Navigation:
Reporting on the Middle East, Science, and Education for September 23, 2008 - כ"ג אלול תשס"ח
Pages
Archives
Toward a better future through tolerance and mutualism
Sponsored By:
Recent Comments:
Richard on Hamas Occupies Palestinian Lands.
Comments RSS
ScienceDaily (Sep. 22, 2008) — Scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology, together with American colleagues, have decoded the genome of the Pristionchus pacificus nematode, thereby gaining insight into the evolution of parasitism.
In their work, which has recently been published in Nature Genetics, the scientists from Professor Ralf J. Sommer’s department in Tübingen, Germany, have shown that the genome of the nematode consists of a surprisingly large number of genes, some of which have unexpected functions.
These include a number of genes that are helpful in breaking down harmful substances and for survival in a strange habitat: the Pristionchus uses beetles as a hideout and as means of transport, and feeds on the fungi and bacteria that spread out on their carcasses once they have died. It thus provides the clue to understanding the complex interactions between host and parasite. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by CNP Webmaster as Evolutionary Biology, Recent Posts, Science on September 23, 2008 - כ"ג אלול תשס"ח at 6:34 pm
Comments Off
While the latest video-game craze, “Spore,” touts the theory of evolution, taking gamers from a single-celled organism to complex civilizations, some say it also promotes God and intelligent design.
By Katherine T. Phan, Christian Post Reporter, Sep. 14, 2008
While the latest video-game craze, “Spore,” touts the theory of evolution, taking gamers from a single-celled organism to complex civilizations, some say it also promotes God and intelligent design.
The traditionally contrasted themes are both represented in the game, according to game innovator Will Wright, the creator of the wildly popular "Sims" game.
"In Spore, basically, the theme of it is the complete view of life – from its early origins through evolution. But at every level, the player is creating something," Wright told ABC News.
In an interview with USA Today, meanwhile, Wright said the world created by players is "definitely not a creationist universe," but admitted the game had "aspects of intelligent design" because it puts the gamer in the "role of an intelligent designer."
Posted by CNP Webmaster as Christianity, Evolutionary Biology, Monotheistic Religions on September 14, 2008 - י"ד אלול תשס"ח at 10:51 pm
Comments Off
From the smallest of cells to the largest of planets, evolution tries to prove everything, yet proves nothing. More holes are revealed.
By Bradford G. Schleifer, The Real Truth, September 5, 2008
Author’s Note: This series investigates the theory of evolution, revealing that there is much more to the story than what is commonly taught. After laying a truthful foundation and building upon it, the reader will see that the theory collapses, and that the confusing series of explanations, definitions and suppositions supporting it are weak and shallow. Each part builds upon the previous, and the entire series should be read to grasp the fullest picture—and the vital implications that flow from its conclusions.
Is it possible for a rock to come to life? Could a chicken grow from a lump of coal? Such questions are silly. However, this is in essence what the theory of evolution teaches. It stands or falls on whether non-living matter can transform, through a series of random events, into organic—living—matter. This concept is called by many names and explained by many theories, but most of the time, it is referred to as “spontaneous generation, chemical evolution, abiogenesis” or “biopoiesis.”
Do not allow evolutionists to dodge the “origin of matter” question. Many assert that the origin of life is in no way related to the appearance of living matter.
Posted by CNP Webmaster as Evolutionary Biology, Recent Posts, Science on September 8, 2008 - ח' אלול תשס"ח at 10:03 am
Comments Off
Published on Scientific Blogging (http://www.scientificblogging.com)
Submitted by Michael White, Aug 27 2008 Evolution
Most people probably think of change when they hear the word evolution, but some of evolution’s most amazing molecular inventions have stuck around hundreds of millions, even billions of years. The complex protein machinery needed to express genes, metabolize energy sources, reproduce sexually, and lay out body plans has remained in place largely unchanged in spite of the tremendous variety we see in the living world. These constant core cellular processes are why biologists could crack the universal genetic code by experimenting with bacteria, and why we gain insight into cell division and cancer by studying yeast.
The big question, argue the authors of The Plausibility of Life, is not how evolution keeps inventing new genes - it’s how evolution can produce so much variety when the basic processes change so little. Later in the book Kirschner and Gerhart are going to argue that these basic systems have persisted so long because they are versatile, that they posses features which make them well-suited to facilitating the biological diversity we see today. We’ll come to that argument later; today we’ll take a closer look at the core conserved molecular systems that carry out the most basic cellular functions.
Posted by CNP Webmaster as Evolutionary Biology, Recent Posts, Science on August 29, 2008 - כ"ח אב תשס"ח at 9:54 pm
Comments Off
Reprinted from NCSE, August 24, 2008
"A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash" — a story on the front page of The New York Times (August 24, 2008) — examines the creationism/evolution controversy as it plays out in the classroom of David Campbell, a biology teacher in Orange Park, Florida. The Times’s reporter Amy Harmon writes, "in a nation where evangelical Protestantism and other religious traditions stress a literal reading of the biblical description of God’s individually creating each species, students often arrive at school fearing that evolution, and perhaps science itself, is hostile to their faith." Campbell’s students are a case in point, and "their abiding mistrust in evolution, he feared, jeopardized their belief in the basic power of science to explain the natural world — and their ability to make sense of it themselves."
In addition to helping his own students, Campbell also helped to improve the treatment of evolution throughout Florida by co-founding the grassroots organization Florida Citizens for Science blog) and by serving on the committee that revised Florida’s state science standards in 2007. The new standards describe evolution as a "fundamental concept underlying all of biology" — a far cry from their predecessors, which sedulously avoided even using the e-word. Harmon writes, "Campbell defended his fellow writers against complaints that they had not included alternative explanations for life’s diversity, like intelligent design. His attempt at humor came with an edge: ‘We also failed to include astrology, alchemy and the concept of the moon being made of green cheese,’ he said. ‘Because those aren’t science, either.’”
Posted by CNP Webmaster as Education Report, Evolutionary Biology, Recent Posts, Science on August 25, 2008 - כ"ד אב תשס"ח at 2:21 pm
Comments Off
By ALBERT LOW, Canada.com, July 25, 2008
Contrary to Christopher Hitchens’s assertion, (”The eyes have it,”July 23), not all who are sympathetic to the idea of intelligent design are creationists.
Indeed, those who support intelligent design range from those who are more or less creationists to those who are more or less Darwinians, with all the gradations between. Unfortunately what could be an interesting debate on the origins of human nature has become an exchange of dogmas amid hurled epithets.
One does not have to reject the main tenets of Darwin’s theory to embrace the idea that intelligence and creativity play a part in evolution. That organisms have evolved, that accident has played a part in this evolution and that natural selection has been the refining agent all seem perfectly reasonable. What does not seem to be reasonable is that human genius and creativity - such as shown by Einstein, Newton, Mozart and Michelangelo - is the result of accidental or random mutation. Neither does human compassion and altruism - again as, for example, shown by Christ, Buddha and Mother Teresa - seem to be simply strategies for survival.
Posted by CNP Webmaster as Evolutionary Biology, Monotheistic Religions, Recent Posts, Science on July 25, 2008 - כ"ב תמוז תשס"ח at 5:38 am
Comments Off
PhysOrg.com, July 18, 2008
“Survival of the fittest” is the catch phrase of evolution by natural selection. While natural selection favors the most fit organisms around, evolutionary biologists have long wondered whether this leads to the best possible organisms in the long run.
A team of researchers at The University of Texas at Austin, led by Drs. Matthew Cowperthwaite and Lauren Ancel Meyers, has developed a new theory, which suggests that life may not always be optimal. The results of this study appear July 18th in the open-access journal PLoS Computational Biology.
Genetic mutations create the raw material that natural selection acts upon. The short-term fate of a mutation is often quite clear. Mutations that make organisms more fit tend to persist through generations, while harmful mutations tend to die off with the organisms that possess them. The long-term consequences of mutations, however, are not well understood by evolutionary biologists. The researchers have shown that what may be good in the short run, may hinder evolution in the long run.
Posted by CNP Webmaster as Evolutionary Biology, Science on July 19, 2008 - ט"ז תמוז תשס"ח at 6:02 am
Comments Off
Discover, June 26, 2008
Around 365 million years ago, a fishy, finned creature that resembled a small alligator clambered up on a sandbank and earned its place in evolutionary history. Researchers who recently discovered fossils of the animal, named Ventastega curonica, say it’s the most primitive four-legged creature ever found. While it wasn’t the first “fishapod” to lurch out of the water (that honor goes to the Tiktaalik, which accomplished the feat about 375 years ago), its more primitive evolutionary stage gives researchers new information about the earliest four-legged creatures, or tetrapods.
Posted by CNP Webmaster as Evolutionary Biology, Recent Posts on June 29, 2008 - כ"ו סיון תשס"ח at 12:10 pm
Comments Off
By Jeremy Manier and Tim De Chant
Chicago Tribune reporters, June 27, 2008
When a falcon swoops from the sky to seize its fleeing prey, no one would mistake the sleek predator for a gaudy parrot.
Yet the secret kinship of falcons and parrots is one of many surprises in a landmark genetic study of 169 bird species being published by Field Museum researchers.
The lovely birds we see each day may never look quite the same again.
One likely consequence of the study in Friday’s edition of the journal Science is a re-ordering of the field guides that many of America’s 80 million bird-watchers use. Most bird guides are based on scientific classifications, which experts said the new work could change in numerous ways.
“This is the most important single paper to date on the higher-level relationships of birds,” said Joel Cracraft, curator of birds at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, who was not part of the study.
Posted by CNP Webmaster as Evolutionary Biology, Recent Posts, Science on June 29, 2008 - כ"ו סיון תשס"ח at 11:57 am
Comments Off
But really, isn’t it time we asked ourselves, deep down in our hearts, if we are being intellectually honest?
By Tom Taylor, Roanoke Times, May 23, 2008
I propose a theory that at least some of the green frogs living today are descendants of a prince, zapped by a wicked witch many centuries ago.
Of course you could make all sorts of scientific arguments against my theory. Funny thing, your arguments would be much the same as those used by creationists when they argue against the fairy tale of evolution.
There is no known force or natural mechanism, you’d say, that could change a prince into a frog. And neither is there any that could change one species into another. Mutations couldn’t possibly do it because they cannot add new genetic information as would be required for a new species; they can only shuffle or harm what is already there.
Geneticists over the last 60 years or so have attempted to show that mutations (could too!) produce evolution by bombarding hundreds of generations of fruit flies with radiation. The flies, which produce a new generation every 10 days, did indeed mutate. They changed in the color of their eyes, the number of bristles and the shape of their wings. But their DNA would simply not let them “evolve” into anything but fruit flies. Most important of all, when the radiation was stopped, the following generations went right back to the bristles, wings and eyes they had before. Those experiments proved mutation cannot produce evolution.
Posted by CNP Webmaster as Evolutionary Biology on May 25, 2008 - כ' אייר תשס"ח at 8:56 pm
Comments Off
