Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
It's been suggested that if the supernaturalists really had the powers they claim, they'd win the lottery every week. I prefer to point out that they could also win a Nobel Prize for discovering fundamental physical forces hitherto unknown to science. Either way, why are they wasting their talents doing party turns on television?
Richard Dawkins
The evolution of deuterostome gastrulation
No genes were lost in the making of this whale
Evolution of Hormone Signaling
Anencephaly and right-wing moralizers
What should a scientist think about religion?
Symmetry breaking and genetic assimilation
Development, medicine, and evolution of the neck and shoulder
Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.
« Snake segmentation | Main | Priorities »
Category: Evolution • Science
Posted on: July 23, 2008 1:56 PM, by PZ Myers
Olivia Judson has a lovely article about ongoing examples of evolution.
Before the creationists start whining, I know — they're still birds and lizards and flies. Get over it. They've changed, as evolution predicts.
Comments
Medic!Copy editor!Olivia Judson has a lovely essay posted listing ongoing examples of evolution.
Olivia Judson has a lovely list of ongoing examples of evolution.
Olivia Judson has a lovely ass, and has posted a list of ongoing examples of evolution.
None of the above
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 23, 2008 2:00 PM
Say what!?
Oh.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 23, 2008 2:02 PM
Everyone (including creationists) recognizes the difference between microevolution (adaptations within a species) and macroevolution (one species evolving into another species). Nothing new here. You folks still haven't found any of those pesky missing links yet, in which one species is proven to evolve into an entirely different species. Oh, well. I guess you guys just accept it on Faith.
Posted by: Sandi | July 23, 2008 2:03 PM
Sandi. You're dumber than a doorknob.
Posted by: Steve_C | July 23, 2008 2:04 PM
Yes damn it, I have read all of them three times, The "Darwinmania" four times, but the damn New York Times won't let me print them! Olivia, they are suppressing your science expertise! Does any one know a way around this dilemna so that I can print the series and file it with my science stuff? Help!
Posted by: Holbach | July 23, 2008 2:09 PM
An article about Olivia Judson without her picture is an outrage!
Posted by: PatrickHenry | July 23, 2008 2:09 PM
There's a great series of videos on youtube (and liveleak)titled "_ Foundational Falsehood of Creationism". I believe there are 10 parts currently, each part covering a wide range of issues.
Check out part one here: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c03_1213054333
I highly recommend watching the entire series.
Posted by: Deepsix | July 23, 2008 2:11 PM
Sandi @ 3 What faith? Your imaginary god did it all, that's all you need to know. It even made you and got you to think that it even made you. Have a cracker!
Posted by: Holbach | July 23, 2008 2:13 PM
#6. On the left. Next to the bio. Under the advert.
Posted by: Matt Heath | July 23, 2008 2:14 PM
You show them proof, and they still don't get it. *sigh*
Holbach - by the way, did you see that TED video about love and the brain over on the Dawkins site? It's pretty interesting.
Posted by: Patricia | July 23, 2008 2:15 PM
Sandi, all species are intermediate.
Posted by: AndrewG | July 23, 2008 2:15 PM
Sandi, please identify why lots of little events of "microevolution" cannot add up to "macroevolution" when given enough time. Is there some sort of barrier that stops two divergent populations of the same species from accumulating enough "microevolutionary" changes to result in two seperate species?
There is no wall between micro and macroevolution, these are terms that differ only in scale, not mechanism.
Posted by: Jonathan | July 23, 2008 2:16 PM
Gee,but that Ms Judson is a Hottie LOL !
//Before the creationists start whining//
Too late....
Interesting the fact that the finches beak size "jittered about" like a drunk man staggering,reminds me of the "drunkards walk",maybe the biology-versed here can comment on that a bit more,is evolution meant to be staggering about?It would make sense I guess,as a reflection of the ever-changing natural world.
Posted by: clinteas | July 23, 2008 2:17 PM
Sandi it's true by definition that no one has found any MISSING links. If they had found them they wouldn't be missing. They have found lots of links which were PREVIOUSLY missing and were predicted by evolutionary biology, though.
Posted by: Matt Heath | July 23, 2008 2:18 PM
Sandi, you mean proof like the NANOGP8 pseudogene? Or do you really think that the identical Alu retroelement placement within it in both chimpanzee and human versions of the gene are a random accident? Odds are rather slim (read: NONE) that this is due to anything other than common descent....
Posted by: Randy | July 23, 2008 2:21 PM
Sandi, you capitalize 'Faith' as if it's something special, to be venerated. Faith, being without evidence, is just plain dumb. Why believe what people tell you just because they've got an old book of ancient texts & wear funny uniforms? That's infantile.
The bible is full of crap, vile, murderous crap.
Posted by: Richard Harris | July 23, 2008 2:23 PM
We have many, many missing links. And we find more on a routine basis. Check wikipedia, they have a short list. A longer list would take pages.
And we've seen species evolve into other species in real time. Hawaiian butterflies, mice on Medeira and in Tunisia, and on and on.
You must have been asleep for the last 100 years. Science continuously moves on, update your calendar. It is 2008 not 1908.
Posted by: raven | July 23, 2008 2:23 PM
@6 - Patrick Henry - We all know you have a crush on her. Hell, if I were a man- I'd have a crush on her too!
Posted by: S.Scott | July 23, 2008 2:25 PM
Sandi,
Ignoring your complete lack of understanding of evolution I will point out that most creationist didn't believe in microevolution until scientists proved them wrong without a doubt. In fact, as you are probably aware, the Bible speaks of animals as being fixed and immutable (Gen. 1:21). So maybe you should just go pray because God apparently disagrees with you.
Posted by: Jeff | July 23, 2008 2:27 PM
And as ID
predicts, uh, incorporates after it becomes undeniable.Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 23, 2008 2:28 PM
Everyone recognises the difference between microwalking (from the fridge to the TV) and macrowalking (the Pacific Crest Trail). Nothing new here. You folks can't show me a single example of someone walking from California to British Columbia since breakfast time. Oh well. I guess you guys just accept it on faith.
Posted by: JohnW | July 23, 2008 2:30 PM
Actually, the only way we can identify "missing links" is by using evolutionary predictions. And those are done using the same criteria that are used for "microevolution."
IOW, if you can accept the evidence for microevolution, there is no difference between it and the evidence for macroevolution. Only your pigheadedness and ignorance deny one while accepting the other.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 23, 2008 2:33 PM
"You folks can't show me a single example of someone walking from California to British Columbia since breakfast time. Oh well."
That someone didn't walk there. He took the damn plane. That's evolution for you.
Posted by: Michelle | July 23, 2008 2:36 PM
Sandi blathers
You folks still haven't found any of those pesky missing links yet
Uh, um... If someone found "missing links" that would be a bigger problem for evolution to explain than the endless fine gradations of transitional forms that are continually being found.
#21 JohnW for the win! You didn't show all the missing steps!
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 23, 2008 2:38 PM
Didn't you mean 108 rather than 1908?
If Sandy had bothered to read the full article, she would know that it does contain an example of observed speciation within the past 30 years--Croatian lizards.
So Sandy, if you want us to take you seriously and not berate you, it would help for you to actually read the information provided before commenting. It would also help for you to understand the meaning of the terms as they are used within the context at hand.
Posted by: Prof MTH | July 23, 2008 2:40 PM
No, Sandi wants intermediate forms... Here's a few of the things she's looking for:
the jackelope (intermediary between rabbits and antelope)
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive_2006/today06-08-30.html
the Deep One (intermediary between fish and humans)
http://www.hamsterizer.com/Art/images/Items/DeepOne01b.jpg
the northern fur-bearing trout (intermediary between fish and chinchillas)
http://www.fiendishcuriosities.com/viewitem.php?selectItem=34
Cthulhu (intermediary between cephalopods and God)
http://llbbl.com/data/RPG-motivational/target52.html
Posted by: Evolving Squid | July 23, 2008 2:46 PM
JohnW nails it! You da man.
Sandi extrapolates from her few decades of life ( and inattention to detail) to a grand conclusion. The missing links she should be concerned with are those associated with the logic of her religious beliefs.
Posted by: hje | July 23, 2008 2:47 PM
Patricia @ 10 Yes, I watched the TED video at the Dawkins site. Interesting stuff! Did you watch his new video "Voices of Science"? The interview with Steven Weinberg is just great and have watched it three times already! More, more! Speaking of science, how ironic that we are dealing more with religious retards and blasting them for science than we are dealing with science! Love it! Steven Weinberg is one of my favorite scientists and I have three of his books. I highly recommend his "Facing Up: Science and Its Cultural Adversaries." Good stuff!
Posted by: Holbach | July 23, 2008 2:47 PM
If I ever find a missing link, I'm going to name it "Sandi."
Posted by: Ghost of Minnesota | July 23, 2008 2:47 PM
To a creationist, a "missing link" looks like a taxidermist hack-job, and would, of course, be a hoax.
It never seems to occur to them that it does not work like that...
â http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/fishibian.html
Because, of course, they have been brainwashed with lies. And they continue to brainwash themselves with lies.
Posted by: Owlmirror | July 23, 2008 2:49 PM
You guys really need to show more reverence to explanations that work great as arguments among people who don't know biology at all.
Come on Sandi, explain us how Behes mystery mechanism that stops maacro-evolution at some arbitrary point.
Posted by: Dutch Delight | July 23, 2008 2:50 PM
Here she is: Pic of Olivia Judson. Olivia, you ain't no kin to no monkey!
Posted by: PatrickHenry | July 23, 2008 2:52 PM
Oops, just making sure I make my spelling error quota this month.
Posted by: Dutch Delight | July 23, 2008 2:54 PM
I especially like the example of the Croatian lizards. It seems to me to be a wonderful counter to the idea that "punctuated equilibrium" or sudden jumps in the evolutionary record indicate divine intervention. This is a pretty drastic evolutionary change in a short period of time... and there's no reason to think it's the result of anything other than descent with modification.
And Sandi needs to read some actual evolution texts. Countless "missing links" have been found; not just between species, but between entire classes of living things. What the heck do you think Tiktaalik was?
Posted by: Greta Christina | July 23, 2008 2:55 PM
So, if we ever find a black hole, who should we name it after:
Kenneth Ham
George W. Bush
Sherri Shepherd (She believes the Earth is flat.)
Other suggestions?
I feel a poll coming on. PZ should start his own polls with PollDaddy.
Posted by: Prof MTH | July 23, 2008 2:57 PM
Patrick, what about the nice ass and great tits mentioned earlier? Hey man, help us out.
Posted by: Richard Harris | July 23, 2008 2:59 PM
Does anyone else see any probkems with this particular comment?
Posted by: kerovon | July 23, 2008 2:59 PM
@ Owlmirror - #29
You mean we shouldn't be continuing our search for the elusive crocoduck?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNTGmoTb8sw
(@ 2:00 into the video)
(remove sharp objects from reach before viewing)
Posted by: LMR | July 23, 2008 3:00 PM
LoL I don't know why some of you even acknowledge the fundies' existence here; PZ is a haven from their lunacy.
If you want to effectively ridicule a fundie, don't argue with them, don't call them a damn thing... just ask them what they believe, it does the job all on it's own ;)
Posted by: Mike | July 23, 2008 3:01 PM
Usually people send me links to polls -- I haven't been seeing any lately!
It might have something to do with the fact that my inbox is a maelstrom of idiocy right now...
Posted by: PZ Myers | July 23, 2008 3:02 PM
To Randy, Ghost of Minnesota, et al: Did you know human DNA only differs from tree DNA by about 3%? Maybe Ghost evolved from a tree. I'm thinking a walnut tree or some other kind of nut tree. And Jonathan: perhaps a whole bunch of micro changes can create a macro change into another species given enough time, but we haven't seen it happen yet. How much TIME do you guys need for your missing links? Incidentally, your ad hominem attacks aren't persuasive. Stick to the facts, people.
Posted by: Sandi | July 23, 2008 3:03 PM
WHEW!! Thank The Cosmic Muffin. Finally some good old creationist trolls.
Sandi, just because you people are too dumb to read the evidence and understand it does not mean it isn't there.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 23, 2008 3:06 PM
Sandi writes:
Did you know human DNA only differs from tree DNA by about 3%? Maybe Ghost evolved from a tree.
Idiot. Human and tree had common ancestor.
If you're going to try to attack evolution, you should actually know a smidgen about how it works.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 23, 2008 3:07 PM
Another problem with that statement is that it's bullshit.
You're just making up lies as you go along.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 23, 2008 3:10 PM
PZ: Usually people send me links to polls -- I haven't been seeing any lately!
http://www.nbc10.com/family/16947935/detail.html
Posted by: Margaret | July 23, 2008 3:13 PM
#35, Posted by: Richard Harris:
A gentleman doesn't discuss these things. Use your imagination. (In this case, it's what I do.)
Posted by: PatrickHenry | July 23, 2008 3:14 PM
HA. And you thought you could wreck my new Irony Meter. Little did you know I got the extra CreoInsulation© from Dupont.
No chance you .... oh crap. nevermind.
There goes another.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 23, 2008 3:14 PM
Sandi wrote: "How much TIME do you guys need for your missing links? Incidentally, your ad hominem attacks aren't persuasive. Stick to the facts, people."
The urge to nail a consecrated slice of toast to my bed board is growing day by day. If only I could convince my Catholic friends ...
Posted by: AndrewG | July 23, 2008 3:15 PM
Incidentally, your ad hominem attacks aren't persuasive. Stick to the facts, people.
Why stick to facts when people like you just ignore them anyway? Ridicule is not only fun, sometimes it's the only option.
Posted by: Ghost of Minnesota | July 23, 2008 3:15 PM
Holbach @ 27 - Haven't watched that yet. I'll give it a look when I get back from the book store & library. I wheedled my way back into my class when it starts back up next month.
Posted by: Patricia | July 23, 2008 3:21 PM
For those who may be interested there is a new and controversial research field that would not be possible without genetics and evolution -- race-based medicine. It was really kicked-off financially by the FDA approval of Bidil
If you deny evolution you are forced to accept some morally and epistemologically problematic claims. Did god create/design certain peoples with specific disease susceptibilities? Or was disease susceptibility the result of sin after The Fall? Why was this not taken care of after the Deluge? How many ad hoc hypotheses do you need to accept in order to keep the original hypothesis?
Posted by: Prof MTH | July 23, 2008 3:21 PM
Randy (#15) wrote:
The following paragraph is from the website Randy linked to:
Humans and chimpanzees share ten NANOG pseudogenes, all in the same places: one duplication pseudogene and nine retropseudogenes. Of the nine shared NANOG retropseudogenes, two lack the poly-(A) tails characteristic of most retropseudogenes, indicating copying errors occurred during their creation. Due to the high improbability that the same pseudogenes (copying errors included) would exist in the same places in two unrelated genomes, evolutionary biologists point to NANOG and its pseudogenes as providing formidable evidence of common descent between humans and chimpazees.
They call it formidable evidence. I would call it smoking gun proof.
What's wrong with the creationists? There's plenty more evidence like this. How can they deny evidence this powerful? Apparently faith makes people permanently stupid.
Posted by: BobC | July 23, 2008 3:22 PM
Or perhaps they both evolved from a common ancestor.
holy shit, how many examples do you need?
Posted by: Mike | July 23, 2008 3:23 PM
That isn't even remotely true. Humans differ among themselves by up to 0.5%, chimpanzees are around 1-2% different, rhesus monkeys around 17% different, and humans and trees differ by probably around 90% or so (didn't look it up but just estimating, at any rate it is very high). Exactly what one expects for common descent with modification over 3.7 billion years.
Telling lies doesn't mean god exists. It just means you are a liar, have zero background in science, and are too lazy and stupid to look anything up using google or wikipedia.
Posted by: raven | July 23, 2008 3:25 PM
We shouldn't kick retarded people when they fall down.
Sandi - do you dot the 'i' with a smiley face or a heart?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Since you know zero about science and less than that about evolution that's really the only question we need you to answer. Ever.
Thanks for playing.
Posted by: WRMartin | July 23, 2008 3:25 PM
BobC writes:
Apparently faith makes people permanently stupid.
Causality can be tricky in these cases. Is it faith that makes stupid, or stupid that makes faith?? Since stupid has been observed in the absence of faith, I would argue the latter.
Posted by: Marcus RMarcus Ranum | July 23, 2008 3:26 PM
No mention of Culex molestus, which is my favourite. As a Londoner who takes the tube every day, it's kind of cool to discover that evolution has been taking place right beside me, so to speak.
Posted by: Moggie | July 23, 2008 3:31 PM
PZ - Sorry to pull your chain during this whirl wind... did you ever recieve a small brown mailer from me, mailed about the same day this whole mess started? My email must not have made it through alerting you that it was safe. (No wafer) Thanks. :)
Posted by: Patricia | July 23, 2008 3:31 PM
Sandi,
Asking us to stick to facts while you obviously make up your own only proves that you wouldn't know a fact when you saw one and that you are fully capable of good old fashioned theistic lies when they suit you. Pretty sure your god book mentions that lying is a sin. You might want to give that some thought.
Posted by: santiagosmagic | July 23, 2008 3:35 PM
The average metazoan species lasts 1 to 10 million years. The successful ones leave descendents. Are you going to stay up for a million years and take notes?
If point of fact, macroevolution has been seen within my lifetime. The croation lizards evolved a valve to turn their stomach into a rumen like organ as described in the NYT article linked above on this post. And a tumor in Tasmanian devils evolved the ability to transfer from one animal to another. A free living pathogen from a cancer. It is decimating the whole species. Which is evolving in turn to defeat the disease.
BTW, did you see Moses drop the tablets and break them? How about a walking, talking snake? How about Jesus being nailed to a cross? If you weren't watching, how do you know someone didn't just make up some stories? You don't. We at least have the real bodies, myriads of fossils dug out of rocks and are finding more every day.
Posted by: raven | July 23, 2008 3:38 PM
PatrickHenry # 6:
"An article about Olivia Judson without her picture is an outrage!"
Try this:
http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=%22Olivia+Judson%22&btnG=Search+Images
(I did that PURELY for you. But didn't she look good in "Dr. Tatiana's Sex Advice to All Creation: The Definitive Guide to the Evolutionary Biology of Sex"!)
Posted by: Barry Pearson | July 23, 2008 3:39 PM
Wow, what a fantastic article! Thanks for sharing :-)
Posted by: Chris (@ Fabulously in the City) | July 23, 2008 3:40 PM
They don't actually care about the ten commandments. When was the last time you saw a Christian demanding that desecration of the Sabbath be outlawed? Or even telling other Christians that desecration of the Sabbath was wrong?
If they'll ignore the biblical rules for how to behave as God wants on Saturday, they'll certainly ignore the commandment about not bearing false witness.
The only thing they care about is repeating the parts of the bible that they tell each other is true, or imagine is true, not what the bible actually says.
Posted by: Owlmirror | July 23, 2008 3:43 PM
WHOA!
http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2006/01/18/tati_narrowweb__300x436,0.jpg
Posted by: Steve_C | July 23, 2008 3:44 PM
a typical creationist argument; Great Tits are shrinking but they're still Great Tits! sorry I couldn't resist.
Posted by: charlie s | July 23, 2008 3:45 PM
How much TIME do you guys need for your missing links?
whooooooooooooooosh!!!!!!
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 23, 2008 3:45 PM
Of course it is stupid. We might be able to poison the planet so much that a whole new biosphere of pollution resistant organisms appear. By that point, we would probably be extinct. For sure the vast majority of us would be dead.
It actually happened once before when ambitious blue green algae produced oxygen and poisoned much of the biosphere out of existence.
Steve is also assuming that reality acceptors want to live in a world wide garbage dump. Uhhh, thanks Steve, but no thanks.
Posted by: raven | July 23, 2008 3:47 PM
From the article: "in a forest in southern England, great tits have been shrinking"
Now there's intelligent design in action!
(sorry, I couldn't help myself)
Posted by: Xeno | July 23, 2008 3:55 PM
X <-- Science
.
.
. <-- Whoosh zone
.
.
O <-- Creationists's head
-|-
/ \
Posted by: WRMartin | July 23, 2008 3:56 PM
#61, Posted by: Barry Pearson
Your selfless research is much appreciated. It must have been painful for you. (But trust me, I've run that same search before.)
Olivia, Olivia ...
Posted by: PatrickHenry | July 23, 2008 4:01 PM
I wasn't aware that Olivia Judson had groupies. Who'd thunk it? An evolutionary biologist with groupies! She rocks! I want to be her when I grow up.
Posted by: Liz S | July 23, 2008 4:01 PM
Don't you Darwnist get it that when you "discover" a new species you just open two new gaps in the fossil sequence? Nice try guys claiming you observed it happening, science is based on evidence, not hearsay. Let's see some fossils.
Posted by: BJ Tabor | July 23, 2008 4:03 PM
Some of those comments clearly illustrate the problems we have. Comments such as,
"This article reveals a lack of knowledge about genetics..."
and (my favorite)
"This person obviously doesn't know anything about evolution..."
should worry us all. Let's see, the professional evolutionary biologist, who has spent most of her adult life studying evolutionary biology, doesn't know anything about evolution or genetics, but these clowns, who could just as well have written, "My pastor says..." think they are experts?
Dumbasses.
Posted by: Pablo | July 23, 2008 4:07 PM
@ Sandi
A large number of genes are similar between disparate organisms because proteins that are encoded perform the same task e.g. metabolic pathway enzymes. Thus, homology is expected, though there are differences between homologous enzymes, etc. However, pseudogenes do not get transcribed, let alone translated into protein, and serve no function whatsoever. There is no selection pressure to conserve the sequence in pseudogenes. Thus, pseudogenes can mutate all they want, have retroelements inserted, whatever, without any cost. Thus, you have utterly failed to answer the question: how do you explain the exact one-to-one positioning of Alu retroelements without invoking the explanation that chimpanzees and humans have a common ancestor?
Posted by: Randy | July 23, 2008 4:08 PM
Try to connect these lines of thought:
"Don't you Darwnist get it that when you "discover" a new species you just open two new gaps in the fossil sequence?"
+
"Nice try guys claiming you observed it happening, science is based on evidence, not hearsay. Let's see some fossils."
This must be the primary example of why evidence will never dissuade Creationists. They simply cannot comprehend what it is.
I mean, you just said that fossils was not ever going to prove evolution (regardless of what they show), and then you demand evidence in form of fossils? What the hell?
Posted by: Xeno | July 23, 2008 4:10 PM
Let's see some fossils.
You mean like these? Do you need us to hand-deliver them to your front door or something?
Transitional fossils exist. Pretending they don't won't make them go away.
Posted by: Ghost of Minnesota | July 23, 2008 4:12 PM
Xeno,
Check out the link for El Tabor at #72. It's a Poe.
Posted by: LawnBoy | July 23, 2008 4:14 PM
BJ Tabor @ 72 We have plenty of real fossils, just as you have plenty of imaginary gods. Let's see those gods of yours; we'll match you fossils for gods. Can't do it eh?
Posted by: Holbach | July 23, 2008 4:14 PM
Less honest too.
Posted by: Dr. J | July 23, 2008 4:14 PM
LawnBoy @ #77
Are you suuuuure?
Poe's Law makes me confused. :/
Posted by: Xeno | July 23, 2008 4:18 PM
Looks like Sandi proves that great twits are still doing fine.
Posted by: Milo Johnson | July 23, 2008 4:18 PM
Holbach,
You got punked. Mr. Tabor is with the satirical Landover Baptist. One of the annoying gnat like species known as the parody troll.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 23, 2008 4:20 PM
Poe people. Landover baptist.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 23, 2008 4:20 PM
Another problem with the comments: even those from non-creationists are falling for the bait of, "These examples don't prove evolution. There are better examples of speciation blah blah blah"
Of course, she never claimed that these were the "best examples to prove evolution" or any such nonsense. These are, as she indicates, examples of evolution that is occuring _right now._ Hokey smokes, the longest term study is all of 30 years! Of course you aren't going to see massive changes in those time scales (evolutionary theory would be in trouble if you did). However, as the lizard example shows, even very large changes can be observed over short time scales (40 generations). Examples of ongoing evolution, absolutely.
Posted by: Pablo | July 23, 2008 4:23 PM
Xeno,
Yes. Landover Baptist is a known parody.
Posted by: LawnBoy | July 23, 2008 4:23 PM
#63 Owlmirror
Yeah, I know. *sigh*
Sometimes I hope to much. I figure if a creobot can follow it's programming well enough, than pointing it to part of it's programming might jam it up enough for an original thought to be generated.
It's a dream I have. *smile*
Posted by: santiagosmagic | July 23, 2008 4:33 PM
#71, Posted by: Liz S
My respect for Dr. Judson is strictly professional. I admire her data.
Here's another scientist who has earned my admiration: Lisa Randall, Professor of Physics.
Posted by: PatrickHenry | July 23, 2008 4:42 PM
Posted by: Adobedragon | July 23, 2008 4:47 PM
If we are talking about scientists we admire, I would add Carolyn Bertozzi
http://www.cchem.berkeley.edu/crbgrp/bio.htm
She is absolutely something special, but a wonderfully down-to-earth person.
Posted by: Pablo | July 23, 2008 4:48 PM
@ Marcus #56
I see it as being a reinforcing feedback loop of retardation - mental, educational, moral and emotional.People who were always more gullible, stupid, vacuous, greedy, fearful, lazy and needy are more likely to fall for religion in the first place. Once captured (or captivated), the religion tends to encourage them not to think for themselves, not to learn (or even encounter anything outside the religion), not to explore or internalise their moral code but see it as external (eg in a book!) and not to grow up (ie stop being needy or start challenging the patriarchy). Religions and their corrupt leadership rely heavily on all these attributes in their marks.
If anyone dares to think for themselves and question the dogma, then they might notice that it's illogical and self-contradictory.
If anyone dares acquire knowledge of reality, then they might notice the religious fantasies are contradicted by it.
If anyone dares consider ethics / morality as distinct from the book version (from which their religious authority is selectively choosing whatever suits their purpose of the moment), then they might notice how despicable the religion is and how dishonest the leadership is.
If anyone dares grow up and stop being fearful of reality or dependent on parental figures to tell them what to do, then they might notice they don't need the religion anyway.
Unfortunately for civilisation, the inherent laziness of people and the cunning design of modern religions, after centuries or millennia of evolutionary tweaks, pretty much guarantees that a large proportion of humans will continue to fall for religions which tap into their baser instincts.
Posted by: SEF | July 23, 2008 4:51 PM
Nylon-eating bacteria evolved too recently to leave fossils. Next?
Posted by: Interrobang | July 23, 2008 4:52 PM
EvolvingSquid @ 26 wrote:
the Deep One (intermediary between fish and humans)
Hmm...this looks like an intermediate form, too.
Posted by: James F |