Good article about macroevolution proof.

[Martin]

This will apear in Nature, so I guess you could count on its validity and credibility.

Article

 

[exp]

The silence from the creationist camp is deafening.

 

[Martin]

<< The silence from the creationist camp is deafening. >>




yep...its been 8hrs...still no word.

 

[Nefrodite]

interesting article

 

[linuxboy]

This will apear in Nature, so I guess you could count on its validity and credibility.

Ahaha. HeHeHeHe. That's some good comedy. That "article" tells me nearly nothing of what they stained for, why they stained, what the blind controls were, etc, etc. The actual paper should be better. As it stands, creationists have a good amount of room left to argue, although this is probably unsettling to their certainty of being right. In which case, I question the worth of their entire religious system. Thanks for the link. Wouldn't call it proof quite yet, have to read the work. Might be a random guy messing with genes.


Cheers !

 

[silverpig]

Science is slowly proving it's theories...

 

[mithrandir2001]

Don't worry. They'll come up with some excuse. Just like "the bible is right because it says it's right".

 

[Orsorum]

<< The silence from the creationist camp is deafening. >>



Your point is?

 

[AreaCode707]

<< This will apear in Nature, so I guess you could count on its validity and credibility.

Ahaha. HeHeHeHe. That's some good comedy. That "article" tells me nearly nothing of what they stained for, why they stained, what the blind controls were, etc, etc. The actual paper should be better. As it stands, creationists have a good amount of room left to argue, although this is probably unsettling to their certainty of being right. In which case, I question the worth of their entire religious system. Thanks for the link. Wouldn't call it proof quite yet, have to read the work. Might be a random guy messing with genes.


Cheers ! >>


I found the article pretty ambiguous overall, though if it were technical, I probably wouldn't understand much. (English/Communications major, sorry) But there was a gap I noticed. Assuming that this genetic change took place, wouldn't it have to happen to more than one creature at a time and those two genetically mutated creatures choose each other as mates to pass on the change?

 

[AreaCode707]

<< The silence from the creationist camp is deafening. >>



As I notice, the silence from the evolutionist camp was deafening for several hours as well. The thread got shoved under, no one responded because no one saw it. But take that and turn it into implied shame and defeat for whoever you want, go ahead and be ridiculous.

 

[Orsorum]

<<

<< This will apear in Nature, so I guess you could count on its validity and credibility.

Ahaha. HeHeHeHe. That's some good comedy. That "article" tells me nearly nothing of what they stained for, why they stained, what the blind controls were, etc, etc. The actual paper should be better. As it stands, creationists have a good amount of room left to argue, although this is probably unsettling to their certainty of being right. In which case, I question the worth of their entire religious system. Thanks for the link. Wouldn't call it proof quite yet, have to read the work. Might be a random guy messing with genes.


Cheers ! >>


I found the article pretty ambiguous overall, though if it were technical, I probably wouldn't understand much. (English/Communications major, sorry) But there was a gap I noticed. Assuming that this genetic change took place, wouldn't it have to happen to more than one creature at a time and those two genetically mutated creatures choose each other as mates to pass on the change? >>



The genetic change that took place happened to a dominant gene; it only needs to happen to one of the two mates; if the trait is dominant, it will get passed on.

 

[xirtam]

<< Don't worry. They'll come up with some excuse. Just like "the bible is right because it says it's right". >>



Please don't think we're all stupid just because we believe that the universe has a design and a purpose. I don't argue that the Bible is right "because it says it is" any more than you argue that a science book is right "because it says it is." And I'd appreciate it if you'd cut the stereotyping. I meet stupid Christians, but that's not helping your case any, because I meet a lot of stupid non-Christians too. I meet evolutionists who still subscribe to Lamarckism, but I don't post crap on anandtech that infers that all evolutionists still accept the wild notion that giraffes evolved long necks because they needed them to reach the leaves. That's ridiculous.

I did enjoy the article. It seems to point to an intelligent and carefully controlled process that guides the development of organisms -- not some random "genetic mutation" that suddenly produces order. I'm excited to see what comes of this.

 

[AreaCode707]

<< The genetic change that took place happened to a dominant gene; it only needs to happen to one of the two mates; if the trait is dominant, it will get passed on. >>



Okay thanks. I tried to erase all that info immediately after I took my bio course - the only class I ever would fall asleep from doing hw.

Well said xirtam

 

[Orsorum]

<<

<< The genetic change that took place happened to a dominant gene; it only needs to happen to one of the two mates; if the trait is dominant, it will get passed on. >>



Okay thanks. I tried to erase all that info immediately after I took my bio course - the only class I ever would fall asleep from doing hw.

Well said xirtam >>



Ditto, very well said.

 

[exp]

<< As I notice, the silence from the evolutionist camp was deafening for several hours as well. The thread got shoved under, no one responded because no one saw it. But take that and turn it into implied shame and defeat for whoever you want, go ahead and be ridiculous.

>>


I think you're reading too much into my post. This online article is not a scientific paper so I would not expect anyone to change their deeply-held misconceptions without first reading the original scientific paper, at least. I do find it funny, though, that you would feel "shame and defeat" if such an experiment was to be confirmed. Losing an argument is nothing to be ashamed of. Instead, why not revel in the joy--or at least satisfaction--of knowing that your understanding of God's works has just become that much deeper?



<< Your point is? >>


My point was only to bump the thread back up, because I found it odd that the rabid fundamentalists on this board, always so eager to champion speciation as a myth, have not overreacted as usual and pounced on this new tidbit in frenzied desperation. For many creationists their entire faith apparently rests upon the falsity of the macroevolution and the truth of the biblical account of creation. Eight hours, then, is a long time for them to allow such a potentially damaging article to remain unchallenged.

 

[chemwiz]

Bump for a good post.

 

[FrontlineWarrior]

Hmmmm I just studied embryology and this doesn't surprise me too much. The role of Hox genes in limb development has been already widely established, and all this new experiment does is find another aspect of its role, namely in the regulation of the number of limbs. They've already done experiments placing these genes in other locations in the chromosome, and these embryos developed limbs in inappropriate places like on the head. Studies with another gene called sonic hedgehog produces humans with a single eye. The manipulation of developmental genes obviously has drastic effects, and in my opinion this new experiment doesn't tell us anything new.

 

[FrontlineWarrior]

Also the picture they have with the centipede looking thing turning into a fly is a little misleading. The only things that would have changed as a result of the Hox gene mutation would be the number of limbs, and possibly other things that Hox genes control... but you won't go from centipede to fly in one gene mutation.

 

[xirtam]

<< Rabid fundamentalists... pouncing on a new tidbit... frenzied desperation... champion speciation as a myth >>



Rabid fundamentalists? I get the idea that you're trying to convey the idea that those who try to support what they perceive as rather animalistic in nature. The whole "frenzied desperation" line has me a bit concerned. I don't see on these boards a sense of "frantic posting," and I'd prefer not to fall under that general category.

I see nothing in nature to support the idea that there is no God, just like several people see nothing in nature to support the validity of that position. Yeah, and the "deeply-held misconceptions" line came across a bit arrogant too. If we can look at the same data and come to different conclusions, how is either side supported? Why should we accept the a priori assumptions required to come to the same conclusions regarding the same data that you do?

To me, speciation isn't that big of a deal. Scientists define what makes a species, so naturally they would be able to define transitions between them. And I don't think that anybody's faith is dependent solely on the falsity of macroevolution. Do you know anyone like that, and what do they use to justify that position? Every such "potentially damaged article" in the past, such as the Archaeoraptor hoax, has not withstood the test of time. It's not like we need to "jump" on it. It'll sort itself out naturally. And like you said, if it is confirmed, it's not like that'll hurt my feelings any. A lot of it is still open to interpretation of what we see in nature. Because we must use the present as the key to the past... hint, hint -- 1984 -- our interpretation is limited to inferences we derive from what we can observe. I'm not going to argue that you're obviously a misinformed beast who rabidly seeks at every opportunity to champion the dogmatic doctrines of Godless evolution, and I would request at least same respect. I apologize for whatever previous run-ins you may have had with these "rabid fundamentalists," but I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't apply that as a blanket statement for everyone who takes the same data you have, yet comes to a different conclusion.

Who defines what macroevolution is, anyway? The church, or the scientific community? So why should our faith rest on whether macroevolution is true or false -- all you'd have to do then, as the scientific community, is redefine macroevolution. We both know it would just turn into a political game at that point, with both sides arguing about how the other is stupid, misinformed, or <--GASP--> not playing by the rules.

One more thing. How does something "apear"ing in Nature mandate its "validity" and "credibility"? Just a thought. The whole Archaeoraptor thing was published in National Geographic, which had to later publish a retraction to maintain integrity -- which is highly commendable, by the way.

Yeah, anyway, it's 3:35 in the morning and I have class in a few hours, so I'm going to go practice transcendental meditation or whatever they're calling it these days. Good night, all.

 

[JonnyDuke]

Perhaps no one has replied because they read the article and realized that this new information really doesn't PROVE much of anything at all...but I admit to finding it interesting myself, just not definitive.
We see mutations throughout nature, and many of them do live... just not very long because sometimes the mutation isn't adapted to it's living environment. Just because something has more or less limbs doesn't mean that it is the right number of limbs for that animal to thrive in it's environment.

I will hold onto my superstitions, thank you.

Edit: Nice reply Xirtam

 

[exp]

<< I don't see on these boards a sense of "frantic posting," and I'd prefer not to fall under that general category. >>


I never lumped you into that category, but my impression of many fundamentalists around here is that they are desperately clinging to a belief that they know deep down is mistaken. That is my impression from the incessant evolution v. creation debate that goes on around here...your mileage may vary depending on which threads you read.



<< I see nothing in nature to support the idea that there is no God, just like several people see nothing in nature to support the validity of that position. >>


I don't recall saying that there is no God. In fact, I do not believe evolution and creation to be mutually exclusive at all.



<< Yeah, and the "deeply-held misconceptions" line came across a bit arrogant too. >>


If you interpreted that statement as arrogance then that is your problem, not mine. I think the anti-evolution sentiment of many posters here certainly qualifies as "deeply-held", and from the ignorance they have displayed in previous threads it is clear that they have many "misconceptions" about evolution, and science in general. That's what happens when they argue with insufficient background knowledge. If I had the balls to debate theology with the Pope then I would expect my misconceptions about Catholicism to be exposed in the same way.



<< If we can look at the same data and come to different conclusions, how is either side supported? Why should we accept the a priori assumptions required to come to the same conclusions regarding the same data that you do? >>


Just because two people draw seperate conclusions from a single collection of data does not preclude the possibility that one conclusion is clearly right and the other wrong. There are no "assumptions" necessary to arrive at a conclusion that favors evolution--cold hard data alone is sufficient.



<< To me, speciation isn't that big of a deal. Scientists define what makes a species, so naturally they would be able to define transitions between them. And I don't think that anybody's faith is dependent solely on the falsity of macroevolution. Do you know anyone like that, and what do they use to justify that position?

Every such "potentially damaged article" in the past, such as the Archaeoraptor hoax, has not withstood the test of time. It's not like we need to "jump" on it. It'll sort itself out naturally. And like you said, if it is confirmed, it's not like that'll hurt my feelings any. >>


You have a sensible approach but I have met many people, both personally and here at ATOT, who have been brainwashed into thinking that evolution and creation cannot both be true...so that if evolution is ever universally accepted as a real pheonomen then creation, a core belief of their religion, will be completely invalidated. These are the kind of people I would have expected to "jump" on this article and you can do a search for "evolution" if you'd like to read some of their posts.



<< I'm not going to argue that you're obviously a misinformed beast who rabidly seeks at every opportunity to champion the dogmatic doctrines of Godless evolution, and I would request at least same respect. I apologize for whatever previous run-ins you may have had with these "rabid fundamentalists," but I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't apply that as a blanket statement for everyone who takes the same data you have, yet comes to a different conclusion. >>


I never applied it as a blanket statement. I only said that there existed "rabid fundamentalists" who happen to be insecure about their faith (IMHO) and feel threatened by evolution. Let's not pretend like these individuals do not exist. I am genuinely glad to see that there are still some Christians out there capable of independent thought, and I sympathize with you and your frustration over some of your less flexible associates. A few bad apples, I guess...



<< Who defines what macroevolution is, anyway? The church, or the scientific community? So why should our faith rest on whether macroevolution is true or false -- all you'd have to do then, as the scientific community, is redefine macroevolution. We both know it would just turn into a political game at that point, with both sides arguing about how the other is stupid, misinformed, or <--GASP--> not playing by the rules. >>


LOL...that is the typical course of an evolution v. creation debate here on ATOT, isn't it? It inevitably breaks down into empty rhetoric and bickering over semantics.



<< One more thing. How does something "apear"ing in Nature mandate its "validity" and "credibility"? The whole Archaeoraptor thing was published in National Geographic >>


It does not mandate them, but it sure doesn't hurt matters any. Nature is one of the premiere scientific journals out there (no comparison with NG). Of course every paper needs to be examined and verified individually, but the fact that this study is being published in Nature at least guarantees some level of professionalism and legitimacy. This study cannot be brushed off as a hoax (I know you weren't suggesting that) just because some people may not like the conclusions it draws.

Anyway, I really don't want this to turn into the same old argument about evolution v. creation. If you would like to discuss anything else go ahead and PM me. I am more interested to hear opinions about the article (Remember?? The reason this thread was started? )

 

[Kerouactivist]

but I don't post crap on anandtech that infers that all evolutionists still accept the wild notion that giraffes evolved long necks because they needed them to reach the leaves. That's ridiculous


They didn't

 

[jjones]

evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive although some would have us believe that it is.

 

[Nefrodite]

but I don't post crap on anandtech that infers that all evolutionists still accept the wild notion that giraffes evolved long necks because they needed them to reach the leaves. That's ridiculous

yup lol, anyone that still thinks you evolve because you want to needs to learn a little more about current evolution

 

[BDawg]

<< I found the article pretty ambiguous overall, though if it were technical, I probably wouldn't understand much. >>



Possibly because that was a press release and not the actual journal article?