Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Interesting Stuff Thread

12357219

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Can evolution reverse itself? Apparently so:

    http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/547686/

    100th post in thread, woo!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 194 ✭✭sdep


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Can evolution reverse itself? Apparently so:

    http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/547686/

    100th post in thread, woo!

    Looks interesting, thanks. Seems to show that when your wings mutate away, you can't get them back by Ctrl-Z rolling back all the changes.


  • Registered Users Posts: 351 ✭✭Tyler MacDurden


    http://itn.co.uk/news/1d90da3baeeee42c5b1292419390291a.html

    Somewhat disturbing poll from the UK. As usual, reported in such a vague manner that it can be spun to suit any agenda. I haven't yet located the original stats on the Ipsos MORI website, but hey, no-one's interested in bare facts anymore. :rolleyes:
    Creationism 'should be taught in schools'
    Updated 06.50 Tue Dec 23 2008

    Three in ten science teachers believe creationism should be taught in science lessons, according to a new survey.

    And more than a third of primary and secondary teachers in general believe that the subject should be taught alongside evolution and the Big Bang theory.

    The Ipsos Mori poll of more than 900 primary and secondary teachers in England and Wales found that while nearly half believe it should not be taught in science lessons, two thirds agree that creationism should be discussed in schools.

    This rises to three quarters of teachers with science as their subject specialism.

    Two in three science specialists do not think that creationism should be taught in science lessons.

    But few teachers think creationism as an idea should be dismissed outright.

    Just one in four agree with a view expressed by Professor Chris Higgins, vice-chancellor of Durham University that "creationism is completely unsupportable as a theory, and the only reason to mention creationism in schools is to enable teachers to demonstrate why the idea is scientific nonsense and has no basis in evidence or rational thought."

    Fiona Johnson, head of education research at Ipsos Mori and director of the Ipsos Mori Teachers Omnibus, said: "Our findings suggest that many teachers are trying to adopt a measured approach to this contentious issue, an approach which attempts not only to explain the essential differences between scientific and other types of 'theory', but also to acknowledge that - regardless of, or even despite, "the science" - pupils may have a variety of strongly held, and arguably equal value, faith-based beliefs."

    Prof Higgins said: "Creationism, as an alternative to the evolution of species, has long been thoroughly discredited by rigorous analysis of data.

    "Of course, if a pupil raises it as a hypothesis then a brief discussion as to why creationism is wrong might be appropriate as part of an education in intellectual integrity and rational thought.

    "But it would undermine any educational system to purposefully teach discredited ideas which are now only perpetuated through ignorance or flawed thinking - one might as well teach astrology, flat earthism, alchemy or a geocentric universe."

    © Independent Television News Limited 2008. All rights reserved.


  • Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Little bit on beaked whale evolution if anyone is interested. Apparently the beak is 'sexy':

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/12/081219-beaked-whale-missions.html


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭Goduznt Xzst


    thought this was a good list of commonly held Atheist myths

    http://www.atheists.org/Top_Ten_Atheist_Myths


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 194 ✭✭sdep


    The BBC are going big on Darwin, starting tomorrow at 9am on Radio 4. For those with suitable viewing equipment, the evolution will be televised.

    Full details at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/darwin/


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    I don't have BBC, grr.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    robindch wrote: »
    In all fairness to young Diamond, he's a cracking cultural and evolutionary psychologist, but he's not a great presenter. The book's much better.

    Zounds! For once I'm in agreement with Robin. I've loved all of Diamond's books but his voice has got to be the most annoying I've ever heard.

    The 3 part TV series skimmed through the main points of Guns, Germs & Steel competently enough, but I'm glad I'd read the book first.

    The only original bit was where Diamond was in a childrens hospital in Zambia watching kids dying of malaria. As the nurse was matter-of-factly discussing how many of the children could expect to survive Diamond broke down in tears. As he said after the break, "It's one thing to discuss this things from an academic standpoint - but seeing the reality is different." Very moving.

    BTW, Robin, if you describe Jared Diamond as 'young' then you must be in Methusaleh territory!


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    sdep wrote: »
    For those with suitable viewing equipment, the evolution will be televised.

    If it's on TV, it must be true! Someone tell J C!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 158 ✭✭bou


    Happened across a video speed tour of evolution of spiecies / clades.
    http://www.wimp.com/newinfo
    Don't know if this was posted before.

    Edit: The video comes from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MXTBGcyNuc where there are a bunch of other ones by same guy, AronRa


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,021 ✭✭✭Hivemind187


    http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

    Links to the other books are at he top of the page.

    Its a very handy resource when you need to pull scripture in a pinch (Judges 19:24 is a personal favorite). The annotations are often quite funny too.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,131 ✭✭✭oshead


    bou wrote: »
    Happened across a video speed tour of evolution of spiecies / clades.
    http://www.wimp.com/newinfo
    Don't know if this was posted before.

    That's brilliant.... :D

    Dave OS


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    I posted this over in BC&P...

    We were discussing abiogenesis a few pages ago and I suggested that a viable first "replicator" would be self-replicating RNA molecules. For the first time, a lab in California are about to publish the synthesis of just such a molecule. Self-replicating and also evolving by natural selection according to one of the two basic selective pressures I also mentioned: replication rate. The molecules compete for nucleotides in their growth environment and the molecules which replicate fastest due to induced mutations prevail over the others.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16382-artificial-molecule-evolves-in-the-lab.html

    I've yet to read the primary paper which will be appearing in Science, but this is an historic finding. It does not prove that RNA life was the means by which abiogenesis occurred of course, and nor does it really simulate the process as it would have occurred (the strands are synthesised by people and mutations were induced- albeit randomly- by people). But it is a beautiful proof of concept. Simple self-replicating molecule can exist, and their frequencies change in response to natural selection. The complex cellular machinery associated with higher life is not needed at "step 1".


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,021 ✭✭✭Hivemind187


    I posted this over in BC&P...

    We were discussing abiogenesis a few pages ago and I suggested that a viable first "replicator" would be self-replicating RNA molecules. For the first time, a lab in California are about to publish the synthesis of just such a molecule. Self-replicating and also evolving by natural selection according to one of the two basic selective pressures I also mentioned: replication rate. The molecules compete for nucleotides in their growth environment and the molecules which replicate fastest due to induced mutations prevail over the others.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16382-artificial-molecule-evolves-in-the-lab.html

    I've yet to read the primary paper which will be appearing in Science, but this is an historic finding. It does not prove that RNA life was the means by which abiogenesis occurred of course, and nor does it really simulate the process as it would have occurred (the strands are synthesised by people and mutations were induced- albeit randomly- by people). But it is a beautiful proof of concept. Simple self-replicating molecule can exist, and their frequencies change in response to natural selection. The complex cellular machinery associated with higher life is not needed at "step 1".


    Can we call that a win then?


  • Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Can we call that a win then?

    You never truly win. you just get a little closer each time.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Can we call that a win then?

    Until we have the process mapped out from broth of nucleotides up to protocell, probably not. I'm certain creationists will pick this one apart- any flaw at all will be a reason to dismiss the work in its entirety.

    As it is (I haven't read the paper yet), I can see points they'll attack. In particular, the replication process is simplified; the sequences are not generated from scratch but from large fragments that are ligated together. What we really want to see is self replication from a broth of single nucleotides which get polymerised into new sequences. But this is a step in that direction. What is ultimately needed is not just a self-replicating RNA polymerase ribozyme, but some demonstration of how RNA nucleotides can get to that point. Ribozymes such as the one demonstrated in this paper may be the key to that, it may be a gradual step-up.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!




  • Registered Users Posts: 5,949 ✭✭✭A Primal Nut


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/4330132/Charles-Darwins-research-to-prove-evolution-was-motivated-by-his-desire-to-end-slavery.html

    I think the moral significance of this for Evolutionists/Atheists is clear. A good non-religious reason for the people who rejected Darwin at the time.


  • Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean



    Well, that can put an end to people citing that "Darwin was a racist" as a legitimate reason to not believe in evolution.

    Who am I kidding? No it wont.
    Not that Darwin's own morals have any bearing on the validity of his theory.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/4330132/Charles-Darwins-research-to-prove-evolution-was-motivated-by-his-desire-to-end-slavery.html

    I think the moral significance of this for Evolutionists/Atheists is clear. A good non-religious reason for the people who rejected Darwin at the time.

    It's interesting, though I wonder how compelling the evidence of such a motive actually is. It would be easy to cherry pick quotes from Darwin's journals to support many positions, so I'd be interested in seeing how they treat the sources as a whole, whether they were systematic in their research and how those views sit in context. The creationists love to quote Darwin out of context, so I'd hate to see academics doing the same. I'll certainly be buying the book!


  • Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    New TV show on Nat Geo about evolution starting soon:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055481973

    Plenty of other cool evolution related stuff in that neck of the woods too (shameless plug) including evidence that early whales gave birth on land and a curious 'appendage'.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 33 ZondaChai


    I agree with evolution and all that but one thing has been bothering me that mabey you guys can clear up

    If you have two birds, one in the jungle and one in the desert, over time they will evolve to look completely different because of different surroundings.
    Now if you take two people, a nomad in the desert and a tribesman in the jungle, how come they look identical besides colour, and are anatomically exact. Should the tribesman not evolve to have limbs more adapt to climbing trees and the nomad have skin more suited to water retention

    Or am I severly overestimating evolution, is it that humans havent been here long enough for any significant mutations.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    ZondaChai wrote: »
    Or am I severly overestimating evolution, is it that humans havent been here long enough for any significant mutations.

    Bingo, answered your own question, but there is more to it.

    What is interesting about our species is that we no longer rely upon our physical bodies to do work. We build specialised tools to suit all situations so we do not face the same pressures that all other lifeforms face and these are the pressures that drive evolution. So in effect we have stopped evolving to a certain extent.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    ZondaChai wrote: »
    I agree with evolution and all that but one thing has been bothering me that mabey you guys can clear up

    If you have two birds, one in the jungle and one in the desert, over time they will evolve to look completely different because of different surroundings.
    Now if you take two people, a nomad in the desert and a tribesman in the jungle, how come they look identical besides colour, and are anatomically exact. Should the tribesman not evolve to have limbs more adapt to climbing trees and the nomad have skin more suited to water retention

    Or am I severly overestimating evolution, is it that humans havent been here long enough for any significant mutations.

    Skin colour is a significant mutation (or to be more exact a whole long list of mutational changes)

    But yes, in the over arching story of the planet humans are but a foot note. We have not been around that long and we are all quite similar to each other genetically. Come back in 2 million years to see how different branches of humanity have evolved.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 33 ZondaChai


    Another thing I was thinking about, has our culture killed off natural evolution aswell. If a man was born with three fully working arms, he would be superior to a normal man, but because of our social tendencies, we would say things like "hey look, it's Fred the freak" or "Dont touch me with any of those", poor Fred would never get a chance to carry on his genes, because it would be hard for him to find a woman who doesn't reject him for his difference. The same can be said for all people with genetic mutations, socially we cast them outside the herd.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    ZondaChai wrote: »
    Another thing I was thinking about, has our culture killed off natural evolution aswell. If a man was born with three fully working arms, he would be superior to a normal man, but because of our social tendencies, we would say things like "hey look, it's Fred the freak" or "Dont touch me with any of those", poor Fred would never get a chance to carry on his genes, because it would be hard for him to find a woman who doesn't reject him for his difference. The same can be said for all people with genetic mutations, socially we cast them outside the herd.

    What you have just described is a sub process of natural selection called sexual selection and it is going to be the main factor in the future evolution of our species. It is also perfectly natural and plays a role in all complex animals to a greater or lesser extent.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    ZondaChai wrote: »
    If a man was born with three fully working arms, he would be superior to a normal man, but because of our social tendencies, we would say things like "hey look, it's Fred the freak" or "Dont touch me with any of those", poor Fred would never get a chance to carry on his genes, because it would be hard for him to find a woman who doesn't reject him for his difference. The same can be said for all people with genetic mutations, socially we cast them outside the herd.

    I'm sure red heads will be trilled to learn that :pac:

    Seriously though, mutations are not really "Ms here is a your health baby boy ... with two heads"

    The majority of evolutionary changes that have been studied in humans in the last 100 years or so (since we started paying attention), have been to do with things like disease resistance and ability to process different foods.

    It is also important to remember everyone has mutations in them. The jock who impregnated 20 cheer leaders in school had mutations in him


  • Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Wicknight wrote: »
    The jock who impregnated 20 cheer leaders in school had mutations in him

    Sperm capable of drilling through rubber?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Sperm capable of drilling through rubber?

    lol :D


Advertisement