E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Lawrence David / MIT
The figure shows the evolution of gene families in ancient genomes across the Tree of Life. The sizes of the little pie charts scale with the number of evolutionary events in lineages, slices indicate event types: gene birth (red), duplication (blue), horizontal gene transfer (green), and loss (yellow). The Archean Expansion period (3.33 to 2.85 billion years ago) is highlighted in green. Click here to see a larger version of the image.
The collective genome of all life on Earth today went through a rapid growth spurt between 3.3 billion and 2.8 billion years ago, according to scientists who used computer algorithms to reconstruct the evolutionary history of thousands of genes.
The growth spurt coincides with the advent of a biochemical pathway known as electron transport that is "integral for photosynthesis as well as for respiration," Lawrence David, a computational biologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told me.
He and colleague Eric Alm named this growth spurt the Archean Expansion. The expansion precedes an era known as the Great Oxidation, when oxygen began to accumulate in Earth's atmosphere and likely killed off large numbers of non-oxygen breathing life forms.
The computer model developed by David and Alm doesn't have the resolution required to show a causal link between the genetic expansion, the die-off of anaerobic life, and the emergence of bigger aerobic life forms. Nevertheless, "the timing is interesting," David noted.
"We see these genes coming online which have a lot to do with photosynthesis and metabolism, and concurrently there's a big diversification in the genetic repertoire," he said.
The research is based on the premise that DNA is a sort of living fossil, allowing scientists to peer back through time and reconstruct evolutionary histories.
"We inherit DNA from our ancestors, and so you can work backwards by looking at the genomic record in all the living organisms today to piece together what was going on in the past," David said. "That's the idea behind DNA in you an me almost being like a fossil."
To peer back in time, the researchers created family trees of closely related genes. It is similar to a family tree — with aunts, uncles and cousins — but instead of family members, the "branches" are DNA sequences from different organisms.
"What we found when we constructed these gene trees for all these different gene families is that 27 percent of the roots of these trees all seem to be dated to this period in Earth's history," David said.
Alm added in a news release that the findings prove "the histories of very ancient events are recorded in the shared DNA of living organisms. And now that we are beginning to decode that history, I have hope that we can reconstruct some of the earliest events in the evolution of life in great detail."
The findings were reported Sunday by the journal Nature. For more stories on related issues, check out the links below.
- 'Great Oxidation Event' occurred much earlier
- Earliest traces of complex life?
- Ancient animal explosion gets bigger with new finds
- Mysterious DNA survives eons of evolution
John Roach is a contributing writer for msnbc.com. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by hitting the "like" button on the Cosmic Log Facebook page or following msnbc.com's science editor, Alan Boyle, on Twitter (@b0yle).
Leave a Comment:
500 MILLION years is NOT a spurt!
It is in geology and it was in biology at the time (and considering this scale).
c.smith
NO it is NOT in either geology or biology. The Dinosaurs 'rules' for less time, the Atlantic Ocean is MUCH younger.
500 million years is 1/8th of the total age of the Earth and roughly 1/6th of the time life is thought to have existed, (on this planet).
So much for the people who believe everything was created 25,000 years ago. As a biologist I also believe in Evolution. State school grad.
I am likewise a biologist - well, I used to be a geneticist specifically - but now I've moved into a completely different career path. But yeah, to me nothing is more beautiful or more convincing evidence in favor of evolutionary theory than research such as this. You and I, we look at this and see clear evidence of the common descent of all life on Earth. The Creationist will look at this and see evidence of a common creator for all life on Earth that used similar genetic "building blocks". Whatever. The crux of the matter is this:
Evolutionary theory specifically predicts that this would be the case. Creationism can make no such prediction. That one, simple fact, to me - is overwhelmingly powerful evidence in favor of evolution.
u cant change the minds of the brainwashed since birth peeps. of course mankind is not part of this cuz mankind was created from fairy dust, faith and denial. faith that scientific facts aren't true and denying the obvious.
Man invented god when there was no science to explain things.
Yes, but is evolutionary theory taught as the evolution of molecules - or some kind of transcendent lineage from apes? I believe when the theory was first invented it had nothing to do with molecules. Traits that are incompatible with the body in which they originate are more ecological then evolutionary. But I do agree that the analysis is very interesting. Survival of the fittest is a misnormer. Survival of the ecologically compatible would be more correct.
Maybe you biologists should pay more attention to physics. Einstein revealed almost 100 years ago how 6 days and 14 billion years could be the exact same amount of time, thus erasing the biggest 'contradiction' between creationism and evolution.
First off, that is hardly the "biggest contradiction" between creationism and evolution.
Second, no one was addressing anything about a literalist creation story at all - we were simply addressing the concept of either evolution does occur, or it does not. The Big Bang and evolutionary theory are NOT the same theory and they have absolutely nothing to do with each other whatsoever. Whenever someone equates the two, they are doing nothing but muddying the waters of basic scientific knowledge for the general public. So why would we discuss something like that when we were discussing evolutionary theory?
And finally, Einstein (to my knowledge) said no such thing. You may be thinking of Russell Humphreys - a physicist and young earth creationist who used relativity to create an "alternative" model of universal expansion and who has since been roundly ridiculed by the scientific community.
"..roundly ridiculed by the scientific community." Do you have any specific examples of such a thing occurring? As far as I'm aware any scientist worth a damn would not waste time "ridiculing" anyone, what a scientist would do is roundly prove an opposing hypothesis correct and let the science do the talking. Any scientist that lowers themselves to ridiculing someone else, in my opinion, isn't worth a damn.
The fossil was really a Twinkie, still in the rapper, still edible. So now we know, a twinkie has infinite shelf life.
One can not prove infinite shelf life, especially not at this point in time. Besides, we all know that the cockroaches will eat all the twinkies after everything else on Earth is gone.
3 BILLION years old! Impossible! NO way! Just ask any good old Bible Thumpers on line here, "They" will tell those fake scientist that the Earth in only 6000 years old.
Yeah, but it's funny when Bible Thumpers suddenly become quiet when asked where they got the number 6000 years from.
spaghetti monster told them 6000 etc
Any Bible Thumper worth his/her salt should be able to tell you that Bishop Ussher went to the "begats" in the Bible and counted the generations back to Adam. He used a set number for the number of years in a generation, used a little simple arithmetic and came to the conclusion of 6000 years. If I remember correctly, he even stated that the earth was created on some day in October at 9:00 AM.
I am not a bible thumper, I am a geologist, I am a Christian. I have no problem with evolution and religion. Two entirely different things to me.
Just so no one gets the wrong idea from my above post, I am just explaining where some Christians come up with the 6000 yr old age for the earth. I in no way belive that myself.
Ussher needed to study his Hebrew more. The lineages given in the old testament are not necessarily immediate. The term used simply means X is a direct descendant of Y, not necessarily the immediate son. He could be the grandson, great grandson, etc.
Also, on another note, the Bible-smashers here need to get back to their physics. There is no contradiction between the 6-day creation of the Old Testament and the ~14 billion year creation of modern cosmology. 'But how can you say that', you may ask. 'Surely the 6 days vs 14 billion years part has to be a contradiction, right?' Not according to Einstein. :)
I predict "The Begats" will be a new hipster band name...
I have NEVER heard that "quote" attributed to Einstein...
Please provide a link, or source to that info, to back it up.... or stop saying it.
That's right.. if you can't google it then it can't be true
I never seen where Einstien said that either... But I did see where god wanted the men to take the untouched girls for themselves and kill the rest of the men and women. It's right there... In your book. I can point to it! Nasty god! Bad! No untouched girls for you! Oh no! Not the 3 bears you sent to kill children! I be good! ARrraaghaa...
Just think, the Christians would have us believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old. How would they explain such wonders as this? Science once again disproves the fanatics and their superstitions that keep so many in the dark. I can believe in God and still believe in science too. This discovery proves the age of the earth is truly beyond the limited vision of religions. Now the bible and it's believers should be questioning the remainder of their beliefs about the 'magic' that they believe in. So stop putting that vodoo in my face and telling me how I'm sinning for this or that, I'm living my life as God intended. Thinking freely and loving freely without fearing some hateful God of vengeance.
Yeah, I'd like them to explain the Neanderthals, the cave paintings, the Venus sculptures, the bone flutes, and a bazillion other things. When God apparently made man, they weren't cavemen, that's for sure. The Bible fails to mention any other species like homo erectus and the dinosaurs. I doubt man lived peacefully with the T-Rex before the flood (which Christians claim killed off all the dinos).
i saw a show on this. all those things that you "non-believers" speak of are actually left by the devil to confuse you and cause you to question God. i just heard yesterday that 40% of america have faith that God created everything over a 6 day period just 5 or 6000 years ago. funny- close to the same number that believe omama wasnt born in america and that he is muslim.
So, if we Christians all believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old, does that mean the atheists all believe that anyone who doesn't agree with them needs to be shipped off to a gulag if not shot on sight?
Funny how dangerous generalizations can be when turned against you, huh?
What??? No, of course not... but it would be nice if you stopped trying to do the following...
a) Influence legislation to make it agree with your beliefs
b) Demand that our elected officials also share your beliefs (there are morally-sound, non-believers out there)
c) Force prayer into the public school system, and have textbooks rewritten to conform to revisionist historical beliefs.
No, but it is odd what a bizarre an analogy you can create when one thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other, and you jump to the most extreme conclusion possible.
By the way... I'm not an atheist... I just reject organized religion.
The truth is that God never says exactly when He created the heaven and the earth. He does however make it very clear that there are three heaven and earth ages, the one before, the one now and the one to come.
II Peter 3:5-8; 13
5. For this they willingly are ingorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6. Whereby the world (age) that then was, being over flowed with water, perished:
7. But the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
13. Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
When one considers the heaven/earth age before, the current heaven/earth age and the heaven and earth age to come, one understands that finding a billion year old fossil is just plain wonderful.
Billions and Billions....
I would like to say that you should not stereo-type all Christians in to the group of creationist. I am a Christian and there is no question that the earth is 4.6 billion years old, and that evolution has happened.Â
Thankyou. Even after growing in a Christian household, I like to takes things on a scientific approach. Who says the 7 days it took God to make the Earth weren't 20 million years a day. We can't comprehend what a day with God is. And whoever labelled Earth as being only 6000 years old is a dimwit. How do you get those numbers? That would mean that all species that had ever lived on Earth had lived in the past 6000 years. Why is it, in the past 6000 years, we have no written record of living dinosaurs or Neanderthals? Yeah.
which god are u talking about and why can u suddenly interpret one of the bibles the way u want too? that is to only be interpreted by a village elder aka priest to a manner that best keeps him in power and rich.
I think it's funny how some of you see this science and still belief in your gods. You want to have it both ways, appreciation for science but still maintain a belief in some all-mighty deity. You think it's hip to distance yourselves from religion and bend the science to fit your beliefs. It's pretty hypocritical. I don't know what is worse... delusional religious sheep who put faith over science - or people who distort science to fit their beliefs. The world wasn't created in 7 days x 20 million years. That is just you trying to make science fit into your pitiful beliefs.
Trying to re-interpret the Bible is indeed dangerous. Sometimes good (e.g. the lineages given in the Old Testament aren't necessarily immediate descent, they may skip generations), but always dangerous. Better to re-interpret physics like Einstein did. That way, we can show that 6 days and 14 billion years can actually be the same amount of time, as observed from two different relativistic perspectives.
It's fun when you realize that a deeper understanding of science actually illuminates the work of God's hand. You should try it, Mr. Blue.
I agree with this statement 100%. There is great beauty in this universe, and if a God created it, there is great beauty in the work of God as well.
But the Christian genesis story diminishes that beauty and turns this wondrous creation into a pathetic shell of what it once was.
My humble advice to you is to stop getting your science from Creationist websites and books, because there is far greater beauty in the handiwork of God when you actually study legitimate science and legitimate scientists.
Well, let us just say that they are lacking in a bit of wisdom, knowledge and understanding.
God actually does share this with us as follows:
2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the LORD as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
I'm glad they are getting around to explaining the DNA molecule. When you see one up close, it looks like a little machine. I would still like to hear an explanation from an evolutionary perspective, in detail...in other words, the precursors leading to the molecule! I am an agnostic but accept, whole heartily, evolutionary doctrine.
Jake Turner,
Being one of the rational Christians, how do you deal with your wild eyed, fire-breathing brethren?
Thx
by not expressing his views around more than 2 of them at once or risk being ostracized or stoned by these peace loving chaps.
Being of like mind to Mr. Turner, I deal with them by trying to educate them in both the science and religion (as I generally find them deeply lacking in both, thus the fiery breath).
Got something to say Joe? Don't be shy.
cat's got his tongue.
No, it's the pre-cat wombat that has it. :p
And Lo....
God did SMITE Joe Wobblie, and make him mute,
so as not to let his unholy tongue utter the profane and blasphemous words of...
EVIL-UTION and DNA (Devil's New Answer)...
And Joe was cast out, and did spend all of eternity in a pool of warm, flat beer... watching re-runs of Jerry Springer...
It only takes 2 dimwits from any religion to agree to some definite.
First dimwit: "Don't you agree that the earth is really old? Probably 6000 years?
Second dimwit: "You're right. I have faith that it is the correct answer!"
"Let's tell every else!"
That is how they came up with that number.
You people seem really angry. Take a deep breath. I am a Christian and believe in the Bible and everything it states and teaches. Every time I have studied evolution, it has led me to a dead end of some sort that requires "faith" in scientific theory to believe. I have never seen any solid evidence that has pointed to our beginnings, and somehow led to what we are now. It usually goes something like "This happened billions of years ago, and somehow led to this that happened billions of years ago, and somehow that led to this that happened billions of years ago........." Never a solid chain of happenings, and it always takes one thing that is hard for us to truly comprehend, which is a ridiculous amount of time. Sounds more like' A LONG time ago in a faraway land", more of a fairy tale than anything else, lol ;) . And to any Christian that would insult the "image of God" that we are created in by stating that we started as a germ, you should know better. If any one wants scientific proof of the age of the earth, the best source I have found is the much hated and arrogant Kent Hovind, aka Dr. Dino. His studies made so much more sense than anything I have ever found, and I am the kind of person where the simplest and most logical answer is probably the right one. And to answer some of the questions in the earlier comments, Dinosaurs were mentioned in the Bible, and I would suggest that alligators would be argued as dinosaurs if they went extinct a few hundred years ago. Simply study history and you find all sorts of stories and drawings of what we call dinosaurs, so maybe they existed in recent history?. The Bible is where we get the 6000 years from, simply add the numbers of the timelines. There are people that live in caves today in some parts of the world. If you took everyone in LA, California and lined them up, I bet you could get pretty close to seeing the "evolution" of the human man. Try researching fossils of 13 foot tall humans found in South America, or paintings of dinosaurs found in native tribes all over the Americas. There is alot of recent proofs that suggest that our "theory" of life science is trying so hard to force feed is no better than the "earth is flat" theory tried so many years ago. The Bible has always been consistent and can always be answered from and evolution is not the answer. One last answer to a question, the reason I believe that the Creation happened in 7 days is because that is what the Bible says, if you study it, the words used were to describe a 24 hour period and the same as used throughout the Bible, so yes, it was a 7 day week, where do you think our current 7 day week came from? If anyone is honestly interested in a grown up conversation about these topics, please email me at blitz1020@hotmail.com. Thanks
Jon Hinger
More ignorant Creationist Crap. Show me a peer reviewed paper, from a reputable journal, with maps and photos, showing fossils of 13 foot tall humans in S. America. I said a peer reviewed paper, not some creationist's fabrication.
Peer reviewed by someone that doesnt agree with creation right? I am pretty sure that any papers written on them are gonna get burned and exiled just like any other scienctist or work that supports Creation. Search for yourself, God gave you intelligence, use it for yourself, dont rely on excuses and words of others.
Jon, did you even bother to look at the amazing diagram at the top of the article? Do you have any idea how remarkable it is, and how strongly it validates the theory of common descent?
And, btw, NO, crocodile fossils would not be confused with dinosaur fossils -- they are radically different.
My heart breaks for you. You are so brainwashed by religion and lack any reasonable amount of intelligence to see that your beliefs are wrong. You are missing out on some truly amazing things because you are too stubborn to keep an open mind. I love how you so easily except the word of an old book of myths (that has no basis in fact) over proven science. You are so afraid of the possibility there is no god that you blind yourself to the truth. Do you really think scientists lie and preachers tell the truth? People like you are no different than conspiracy theorists. I imagine that you think Elvis is alive and well too.
I very much agree with "PaulG3" when he says that mankind originally invented religion to serve as a pseudoscience for explaining everything in our world and Universe, in place of genuine science. Thank you, "PaulG3" for your important contribution on this subject! But unfortunately, I have the distinct misfortune to inform our entire world that these three dangerous Abrahamic religions are actually far more than that. Believe it or not, these three Abrahamic religions are actually the main focus of a longstanding covert ET conspiracy to eventually steal and annex our extremely valuable celestial real estate, while eventually rendering mankind extinct on this planet at the same time. This is really the most "inconvenient truth" in our entire world (sorry Al), and it is also "The Highest National and World Security Issue" in our entire world as well. Please understand, everyone, that we all live within a greater galactic community of inhabited worlds in our greater Milky Way galaxy, which in turn is partly free and partly totalitarian, much as our own human world has been throughout much of its tumultuous history (partly due to these ETs). There has actually been a longstanding covert ET conspiracy of territorial conquest going on in our sector of the Milky Way galaxy, one which actually spans thousands of Earth years, and it intimately involves all of three of these ET designed and installed Abrahamic religions, which are all critical components of a larger ET designed PWMD, or Program Weapon of Mass Destruction, which in turn is a biocybernetic program weapon of mass destruction modeled after a thermonuclear device in a critical mass psychological way. These ETs actually borrowed from earlier primitive versions of manmade religions as a way of covering up their covert role in the design of these Abrahamic terminal religious belief systems, which are all intended to one day crash and explode our emerging human world in a final programmed cataclysm of global warfare fueled with WMDs, known as the Christian Apocalypse or World War III. These ETs are actually trying to create a future eminent domain pretext for outside military intervention into our world, when these ET installed Abrahamic religions finally succeed in crashing and exploding our human world in an "End Time" cataclysm of global warfare fueled with WMDs. These ETs, who are currently in eminent domain control of our sector of the Milky Way galaxy, as the result of the outcome of a previous regional galactic conflict (which they in turn fomented), were forced to take this covert approach at territorial conquest in our Milky Way galaxy, because there are Free Galaxy powers elsewhere in our Milky Way galaxy, who currently stand in the way of overt military conquest on a stellar level. I personally found out about this longstanding ET conspiracy of territorial conquest against our world while living at Wright Patterson Air Force base with my grandparents from 1951 to 1953. My grandfather, Colonel Charles Faulkner Carter, was second in command there at the time, and he was personally involved in the background investigation into the Roswell incident. These ETs overflew Washington DC for several weeks back in 1952, for the purpose of demanding the return of the Roswell crash remains. They chose the middle of the Korean war as the most opportune time to do this, since we had our hands full militarily with the Soviets, the Red Chinese, and the North Koreans. These same ETs are poised right now to militarily invade our human world using their eminent domain rights of military intervention in our sector of the Milky Way galaxy, once these three Abrahamic "End Time" terminal religious belief systems finally succeed in crashing and exploding our emerging human world in a final programmed cataclysm of global warfare fueled with WMDs, known as the Christian Apocalypse or World War III. If this tragic day ever comes to pass, it is extremely unlikely that we will ever again regain control of our extremely valuable celestial real estate, much less our own destiny in this Universe. These ETs intend to spend a thousand intervening years following their military intervention supposedly trying to salvage or redeem mankind from their "hopelessly ways", but at the end of that thousand years they intend to foment a final rebellion by mankind against their totalitarian rule, as a pretext for completely destroying all of mankind off of this planet, with the exception of a small group of compliant believers, whom they intend to extract and use as long term hostages against outside retaliation, by the same Free Galaxy powers who currently stand in the way of overt military conquest on a stellar level. Mankind potentially has millions (even billions) of years of growth, development and expansion ahead of them, as a full fledged member of our greater galactic community, so long as they don't fall for these three ET installed Abrahamic religions, which are all supposed to spread in a viral way around our planet until a future time when they are supposed to crash and explode our entire human world in a final programmed cataclysm of global warfare fueled with WMDs, known as the Christian Apocalypse or World War III. Please listen, all of mankind, before it is too late for mankind on this precious planet !!! - Rick Carter, (former U.S. Special Forces, 6th & 5th Groups, top "Go Team" Ft. Bragg, N.C., ETS from active duty 1972)
the "earth is flat" theory
Um, you know that is from the bible, right? And, yeah, that one is more than a little off.
Jon Hinger
You lose your credibility in the first couple of lines. You claim you have not seen any evidence supporting evolution. Then what should those of us who HAVE seen it think? It makes me think that you have passed judgment on something without seeing the evidence. How scientific is that?
Reason-11511
Why did you change your screen name? You keep saying the same things that you used to, and they are still wrong. You do not even try to address the concerns people have raised to you before, on how oyu misunderstand the process of science. You say that science shouls welcome inquisition, and yet you seem to ignore it. What should we conclude from that?
Science supports evolution. I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong. No, I don't expect you to take my word for it. I expect you to go out and learn about it with a truly open mind. That's what science is all about, right?
Jon, I sincerely encourage you to go back and study both science and your god more. If you worship the same God I do, I believe you'll find him a God of order, of processes, of rules, and of elegant simplicity. The idea that He would employ a process to create His works is not only not insulting, but down right fitting in character. And if you think it's insulting to say He made us from germs, how insulting must it be to say He made us from dirt? But I suspect He would find neither of these things insulting. Remember, "Do not call unclean anything which God has made clean."
As for that little disagreement about how long it took, God tells us that in His court, a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day. Surprisingly (or not if you've been paying attention), physicists agree on this. Time isn't what it looks like. It isn't fixed and static. Time is relative. You could even call it relativistic. When seen from two different relativistic perspectives, the exact same event, taking the exact same amount of time, can appear to take two radically different amounts of time. So radically different, in fact, that an event that took ~14 billion years from our perspective would only take about 6 days from the perspective of the Big Bang. Funny conversion there, how it ends up being 6 days?
Our God is a God of science, too. He wrote the laws that Man is trying to figure out. Don't be surprised when He uses them.
You believe in the Bible, which is basically the story of the life of Jesus. There is absolutely no historical evidence, which cannot be questioned, that he ever lived. It is all stories by a bunch of old men, decades to hundreds of years later. The early Jews were paternalistic and viewed women, as second class citizens. Thus, the "savior", was born of a virgin and his relationship with his female disciple is obscured and vaguely defined. There has never been a virgin birth in the entire history of mankind, because it is impossible. There was no "garden of Eden". You believe in a myth and call the theory of evolution, false. I am sorry, but your argument is pathetic.
You sound like your talking about religion more than evolution.
Jim A
A virgin birth IS theoretically possible. If an egg cell's nucleus were to divide & recombine into a diploid nucleus the egg could then develop into a baby. It would be a girl, however, as no Y chromosome would be present. This happens with virgin Turkeys, which will lay eggs that hatch into males because, in birds, XX is male and XY is female.
Just a quick suggestion, I googled "pics of giant human remains", it gave some pretty funny, and interesting results. And like I said earlier, Kent Hovind is pretty good at that area of science, if you really care to search for the truth, watch his videos and judge for yourself, he makes alot of good, provable points.
Kent Hovind is what you people call "a false prophet", he takes solid science and twists it to fit his agenda. Because you would believe in him over a real scientist shows how dense you are. I'll pray for you. LOL!
Kent Hovind? Hovind? Jon, it is this type of disingenuous posting that causes folks to get fed up with creationists. I can point you to Hovind's thrashing at the hands of CARM biologists over ten years ago. "...pretty good at that area of science?" -- no, and not by a long shot. And given genetic and epi-genetic advances in the past 10 years, he is even less relevant (if that were possible).
Evolution explains the fused tail vertebrae of humans, the varying levels of eye degeneration in cave dwelling fish, the pelvises in pythons, wings of flightless beetles retained underneath fused wing covers, etc. Creationism/ID impugns itself in these regards (and others -- why, for example, is our windpipe anterior to our esophagus and connected via a common channel, exposing us to the threat of choking?) Sort of takes the 'I' out of "ID", does it not?
However (and as Eric alluded to above), it is not merely the analytic, but the predictive nature of evolution which is superior. No organism can have a vestigial structure that was not previously functional in one of its ancestors. This is huge. The phylogenetic tree makes these predictions (the inverse of which would falsify the theory): no vestigial placenta or nipples in any amphibians, birds or reptiles; no mammals with a vestigial breastbone; no arthropods with vestigial backbones. Creationism/ID? No clue, no comment, no prediction (and thus, no "theory").
If anyone is honestly interested in a grown up conversation about these topics
Always. But honestly, you have quite an academic endeavor in front of you to get "grown up"...
Is anyone here a scientist? Have you done any research? If you were you'd know right off the bat that "scientists" fudge stuff all the time. Ever heard of publish or perish? The system is corrupt Professors and students are always trying to get out that next paper. And those peers reviews...usually done by others grad students and then signed off on by the professor. If you've ever done any real research or work you'd quickly find out how little science really knows. There are always tiny holes and error in such research which we try to explain away. This thing above is just a circular argument you start with the premise of evolution then you take an enormous data set and then design an algorithm and then whala it spits out some results which show evolution. These results of course cant be proven because they were in the past billions of years ago. That's an interesting academic exercise but not scientific proof for anything. It's no different from those people who found the bible code. You take any large enough set of data and you can make any algorithm to say whatever you want, we can all be descended from swiss cheese if you like. And as far as science and evolution go you can't do real science if your biased. If you start with the premise God doesn't exist then your not doing science. You first have to prove your premise.
Jat:
I suggest you you haul all of those rather stupendously ignorant strawman arguments outside, pile them together, and set fire to them. Then perhaps you can jettison your preconceptions on the peer-review process, the ToE, radiometric dating (with appropriate isotopes), Karl Popper's notion of falsifiability and the boilerplates for both deductive and inductive logic...
jat9894
Yes, many scientists fudge a little here and there. Very few knowingly lie, however, and even if they did, a big lie wouldn't last long in the scientific community. There are just too many people poised to bring down someone else's pet theory. You are right that you can get published by saying the same thing that everyone else does, but you don't get noticed that way. You get noticed by coming up with something different, IF you have the evidence to back it up. If you make a radical claim without evidence, then of course you should be rejected.
jat9894
The other thing you need to realize is that evolution is not something that could "go either way" with a little fudging here and there. It is not even close. Falsifying evolution at this point would require a discovery so far away from anything we have seen that most biologists would be stunned. Of course, if you can prove it, then it will get accepted eventually, but you had better have good evidence!
Jon, you seem to posit that because there is "never a solid chain of happenings" in our scientifically theorized beginnings, that your Bible-based position is therefore correct. Please explain in greater detail how the Bible position should be treated as "default." Cheers, tey3
Please don't encourage him. People with such deep seated beliefs in myth are a lost cause.
lol i myself was a bible thumper for a long time and still am a christian, but i believe in evolution. the thing i believe is wrong is people who use the bible to try and prove science wrong and people who use science to try and prove the bible wrong. a very childish way to go about things if you ask me. its all about who is right for most of you people and most christians as well. everyone wants to be ahead of the game, but the only way to really prosper in what you believe is to be open minded to all aspects of history and learn from other people's beliefs despite how ridiculous or wrong you may think they are. there is always something to learn whether it be morally or historically and no one has all the answers. this capacity for abstract thought and ability to control our competetive nature is one of the major things that seperates us from the creatures we suposedly evolved from so why not use it to your advantage and get an even better grasp on the possibilities of life.....by the way this is a facinating article. if someone doesn't mind. would you explain to me exactly how to understand the graph and where humans fall on it along with other mammals and reptiles. i would appreciate it very much!!
People aren't using science to prove the bible is wrong. It does that all on it's own if you're not afraid to face the evidence.
dylan
Humans, and just about everything else we think of as "animals," are in the Metazoa, in the light purple area on the upper right. Metazoa means "multi-celled animals." You can't read the fine print very well at this resolution, but it looks like what is listed on the circle are examples of species within each group. I think I see "Pan troglodytes," which is the chimpanzee, as well as a fruit fly and a roundworm on that list.
So this diagram shows us that what we think of as animals (and plants, which is even a smaller sliver next to them) is really only a very small part of the diversity of life.
Mr. Blue, science only proves the Bible wrong if you stop the science over a century ago. I disagree with the last section of Dylan's post, which seems to suggest a sort of historical, factual, and moral relativism. There is only one truth out there, not many. We should struggle to understand that truth using any and all tools at our disposal, and when they disagree, we should struggle to understand how, why, and if they really disagree, because often it was only our own failure to understand something that made them seem to disagree. For example, the Bible says that all of creation was made in 6 days, while cosmology says that it took billions of years. That seems like a direct contradiction, until you look deeper and see that time itself is not a fixed structure, and that six days can take billions of years to pass, depending on what perspectives you're looking at things from. Suddenly, that contradiction makes perfect sense, and isn't a contradiction at all.
btw i realize that i messed up by saying most of you lol. i replied too hasty. seems there are many more understanding people on this page than i thought when i skimmed through and read only a few articles. lol.
Not me! :D god's a sick being born of an ignorant sick mind. I sleep easier at night knowing there is no such thing as a pedo god watching my every move and waiting for the perfect time to send me to hell for not worshiping him like an abused spouse would.
Oh btw jon. i don't recall ever reading anything about the first seven days of creation being 24 hr days. would you mind explaining how you came about this idea.
The Hebrew word refers to a period from sundown to sundown. Of course, since the Sun didn't exist for the first several, it does throw things for a bit of a loop. And, since Hebrew is known for being a language of approximation, symbolism, and poetry more than factual accuracy, that loop can be a really big one. I find a good read of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity can calm it down, though. Best in the original language, too.
I think the biggest difference between the scientists and religious is that the scientist is always willing to admit "I don't know" and proceed to create a hypothesis, test it, and report on results, whereas the religious resort to "God said...".
I am an atheist - I wasn't always - and I've come to the understanding that I do not know what caused the beginnings of the universe; I do not know what happened at time = zero, and further, I may never know. And the possibility that I may never know is (a) no reason to stop looking, and (b) no reason to resort to the type of magical thinking that invokes a creator-being.
So to the religious amongst you, I ask, what caused God?
Merry Christmas to all.
You're confusing an answer to 'how' with an answer to 'who' or 'why'. I don't know any more about how God created the universe than any cosmologist, and probably less than most (though I do try to keep up). I do know a good deal about 'who' and 'why', though.
Of course, I doubt you're interested in those questions, since you have yet to establish for yourself that they're even valid questions to ask. That may be why you think they're answers to 'how'.
What a huge pile of donkey doodoo you dimwits and pseudo intellectuals keep spouting. Nobody knows....nobody....period. The existence of God can be neither proved nor disproved. No one knows what happens, when we die. No one. The argument for first cause has been around for over 4 centuries and even before that, but no one believed it. It means nothing to say something must have created everything...or to say, well, then who created that...we cannot imagine the universe having always been here...or the universe, suddenly coming into being. We certainly can observe an infinite universe and deduce it is billions of years old...but how it got hear, nobody knows? Get over yourselves...
imagine yourself in the middle of a dessert with nothing but sand, as far as the eye can see in every direction...which speck of sand is our planet earth?
Huh? According to the Bible the earth is only 6,000 years old and anyone who disagrees with it is the anti-christ!!!!
...By the way I'm just kidding. I'm a Christian(I attend a United Methodist church) and I have no problem with evolution or things being more than 6,000 years old.
Good to see more of us, brother. Baptist myself, but I've read the Bible cover to cover and I couldn't find that 6,000 years anywhere. I found a 144,000, but that was people, not years. Oh, well, guess I'll go look again.
For people who have put their faith in evolutionary concepts, most of you sure do seem to be preoccupied with the facts of creation and the awesome God who accomplished it. Good to see. "Thou dost protest too much." Keep searching, you will find the answers.
For people who continue to believe fairy tales well into adulthood, you have my condolences. I suggest you question and research the basis for the faux virtue of "faith". Methinks thou doth protest too little...
imcreated
I don't put my "faith" in much of anything. Sure, we all have various things we have to take on "faith," but I try to rely on evidence and logic for most important decisions. After all, I'm a scientist.
But yes, religion is very fascinating as well. I have studied both religion and science, and so I know where each of them works best, and why it is such a mess when the try to step onto each others' turf.
jock, I'd suggest taking a closer look at that boundary between religion and science. It's like gas and fire: they can be really messy when mixed, but if you work hard and figure out what you're doing, you can make some beautiful results.
Old Gaffer: In age, there is wisdom.
I too have always asked the same question "who or what created God?" The answer that always comes back to me is "man created God".
Creationism has no place in science. Mythology yes, but certainly not science.
Merry Christmas to all... by the way, December 25th marks the date of the celebration of the winter solstice along with the birthday of the God Isis. Most religious scholars firmly believe that Jesus birthday was actually sometime in the spring. Everything else about the holiday is pagan. Christmas trees, singing Christmas carols, gift giving, wishing "merry Christmas", decorations, etc. The early Roman Christians decided to "combine" the birth of Jesus with all the other pagan holidays of the solstice festival so as to not "disenfranchise" the vast majority of non-believers.
I have yet to find any reference to Isis being born on December 25th. I think you may be thinking of Osiris, which is what that idiot Zeitgeist said. He basically made it up, though, along with everything else in that portion of the movie.
As for the actual birth of Christ, it takes a little clue hunting, but the Bible actually tells us. You see, the Gospels tell us that, when Jesus' parents took him to the priests to be inspected, as was required of all newborn babes after 7 days, that there was a woman who had been praying at the Temple all night long. This is a huge no-no, in that women weren't allowed in the Temple after sundown, except for one day of the year: the Day of Atonement. So, from that we can gather that Jesus was born 7 days before the Day of Atonement. Now, when exactly that falls depend on what year you think it was, and there's some debate on that point, but most likely it was September 13th, and certainly somewhere around then. Not spring by any means. Not winter, either.
...or, you know, not at all -- the birthdate most in keeping with available secular record. I always get a chuckle out of strained analysis for the birthdays of mythical beings. But go ahead and start a "Sept13" christian denomination; might as well, there's over 35,000 christian splinter groups and I have to say that this represents new <snort> dogma <chuckle, gasp>...
C. Smith
Are you refering to Anna in Luke 2:37?
Hate to harp, but no one, actually saw Jesus or knew him. All accounts are from people, who read or talked to someone, who said this or that. No historical evidence, which would hold up in a modern court of law. Not one shred of factual, evidence, Jesus ever lived.
Jim A-371003
I believe the point you're trying to make is that the Bible is hearsay and therefore inadmissible as evidence in a trial. I'm not certain why you're bringing up the court system. The purpose of the rules in a trial are to secure the just determination of proceedings. How are court rules relevant to an individual's personal beliefs? Regardless, there are exceptions to the hearsay rule that will make otherwise inadmissible evidence admissible. Assuming statements from the Bible are relevant to the case at hand they are admissible evidence under the ancient document exception:
my point is the Bible is anecdotal and I reference the analogy of court because proponents of the Bible, continually sight references, which cannot be factually validated...
I see your point; however, the problem with your court analogy is that the legal system deals with “alleged” facts:
Documents are included so no one within the confines of your analogy could say there’s no evidence under that legal definition. As you pointed out earlier there are no living eye witnesses; however, there are numerous people who could testify as experts based on their education, knowledge, experience, etc. Under the legal system that testimony would also be considered evidence. One could argue that the evidence is unreliable or insufficient but nevertheless it is still admissible evidence for a jury or judge to hear and evaluate. Ultimately, in a trial the jury decides what they believe is factual.
For those that care to research my comment above about the pagan aspect of Christmas, here is a link.
http://www.essortment.com/all/christmaspagan_rece.htm
I wonder how many people here judging the Bible have actually read it. Can you seriously profess to be "scientific" and make claims on a topic without any actual first-hand knowledge of the topic? Or are you resorting to generalities and "what you've heard" about it? That's far from good science, isn't it?
Furthermore, how many here professing science have actually read Darwin? Or ANY contemporary biological evolution texts?
Also, if you believe in science, please observe logic. For example, "...the Christians would have us believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old" is a logical fallacy (hasty generalization). The group of Christians who believe that are called Young Earth Creationists. To correct the fallacy, most Christians today do not believe this.
Also, if you profess science and scientific method, how can you resort to childishness and name-calling in the above posts?
I love science. I love God. They are absolutely Not mutually exclusive. Anyone have a rational response for a rational discussion?
Distancing oneself from YECs whilst professing a christian worldview is essentially splitting mythological hairs. And it is christian dishonesty in continuing to post widely debunked assertion which drives curt dismissal -- it actually warrants sharper rebuke, given its unethical nature.
You are incorrect w.r.t. science and God. Naturalism most assuredly precludes accommodation of an almighty agency, as Occam's razor excises that assertion for want of appropriate empirical foundation. That is rational -- your assertion, not so much...
Cursalius
Reading the Bible and reading "Darwin" are not equivalent, of course. The Bible is intended as "received wisdom," which is eactly what science is NOT. Darwin was a scientist who started the study of evolution, but it has progressed so far since then that his works are mostly just of historical interest, and many biologists have not even bothered to read them.
Of course you are right that people should not be arguing evolution unless they have read current texts on the subject, but it is a fallacy when some craetinists seem to think that evolitionists "follow Darwin."
jhoopy56, I wouldn't call it "christian dishonesty." YEC's are certainly free to believe what they want. Dishonesty implies that they don't actually believe it, which I don't think is accurate and therefore not a question of being unethical (as a side note I thinks it's much more interesting that you deemed it "unethical" when ethics are typically rooted in theism-- but that's another discussion for a later date).
This is interesting. How did you conclude that naturalism precludes God? I follow you're analogy to Occam, but I'm very curious about the specifics of the assertion and the arguments that led to your conclusion.
Thanks,
jhoopy56
Occam's razor can not prove anything. It tells us that there is no reason to postulate a cause which is both unnecessary and that we have no evidence for, but that doesn't mean that it can't exist. I agree that it leads most of us to the conclusion that it probably does not exist, but if others want to believe it, who cares? As long as they don't deny the things that we DO know, they can have all the fun they want with the rest.
Cursalius:
It is dishonest to re-post assertion which has been thoroughly debunked -- especially when such disposition has been in the public domain for decades. As to your other point, ethics and morals are both evolved social constructs, co-opted as deemed necessary by religionists of varying stripes -- so your supposition of roots perhaps betrays a theist's bias which is demonstrably at odds with observations (I can go into these but this seems even more off-topic).
As to naturalism precluding God -- this is not a deductive process but a definition. Naturalism demands empiric basis -- such does not exist for God. And gaps in understanding do not provide a basis for such; they are just that: gaps. To plea for special agency instead of "pending resolution" is a most bankrupt rationale for any causal agent, much less "God".
Jock:
The rule known as Occam's razor is a logical construct which specifically safeguards the parsimonious nature of causal argument (as you indicate). Of course it does not "prove" anything -- but its employment does disqualify God from rational discourse in the same manner that Flying Spaghetti Monsters, little green men or invisible fairies are excised. Everyone harbors personal beliefs -- but promoting these in public forum does disservice to the notion that other people have "beliefs" which might be at odds with the ones stated. Unless, based upon presentation of evidence or unassailable syllogism, such beliefs graduate to what we refer to as knowledge, I would argue that their presentation amounts to a chauvinistic demand for indulgence on the part of their brokers. This seems, at minimum, rude. It is certainly not egalitarian in nature, yes?
Agreed, and that is why I come down hard on people who claim that those beliefs are science. But if somebody decides they are going to believe in Santa Claus, I might think them rather silly, and I might inform them of why I think differently, but I can't prove them wrong, so why bother. Occam's razor does not apply to faith. Faith is something from deep down inside us that is not subject to logic and reason. It's just the way we are.
Jock:
I think perhaps you hesitate to apply the razor because you hold matters of faith separate from all else. Allow me this observation: I did the same -- and for quite some time. But it is an artificial construct. You would leverage blind trust for nothing else (buying land, say). What it speaks to is a bias that God must exist. And while I can agree that human beings require diversion or self-delusion as emotional buffering to our sentient grasp of mortality, I hold religion in lower estate to say, good scotch, in this application. Why? What is more honest about its agenda -- religion or scotch?
I never said I was religious. But I can observe others. My point is not that faith should be impervious to logic, but that it IS in many people, and nothing you can say is ever going to change that. In fact, many people just dig in deeper when challenged. I truly believe it is something in the way we are made. People who do not believe in God or any other obvious construct, still have faith in many things that we can't demonstrate We just try not to think about it.
On Occam's Razor, two points:
1.) The most appalling failures of science have been when Occam's Razor was wrong. It's a rule of thumb, not a law.
2.) Occam's Razor isn't applicable to the prospect of God. From the law of cause and effect, we can get a few general possibilities:
a.) The universe is infinite and timeless, thus no need for a First Cause.
b.) The First Cause was an event from something outside our universe, where the law of cause and effect need not necessarily apply.
From thermodynamics, we can rule out a, as an infinite universe would have infinite entropy and thus no stars, no planets, and no life. When we then consider the so-called Anthropogenic Principles, a set of scientifically observed facts that have no detectable reason to be what they are, yet are absolutely critical for life to exist, we can come up with some possibilities as to this First Cause:
a.) It was random and unique, and our universe is simply that one-in-a-trillion shot, the ultimate jackpot, the biggest statistical fluke in the universe, or out of it for that matter.
b.) It was a random event, but not unique. We are one of a multiverse, potentially infinite. Thus, our universe being just right for life isn't so much a fluke as a result of multiple chances. Given an infinite set of chances, every possible result must exist.
c.) It was guided by laws that we don't yet understand. Unique or not, it wasn't random. Just because we don't understand why the are the way they are doesn't mean there isn't a reason.
d.) We were wrong to rule out the infinite universe above. Just because we don't know of a way to reduce entropy doesn't mean it can't exist. Maybe this Big Crunch/Big Bang is one massive entropy re-set button. Sure, we'd have to discard a law of thermodynamics, but it's hardly the first time our 'laws of physics' have been wrong.
e.) It was guided by a guiding hand, a Prime Mover, a God.
Now, to be perfectly honest, even calculating the rough odds of any one of these being true and the others false is vastly beyond our capabilities, and the only ones that are really simple are raw chance and God, but that doesn't mean they're correct. You may have your favorite, your 'gut feeling' for one or against another, but there's nothing that can rule out any of them. Occam's Razor will have a hard time choosing between them, too.
Oh, and Cursalius, in response to your original question, I highly suggest you read Genesis and the Big Bang by Dr. Gerald Schroeder. It's a doozey.
C. Smith
Can you elaborate?
BTW, I believe you've made some excellent comments on this thread. Thanks.
CS:
Too many strawmen -- but your first cause "argument" distills to a simple plea for the existence of God. Inflationary big bang has no need of God to direct it -- so yes, Occam's razor may be employed since quantum cosmology "has the wheel". What you argue for is essentially God in the first few femtoseconds of the universe (or actually, until the clock starts at all). Hawking would disagree with your "amazing odds" gambit -- and certainly, it is disingenuous to invoke this a priori argument when a posteriori, here we are. The Grand Design disallows even those few femtoseconds to "God" and in fact presents a multiverse argument in which any nonzero probability inevitably promotes to certainty, absent the hand of any sky-fairy.
Making an argument from ignorance for God is doomed to failure, as our relentless advances in scientific knowledge have shown us. A rising sun is no longer "God", nor is thunder, floods, volcanoes or, ultimately, the birth of a universe (or universes)...
I too would like an elaboration on this. The reason why Occam's Razor works is because the universe tends towards simplicity in the first place. It is a rule of thumb, absolutely, but I cannot bring any instance of scientific discovery to mind in which it actually led people astray. I can, however, think of many instances in which incorrect theories were postulated that were too simplistic as accurate descriptions of reality because we simply did not have all of the data that was necessary.
Remember, it's not that Occam's Razor says "the simplest explanation is usually the correct one", it is more akin to "the simplest explanation that fits with all observable evidence is the correct one". Meaning that a theory can be quite complex and still be right, but it is still simple compared to others. It would be erroneous to conclude that everything in nature must be simple as a rule.
In medicine, we have a similar 'rule of thumb' saying - "When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras". ie: If a patient presents symptoms that are shared between a highly common disease and a highly uncommon one, think that the common one is the likely cause until proven otherwise.
Although I like to point out to my professors that we should probably tack on "unless you're in Africa" to the end of that sentence to be a bit more accurate :).
By the way C. Smith, I have likewise enjoyed your posts tremendously. You seem to have somewhat of a deist perspective, and it is very refreshing in the midst of all of the scientifically illiterate people that we see around here railing against science. I have worked with many scientists that hold similar views, and I respect them tremendously for it, even if I ultimately disagree with them.
jhoopy56
I love the post, just one question:
"The Grand Design disallows even those few femtoseconds to "God" and in fact presents a multiverse argument in which any nonzero probability inevitably promotes to certainty, absent the hand of any sky-fairy."
The reason I cannot, as a scientist, disregard the existence of a god, or god-like entity, or many of them, is simply that, I cannot disprove it, and as a scientist, I cannot disregard it. I have long considered the concept that I quoted you on above, which is my view of the universe, or multi-verse.
If any nonzero probability inevitably promotes to certainty, then why can't a sky-fairy exist? Or at least what we puny humans would perceive as a "sky-fairy"? Are you saying a "sky-fairy" is a statistical 0.000000000000000000000000000000?
Not trying to be antagonistic, simply curious...
Kuatomonk:
I am a naturalist, so agency requires empirical and logical support. There is no logical requirement for me to only say "There is no God" based upon disproving the claim that God might exist. The onus is on those who assert such agency to provide the proof. Lacking such, I have no need of God. There is further implication here. Absent proof, you have no framework with which you can make any qualitative characterization of a god or gods. Think about it. All you have is assertion. You might say "God had a god-man son and his name was Jesus" and I can say "My God ate your God and killed Jesus". The statements are equally likely or unlikely, of merit or without. There can be no determination.
I see no compelling case for God, only a hope that such is necessary. And the argument from ignorance (god of the gaps) is weak and prone to modification with each successive scientific discovery. This is telltale -- most anthropomorphic argument for God invokes "why" and not "how", after all, which ought to indicate the presence of an emotional bias.
This is why dismissal of Occam's razor is so critical to the religious argument. But, as noted, it is a plea for special consideration and nothing else. To suspend it is to allow competition from any spurious agent -- and what would be the point in that? How many "gods" are we after, here?
As for my statement on probability -- this refers Hawking's multiverse proposition, where the "sum of all histories" of probable matter states along 3 spatial dimensions in a vacuum can produce a high probability of inflationary "bang" (the lifetime and subsequent progression of which depends upon the specific universe's assumption of a certain profile of operational constants -- some last fractions of a second, others, billions of years). I took the liberty of asserting that 95% likelihood of a universe inflating, done often enough, ultimately produces viable universes of one stripe or another. That we are blogging allows us to make the rather snarky a posteriori observation that this is a certainty. It's the old a priori / a posteriori dichotomy: You can marvel at the odds of getting a golf ball to land on any particular blade of grass when teeing off, but in the end, well-struck, it's going to end up on one of them...
Cursalius
Perhaps you would enjoy a simple book on logic? The statement; "I love God" does not say anything about God but denotes the subject of the sentence; "I", has an emotion, relating to the modifier; God. What follows...love God, relates back to the subject. So, the statement; "I love God", says nothing about God, only the subject "I," in the same way the statement ; "I love baseball," is about the subject... "I", loving baseball. When making a statement using the declarative "l", you are describing something about yourself and not anything about God or baseball.
& it's all going to end December 21 2012
According to what some people who died out in the jungle many centuries ago might have said.
Dragon-2817477
& it's all going to end December 21 2012
Thanks Dragon; I'll go mark my calendar.
Dragon
The calendar you are referring to is CYCLIC, the cycle ends, NOT the Universe.