☆ TexasFreethinker ☆ Posted December 23, 2005 Share Posted December 23, 2005 Evolution named 2005's top breakthroughThe journal Science has proclaimed evolution the breakthrough of 2005. The journal's editors say wide-ranging research published this year, including a study that shows a mere 4 per cent difference between human and chimpanzee DNA, builds on Charles Darwin's landmark 1859 work The Origin of Species and the idea of natural selection. "Amid this outpouring of results, 2005 stands out as a banner year for uncovering the intricacies of how evolution actually proceeds," they wrote. "Ironically, also this year, some segments of American society fought to dilute the teaching of even the basic facts of evolution." Journal editor-in-chief Don Kennedy acknowledges this is a reference to the rise of the theory of intelligent design. Intelligent design holds that some aspects of nature are so complex that they must be the work of an unnamed creator rather than the result of random natural selection, as Darwin argued. Opponents, including many scientists, argue it is a thinly disguised version of creationism - a belief that the world was created by God as described in the Book of Genesis. A US Supreme Court has ruled it may not be taught in public schools. "I think what arouses the ire of scientists (about intelligent design) is ... the notion that it belongs in the same universe as scientific analysis," Mr Kennedy said. "It's a hypothesis that's not testable, and one of the important recognition factors for science and scientific ideas is the notion of testability, that you can go out and do an experiment and learn from it and change your idea. "That's just not possible with a notion that's as much a belief in spirituality as intelligent design is." Mr Kennedy says the journal picked evolution as the year's biggest breakthrough in part because it was a "hot topic" but stresses there is a wealth of research that justifies the choice. Other breakthroughs in the journal's top 10 include research in planetary exploration, the molecular biology of flowers, the violent ways of neutron stars, the relationship between genetics and abnormal human behaviour, the new field of cosmochemistry, a protein that controls the flow of potassium ions to cells, fresh evidence of global warming, an engineering approach to molecular biology and superconductivity. The journal says areas to watch for in 2006 include the avian flu, ultra-high-energy cosmic rays and the possible sighting of the ivory-billed woodpecker, long presumed extinct but rediscovered in 2004. - Reuters From here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redneck22 Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 Evolution named 2005's top breakthroughThe journal Science has proclaimed evolution the breakthrough of 2005. - Reuters From here. "EVOLUTION IN ACTION" WAS "SCIENCE" BREAKTHROUGH OF 2005, according to articles in Science, vol. 310, p1878, and BBC online news, 23 Dec 2005. Every year the editorial staff of "Science" review the year’s discoveries and vote for the one they consider to be the most significant scientific breakthrough. This year they voted for "evolution in action." Although they admit that Charles Darwin’s theory has been around for 150 years, they claimed that "2005 stands out as a banner year for uncovering the intricacies of how evolution actually proceeds." The discoveries that led to this claim are the chimpanzee genome, the reconstruction of the 1918 flu virus and a study of European blackcap birds showing how two populations that share a common breeding ground can become two different species. The "Breakthrough of the Year" issue of Science was published around the same time as the results of the Intelligent Design court case in Dover, and comes at the end of year that had many challenges to evolutionary theory from the Intelligent Design movement, but Colin Norman, news editor of "Science" claims the choice of breakthrough had nothing to do with challenges to evolution. " In spite of the protestations of the "Science" news editor, we suspect there is more politics than science in claiming evolution as the "Breakthrough of the Year." Whilst the scientific studies named in the "Breakthrough" article have added to our knowledge of living things, none of them are ground breaking discoveries and none of them are evolution. The chimpanzee is not the first animal to have its genome sequenced, and the information revealed only shows us what genes a chimpanzee now has. It does not explain how the chimp genes got there. The fact that some other living things, including human beings, may have many similar genes does not prove chimpanzees have evolved from some other animal, or are evolving now. The reconstruction of the 1918 flu virus only proves that it takes clever scientists who already knew about virus genes and proteins, and had the ability to manipulate biological molecules, to make a virus that in nature cannot exist without other more complicated creatures pre-existing it. As a virus is far simpler than the smallest, simplest independent living cell, the virus reconstruction is good evidence for creation, not evolution. The study of European blackcap birds may have revealed more details of the actual process of species splitting, but species splitting has been observed many times and is not evolution, since the blackcap turned into a blackcap. Dividing one large and varied population of birds into two smaller and less varied populations does not make a new kind of living creature. It simply reinforces the variation that was already present in the original population. As such it is good evidence that these birds were originally part of one created kind. Ref http://www.creationresearch.net/email/2006...ilup060208i.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 In spite of the protestations of the "Science" news editor, we suspect there is more politics than science in claiming evolution as the "Breakthrough of the Year." Whilst the scientific studies named in the "Breakthrough" article have added to our knowledge of living things, none of them are ground breaking discoveries and none of them are evolution. Wow, that's quite the criticism, let's see what bullshit you have trotted out: The chimpanzee is not the first animal to have its genome sequenced, and the information revealed only shows us what genes a chimpanzee now has. It does not explain how the chimp genes got there. The fact that some other living things, including human beings, may have many similar genes does not prove chimpanzees have evolved from some other animal, or are evolving now. Hey fucktard, we use the same technique to show relationships between father and son, and to determine how related caucasians are to native americans as we do to see the relationship between chimps and humans and gorillas and humans. If there is a relationship, the only thing we can conclude is that we are related. Anything else is assumed, such as what you do. It shows that humans and chimps split off, as shown in the fossil record (corroboration). Your juvenile knowledge of evolution is strikingly amusing. The reconstruction of the 1918 flu virus only proves that it takes clever scientists who already knew about virus genes and proteins, and had the ability to manipulate biological molecules, to make a virus that in nature cannot exist without other more complicated creatures pre-existing it. As a virus is far simpler than the smallest, simplest independent living cell, the virus reconstruction is good evidence for creation, not evolution. Not quite sure exactly how you can deduce that... The study of European blackcap birds may have revealed more details of the actual process of species splitting, but species splitting has been observed many times and is not evolution, since the blackcap turned into a blackcap. Dividing one large and varied population of birds into two smaller and less varied populations does not make a new kind of living creature. It simply reinforces the variation that was already present in the original population. As such it is good evidence that these birds were originally part of one created kind. Oh my god you are an ignorant asshole. That is evolution, and a species turning into a totally genetically different species would disprove evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white_raven23 Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 "EVOLUTION IN ACTION" WAS "SCIENCE" BREAKTHROUGH OF 2005, according to articles in Science, vol. 310, p1878, and BBC online news, 23 Dec 2005. Every year the editorial staff of "Science" review the year’s discoveries and vote for the one they consider to be the most significant scientific breakthrough. This year they voted for "evolution in action." <snipped> What is interesting to me is that this religious periodical feels the need to rebut the artcle being referenced. I've not seen a Science periodical do the same thing. Perhaps there is no need to. *sniff sniff* I smell Fear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RHEMtron Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 The reconstruction of the 1918 flu virus only proves that it takes clever scientists who already knew about virus genes and proteins, and had the ability to manipulate biological molecules, to make a virus that in nature cannot exist without other more complicated creatures pre-existing it. As a virus is far simpler than the smallest, simplest independent living cell, the virus reconstruction is good evidence for creation, not evolution questions to ponder: -then can you call those scientists gods? -am i a god cause i can construct things out of lego? -if you want to argue that something cannot exist unless a "more complicated creature pre-existing it" created it, than wouldnt that mean someone else created god? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taphophilia Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 The reconstruction of the 1918 flu virus only proves that it takes clever scientists who already knew about virus genes and proteins, and had the ability to manipulate biological molecules, to make a virus that in nature cannot exist without other more complicated creatures pre-existing it. As a virus is far simpler than the smallest, simplest independent living cell, the virus reconstruction is good evidence for creation, not evolution. Ref http://www.creationresearch.net/email/2006...ilup060208i.htm The 1918 flu virus was reconstructed from the actual virus. They had the tissue from infected peoples stored and used surviving parts of the virus to piece together another one. They didn't replicate it from different genes and protiens they used the real ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend AtheiStar Posted April 8, 2006 Share Posted April 8, 2006 Prove to me that Jesus isn't undead Well, if he was undead he'd be running around trying to eat human flesh and brains. Show me in your holey book of mythology where he did that. Did I miss that chapter? Here's a funny cartoon where just this scenario is explored: http://www.thefunny.org/easter.php Enjoy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts