Well it's been 9 months going and 64 teams from the beginning, but it's come down to this folks - a battle between two giants in the scientific world.
So how does it look?
Well, Darwin has never been a quiet one, and some say he's just gearing up for his 200th birthday. Conversely, this year's worldwide infection count downgrade of 40 million to 33 million doesn't fool anyone - as all indications suggest that HIV is definitely ready for action.
Anyway, click on this bracket image below if you need a reminder of the amazing gameplay over the last 9 months. It'll take you a clickable map of game by game coverage.
Now here's the thing. The final match between Darwin and HIV is decided by reader commentary alone. No hidden agendas, no crushing writer's block dictating the wittier end score. Just the thoughts and words of readers.
So... Who do you think would win when push comes to shove? Who will be the 2007 Science Showdown Champion?
Comment cutoff is Dec 31st Jan 4th*, Midnight, and we hope to reprint some of the more witty, analytical, intelligent commentary
*As of New Year's Eve, the game had just gone into overtime. We thus leave the comments open until this Friday night.
- Log in to post comments
The fact that HIV is as robust as it is makes it the winner. But since it owes that robustness to its ability to evolve, Darwin wins by TKO.
It seems, as Eric alluded to above, that this is sine qua non of epistemic/metaphysic conundrums - of the if tree falls making sound variety. We have the hardy retrovirus who is evolutionary fitness par excellance (see Michael Specter's article from the New Yorker ). And we have the "person" (as sociotechnical system) who enabled our current understanding of the thing as thing. So, who wins? By use of logical process of elimination, "Darwin" is the greater vessel. But HIV wins in the corporeal realm of relevance - to wit, we die. Darwin is dead. Long live "Darwin". HIV will still kill you.
Let's take a look at this in a different light.
Darwin has been attacked and attacked, relentlessly you might say for a long long time. But by the same token, he and his work has always had the most ardent of supporters. He's always come out on top, and that's primarily because he's always had science on his side.
HIV has also been attacked and attacked (though for a shorter period of time), and with big bucks and all, but with the exceptions of a few nutbars, HIV really has no staunch "defenders" per se. And yet, HIV still prevails. Even when science is used against it, it still prevails. Basically, HIV is awesome in the most fearsome of ways.
So... For pure bravado and tenacity, I'm going to have to side with HIV.
HIV defeated Invertebrates, which is ridiculous -- invertebrates aren't infected by HIV. Therefore, HIV cheated. HIV must be crushed, and afterwards were going to throw octopuses out on the rink.
Darwin, on the other hand, heroically trounced the boring physicists. He's the good guy, obviously.
Darwin will win and must win. The only question is whether HIV will cheat again. I suspect the referees are throwing the games out of fear of infection; I recommend throwing out the biased vertebrate refs and giving the job to, say, barnacles. Or earthworms. Just to be fair.
Ditto PZ...
I think Darwin takes this one for having a theory that has stood up to nearly 200 years of science and IDiots. That's not a simple task at all.
I want to say Darwin. I really do. More to the point, I want HIV to lose. Give it time and HIV maybe will lose and gets its just deserves. But this is contest is happening in a single basketball game (even one that happens to stretch nearly two weeks), and I just don't think that's long enough to beat HIV.
Darwin will last. HIV will eventually be defeated. And if it is defeated, it will be because of something we learned from Darwin. Sure, HIV is looking hot these days, steamrolling everyone, with no end in sight. And sure, Darwin's gameplan might be to evolve out of it, and that could take way too long, and so you could say HIV takes it this year.
But even with "no end in sight" to HIVs powerhouse program, we still have to be savvy here. You said too how the HIV #s are down of late. Now the fans have to put their weight behind Darwin and see through the fog of the future. Home court advantage always rules.
It's Darwin's court. He'll take it with a three pointer at the buzzer.
Sounds to me like jenjen is the only one with sense enough to see through the hype. Everyone else simply wants Darwin to win. They know he couldn't, for real, but think they can will it so. Like Arturo and the home-court argument. Not buying it. I'm in the UK and we're more skeptical. HIV would win. If you really do this right, you know HIV would win. In what way has Darwin defeated HIV yet? Why would it start now?
The map (Darwin) is not the territory (HIV). HIV might try to claim the home court advantage anywhere it gets a chance to play, but this is a science tournament, and science is about excellence in mapping. Darwin is the unrivaled champ here.
marty williamson asks "In what way has Darwin defeated HIV yet?"
Counter question, "In what way has HIV defeated Darwin?"
The contest is not over, but clearly, HIV has no game plan. It has some powerful attacks and defensive moves, but applies them randomly. Darwin's team, on the other hand, is methodically analyzing and picking apart both the offense and defense of HIV. Some years down the road, HIV will very likely end up in the same division as Polio and Smallpox, while Darwin will continue to make it to the finals. The question is not whether HIV will win, but whether it can last until overtime.
Obviously, WANTING Darwin to win isn't a good argument for why he would. Which is why I'll refrain from saying that. The point is, certain people have implied that HIV will win because it'll kill us. But by doing so, it will essentially have committed suicide. Darwinian evolution will go on, regardless of whether we're here to call it that or not. Therefore Darwin wins.
Crikes. Darwin will win. We all know Darwin will win. HIV might be the 'it' team of the day, but down the long stretch it will be Darwin. This game is a long game. That means it doesn't matter if HIV has short term advantages. Darwin wins it easily. You all know it. I don't know why there's any dispute.
This is either the greatest idea or lamest. I don't know. But if it's the greatest idea, the Showdown, then I go with Darwin for reasons that all the Darwin likers above already said.
Don't know what all you fools are saying. I see it as HIV easy. Not about what you like here. About who's more powerful. Wanting someone to win, figuring reasons they oughta, debating how long it'll take, all seems nonsense to me. You look at it for what it is -- a match-up between the powerhouse of biology and a powerhouse biological thing, and you have to see it's HIV. I don't like em anymore than any of the other commenters. But I know they'd win if this was for real.
When this game is finally over, about 15 days will have elapsed from start to finish. In that time, current statistics would predict that as many as 225,000 persons will have been infected by HIV. This is as awe inspiring as it is horrendous. You can't escape this reality and so HIV whoucl win. We can only hope that next year the outcome will be different.
No contest, people. HIV hasn't lost yet, and that statement works in both Science Showdowns and in life itself.