| « Event-driven survival | About a girl » |
Anti-learning
The only good is knowledge, and the only evil is ignorance. - Herodotus
Intelligent Design is at the center of some steaming controversies in the U.S. (and no doubt soon in Australia) at the moment[1], and I think it's probably because people are less intellectually equipped to fend off the quasi-theologists.
Beginning
In summary: certain Christian groups claim that schools should recognise Creationism (the theory that humans are a result of an intelligent designer's intervention) as an alternative to the popular Darwinist theory of evolution.
The truth is that science and theology are not necessarily conflicting schools of thought. In fact, science and theology aren't even in the same playing field. In particular, the argument for natural selection doesn't preclude the existence of God. You'll find A Brief History of Time sprinkled very liberally with Hawking's assurances that God can exist alongside the theories espoused therein, and further, how theology and science have no business elbowing each other at all[3].
Middle
What is interesting is what seems to be a revisitation of anti-Darwinism, in the form of the 'controversies' surrounding Intelligent Design. ID proponents claim that the controversies are that ID is not represented in the schooling system. Modern scientists claim that ID is not a science at all[4] (and therefore there is no controversy), and that the supposed controversy is a veiled attempt to put God (one God in particular) back into the school agenda.
This speaks poorly of the level of education in schools, I think. In its most honest form, this is a group of people saying that Darwinism is an unlikely theory that is propagated by scientists because they have no better answers to Creationism. In essence, it is supposed to be a global scientific conspiracy. The fluff about schooling not providing an ample platter of scientific alternatives is merely a sugary coating that makes this pill easier for the central-American populace to swallow.
My thesis here is basically that this 'controversy' is a by-product of the general public (at least in the U.S.) getting less educated. The more confounding Darwin's theory is to the general population, the easier it will be for ID proponents to put forth their 'scientific conspiracy' theories. How many people will be taken by this idea, for example, when 20% of U.S. adults think the Sun revolves around the Earth, and fewer than a third know that heredity involves DNA[5]?
I'm sure there has always been body of people trying to get God incorporated into schools' agenda. The ID debate is merely these people taking advantage of a canny populace to dishonestly progress their agenda by attempting to discredit Darwin's theory of evolution. It is, in effect, a contrived debate; even if the theory of evolution was unlikely, it is still the prevailing scientific theory, and as such merits a place in the science class.
End
So here's the question: New revolutionary theories can be expected to be denounced by reigning powers that have an interest in maintaining the status quo. But what exactly does it mean when old skepticisms come back? Is it due to a lower rate of education, or could it be a rise in religious fundamentalism? Who's going to be next to try to seize the opportunity afforded by a dumber population?
Or has it already happened? The scientific community still seems to be at odds with a large portion of the general populace over the issue of whether human pollutants have lead to global warming; this skepticism must be coming from somewhere. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the countries most receptive to the "ID in schools" proponents provide the surest footholds for compromised conservative critics of global warming[6], or perhaps those who believe that middle-eastern nations are inherently more inclined towards terrorism.
Update 2005-09-30 - Controversy! Pennsylvania parents take their school to court for including ID in the science curriculum.
Footnotes:
[1] Controversy? Anti-evolution stickers on schoolbooks removed, Bush's endorsement, and Australia follows?!?
[2] Pastafarianism has gained followers as a result of this debate. Visit http://www.venganza.org/index.htm for more information/merchandise.
[3] Hawking explains that if there were a perfect creator who, for whatever reason, provided us with scientific evidence that allowed us to arrive at these conclusions (e.g., Darwinism) scientifically, one could not use science to prove that God exists, as his observed evidence is by definition infallible. Similarly, theologists cannot expect to disprove prevailent scientific theories.
[4] See http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge166.html for an essay on why ID is not a legitimate school of science.
[5] New York Times - Scientific Savvy? In U.S., Not Much
[6] This Boston Globe article not only links Hurricane Katrina with Global Warming, but outlines how much energy companies have spent to de-educate people to these links.
26 comments
Comment from: Leedrick [Visitor] · http://leedrick.blogspot.com
It is true that it is difficult to teach ID in schools as a scientific theory. What I do object to is the way darwin's theory is taught.
In my experience it is often treated in schools as fact (and considered so by many people) rather than a theory that we all evolved gradually from nothing. This is something I do object to. The enormous number of holes in the theory are clear to anyone willing to look below the polished surface.
You have only to look at an organ such as an Eye to realise it could not logically have been created gradually through a process of natural selection. It only works as a whole, and any singular part would not provide any advantage to a species.
I don't think that a particular theology should be taught alongside the theory of evolution, but I do think it should be treated as what it is (a theory) with its arguments also discussed, so that students can make up their own mind.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" - Albert Einstein
In my experience it is often treated in schools as fact (and considered so by many people) rather than a theory that we all evolved gradually from nothing. This is something I do object to. The enormous number of holes in the theory are clear to anyone willing to look below the polished surface.
You have only to look at an organ such as an Eye to realise it could not logically have been created gradually through a process of natural selection. It only works as a whole, and any singular part would not provide any advantage to a species.
I don't think that a particular theology should be taught alongside the theory of evolution, but I do think it should be treated as what it is (a theory) with its arguments also discussed, so that students can make up their own mind.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" - Albert Einstein
02/09/05 @ 13:24
Comment from: cechner [Member] 
While I agree that everyone should know it is a theory, this is pretty much true of all of science. Every part of science is nothing more than a theory - you'll never read about Newtons list of facts or Albert Einstein's truths, because ultimately although you can have books full of observable evidence supporting a theory, one proof against something can disrupt an entire tree of knowledge.
On the eye, however, I must disagree. One of the articles I read that inspired this rant took the eye as an example "which has been one of the favorite challenges of creationists":
I find this a little too plausible to even come close to debunking the theory of evolution.
Furthermore, you mention with its arguments discussed, which I think is key to this whole issue. Darwin's theory has been around for a long time, and anyone scientifically inclined can argue the relative merits or problems with it in any scientific forum, and if plausible, these criticisms become part of our general understanding. Simply saying in my opinion, this theory in particular seems unlikely should not apply specifically to evolution - the general theory of relativity, or any complex theory, is just as much a candidate for such discussion.
So that they can make up their mind about what? I don't think any teacher would be unreasonable enough to disallow someone asking whether it was possible for a creator to be involved, but you seem to be saying that the teacher should explicitly put forward something like Creationism as an alternative...? If so, which?
That aside, however, I understand that one might want students to understand that their teachings could be at some stage revised by new lore. The problem I have, however, is that these cases of 'controversy' seem to be driven by a less honest agenda, and targeting human biology in particular for that exact reason.
Thanks for opining... I hope I don't come across as irreverant to any persons belief systems.
On the eye, however, I must disagree. One of the articles I read that inspired this rant took the eye as an example "which has been one of the favorite challenges of creationists":
But as we learn more and more about the history of the genes involved, and how they work — all the way back to their predecessor genes in the sightless bacteria from which multicelled animals evolved more than a half-billion years ago — we can begin to tell the story of how photosensitive spots gradually turned into light-sensitive craters that could detect the rough direction from which light came, and then gradually acquired their lenses, improving their information-gathering capacities all the while.
We can't yet say what all the details of this process were, but real eyes representative of all the intermediate stages can be found, dotted around the animal kingdom, and we have detailed computer models to demonstrate that the creative process works just as the theory says.
All it takes is a rare accident that gives one lucky animal a mutation that improves its vision over that of its siblings; if this helps it have more offspring than its rivals, this gives evolution an opportunity to raise the bar and ratchet up the design of the eye by one mindless step. And since these lucky improvements accumulate — this was Darwin's insight — eyes can automatically get better and better and better, without any intelligent designer.
Brilliant as the design of the eye is, it betrays its origin with a tell-tale flaw: the retina is inside out. The nerve fibers that carry the signals from the eye's rods and cones (which sense light and color) lie on top of them, and have to plunge through a large hole in the retina to get to the brain, creating the blind spot. No intelligent designer would put such a clumsy arrangement in a camcorder, and this is just one of hundreds of accidents frozen in evolutionary history that confirm the mindlessness of the historical process.
I find this a little too plausible to even come close to debunking the theory of evolution.
Furthermore, you mention with its arguments discussed, which I think is key to this whole issue. Darwin's theory has been around for a long time, and anyone scientifically inclined can argue the relative merits or problems with it in any scientific forum, and if plausible, these criticisms become part of our general understanding. Simply saying in my opinion, this theory in particular seems unlikely should not apply specifically to evolution - the general theory of relativity, or any complex theory, is just as much a candidate for such discussion.
So that they can make up their mind about what? I don't think any teacher would be unreasonable enough to disallow someone asking whether it was possible for a creator to be involved, but you seem to be saying that the teacher should explicitly put forward something like Creationism as an alternative...? If so, which?
That aside, however, I understand that one might want students to understand that their teachings could be at some stage revised by new lore. The problem I have, however, is that these cases of 'controversy' seem to be driven by a less honest agenda, and targeting human biology in particular for that exact reason.
Thanks for opining... I hope I don't come across as irreverant to any persons belief systems.
02/09/05 @ 13:55
Comment from: Leedrick [Visitor] · http://leedrick.blogspot.com
You find that plausible?
The chance of even the first mutation of the eye occuring (with at least a male and female in the same area providing we are no longer asexual at this point), and providing such an advantage that all other non-lightsensitive enhanced versions die out, is rediculously slim. This of course has to happen for every single mutational stage in the entire body.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I find the possibility of a creator more conceivable than evolution through random chance. I don't want to turn this into a debate on creation vs evolution as it will be a long one (and will ultimately come down to what we each think is more likely).
Like I said, I don't think any one form of creationism should be taught. I only object to evolution being treated as a fact without evidence.
The chance of even the first mutation of the eye occuring (with at least a male and female in the same area providing we are no longer asexual at this point), and providing such an advantage that all other non-lightsensitive enhanced versions die out, is rediculously slim. This of course has to happen for every single mutational stage in the entire body.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I find the possibility of a creator more conceivable than evolution through random chance. I don't want to turn this into a debate on creation vs evolution as it will be a long one (and will ultimately come down to what we each think is more likely).
Like I said, I don't think any one form of creationism should be taught. I only object to evolution being treated as a fact without evidence.
02/09/05 @ 15:03
Comment from: cechner [Member]
Plausible or not, no alternative scientific theory has been put forward...
I don't specifically disbelieve in any particular religion - I'm purely agnostic to the whole affair and my opinions on the subject in any case would be pretty unresearched. I'm respectful of the fact that many people believe in a creator, and am not so arrogant as to think their opinions count for less than mine.
On the other hand though, I also recognise that the scientific community has no reason to be precious about the theory of evolution... in other words, what reason do biologists have to misrepresent the plausability of this theory? I feel uncomfortable personally talking about the plausability of evolution as a theory, as it is not in any way simple, though it seems simple to summarise to the general public. Similarly, though I'd be sceptical about the general theory of relativity were it described to me, I am respectful enough of the body of research that went into it that I am willing to let my faith lie there.
As I said before though, that's not really the matter at hand. Or, to be more precise, engaging in a debate as to the plausibility of the theory of evolution is to distract the argument into a field that we all know will never be agreed upon. It's simply a strawman, as I see it.
I don't specifically disbelieve in any particular religion - I'm purely agnostic to the whole affair and my opinions on the subject in any case would be pretty unresearched. I'm respectful of the fact that many people believe in a creator, and am not so arrogant as to think their opinions count for less than mine.
On the other hand though, I also recognise that the scientific community has no reason to be precious about the theory of evolution... in other words, what reason do biologists have to misrepresent the plausability of this theory? I feel uncomfortable personally talking about the plausability of evolution as a theory, as it is not in any way simple, though it seems simple to summarise to the general public. Similarly, though I'd be sceptical about the general theory of relativity were it described to me, I am respectful enough of the body of research that went into it that I am willing to let my faith lie there.
As I said before though, that's not really the matter at hand. Or, to be more precise, engaging in a debate as to the plausibility of the theory of evolution is to distract the argument into a field that we all know will never be agreed upon. It's simply a strawman, as I see it.
02/09/05 @ 15:38
Comment from: Leedrick [Visitor] · http://leedrick.blogspot.com
"what reason do biologists have to misrepresent the plausability of this theory?"
My belief is that mankind likes to be able to think they have all the answers. This arrogant nature causes them to gloss over problems with the theory in an effort to come up with an explanation that allows them to remove the possibility of a creator.
My belief is that mankind likes to be able to think they have all the answers. This arrogant nature causes them to gloss over problems with the theory in an effort to come up with an explanation that allows them to remove the possibility of a creator.
02/09/05 @ 16:07
Comment from: cechner [Member]
Perhaps - but I also think that a lot of people who want to find these answers don't actually have a problem with God. For example, it has long been rationalised that God could exist within any of the modern widely accepted models, but that it is simply futile to try to seek him out.
Therefore, although he could exist, it doesn't change the fact that we should strive to figure the rules of the universe (whoever wrote them.)
I personally think that trying to talk someone out of their religion is the worst kind of arrogance. But I don't think it is arrogance to seek out answers - just curiosity.
Therefore, although he could exist, it doesn't change the fact that we should strive to figure the rules of the universe (whoever wrote them.)
I personally think that trying to talk someone out of their religion is the worst kind of arrogance. But I don't think it is arrogance to seek out answers - just curiosity.
02/09/05 @ 16:37
Comment from: lance [Visitor]
actually the chance that the eye could develop in a deterministic universe is 100%. because it has.
science seeks to find out how. creationism seeks to push a religious and political agenda.
anyone who has seen the beauty of fractal imagery being born from simple alogrithms only half as long as this sentence, knows that extreme complexity (and aesthetic wonder) can arise from extremely simple beginnings.
the number of possible games of i-go that are playable? greater than the total number of atoms in the universe.
the rules of go? a nineteen by nineteen grid of dots, black stones and white stones placed alternately, surrounded stones removed, and stones cannot be placed on the same point in two consecutive rounds. THAT'S IT.
each game is different. each game is beautiful. each contains meaning, tension, energy and dynamic.
now imagine a game with a trillion trillion rules. how could an eye not form within it?
science seeks to find out how. creationism seeks to push a religious and political agenda.
anyone who has seen the beauty of fractal imagery being born from simple alogrithms only half as long as this sentence, knows that extreme complexity (and aesthetic wonder) can arise from extremely simple beginnings.
the number of possible games of i-go that are playable? greater than the total number of atoms in the universe.
the rules of go? a nineteen by nineteen grid of dots, black stones and white stones placed alternately, surrounded stones removed, and stones cannot be placed on the same point in two consecutive rounds. THAT'S IT.
each game is different. each game is beautiful. each contains meaning, tension, energy and dynamic.
now imagine a game with a trillion trillion rules. how could an eye not form within it?
02/09/05 @ 18:50
Comment from: cechner [Member]
Hmmm... OK, I've studied all the arguments, and have determined whether indeed there is a god.
I may write a blog about it. It will be succinct enough to allay any arguments, so everyone will read it and just go 'aaahh... fair enough' and adjust their lives accordingly.
News at 11...
I may write a blog about it. It will be succinct enough to allay any arguments, so everyone will read it and just go 'aaahh... fair enough' and adjust their lives accordingly.
News at 11...
03/09/05 @ 12:33
Comment from: smif [Visitor]
I'll disclaim right now that i'm not highly educated in science or theology.
Intelligent Design doesn't seem like much of a theory.. I haven't seen evidence put forward to support it other than the usual mockery of logic that is "No other theory is correct, so this theory must be correct."
I agree that students should be aware of both scientific and spiritual theory. The problem with ID is that it is religious thought masquerading as scientific theory.
Personally, I find it equally acceptable to suggest that the universe (what is the universe?) was created by some spiritual entity, God, or a cataclysmic event caused by nothing happening to nothing.
They're all entertaining theories. The problems only start when you allow yourself to be convinced one of them is right.
I think children should be exposed to all the known alternatives, including those we may find ludicrous. Present them with the admission that we really don't know what's right and hope one of them can someday come up with some answers.
B
Intelligent Design doesn't seem like much of a theory.. I haven't seen evidence put forward to support it other than the usual mockery of logic that is "No other theory is correct, so this theory must be correct."
I agree that students should be aware of both scientific and spiritual theory. The problem with ID is that it is religious thought masquerading as scientific theory.
Personally, I find it equally acceptable to suggest that the universe (what is the universe?) was created by some spiritual entity, God, or a cataclysmic event caused by nothing happening to nothing.
They're all entertaining theories. The problems only start when you allow yourself to be convinced one of them is right.
I think children should be exposed to all the known alternatives, including those we may find ludicrous. Present them with the admission that we really don't know what's right and hope one of them can someday come up with some answers.
B
08/09/05 @ 16:02
Comment from: cechner [Member]
Which ones? It has been decided that no religion should not have a hand in public education. This is because it is formative of culture and society, and must be kept sacrosanct and uncorrupted from direct Government, corporate or religious influence.
What's left is what's observable. This is by definition science. What is taught in schools is the sum of collected scientific knowledge.
I wouldn't object to a social studies class focussing on various religions and religious beliefs, because that would not disguise theology as science. I do object to an assumption that it should be included in science classes.
You are right - religion is a very important cultural facet, and as such kids can only benefit from a level understanding of it. But we should be careful to keep it honest.
What's left is what's observable. This is by definition science. What is taught in schools is the sum of collected scientific knowledge.
I wouldn't object to a social studies class focussing on various religions and religious beliefs, because that would not disguise theology as science. I do object to an assumption that it should be included in science classes.
You are right - religion is a very important cultural facet, and as such kids can only benefit from a level understanding of it. But we should be careful to keep it honest.
08/09/05 @ 16:29
Comment from: Kris [Visitor]
"It has been decided that no religion should not have a hand in public education."
- This amuses me. I've always felt that the further science pushes through the realm of hypothesis/theory, the more like a religion it becomes. When you start basing theories on theories, you're are quickly into the realm of faith and belief.
- Cech, I realise you're rant was about schooling and not evolution/creation, and I agree that level of education on the subject is poor. My feeling is that what isn't understood, can't be taught (at least not well) and while these lines of thinking are easy to explain (we were created / we evolved), a deeper understanding is incredibly complex.
- Therefore, I agree with your statement (key word "discussed");
"I don't think that a particular theology should be taught alongside the theory of evolution, but I do think it should be treated as what it is (a theory) with its arguments also discussed, so that students can make up their own mind."
- Lastly, I am far on an expert in this area, however your "eye" example is flawed and typifies the problem with both sides of the evolution / creation
debate. That of putting up no proof as proof.
(I'll explain over a beer if you care) ;)
Hmmm, do I risk persecution by pressing "send comment" or do I tip-toe back to being an innocent bystander...?
- This amuses me. I've always felt that the further science pushes through the realm of hypothesis/theory, the more like a religion it becomes. When you start basing theories on theories, you're are quickly into the realm of faith and belief.
- Cech, I realise you're rant was about schooling and not evolution/creation, and I agree that level of education on the subject is poor. My feeling is that what isn't understood, can't be taught (at least not well) and while these lines of thinking are easy to explain (we were created / we evolved), a deeper understanding is incredibly complex.
- Therefore, I agree with your statement (key word "discussed");
"I don't think that a particular theology should be taught alongside the theory of evolution, but I do think it should be treated as what it is (a theory) with its arguments also discussed, so that students can make up their own mind."
- Lastly, I am far on an expert in this area, however your "eye" example is flawed and typifies the problem with both sides of the evolution / creation
debate. That of putting up no proof as proof.
(I'll explain over a beer if you care) ;)
Hmmm, do I risk persecution by pressing "send comment" or do I tip-toe back to being an innocent bystander...?
13/09/05 @ 22:09
Comment from: cechner [Member]
OK, two points here... firstly, and mainly, all of science is taught as a series of theories. I don't think there is any misrepresentation in schools that they are more than theories. Theories is all science is, and nobody benefits from trying to say they are otherwise.
Science isn't pushing further into the realm of hypothesis, because it is completely within that realm anyway. The main difference is that science is uncompromised by outside interests. It is not the realm of public schools, however, to push outside agendas (in this case, Christian ones.)
What I think is being misrepresented here is that nobody is stopping discussions about theology. It's just that you cant let lobby groups affect the school agenda. I also take issue to corporations giving free branded (MacDonalds, for example) textbooks to schools, because it means the school's agenda has become compromised.
On the point of what's understood, I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that a theorem has to be incontrovertably proven (an impossibility) before it is 'understood'? And are you saying things that aren't understood completely cannot be taught??? How are theories developed then?
Also, in your third point you are quoting Lee, not me... and I'll repeat the problem I had with it. "with its arguments discussed" is a very vague thing to say. What does it mean exactly? Discussion is always encouraged in the classroom.
I also agree that you should buy me beers so we can discuss at length...
Science isn't pushing further into the realm of hypothesis, because it is completely within that realm anyway. The main difference is that science is uncompromised by outside interests. It is not the realm of public schools, however, to push outside agendas (in this case, Christian ones.)
What I think is being misrepresented here is that nobody is stopping discussions about theology. It's just that you cant let lobby groups affect the school agenda. I also take issue to corporations giving free branded (MacDonalds, for example) textbooks to schools, because it means the school's agenda has become compromised.
On the point of what's understood, I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that a theorem has to be incontrovertably proven (an impossibility) before it is 'understood'? And are you saying things that aren't understood completely cannot be taught??? How are theories developed then?
Also, in your third point you are quoting Lee, not me... and I'll repeat the problem I had with it. "with its arguments discussed" is a very vague thing to say. What does it mean exactly? Discussion is always encouraged in the classroom.
I also agree that you should buy me beers so we can discuss at length...
14/09/05 @ 12:29
Comment from: Leedrick [Visitor] · http://leedrick.blogspot.com
Can anyone tell me how the Bee developed its ability to sting through natural selection?
I'm sure you can see the problem here, but I'll expound anyway. The theory of evolution through natural selection as I understand it works as follows:
A creature of a particular species develops through mutation a feature that provides such an advantage that any species without this mutation is pruned off by some sort of predator or environmental condition. The mutation must then be carried genetically through to its offspring.
How does the bee's sting provide an advantage to the bee? It certainly helps the hive, but the individual bee has no reason to survive over a bee without a sting. In fact, the bee dies shortly after stinging anything.
Please note: For full credit, answers such as "Bees evolved stings, therefore they have", or simply stating that randomness exists will not be accepted ;)
I'm sure you can see the problem here, but I'll expound anyway. The theory of evolution through natural selection as I understand it works as follows:
A creature of a particular species develops through mutation a feature that provides such an advantage that any species without this mutation is pruned off by some sort of predator or environmental condition. The mutation must then be carried genetically through to its offspring.
How does the bee's sting provide an advantage to the bee? It certainly helps the hive, but the individual bee has no reason to survive over a bee without a sting. In fact, the bee dies shortly after stinging anything.
Please note: For full credit, answers such as "Bees evolved stings, therefore they have", or simply stating that randomness exists will not be accepted ;)
28/09/05 @ 12:04
Comment from: cechner [Member]
OK, I'll bite, though I will once again note that arguments like this have exactly nothing to do with what I was writing about.
I would say that evolution is obviously closely tied to reproduction. The worker bees who die do not assist directly in the reproduction of new bees - they exist to protect the hive. Hives that have these kamokazi bees would probably flourish more than those that do not, as it is a very strong defence mechanism.
So the queen bees that produce the suicidal bees actually prove to be the fittest, and survive in situations others would not. It is the queen bee who decides what type of bees are created, and the random mutation (this is not a dirty word - I'm not sure why you don't like it) that gave her the ability to create the worker bees proved very beneficial to her indeed.
I would say that evolution is obviously closely tied to reproduction. The worker bees who die do not assist directly in the reproduction of new bees - they exist to protect the hive. Hives that have these kamokazi bees would probably flourish more than those that do not, as it is a very strong defence mechanism.
So the queen bees that produce the suicidal bees actually prove to be the fittest, and survive in situations others would not. It is the queen bee who decides what type of bees are created, and the random mutation (this is not a dirty word - I'm not sure why you don't like it) that gave her the ability to create the worker bees proved very beneficial to her indeed.
28/09/05 @ 12:16
Comment from: Leedrick [Visitor] · http://leedrick.blogspot.com
So you don't think that the bees will lose this potential feature as soon as the hive is attacked and any bees with the stings use them and die?
28/09/05 @ 12:37
Comment from: Leedrick [Visitor] · http://leedrick.blogspot.com
I don't think random mutation is a dirty word. The chance of random mutation creating a beneficial feature is just extremely unlikely.
28/09/05 @ 12:38
Comment from: cechner [Member]
Well if you think about it, generally only the useful ones are going to cause a stronger species, and so are going to cause a minority to flourish. If it weren't useful, it would probably be bred out.
So I would think that the chance of a random mutation persisting is quite likely.
If a species developed a useless mutation - one that allowed them to develop cold symptoms at will, for example - they probably wouldn't be any more likely to have a greater chance at survival, so their DNA strain would not necessarily flourish, and nobody would ever talk about it. It's only the useful ones we see.
So I would think that the chance of a random mutation persisting is quite likely.
If a species developed a useless mutation - one that allowed them to develop cold symptoms at will, for example - they probably wouldn't be any more likely to have a greater chance at survival, so their DNA strain would not necessarily flourish, and nobody would ever talk about it. It's only the useful ones we see.
28/09/05 @ 12:56
Comment from: Leedrick [Visitor] · http://leedrick.blogspot.com
I just found out that apparently queen bees can sting multiple times without dying. Why do her offspring die? Why didn't they pick up the "sting and not die" feature from her, only the far crappier "sting and then die" one?
Nature as I'm sure you are well aware hangs in a fine balance. Creatures introduced into an environment not used to them can quickly upset and destroy many other species. The same would occur if a species managed to develop a feature that made them superior to others, unless its competitors were simultaneously developing a secret weapon of their own.
It strikes me that the bees might have the "sting, but then die" restriction for a reason. It doesn't support the survival of their species, but it does stop them from becoming teh l337 hax0rz that will pwnz0r everything else.
Nature as I'm sure you are well aware hangs in a fine balance. Creatures introduced into an environment not used to them can quickly upset and destroy many other species. The same would occur if a species managed to develop a feature that made them superior to others, unless its competitors were simultaneously developing a secret weapon of their own.
It strikes me that the bees might have the "sting, but then die" restriction for a reason. It doesn't support the survival of their species, but it does stop them from becoming teh l337 hax0rz that will pwnz0r everything else.
28/09/05 @ 12:58
Comment from: cechner [Member]
And on the bees question (didn't see it before) - if it proves successful, why would they lose the feature? If the mutation occurred in a single hive only, and that hive was destroyed completely (including the queen) then perhaps it would have died out I guess.
Obviously this is less likely to occur though, as thats not how hives work eh? The idea of the worker bees having a stinger is that their numbers prove a sufficient deterrent that the hive is less likely to be wiped out.
I'm not sure I understood your question.
Obviously this is less likely to occur though, as thats not how hives work eh? The idea of the worker bees having a stinger is that their numbers prove a sufficient deterrent that the hive is less likely to be wiped out.
I'm not sure I understood your question.
28/09/05 @ 13:01
Comment from: cechner [Member]
And on the question of why the workers don't die when they sting, even though the queen can - doesn't that sort of lend weight to the 'randomness' of the mutation, rather than by design? It proved beneficial, but not perfect... similarly, our eyes are not perfect.
I am not an expert on bees though, nor on genetics and why queens cannot pass on genetic behaviour to non-queens (or men to women or whatever).
I am not an expert on bees though, nor on genetics and why queens cannot pass on genetic behaviour to non-queens (or men to women or whatever).
28/09/05 @ 13:05
Comment from: lance [Visitor]
To reverse some of the questions being asked:
If the way in which certain kinds of bees sting-and-die is so 'crap', why did an Intelligent Designer make them that way?
Hmmm...maybe he likes kamikazes. Maybe the Japanese Emperor really is GOD!
BANZAI!
Please note: For full credit, answers such as "The Lord Works in Mysterious Ways", or simply stating that we live in the best of all possible worlds, will be discounted.
If the way in which certain kinds of bees sting-and-die is so 'crap', why did an Intelligent Designer make them that way?
Hmmm...maybe he likes kamikazes. Maybe the Japanese Emperor really is GOD!
BANZAI!
Please note: For full credit, answers such as "The Lord Works in Mysterious Ways", or simply stating that we live in the best of all possible worlds, will be discounted.
29/09/05 @ 09:50
Comment from: Leedrick [Visitor] · http://leedrick.blogspot.com
I already made the point that the reason bees die once they sting could be to maintain a balance that is needed in order for lifeforms to co-exist.
Do you think that the bee developed this stinging feature or that we developed any of our organs in a single mutation? Do you think a single bee was born with a functional stinging ability?
If not, then each stage of any new feature must be significantly beneficial to the species in order for it to be preserved.
Evolution as a whole doesn't explain the real unanswered questions about us an our universe. If anything, it only tries to explain how we came from something smaller, and less alive. Where did that matter come from?
First there was nothing, which then exploded into something that mutated to become all life. I don't think we should be so quick to accept this as the final explanation.
Don't try to paint me as a religeous zealot. I haven't really meantioned god much in any of this nor tried to force you to believe in one. I am just surprised at how quickly people swallow the theory of evolution.
Do you think that the bee developed this stinging feature or that we developed any of our organs in a single mutation? Do you think a single bee was born with a functional stinging ability?
If not, then each stage of any new feature must be significantly beneficial to the species in order for it to be preserved.
Evolution as a whole doesn't explain the real unanswered questions about us an our universe. If anything, it only tries to explain how we came from something smaller, and less alive. Where did that matter come from?
First there was nothing, which then exploded into something that mutated to become all life. I don't think we should be so quick to accept this as the final explanation.
Don't try to paint me as a religeous zealot. I haven't really meantioned god much in any of this nor tried to force you to believe in one. I am just surprised at how quickly people swallow the theory of evolution.
30/09/05 @ 15:18
Comment from: cechner [Member]
I said before that I wouldn't try to talk anyone out of their religion. The reason I argue with you here now though is because you are going where I dare not go - because you don't find something plausible, you seem to imply that perhaps I haven't really thought it through, or that I'm being canny.
I feel completely comfortable with evolution, and I'll discuss it ad nauseum (and be interested because it's a fascinating topic.) I don't personally think there are any glaring omissions in it, and I'm happy saying why. But I think perhaps the reason people are uncomfortable about religious arguments is that people take it too personally, and the argument turns sour.
That said though, I'm quite happy with how this one's turning out... I'm really glad we have both sides of the debate recorded here. I guess this is all more of a side-note that we should all respect each others intelligence.
On another note, check out the link I added to the bottom of the rant.
I feel completely comfortable with evolution, and I'll discuss it ad nauseum (and be interested because it's a fascinating topic.) I don't personally think there are any glaring omissions in it, and I'm happy saying why. But I think perhaps the reason people are uncomfortable about religious arguments is that people take it too personally, and the argument turns sour.
That said though, I'm quite happy with how this one's turning out... I'm really glad we have both sides of the debate recorded here. I guess this is all more of a side-note that we should all respect each others intelligence.
On another note, check out the link I added to the bottom of the rant.
30/09/05 @ 17:50
Comment from: Forexman [Visitor] · http://www.nvest.ru
Hi. This is really interesting post. Thank You! I have just subscribed to Your rss!
Best regards
Best regards
05/06/08 @ 07:18
Comment from: MuffFumpjeocume [Visitor] · http://payday-loans-az.blogspot.com
hey !!
its very unconventional point of view.
Good post.
realy good post
thx :-)
its very unconventional point of view.
Good post.
realy good post
thx :-)
03/09/08 @ 01:47
This post has 9 feedbacks awaiting moderation...
Comment feed for this post