Follow this blog:
RSS

Science changing its mind on dinosaurs again

By | February 10, 2010, 12:52 PM PST

One of the most frustrating parts of science for non-scientists to grasp is that scientists change their minds.

Gravity is just a theory. Evolution is just a theory. Yet K-12 students are given both as “facts,” which leads some parents to scratch their protruding foreheads and conclude science doesn’t know anything and thus religion should replace it.

One of the most popular examples of science “changing its mind” came over the last generation, with a growing realization that dinosaurs and birds have a lot in common.

Thus the chicken on your plate must be related to Tyrannosaurus Rex, just as you are related to the monkey.

Now that theory is being replaced. A growing body of evidence indicates birds and dinosaurs had a common ancestor, but that their evolution diverged. Raptors may be a bird-like descendant of a different genealogical family from dinosaurs.

A lot of this work is coming from John Ruben, a zoologist at Oregon State University. (Go Beavers.)

One of Ruben’s key findings involves a bird’s thigh (above, from ScienceDaily), which is fixed in place and allows it the lung capacity to fly. Like people, dinosaurs had a thigh bone that moved as it crossed the ground. In other words birds run from their knees, dinosaurs ran from their hips.

You can taste this evolution in action. Try cooking a duck, a bird that flies. Notice how the breast is dark meat, and the thigh is tucked right into it? Now cook a chicken, a bird that mainly glides and runs. The breast is light, the thigh easier to separate at the hip and darker, because it gets more use.

This does not mean that bird-like dinosaurs such as the feathered Anchiornis huxleyi found last year in China, are unrelated to modern birds.  But it could have been a transitional creature on a separate, but related evolutionary path. Feathers may have evolved twice.

Yes, it’s complicated.

Ruben’s theories raise many more questions than they answer. That’s the point.

Science is not, and never really has been, about answers. If you want answers talk to an engineer. Science is about questions. The best theories ask the best questions, leading us to new avenues of discovery.

What Ruben has shown us, once again, is not just that science can change its mind, but that science and religion are fundamentally different and should never be confused even though, as is the case of birds and dinosaurs, confusion may seem the easier way to go.

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Dana Blankenhorn

About Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn was a contributing editor for SmartPlanet from 2009 to 2010.

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn

Contributing Editor, Technology

Dana Blankenhorn has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age's "NetMarketing" supplement and founded the Interactive Age Daily for CMP Media. He holds degrees from Rice and Northwestern universities. He is based in Atlanta.

Follow him on Twitter.

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a technology reporter since 1982, a business reporter since 1978, and a writer for as long as he can remember. His Schwab IRA has a few tech stocks in it, most notably some Intel and Applied Materials bought over 10 years ago. But the vast majority of his tiny fortune (emphasis on the word tiny) is invested in mutual funds. He presently writes for no one else but ZDNet, SmartPlanet and himself. But if you've got an opportunity let him know. If he takes the gig he"ll first add it to this disclosure page.

He writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
64
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Science changing its mind on dinosaurs again
true that it's confusing, but that's partly the beauty of science happy just too bad that people assume it's wrong or that they don't know what they're talking about just because they "change their minds" aka find new and more revealing evidence...
Posted by taylen
10th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Wrong again!
"...they don't know what they're talking about just because they 'change their minds' aka find new and more revealing evidence."
In other words, they were WRONG!
Of course, THIS TIME they are right.
Posted by fearlesscrusader
26th Sep
0 Votes
+ -
"Science and Religion are fundamentaly different..."
Yes they are, but, aside from adding a frustrating level of extraneous controversy, of what relevance is that comment to this article?
Posted by Queue
11th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Science changing its mind on dinosaurs again
"Gravity is just a theory. Evolution is just a theory."

The public too often confuses the use of the word "theory" with the word "hypothesis", and writers owe it to their readers to make some effort to differentiate the two.

- theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

- hypothesis: A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

As for science changing its mind, that's the beauty of it: when objective evidence surfaces that shows a theory to be inaccurate, then science changes the theory, even if that means scrapping it and beginning again from scratch.
Posted by darkmoonman
11th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Science changing its mind on dinosaurs again
So, religious belief equals Neanderthal?
Posted by jrj001
11th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Science is NOT Religion
Science is the use of the scientific method to observe and explain the universe using a consistent, logical framework. We see something, we ask questions about how and why it works, we test it, and ask more questions to refine its consistency with our other explanations and observations.

Religion does not explain anything with a consistent, logical framework. Nothing relates to anything else except as, "that's the way the Prime Mover made it; don't ask any more questsion." And I've never heard of a real religion that EVER tested anything.

My hat's off to David Webber for his literary invention of the Church of Humanity Unchained and the concept of God as The Tester. Imagine a religion where the members were EXPECTED to ask difficult questions and explore the answers on their own rather than blind acceptance of what some so-called authority says.
Posted by Dr_Zinj
11th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Science is about Questions? Engineers about Answers?
No. So call me an engineer. Copernicus, Kepler, Newton et al provided Answers. They were engineers?
Posted by Geosota
11th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Science changing its mind on dinosaurs again
Check the new book "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne or Richard Dawkins new book on Evolution, The greatest show on Earth. Maybe you will understand all the work and effort that it takes science to obtain the evidence, religion is only fantazy and myth.A good theory will predict phenomena or show the path to new evidence, evolution is probably the most intelligent theory ever devised. It has been confirmed by genetics, paleontology, microbiology, molecular genetics biochemistry etc. they all explain the changes in the diversity of species.
Posted by guerramaur
11th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Science is not, and never really has been, about answers.
Gee! Maybe someone should tell that to "scientists" like Sagan (let me
know if you succeed on that one) or Dawkins! Seems like all they did--
at least publically--was spout theoretical hypothesis as facts,
particularly when they were opposing some evidence that revealed them
to be just more religious preachers from a different priesthood! But,
that's alright, since truth will out in the end. Perhaps if more
"scientists" did some honest engineering, they'd get further along at a
more expeditious pace...
Posted by dlmohn
11th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Science changing its mind on dinosaurs again
"Perhaps if more "scientists" did some honest engineering, they'd get further along at a more expeditious pace..."

Not in your life time. Engineering presupposes social responsibility.
No "scientist" will ever go for that.
Posted by Pafipe
11th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Science changing its mind on dinosaurs again
Gravity is a theory? Since when? The law of gravity is and has been proven by the scientific method and can be observed by even an casual observer.

Evolution is still a theory (not a fact and definitely not a law) and cannot be upheld by the scientific method. It is based on a bunch of unproven assumptions and can not be observed in real life, much to the dismay of it's zealous supporters.
Posted by john.bowman9@...
11th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
guerramaur: Has science ever observed and documented a genetic jump
from one species to another?

evolution is probably the most intelligent theory ever devised. It has been confirmed by genetics, paleontology, microbiology, molecular genetics biochemistry etc. they all explain the changes in the diversity of species.

Has any scientist or geneticist ever observed any species make a genetic change whereby one species becomes something different, even if then "new" entity has many similarities to its contributing parent species?

Progression of species has been observed and documented, but not the genetic jump from one species to another. Until someone actually observes the genetic changes happening whereby one species actually becomes a new species, then evolution will remain just a set of documented observations with a possible link from the lowest to the highest forms of life.
Posted by adornoe@...
11th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Science changing its mind on dinosaurs again
Test
Posted by david.m.acre@...
11th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Science changing its mind on dinosaurs again
True Science (and by implication scientists use this method, if they are doing "good science") implies that the thing in question be observable (testable in the present, by a hum, in the now), testable (an expeiment can be designed to prove or disprove the hypothesis), repeatable (the experiment shows that the resul;t is valid through many trials) and falsifiable (it is possible that the experiment can have a false result). Check Websters: A Theory is something supported by evidence in the present. A hypothesis has no such evidence (yet). If Evolution and Religion neither are testable in the present, then neither is scientific. That places a whole new light on the subject. The real decision is based upon the legal-historical method like is used in a court of law. Evidence collected about past events is presented and weighed, and a verdict is given about the validity of such evidence to establish a judgement, to tell if the thing being considered is true or false.

A simple example is the FACT that scientists knowthat the DNA code prevents dogs from getting wings no matter how much they want them. Even if they had them, there are many other changes required to make a dog fly. So does the DNA code all life is built upon support the idea that changes beneficial to an organism can occur with random chance and be beneficial or somehow provide new important features when they are needed in the correct order to preserve the life of the organism. No. That's not what's observed in the present. That's science. What science is not is taking guesses about things in the past that are not observable and repeatable.
Posted by david.m.acre@...
11th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Science changing its mind on dinosaurs again
For David.m.acre@, your note was an interesting trek into this topic. I definitely would like to here the part that comes after the very implied "SO..." at the end.
Posted by samcraw@...
11th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Dana, your extreme anit-religion prejudice is showing again. As Obama says
, just the facts please.
the "fact" is that your beloved "theory" attempts to equate and connect so many divergent observations that it makes no sense, as you correctly point out.
if a supposition can't be proven or disproven, like evolution, it is not a theory anyhow.
the religion of Evolution needs to be relegated to the hinterlands along with the so-called homosexual gene.
it seems to any objective observer that neither truly exist except to fuel a belief.

happy
.
Posted by wessonjoe
11th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
dlmohn
Science is neither education nor entertainment. When scientists go on TV and discuss the latest accepted theories, they are engaging in both education and entertainment.

Equating education and entertainment with science is just a way to stick it in a box and equate it to religion, which I repeat is ignorance.
Posted by DanaBlankenhorn
11th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
wessonjoe
Anti-religious prejudice? Really? Really.

Good theories fit facts and create questions. The best theories can be engineered into useful stuff.

In the case of evolution, check out your dog. Dogs kept as pets have undergone more genetic change in 150 years than in all the years previously.

People are able to engineer changes in crops thanks to the observations of evolution. It's a very useful theory.

Religion, on the other hand, offers only absolute answers that can't be tested, nor proven, nor disproven. Not that there's anything wrong with that -- it's just not science.

No one has to "believe" in science the way they have to "believe" in a particular religion for that religion to have meaning. Belief doesn't enter into it.
Posted by DanaBlankenhorn
11th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Science changing its mind on dinosaurs again
Wessonjoe,
"it seems to any objective observer that neither truly exist except to fuel a belief."


Two observable points of comment in your response.

First your statement that the "religion of evolution" is antediluvian can be said of any cosmic belief structure. ALL RELIGIONS ARE SUPPOSITIONS. Argue though you may, the same motive-- to promote a sense of superior knowledge over others-- be it by one human or a congration of humans--by rigid and rigorous thought and action promoting one belief based on any particular supposition is bogus!

Second given your completely gratatious tossing in of homosexuality shows that you are clearly NOT an objective observer, but one with a preset agenda.

The idea that new ideas can replace old ones in science, as is not the case in all religious theories, does at least demonstrate some fundamental brain activity

Not sure how to make a childish face appear here.
Posted by samcraw@...
11th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Science changing its mind on dinosaurs again
SO....why do we keep on defending something as science when in fact the very definition forbids it. If some one chooses to "believe in" evolution, then they have chosen to believe in the metaphysical. To say we can prove evolution because the intelligence of man can gene-splice corn makes no sense. Evolution is purported to have occurred over millions (billions) of years with no intelligent intervention. Evolution can never answer the questions of how life springs from non-life, or how consciousness springs from non-consciousness. No matter how hard "scientists" try to prove they can create life, they will never succeed. Besides, it escapes their notice that it already exists, and the complexity implies the impossibility of random chance being involved. Its like saying an explosion in a print shop resulted in formation of a dictionary. The second law of thermodynamics (law, not theory or hypothesis) has been proven and tested so extensively that no one would say it is not true. All it states is that everything runs down. That's why kitchens and teenagers' rooms don't automatically clean themselves. That's also why life is not self-forming.

I think the part that scares most people in the evolution camp is that the evidence of design around them is so prevalent that there just might be a designer. Maybe they're scared because they don't know Him.
Posted by david.m.acre@...
11th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Science changing its mind on dinosaurs again
DanaBlankenhorn: "In the case of evolution, check out your dog. Dogs kept as pets have undergone more genetic change in 150 years than in all the years previously."

You are demonstrating your ignorance here. Selective breeding in dogs for the last 150 years, does not demonstrate evolution. On the contrary, it demonstrates that there can be a lot of variation WITHIN a species, but no amount of selective breeding has produced anything but another dog. This ectually shows how evolution does not work.

What it does demonstrate is that your belief in evolution is more like a religion than science. You believe that everything demonstrates evolution, even when the facts don't support it.
Posted by dadown
11th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Science changing its mind on dinosaurs again
I have a question for you, do you think that failed science is the reason for religion? hmmmm.
Posted by lilkid1100
12th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Science changing its mind on dinosaurs again
Hmmm, where to start.

For the post that said "Evolution can never answer the questions of how life springs from non-life" actually, it can. If you can imagine an auto-catalytic reaction occurring in the primordial ocean, that would be a good shot at how it started. (Try reading Dawkins "Ancestor's Tale" for more details)

For those that think that evolution is mostly random - need to study a little more. Evolution depends on very tiny changes occurring over millions of years. You are very similar to your parents, who were very similar to their parents and so on.

For the people who think that because science keeps "changing its mind" it must be wrong: science is constantly improving it's answers. Science moved us from a flat earth, to a spherical earth, to an oblate spheroid earth. The 'perfect' bible still holds that the earth is flat. Which answer do you think is better?

Newton gave us many great formulas, which were certainly better than the superstitions that came before him. And, he was mostly right. Einstein was able to refine Newtons' formulas to even more accuracy, which has led to Lasers, nuclear energy and LEDs. The bible has things like the value of Pi wrong, and it's STILL wrong.

A more basic point is: just because one viewpoint may be WRONG, doesn't make some other viewpoint RIGHT.

If that were the case (and you think science answers are 'wrong') that would also 'prove' that Zeus rules the planet. And the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real.
Posted by drkimca
12th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Science changing its mind on dinosaurs again
wessonjoe

Anti-religious prejudice? Really? Really.

Yes, I'd have to agree with wessonjoe, your article definitely took an anti-religious bent. Case in point:

Yet K-12 students are given both as ?facts,? which leads some parents to scratch their protruding foreheads and conclude science doesn?t know anything and thus religion should replace it.

Just that one part alone shows how you feel about religion.

I know that religion doesn't have all the answers to the scientific questions that we see in our world today. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't have answers for those of us that choose to believe that it has a lot more than evolutionists have. I am a firm believer in both God and evolution, both are taken wholly on faith, I have no evidence to prove either stance and neither does science for their stance on evolution. It's a theory, nothing more. It can't be proven or disproven because there isn't enough evidence either way to do that.

Maybe you should hide your anti-religious beliefs a little better next time that you attempt to report something. That way people might be able to take your words more seriously.

Thank you and go with God.
Posted by BrewmanNH
12th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
@DRKIMCA
You make a good defense for science. You are also one of the few that know that the Bible has PI wrong. Most religious texts seem to have a problem with math and it is probably due to the understanding of math of those people at that time.

Science and religion are not antithetical; religion has answers that were acceptable when knowledge and understanding was poor. Science is a constantly refining process that seeks to improve knowledge and understanding. The problem arises when new information conflicts with old understanding.

Science also has problems with new information. Einstein's theories were not immediately accepted but have gone from being seen as radical to being accepted after years of thinking and experimentation.

Religion goes through changes but it is more rigid. Religion does not try to test suppositions because that could be seen as heresy.
Posted by sboverie
12th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
PI
No one knows exactly how much PI really is, so how can you say the Bible has it wrong? Even the best scientists can only approximate it.
Posted by fearlesscrusader
26th Sep
0 Votes
+ -
@DRKIMCA
You wonder where to start? As you seem to be a Dawkins fan, i would recommend starting with "The Dawkins delusion" by Alister E. McGrath, where Dawkins anti-religious stand and faith in evolution is examined and found to lack solid science.

Evolution has no solution for how life started, just speculation. The artificial "primordial ocean" experiment just produced a few simple organic compounds, not even close to something as complex as a single protein(see http://www.icr.org/article/5267/). Even in todays fanciest research facilities, you only get living cells from other living cells.

As far as gradual evolution over time, where is the evidence? Look at all the new species that appear suddenly, fully formed in the Cambrian explosion with no direct ancestors or signs of gradual change. In 200 years, still no evidence for evolution here.

And what's this nonsense about the "perfect bible" saying that the earth is flat? What scripture do you claim for this? Don't confuse old Catholic dogma with the Bible(see http://www.icr.org/article/1848/).

There is no conflict between real science and the Bible, its just the people like Dawkins who try to twist science to justify their rejection of the Bible. See the harmony with science at http://www.icr.org/science/
Posted by dadown
12th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
@jrj001
"So, religious belief equals Neanderthal?"

Short answer: no.

Longer answer: The conclusion relie on a logical fallacy, specifically a weak (false) analogy. It argues:
- Neanderthals didn't understand science.
- Those with religious belief don't understand science.
- So, religious belief equals Neanderthal.

You can read about it here: http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/weak-analogy.

The above analogy incorrectly assumes that those with religious beliefs don't understand science. Since many do, the assumption is incorrect and the analogy is false.

It is just as incorrect to assume that Neanderthals didn't understand science.There is inadequate evidence to support either conclusion.
Posted by Mabrick
12th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
@dadown
The first evidence for life on the planet appears in strata dated about 3.45 billion years ago, about a billion years after the planet was formed. We've been experimenting in the area for far less than 100 years.

The Cambrian explosion didn't happen until around 600 million years ago, nearly 3 billion years after the first appearance of life on the planet and lasted about 150 million years. Whether fossils are formed or not is highly dependent on conditions on the ground and whether we find them or not is often hit or miss. I don't think there is enough evidence to support your claim that the animals appears suddenly and fully formed. It was rather sudden in the geologic sense but not in our human senses.

BTW, ICR is not a credible reference on this subject.
Posted by riverat1
12th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
@riverat1
Its been 200 years since Darwin claimed gradual change over time. He didn't find gradual change in the fossil record then and we still don't see it now.

It wouldn't be surprising if a few trasitional fossils were missing after 200 years, but when you find no evidence of gradually changing fossils and instead you new species with no direct ancestors, its time to reject a failed theory.
Posted by dadown
12th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Science changing its mind on dinosaurs again
Of course the damage is already done, but perhaps if we had named this search for knowledge from a different root than "scientia" (knowledge) this whole mix-up might have been lessened, or even avoided. Maybe a new word from "probatur" or "inquiro" (search or examine.)
Posted by MrRess
13th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Science changing its mind on dinosaurs again
@dadown
To be unfinished or in progress IS NOT the same thing as failed. Constant course changing is at the bottommost rung of science.

The very immutable problem with religion is that it is changeless by claim and nature-- it has no room to grow and thus without evidence of growth and adaptation (no evolution?) resembles an organism that is dead.

But your idea that finding no transition versions of critters or plants demonstrates failure of logic only leads to a "thus..." point. Did the "god force" just out of the blue-- or perhaps out of boredom on a rainy Saturday decide to throw together some massive creatures and drop them totally formed on the earth, then, in immortal time, simply grab them off the board and stick on new ones?

The whole concept of "intelligent design" rides on a platform of purpose driven action. And at the root of most monotheistic religion is that the entire point of the creation exercise was to get to "humans are here stage" so the goats and sheep could get separated and put in the appropriate pens.

Although the ascribing of omniscience to the god force makes it a rather silly waste of effort because G* already knew before he did anything what the answer was going to be. Not unlike playing checkers with yourself. Rather like cosmic masturbation.

And the defense that we simply are not wise enough to understand the purpose of a superior creative force explains why humans cannot arrive at a clear reason for God tossing in and out fully formed beast and such, is lame-maximus. That is unless you think god is just doing his/her/its best to make humans look stupid (as if we need divine assistance in that!).

Perhaps evolution is a total misstep in the process of humans working to use their unique ability to think in a linear and heuristic way simultaneously. But saying that really says nothing of use. Religion has had a very long time to show that it does have the ability to enlighten us in the deep questions of the cosmos, but instead resorts to tales, superstitions, and preying on the complete panic ( or more likely vanity) that a person believes themselves to be much too important not to have immortality waiting in the wings.

WE should not be trying to judge the "right answer". We should be instead be looking for the most flexible and inclusive attempt to decipher an pathway towards new and more probing questions.

The quandary of understanding life and its ability to appear different at different places and times is the core question at hand. Both science or religion are able to shed no more than watery and flickering light on this for now.

The only thing that makes either of them feel satisfactory to a person is by adding a chunk of "belief"- which is no more or no less that chosen self delusion.
Posted by samcraw@...
13th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
@samcraw
When the evidence doesn't support a theory, at some point it needs to labeled a failed theory, or do you believe that the theory of spontanious generation of worms in dead meat is still "in progress"? From my point of view the spontanious generation of life from a primordial ocean is a similar leap of logic.

It appears from your comments that you think that religion is contrary to science, but did you know that in a survey in Seed magazine (a pro-evolution science magazine) they found that over 75% of scientists in the USA said they believed in some religion? A given religion is only dead when nobody believes in it any more.

I'm surprised that you have such a problem with understanding why God would want to create a world like ours and populate it. Do you not enjoy creating things or do you lack creative abilities? Also look at how many people enjoy raising children, even though they may make poor choices and do hurtful things.

PS. Is your belief in evolution also self-delusion?
Posted by dadown
13th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
david.m.acre@...
Science is a process. It's not the result.

It doesn't matter to science whether there is a creator. Even the creator used a method to produce the present world. Science is involved in asking what method was used. How did God do it?

Now, maybe you don't want to know. Then turn in every product of science you have. You can't pick and choose. Once you use the method, you engage via the method, rather than polemics. Polemics are left at the door of the science lab.

There is no real conflict between religion and science. Period. Except in the minds of those who wish to bar the door of discovery.
Posted by DanaBlankenhorn
13th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Science changing its mind on dinosaurs again
Evolution is demonstrated in the earlier story about dogs in Moscow:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/628a8500-ff1c-11de-a677-00144feab49a.html

Also the selective breeding of foxes in Siberia is instructive:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/807641/posts

There is a lot of information on this experiment. Anyone who
declines to accept the results has a lot of explaining to do.

The concept of god has evolved as well, from gods manifested in
weather (lightning, thunder) to the pseudo-fundamentalists today.
People might benefit by changing their minds about religion.

v.
Posted by viztor
13th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
samcraw@...
The transitional form game is one of the favorites among those who reject the premise of science.

If you get B between A and C, then you see, well what about B Prime? Or b-2? No matter how many transitional forms are found you can claim there are others. It's a silly game.

How evolution proceeds is still something we're working out. That evolution works over time is easily demonstrated. Through selective breeding. There are now both plant and animal species -- corn and turkeys among them -- that can't breed without human intervention. Yet corn continues to evolve ever-sweeter, and turkeys continue to evolve ever-juicier. Yes, that's human intervention. So what?

And do you really think a Great Dane can be mated with a toy fox terrier?

Evolution will be abandoned when it ceases to work.
Posted by DanaBlankenhorn
13th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
@viztor
I read both articles about domestication and they only confirm what I already believe about the lack of evolution in domestication. Selective breeding just selects which existing genes you want to pass on to decendants, it is not creating new genes. If it really was evolution, you would expect to see completely new characteristics, not the same ones already found in other domesticated animals.

Did you also notice in the case of the stray dogs that they were reverting back to the norm, loosing some of the characteristics that had been bred for? I've also read another article saying that strays around the world are surprisingly similar.

So when you have a broad gene pool, a populating is able to develop a wide range of active features to adapt to a changing environment. Epi-genetics research is just beginning to understand how all this activation and deactivation of different genes works. However, you are still limited to the pre-existing genes, so if you don't already have a genes for wings, you can never breed wings into a species.

Thus selective breeding is NOT Darwinian evolution.
Posted by dadown
13th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Ignorance is still bliss
Wow. I had no idea that so many ignorant people read this column (or
can happy . Before You start critisizing the evolution theory, at least
READ about it. All of the arguments against evolution in this topic
seems to come from people who have never actually read anything about
it.

Selective breeding IS Darvinian evolution, but in a speeded up
version. Nowhere does it say that evolution JUMPS from one species to
another, it's a gradual change, that's why it's called evolution and
not 'jumpolution'.

Evolution is not about there suddenly appearing new genes. Read about
genes and what they are before you start talking about them. Genes
are mutated from time to time for different reasons (radiation,
poisons, Talidomid etc), and some alterations produce a slightly
better variety, some a slightly worse variety, and most don't produce
a functioning organism at all which dies long before birth. But in a
timespan of about 3 000 000 000 years it all adds up.

I very much doubt that any of you have the capacity to even imagine
how long three billion years really is, and what can happen in such a
long time.

Science is the only rational way to examine things, because science
allows you to change your mind if and when new facts and better
theories arise. Only a complete ****** would believe in 'divine'
fairytales written by ignorant savages, who didn't even know what
lightning or dinosaurs were. And if you really want to believe what
some religion tells you, how do you explain that some other religion
tells the opposite, and it's believers are just as sure of themselves
as you are. I feel sorry for you and the irrational beliefs you force
yourselves to believe in without questioning. But the wichhunt is
apparently still going strong in todays world. Believe and don't
question, or else...

If there really is a god, why did he/she/it create the whole vast
universe and put humans, the 'crown of creation' on a tiny small
insignificant planet far far away from anywhere? Shouldn't we be in
the middle of the universe?

(samcraw, you have great arguments)
Posted by Dukhalion
14th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Science changing its mind on dinosaurs again
@Dukhalion

Your little mind cannot even grasp the inner workings of the
universe. What we know as Scientists is an atom compared to what really goes on.

You said "If there really is a god, why did he/she/it create the
whole vast
universe and put humans, the 'crown of creation on a tiny small
insignificant planet far far away from anywhere? Shouldn't we be in
the middle of the universe?" umm Far away from were? were do you
want to be? You are confusing yourself Sir.

If it were up to you we would be dead smack in the center of a black
hole. Nice. Stop talking trash, Humans will never understand the
inner and outer workings of the universe to the fullest. There is
not enough time.

It does not mean if you cannot see it its not there.
Posted by activesage@...
15th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
OMG! (And I mean that literally.)
Shame! Shame! Especially the authors. Ye 'scientists' need to drink deeper from the well of knowledge. Ye devout need to understand your own scriptures. And everyone needs to be more honest.

Look! So-called science is a religion. Be honest. To many things have to be taken on faith. And it's all built on puny mankind trying to understand what's going on around him, while imagining that he himself is the highest life form in the universe, or, at least, if there is a higher intelligence, it's either as oblivious to man as man is to the microbes, or as uncaring.

And those who profess to believe in God... If you really do, then learn those scriptures. All of them! Recognize that science, especially astrophysics, is at the heart of them all. That's right! Religion is science. Whether Venus being born fully formed from Zeus' brow, Vaenemoenen grinding the Sampo, Magi following a star, or Buddha being born from the side of an elephant. It may be couched in allegory, but it's really all about science.

And that, by the way, is how you can tell that 'Scientology' is a false religion: No science. No God making light. No earth bringing forth fish. Just Xenu blowing up space-ships. It's all garbage because it lacks science. Go figure.
Posted by Gaius_Maximus
15th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
@Dukhalion
I'm wondering if you might be among the blissfully ignorant, not understanding the points being made. Assuming that you aren't just trolling to stir things up, I'll explain a bit for you.

First of all, I'm well read on Darwinian evolution and used to believe it all. However, the further I dug into the details, the more leaps of logic I found. Eventually, I concluded that it was mainly a way for athiests to explain away how we could be here without any religious intervention.

One of the problems with the term "evolution" is that it can have many meanings. In the broadest sense, evolution is just change over time. Its obvious to anyone that many things change over time, especially living things.

Micro-evolution usually refers to how sucessive generations of a given species will demonstrate a variety of characteristics which can help them adapt to a changing environment. This version of evolution is easily demonstrated with selective breeding and I agree with it too.

Finally, we had macro-evolution or Darwinian evolution wich claims that one species is capable of changing into a completely different species, given sufficient time. This is the type of evolution that has not been demonstrated, that lacks definitive fossil evidence and require blind faith to believe in. No amount of selective breeding will ever create a cat from a dog, or visa versa. Each kind of creature is limited by its DNA in what kind of changes are allowed and mutations are mathematically unable to generate a significant new viable design, even over millions of years.

I follow the latest developments in genetics and molecular biology with great interest. As our limited understanding of DNA and how it affects all aspects of life increases, it is becoming increasingly obvious that the development of life requires intellegent design and not blind darwinian evolution. Unfortunately, entrenched opinions change very slowly, if at all, so it will probably take another generation of two of scientists to unseat Darwanism as the dominant theory.
Posted by dadown
15th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Science changing its mind on dinosaurs again
It's not that you scientists "change your mind," but rather that you pretentiously present your theories as absolute truth, until you prove otherwise. Regardless of calling them theories. If you would show a bit of humble self-doubt, we would be more likely to listen as it would show you have some reasonable amount of intelligence.
And no, I do not think religion should replace science. I think GOD MADE SCIENCE. The more we know, the more we understand God; the more we understand God, the more we know.
Jayelefbee
Posted by brinkerj@...
15th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Science changing its mind on dinosaurs again
@dadown and @ danablankinhorn with special thanks to dukhalion!

Those "QED" moments are so strange and interesting. Two people who read my thoughts-- one figuring I was anti-religious and pro evolution, the other exactly the opposite.

And yes, I actually do have a creative spirit, I use it actively every day. But the difference is that I don't just smash it to hell, and then start off again out of some kind of cosmic angst. I actually thing that real creative effort deserves more respect than that.

If God, dadon, does business by blaming failure on the creation itself, than that is a very childish god indeed.

Frankly it doesn't mean a rat's ass whether evolution is the best explanation or religion is.

Because both have holes in them large enough to toss in 90% of the cosmic bodies available.

Any theory be it a Godish one or a Darwinish one that scan only get from one point to another by inserting "belief" (know as conjecture in more intellectual circles") and lame from the start of the race. Whether I am self deluded as one comment implied or not, does not change the obvious and simple reality that belief is nothing but adult "make believe".

That is the common tie between both (or among all the) camps on this question. In the end they are both the same and equally right or wrong.

The only real question that matters is whether a theory of the "coming to be-ness" of the universe actually explains it without having to resort to a paradigm that began with "tell Santa what you want for Christmas".

The sheer level of oversimplification of all views here shows the unwillingness of all to stray beyond the contrived security of Santa.God, or Darwin.

And yes Dana, if the fox terrier is the male, and the great Dane is a female and you use a ladder (or a turkey baster for that matter) it is altogether possible to bread the two.

If you have no more imagination that that analogy, Dana, than you should get out of the speculation business!
Posted by samcraw@...
16th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Science changing its mind on dinosaurs again
Oh and a PS to "dadown". I enjoyed raising my children, but I did not first of all set them up with some sort of apple that would give them wisdom, and told them not to touch it.

Nor did I, when they were naughty, either drown them, burn the up in a fire, or just stomp them into the ground to create oil so you could run about in your car.

Dadown, your response to me was extremely lame and much more of a personal attach than a discussion of the issue at hand. If that is the best you have to offer, then go teach Sunday school.
Posted by samcraw@...
16th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Gaius_Maximus
Calling science a religion is a basic misunderstanding.

Science is a process. It does not preclude any religion's truth. It's
not about who made the universe, or the idea someone might have. It's
how the maker made it.

In this case, we know that DNA amino acids are basic building blocks.
We know how evolution proceeds, thanks to paleontology, over long
stretches of time. That's its value. And we have ways of manipulating
evolution for our own purposes -- that's selective breeding.

The only thing remotely religious about science is that we accept the
method, and we use the results. Bridges don't stand on faith. They
stand on engineering, which stands on science. But the fact bridges
sometimes fall doesn't mean the science was bad.
Posted by DanaBlankenhorn
16th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
dadown
Darwinian evolution -- the entirety of the thesis published in
"Origin of the Species" in 1859 -- is filled with inaccuracies. So
are most scientific papers from that period.

But that's what makes them science. Louis Pasteur was very forthright
in thanking his critics, even those who were wildly wrong. Because
that's science.

Science is a search for truth. It's not truth itself. What we teach
children in science class is what we assume to be true at the time we
write the textbook.

I was taught dinosaurs were reptiles. My children were taught
dinosaurs were birds. Their children may be taught something entirely
different, based on what science may come up with in the meantime.

It's a process.
Posted by DanaBlankenhorn
16th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Science changing its mind on dinosaurs again
But Dana, bridges do sometimes fall because of the science-- just as they sometimes fall because of God's wrath-- but mostly they fall because of gravity. No gravity, no falling bridges. Of course no standing bridges either, but that is a question for another topic line.

Religion is every bit as much a process as science. Follow the millions of people who will walk the stations of the cross tomorrow.

And science is every bit as prone to scream blasphemy as religion. Science is every bit as judgmental as religion-- try publishing something in JAMA that runs really contrary to "accepted" scientific wisdom. I know because I have tried.

Science and religion are both equally arrogant, just read down this line of responses. It had taken almost a hundred years for science to get past the "Counting Horse" to the point that there is finally some generalized realization that animals do think after all.

Dana. dogma is dogma cover it with whatever label you may. Whether the dogma is a tiny one like a fox terrier, or a great big one like a Great Dane.

The very article that began this thread shows clearly how judgmental and short sighted Science is-- were that not so than this article would not have been written. Science does not change its mind due to evidence, it changes it mind because of a shift in belief-- same as religion.

Don't overly sophisticate science, it does a disservice to it and to you.
Posted by samcraw@...
16th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
@samcraw
Note: I have not been attacking you as a person, just your statements. If you choose to view that as a personal attack, that's your choice, not mine.

I'm wondering why you choose to equate God with Santa or is it just a convenient put-down? Obviously, your concept of God is quite different than mine. I wouldn't believe in a God like you describe either.

Its interesting how on the one hand people will ask why God doesn't stop evil things from happening, yet when God punishes evil people they complain about Him being vindictive, etc.
Posted by dadown
16th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Science changing its mind on dinosaurs again
Hey jrj001
You are making an assumption here; you equate Neanderthals with something lowly, debased, ignorant, perhaps even stupid. Science would not do that. Fact is, perhaps Neanderthals were quite sprightly, interested, creative, curious, intelligent (yes), and humane. According to my parents -- who can make a dog yelp by merely smiling at it -- the reasons the Neanderthals had to go underground is that they would not kill except when driven to that extreme by hunger.
Posted by alb3125@...
17th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Science changing its mind on dinosaurs again
I just LOVE the interminable argument between evolution and religion. It's a tedious argument over how long the changes took.

Religion is at best an artifact; a superstitious reconstruct quite separated from the original SOURCE; that is, genuine spiritual experience. Imagine all those folks being misled by a hierarchical priesthood into believing that the Great Spirit lives in the sky. Hey, folks, Jesus walks among us. Ask. Look. It's right there. However, Jesus, so far as I know, hasn't published much on evolution.

You, too, can observe evolution at work. Cats are very busy with it right under our collective nose. Have you ever seen a cat with 6, 7, 8 toes? Have you noticed how the toes are WORKING UP THE CATS FOREARM? There are cases where the wandering toe reachs the correct HARMONIC and becomes a thumb. That's right; cats with thumbs! Lock up the can opener! Oddly enough, and contrary to Darwin, these cats do not yet know how to work a thumb. Isn't that strange? Function following form? Hmmm...

Science is merely a mental schematic for seeking to find answers. Granted there is a lot of presupposition among the scientists, I believe, in the end, they will detect the presence of the soul, the weight of guilt, and that life itself is written into the laws of the universe.

Darwin did a lot of thinking and trying out models to explain everything he observed. He is not completely correct since he did not incorporate "intention" into his model. But his answer works well enough to satisfy most engineers.
Posted by alb3125@...
17th Feb 2010
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!