utopian experience. This is just what we always said they would end up doing as we know they have no basis for morality. Just like we had always said they would do using Science to fragment morality even further, we see them becoming more and more the immoral segment of society arguing for the rights to be as depraved and as immorally corrupt as they want while demanding they should be able to raise kids that way adopting them into their same sex marriages and multi sexualized agendas for selfish indulgence.

THIS is what Science has done for us and THIS is the legacy of Darwinian Dimwitted Dunce Science

This is what evolution teaches, THIS is why they want to teach transgendered sex options for kindergartners and not blink an eye when any sane person asks WTF?

This garbage science has to be kicked out of public schools whether Christians alternatives replace it or not. I don't care what it is as long as it is not run by this A-moral Atheist clan of pseudo Scientists.

Intelligence for them becomes a knowledge of those lies committing to memory the buzz words like genetic drift, puntcuated equillibrium and more BS that the Science of Evolution has no more reason to be respected than astrology. If I were Behe I wouldn't be arguing with lenski, I'd be saying

SO WHAT! Ya still got JOHNSON! No new nothing, just e-coli with an aquired taste for citrate.

Whoopdi freakin doo

- Con



[edit on 28-6-2008 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
For those who haven't been following this closely, it seems that Mr. Lenski and Mr. Behe have been having their own little arg ument mirroring this thread.

In his last response to Behe, Lenski said the following:


[...]


Pretty much sums up the absurdity of creationism and Mr. Behe. Who said scientists don't have a sense of humor.

This was not in response to Behe or anything he's written. It's a response to Andrew Schlafly of the Conservapedia website (as was made clear in the link you provided.) You don't appear to be reading the links that you're posting so I assume it's safe to say you've not read anything posted by anyone else. Sheesh... talk about summing up absurdity. But, at least you're pompous about it.

Much of the unfounded opinions expressed on this thread from those who reject evolution are based on the following false premise: God of the Gaps syndrome.

It's a syndrome now? Which "unfounded opinions expressed on this thread" were examples of a gap argument? Please be specific. Creationist argue (wrt) evolution using Baraminology . Intelligent Design argues that certain patterns are best explained via intelligent agency versus random processes. They're not the same thing. They're not "gap arguments" but based on/argued according to, the available data or what we do know about nature/laws/etc. [E.g., wrt ID and YEC ] Correct or not, agree or not, it is what it is.



The idea/sentiment that 'science will one day figure out the answers... and they will be pro-unguided-evolution[anti-ID] and pro-common ancestry [anti-creationism]' is an argument from ignorance or "gap argument." It's a straw-man usually used by a critic whom doesn't wish to, or can not, deal with the issues in any detail so instead mocks those they disagree with, mischaracterizes their arguments, and champions those-oh-so-typical pro-science talking points.


Remember kids (and Bible thumpin-science-hatin'-morons-with-no-sense-of-humour): There is no plan. There is no purpose. "You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else." For the science tells us so.

Yeah, real science!


Blah.

Originally posted by Conspiriology
You will never see a bigger construct of science predicated on more liee and deceptive practices than the Science Atheists have created to justify their lives of sexual promiscuity, sexual depravity, homosexuals can now just claim the are a product of their genetic makeup so back off I can't help myself. The lines of morality get lowered as the bar comes down we will see the same stupid insignificant dumb idiotic logic used to excuse the behavior of pedophiles and just about every other flesh indulgence or drug induced utopian experience. This is just what we always said they would end up doing as we know they have no basis for morality.

ummm.. ok.

i hate to be the heralder of bad news but didnt the church have a scandal with pedophilia?

my point is that while yes, living "your own life" the way "you like it" is easier without god and yes i do agree that some dont believe in god for those reasons, im pretty sure atheists arent any worse that some of the religious. immoral acts are something that happens from all walks of life.

how come evolution hasn't stopped people from being allergic to grass and plant life?

what about blue eyes since they're not a dominant gene why haven't they been wiped out?



[edit on 30-6-2008 by Shawn B.]

reply to post by schrodingers dog

this again?

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
God of the Gaps is the method of claiming God (or gods) exists by pointing to gaps in our present knowledge of how things work.

Using the same reasoning in reverse; I can claim that scientists do not understand the gods; in consequence, all of their ostensible information is suspect.

There are a lot more gaps than people are willing to admit. Most of which will probably never be filled . . .

so these people suffering from this syndrome have little hope for rehabilitation?~

The God of the Gaps argument indicates enormous conceit because, by implication, a believer indicates that he (or she) has understanding of all there is, except those things God did,--

This assertion appears drastically flawed to me . . . I highly doubt that there are many, if any, religious people that would claim to understand all there is; even when excluding the supernatural.

Some who obdurately hold on to modern science, as a procurer of truth, imprudently believe that it will eventually understand all there is; with no exceptions.

If whoever wrote that article is a naturalist, he better hope that some of these gaps will remain unfilled; lest he will become the head conductor of the hypocrisy train.

Howard J Van Till, a theistic evolutionist, warns against this risk, and proposes instead to see the whole of the evolutionary saga as a pointer to a creative and generous God, no gaps needed.

As I alluded to in the other thread, Time is not much of a gap filler either.

the existence of God is, of course, endangered every time scientists filled the gaps with knowledge.

Hardly, the scientific method is only an externalist tool and evolution is coherentism at its best . . . Neither will ever threaten the possible existence of an incongruous belief within the system . . .

For anyone switching to creationism because of the God of the Gaps argument, God would be. This is why the argument does not work.

Come again?

[edit on 6/30/2008 by JPhish]

reply to post by Conspiriology

So basically, your morality is right, and society would be best if everyone followed it?

Sounds awfully familiar. How rich, too, coming from the guy that "doesn't push his beliefs on anyone".

Why should homosexuals be denied the rights that, for instance, women or other races are given? They deserve human rights just as much as anyone else, including you. Unlike what you believe, these individuals do not "choose" their sexual orientation and it cannot be "reassigned".

Homosexuality and transgenderism (where you got this second bit I am not sure... probably made it up on the spot to make "Darwinists" look bad) are "crimes" that lack a victim, and are usually done privately. No one in society suffers when another human being is homosexual or transgender.

Your hostile attack of an innocent group of people is no more forgiveable than racism or sexism. By the way, thanks for fulfilling a fundamentalist Christian stereotype. It makes humanist arguments so much more potent.

Furthermore, if science continues to undermine psychotic bigotry (i.e., racism, sexism, and homophobia), you can expect it to continue far into the future. Have fun hanging on to your ever shrinking fringe gap.


[edit on 30-6-2008 by SlyCM]

Originally posted by SlyCM

So basically, your morality is right, and society would be best if everyone followed it?

No, however the "Basis" of my morality is and yes I think everyone should follow it but they are free to follow the basis of thier morality which is what ever feels good do it.

Sounds awfully familiar. How rich, too, coming from the guy that "doesn't push his beliefs on anyone".

That woould have been a great comeback had you waited for me to answer but not only didn't you wait, it doesn't match up with the answer I gave.

Why should homosexuals be denied the rights that, for instance, women or other races are given?

what right am I denying them?

They deserve human rights just as much as anyone else, including you.

what right am I denying them?

Unlike what you believe, these individuals do not "choose" their sexual orientation and it cannot be "reassigned".

Is that a fact?

Homosexuality and transgenderism (where you got this second bit I am not sure... probably made it up on the spot to make "Darwinists" look bad) are "crimes" that lack a victim, and are usually done privately. No one in society suffers when another human being is homosexual or transgender.

Oh no? Society has and is still footing the bill for many of the effects of sexual promiscuity from wellfare for single moms to Aids patients, so don't say there is not a burden the rest of us have to bear so gays can have quickies at state parks and public restrooms

Your hostile attack of an innocent group of people is no more forgiveable than racism or sexism. By the way, thanks for fulfilling a fundamentalist Christian stereotype. It makes humanist arguments so much more potent.

It isn't who they are we have a problem with sly,,

it's what they do and I like most of us what I think about it is not the same as your mis representation I am doing something to violate their civil rights. I have to allow them what ever the law says but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it. I do it in protest and that is what you have a problem with..

TUFF

- Con

An interesting new study:

News Update

Chimps not so selfish
20 June 2008
Study lays groundwork for proving animal empathy

Compared to their sex-mad, peace-loving bonobo counterparts, chimpanzees are often seen as a scheming, war-mongering, and selfish species. As both apes are allegedly our closest relatives, together they are often depicted as representing the two extremes of human behaviour.

Orlaith Fraser, who will receive her PhD from LJMU's School of Biological Sciences in July 2008, has conducted research that shows chimpanzee behaviour is not as clear cut as previously thought. Her study is the first one to demonstrate the effects of consolation amongst chimpanzees.

In her paper, 'Stress reduction through consolation in chimpanzees', published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal, Fraser analyses how the apes behave after a fight. Working with Dr Daniel Stahl of Kings College London and Filippo Aureli, LJMU's Professor of Animal Behaviour, she found that third-party chimpanzees will try to console the 'victim' of the fight by grooming, hugging and kissing.

Although this behaviour has been witnessed in chimpanzees since the 1970s, anthropologists previously believed that the motivation behind it was purely selfish - with the consoling chimp wanting to pre-empt further violence.

However, the study challenges this assumption. "If that was the case then there shouldn't be a calming effect from the consolation, rather, just a reduction of aggression," said co-author Professor Aureli, "I think it's much more likely that it is done for the benefit of the others rather than the third party."

Fraser, who successfully defended her PhD on conflict management in chimpanzees, said: "Unlike previous studies, this research demonstrates the link between consolation and stress reduction, showing the potential for empathy in chimpanzees as opposed to their more renowned aggressive behaviour."

Apes are the only primates to show consolation, and it has been speculated that this behaviour is perhaps equivalent to what in human children is called 'sympathetic concern'. One of the world's leading primatologists, Professor Frans de Waal, of Emory University in Atlanta, USA, said: "The behaviour of young children that falls under sympathetic concern (touching, hugging of distressed family members) is in fact identical to that of apes, and so the comparison is not far-fetched. The present study is significant in that it suggests that the function of this behaviour in chimpanzees is similar to humans, in that it comforts the other."

The allegedly telltale signs of nervousness in humans include scratching ourselves or hand-to-face movements. Similarly, when our simian cousins find themselves in stressful situations they often resort to self-grooming and self-scratching. Fraser and Professor Aureli found that after a fight, these actions occurred with increasing frequency, but when the non-aggressive chimp entered the fray, the agitated ape soon stopped their nervous movements.

Interestingly, the study also found that apes with mutually beneficial relationships will try to calm each other down. Professor Aureli explained: "It's what we call a valuable relationship - basically those animals that are good friends, not just individuals that spend a lot of time together or groom one another, but ones that actually have some value to one another. For example, they help one another in fights, tolerate one another around limited resources, share food, and collaborate."

One of the most controversial and divisive issues in anthropology today is whether or not animals can empathise. Fraser said that as well as altruistic behaviour, our closest evolutionary ancestors could potentially have an empathetic side. She said: "Showing the calming effect of consolation is one of the building blocks from which we can learn more about the emphatic abilities of animals."

Professor de Waal added that this study removes any previous doubt that consolation provides relief to distressed parties after conflict: "The evidence is compelling and makes it likely that consolation behaviour is indeed an expression of empathy."

'Stress reduction through consolation in chimpanzees' was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal on June 16 2008.

Liverpool John Moores University

What right am I denying them?

Er... the right to a happy marriage and family ringing a bell? Oh wait, I guess it doesn't matter because you aren't actually denying them of it, just denouncing and protesting aggressively against it. Not to mention openly condemning and insulting them.

Oh no? Society has and is still footing the bill for many of the effects of sexual promiscuity from wellfare for single moms to Aids patients, so don't say there is not a burden the rest of us have to bear so gays can have quickies at state parks and public restrooms

AIDS is correlated with a lack of birth control, not with homosexuality. Most homosexuals now use birth control anyways, specifically to prevent STD's. Furthermore, AIDS is a disease just like any other: so should we ban treatment of lung cancer patients because they engaged in "ungodly smoking", or the treatment of TB patients because of "ungodly filth", or of stomach cancer patients because of "ungodly gluttony"?

Try again.

It isn't who they are we have a problem with sly,,

it's what they do and I like most of us what I think about it is not the same as your mis representation I am doing something to violate their civil rights. I have to allow them what ever the law says but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it. I do it in protest and that is what you have a problem with..

Why protest?

It's not hurting anyone. They do not have a choice* in the matter.

Certainly, God, being loving (or perhaps non-existent), certainly wouldn't punish, hate or attack innocents. Try again, this time without the poorly-hidden bigotry.

*Though I imagine your typical aversion to true science might cause this article to appear false. Either that or you'll ignore it, it of course being a work of Satan.

...

Schrodingers Dog:

Great article. However I must admit to being less than surprised. I actually own several aquaria and have noticed distinct personalities appear in different individuals of the same species. Especially frequent is this in Tetraodonts and Cichlids, two well known (to aquarists) orders of "lower" animals.

The proof of evolution probably won't be found for some time, because I doubt even the limits of genetic technology could devise an experiment worthy of acceptance by "holier than thou" creationists, and so far the natural experiments that have occurred (eg, lizards on islands) have been rejected, despite their validity.

They will continue to deny "macroevolution" by claiming that the new species is "still the old species". Meanwhile we can take heart in the fact that our 8-th grade textbooks provide enough evidence to undermine any creationist claim, and the fact that sea-monkeys represent a change that actually was named a new species (eg, Artemia salina evolved into Artemia nyos).

But, W/E right?

[edit on 2-7-2008 by SlyCM]

Originally posted by SlyCM

What right am I denying them?

Er... the right to a happy marriage and family ringing a bell? Oh wait, I guess it doesn't matter because you aren't actually denying them of it, just denouncing and protesting aggressively against it. Not to mention openly condemning and insulting them.

It's MY fault they can't get married? I am openly condemning them? insulting them? What I called them fag? Queer? when? where do you hallucinate this sly? Do I think it's wrong? Yes I think sexual sin is wrong. You got a problem with that?

Most homosexuals now use birth control anyways, specifically to prevent STD's. Furthermore, AIDS is a disease just like any other: so should we ban treatment of lung cancer patients because they engaged in "ungodly smoking", or the treatment of TB patients because of "ungodly filth", or of stomach cancer patients because of "ungodly gluttony"?

Jeez man do you ever read your posts?

You say "correlated with birth control? Care to elaborate on that hot shot.
when you find out, then care to show me where I said we should deny them treatment? I never said any such thing. Do I think we should pay for smokers who get cancer from smoking when they know it causes cancer? Well Ill ask you, why should we? Why not pay for all the things people don't take responsibilty of? Lets all pay for everyone on drug rehab, lets all pay for everyone in katrina and buy them all new houses for those who failed to purchase home owners insurance.

The fact is WE DO pay and so do I,, but the facts are the facts smart guy and Gay sex caused aids to grow in the gay population exponentially then overlapped into the drug users and blood supply.

The question was if there was anyone hurt by this lifestyle and the answer unfortunatley is a resounding yes! That isn't an insult to them, it is an insult to humanity.

Why protest?

Why argue?

Certainly, God, being loving (or perhaps non-existent), certainly wouldn't punish, hate or attack innocents. Try again, this time without the poorly-hidden bigotry.

God is also a righteous God and remember you are the one always complaining I thump the Bible but here again YOU are asking so don't bitch after I do. Does a father allow his sons to stay out after curfew when his rules are explicit? Does a father just let it slide when they do because someone like you thinks that love means allow anything at all? Does a Father still love his children even while he punishes them?

Why can't God have that same love for us?

HE DOES! So quit playing games.

My bigotry? Far from it and I won't comlpy to your ways just to avoid your manipulative criticism I am a bigot
and by the way,, they are both Artemia

No cigar YOU LOSE

- Con




[edit on 3-7-2008 by Conspiriology]

reply to post by Conspiriology


C, though you and I agree on nothing, I have to give you your well earned props.
It takes all of my will and about two hours to get out of bed and get the old hamster wheel in the brain started.
But you get up and back on your soap box without batting an eye.
Impressive


[edit on 7/3/2008 by schrodingers dog]

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

C, though you and I agree on nothing, I have to give you your well earned props.
It takes all of my will and about two hours to get out of bed and get the old hamster wheel in the brain started.
But you get up and back on your soap box without batting an eye.
Impressive


[edit on 7/3/2008 by schrodingers dog]

Two things,,



Breakfast of Champions

mine is down to earth, ground level so I don't have to climb near as high to get on my soap box as you do yours.

Might help with the bloody nose problem too

- Con

reply to post by Conspiriology


Yes C,
Except that taking two days to generate a comeback kinda negates my original point!
As for the bloody nose issue, that's a whole different topic. Not ATS appropriate.

[edit on 7/5/2008 by schrodingers dog]

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

As for the bloody nose issue, that's a whole different topic. Not ATS appropriate.

[edit on 7/5/2008 by schrodingers dog]

You aren't aloud to talk about bloody noses at high altitudes?

News to me

- Con

reply to post by schrodingers dog

Great post OP. Cool link.



I found this very interesting though and wonder what your thoughts are.

More generally, we suggest that historical contingency is especially important when it facilitates the evolution of key innovations that are not easily evolved by gradual, cumulative selection.

So key innovation is not reliant on natural selection. Could not ID argue that this is infact a pro for them. That innovation may be an inbuilt mechanism and not a byproduct of a natural mutation to aid adaptation to ensure survival and reproduction.

Our understanding of the mammalian system was facilitated by conservation of the main protagonists of this process from microbes to humans. Thus, biochemical experiments carried out with Escherichia coli extracts helped us to identify functional human homologues of the bacterial mismatch repair proteins,

This study used e.coli to help understand dna self repair and mutation in relation to cancer, but it goes on to say this, which i think is interesting.

This term encompasses a multitude of metabolic processes, which can reverse the damage either directly (photolyases, alkyltransferases), or indirectly by removing damaged bases (base excision) or oligonucleotides (nucleotide excision) from DNA, and resynthesizing the removed patch. Moreover, they can repair strand breaks and cross-links, or by-pass non-repairable damage either by specialized mechanisms or by recombination (Friedberg et al., 1995). The main task of DNA repair is to ensure that the DNA molecule is free of modifications or mutations, such that it can be transcribed efficiently and, most importantly, that it can be replicated faithfully and passed on to progeny cells.

www.nature.com...

So it could be argued that mutation and thus evolution is not necessarily accidental. As there are mechanisms in place to avoid this.
So your source may be a great example of innovative cellular engineering with conservative development based on a inbuilt capacity that does without the influence of natural selection. And that the historical significance is evidence of this contingency of cellular innovation.
Either way ID or Evolution, it is pretty amazing stuff, these life processes.

Nice post, great link. Thanks.