Image: Jen Christiansen
In Brief
- The theory of evolution provides humankind with more than just a scientific narrative of life’s origins and progression. It also yields invaluable technologies.
- For instance, the concept of molecular clocks—based on the accumulation of mutations in DNA over the eons—underlies applications such as the DNA analyses used in criminal investigations.
- DNA analysis of how pathogens evolve produces useful information for combating the outbreak and spread of disease. Accelerated evolution in laboratories has improved vaccines and other therapeutic proteins.
- Computer scientists have adapted evolution’s mechanisms of mutation and selection to solve problems.
Charles Darwin surely had no clue of the technological advances that his studies of beetles and birds would unleash. Our progress in comprehending the history and mechanisms of evolution has led to powerful applications that shape a wide variety of fields today.
For instance—as the CSI franchise of television shows has popularized—law-enforcement agencies now commonly use evolutionary analyses in their investigations. Knowledge of how different genes evolve determines the kind of information they can extract from DNA evidence.
Subscribe
Buy This Issue
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
19 Comments
Add CommentCarbon 14 and other isotope testing methods are the only proof of evolution we need.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBishop Ussher gave the date of the origin of the universe at 4004BC, by tracing who begat who from Adam to Jesus, but this creationist theory was rejected when human fossils were dated by radio-carbon testing and found to be far older. There are plenty of human remains left to reproduce this scientific dating if further proof is needed.
It may be that there is a Creator, but science is not the context within which to study that question. Science deals with the material world and is limited in its scope and methodology. The issue of a Creator is simply not a scientific question, since it's not a falsifiable hypothesis...it's irrelevant. The Catholic church has this one right...the why and the how are different fields of knowledge.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution, Physics, Probability & Consciousness.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this======= =======.
Once upon a time, in the beginning, (20 billions of years ago)
all matter (all elementary particles and all quarks and their
girlfriends- antiparticles and antiquarks, all kinds of waves:
electromagnetic, gravitational, muons… gluons field ….. etc.)
– was assembled in a “single point” accidentally. (?)
Then it has accidentally blown up: Big Bang " has taken place.
It was the reason of accidental creation of some thousands
kinds of elementary particles and their girlfriends - antiparticles.
Then atom of hydrogen was formed accidentally. (?)
Then complex atom was formed accidentally. (?)
Then stars were formed accidentally. (?)
Then the Planet the Earth was formed accidentally. (?)
Then the fauna was formed accidentally. (?)
Then the animal kingdom was formed accidentally. (?)
Then the man was created accidentally. (?)
And this man can accidentally think logically. (?)
But of course, unfortunately, not always.
===========.
We know, there is no information transfer
without energy transfer. More correct : there is no quant
information transfer without quant energy transfer.
And the electron has the least electric charge.
It means it has some quant of the least information.
What can electron do with this information?
Let us look the Mendeleev / Moseley periodic table.
We can see at first, that electron does, it interacts with proton
and creates atom of hydrogen. This is simplest design,
which was created by electron.
And we can see how this information grows and reaches
high informational level. And the most complex design,
which was created by electron is the Man.
The Man is alive essence. Animals, birds, fish are alive essences.
And an atom? And atom is also alive design.
The free atom of hydrogen can live about 1000 seconds.
And someone a long time ago has already said, that if
to give suffices time to atom of hydrogen, he would turn into Man.
========.
Maybe it is better not to search about "dark, virtual particles "
but to understand what the electron is,
because even now nobody knows what electron is.
The one, who creates a general picture of Life, must consider
development of evolution of Life from atom up to the Man.
==============.
How the God created our terrestrial world?
======== ========
The God is unknown materialistic thing.
No one knows what the external characteristics
of this God are, a God who made himself known
with the name " I am who I am ".
But in the Bible we can read that at first He took
a “clay” and made a figure of a man
and only after He gave him a “soul”.
How can we understand this scientific?
====== ========
1.
The “clay” is a proton.
2.
The “soul” is a quantum of light / electron.
3.
Interaction between proton and electron is created
simplest atom - atom of hydrogen.
4.
And atom is alive design.
The atom of hydrogen lives 12 minutes.
5.
After is created a complex atom.
6.
The evolution is continuing.
7.
And someone a long time ago has already said, that if
to give suffices time to atom of hydrogen, he will turn into Man.
===========.
Evolution of consciousness.
It was a hot summer day.
In the zoo, near the cage of gorilla the gapers gathered.
They laughed and threw bits of fruits and bread into the cage.
And gorilla was twirling round in the narrow cage, not finding enough room for itself.
Our eyes met and I saw agonizing pain in the eyes of gorilla.
Its eyes were human ones.
I gazed at it in astonishment.
Then I transferred my glance on the people.
They laughed and their eyes were brutal, soulless.
Silently I observed this picture.
Ones, having learned to walk on two feet and speak using human voice,
preserved the ferocious hatred.
The others, in the skin of an animal, already possess the human origin.
Links of one chain, of one evolutional civilization.
======..=============
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
http://www.socratus.com
http://www.wbabin.net
http://www.wbabin.net/comments/sadovnik.htm
http://www.wbabin.net/physics/sadovnik.pdf
Socratus, by questioning the "accidental" nature of the first nine events, are you assuming that all results of the interactions of natural forces are accidents? That all interactions between elementary particles are "accidents"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat sort of result of the interactions of natural forces would not be an accident, by your meaning and use of the word?
The origin of biological information complexity within DNA can not be accounted for by natural processes. Whenever we observe coded information anywhere, we know that it ultimately originated from an intelligent source. How much more practical and useful would biological research be if life was viewed as purposely engineered rather than the result of blind and unguided process?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Theory of Common Descent is a fairy tale, and fairy tales do not make for good science.
Surely this article, among numerous other articles and research reportss, shows the evolutionary approach to be extrememely "practical and useful"? Has it been read?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am at a complete loss to know what contributions to biological and medical advances have EVER been made as a result of any research in support of ID itself.
I quite understand that anyone who takes the bible as absolutely literally correct MUST believe that ANYTHING contrary to it MUST be false. But this does not excuse the often unchristian use of smear, lies, misinterpretation, misquoting, totally unsubstantiated claims and misrepresentation. Why on earth should they be necded if the case is so strong?
Indeed, as a christian who none the less accepts evolutionary theory as the most productive interpretation so far of our biological world, and regarding God as a scientist as well (he did invent it after all!), I strongly feel that it is bordering on blasphemy to blindly deny that he could use this mechanism to achieve his ends, especially by the means with which creationists nearly always seem to use to pursue their aims.
As a minor example: "Whenever we observe coded information anywher, we KNOW that it ultimately originated from an intelligent source" - WHO knows - only those who totally believe in ID of course! Most others would definitely not accept the coding in the periodic table or in DNA as being from such a source.
Funny that the founder of microbiology, Louis Pasteur and a contemporary of Darwin, did not believe in Darwins theory of evolution. He did groundbreaking work in biology and pathogens without the concept of evolution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA tragedy of Darwins theory of common descent is that so much taxpayer and university money has went into its research while the field of biomimicry nearly went extinct. Had all this funding went into the practical science of biomimicry and related fields the world would be a better place. Nature has some brilliant designs that should have been researched and uncovered.
If Evolutionists make the stretch to take credit for practical work on pathogens and computer programming then they ought to also draw the very short solid line between Darwinism and Eugenics.
Funny that the founder of microbiology, Louis Pasteur and a contemporary of Darwin, did not believe in Darwins theory of evolution. He did groundbreaking work in biology and pathogens without the concept of evolution
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot funny, just irrelevent.
neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Nature has some brilliant designs that should have been researched and uncovered."
For all the time you have spent posting on sciam forums as regards evolution why haven't you carried out research?
You may succeed finding the evidence of things were actually "designed" and "how" they were "designed" that you have been repeatedly asked for.
You may even find actual evidence as to who did the "designing"
NEal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn another forum you said you had been doing research for 25 years (or was it 35 years ? no matter)
In ALL this research did not find ANY scientific evidence that supported creationism/id ?
25 years and no evidence? quite a long time not to find anything
Could it be that no such evidence exists ?
If not then why have you not presented it ?- you have been asked enough times)
ATEGATE" has been termed the worst scientific scandal of our generation. Scientists are resigning.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat does this have to do with the Theory of Evolution?
It is a stark reminder that even PEER-REVIEWED scientific research can be driven by hidden agenda's that twist the data to support their theory.
Climategate may well be the worst scientific scandal of our generation, but...
DARWINISM IS THE WORST SCIENTIFIC SCANDAL OF THE MILLENIUM .
EVOLUTION: A FOUNDATIONAL CRISIS
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLife from non-life! The origin of life is the foundational crisis of evolution and natural selection. For without a purely godless resolution evolution cannot even get off the ground naturalistically. And therefore necessitates an external divine cause beyond nature.
In addition, natural selection necessitates an already fully formed and functional lifeform, with all the machinery and capabilities to metabolize food and energy, and to reproduce. Without this full complement natural selection would not be possible.
So what are the chances of evolution ever getting under way without divine assistance. As scientists discover the vast complexity of even the simplest cell there seems little, or no, probability. For even after decades of marshalling and combining the vast intellectual and research resources of the world’s foremost scientists and research laboratories, these chemists and biologists are still unable to produce even a primitive form of life, in spite of repeated claims that scientists are getting closer. And if all these intellectual resources cannot produce life what chance has nature itself got. None, it seems!
The bottom line is that “life only comes from life”. And nowhere has anyone demonstrated that life can ever come from lifeless matter, whatever the perceived early environment. The sheer enormity of the problem has been recognized by leading chemists and biologists, including American physician-geneticist, Francis S. Collins, former head of the Human Genome Project, and now Director of the U.S. National Institutes of Health. Says Collins, “I think even the most bold and optimistic proposals for the origin of life fall well short of achieving any real probability for that kind of event having occurred. . . . this particular area of evolution, the earliest step, is still very much in disarray.”
DARWINISM: THE INFORMATION CRISIS
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNew DNA Information increasingly appearing out of nowhere has been one of the many delusions of the evolutionary continuum: Where life supposedly evolved from the ‘simple’ to the vastly complex over great spans of time.
This ever increasing complexity of the unbroken evolutionary chain from the first simple life to humans would necessitate a continual increase in DNA and new information. Where would this new information and DNA come from, when mutations are a corruption of “existing” DNA, with no other DNA available, and no mechanism for storing a reserve of unused DNA baggage.
Darwin’s theory of evolution was specifically based on natural selection preserving only the “useful” DNA, and off loading anything that was not of immediate use. As such, there was no mechanism for the accumulation of additional DNA baggage for future purposes.
Stated Darwin: "I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term Natural Selection." [italics added]
Natural selection therefore only preserved the slight genetic variations that were immediately “useful”, with all the preserved DNA present having a necessary useful functional purpose.
This is the principle on which Darwin’s theory of evolution operates. And this natural selection mechanism specifically prevents the continual stockpiling of additional unused DNA baggage as a source for future evolution.
So where did the additional DNA and information come from, when mutations were a corruption of existing DNA, with no other DNA available, and no resource of useless DNA baggage to draw on. There is no verifiable answer to this Darwinian crisis. It would necessitate either the first simple life form already possessing the enormous reserve of DNA sufficient to produce a human and a dinosaur, or additional DNA and information progressively appearing out of nowhere.
So we see yet again that the whole Darwinian concept of the evolutionary continuum from the simple to the complex is founded on a delusion.
EVOLUTION: THE DEPENDENCY CRISIS
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisArgue, as you will, God is both a philosophical and scientific necessity, both within science and beyond. All of science operates on the reality that we can only apply logic, reason and intelligence in science because we, of necessity, live in a universe the clearly manifests intelligence, regularity and predictability. How can anyone do science on any other basis? And why would any scientist argue against this self-evident reality.
If they finds it difficult to see any “intelligence” or “real design” in the world that surrounds them, what sort of universe do they all live in, and what is the basis of their scientific investigations?
No scientist has ever observed anything in the universe that is self-creating and self-existing. If you know of anything you may well win the Nobel Prize. Everything ever observed on this planet and beyond is dependent on something proceeding. There is not a single thing in the universe that is self-existing, and not dependent in nature, including the universe itself, which is running down towards heat death and maximum entropy ( loss of usable energy, information and order): And ultimately won't have any energy to do anything, let alone wind itself up to its initial state. If it has no capability to wind itself up it too is dependent on something else, and therefore fully dependent (unless there is a external self-existing cosmic gas station that reverses the cosmic entropy process ).
EVOLUTION: THE PARALLEL UNIVERSE CRISIS
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEVOLUTION: THE DEPENDENCY CRISIS
Argue, as you will, God is both a philosophical and scientific necessity, both within science and beyond. All of science operates on the reality that we can only apply logic, reason and intelligence in science because we, of necessity, live in a universe the clearly manifests intelligence, regularity and predictability. How can anyone do science on any other basis? And why would any scientist argue against this self-evident reality.
If they finds it difficult to see any “intelligence” or “real design” in the world that surrounds them, what sort of universe do they all live in, and what is the basis of their scientific investigations?
No scientist has ever observed anything in the universe that is self-creating and self-existing. If you know of anything you may well win the Nobel Prize. Everything ever observed on this planet and beyond is dependent on something proceeding. There is not a single thing in the universe that is self-existing, and not dependent in nature, including the universe itself, which is running down towards heat death and maximum entropy ( loss of usable energy, information and order): And ultimately won't have any energy to do anything, let alone wind itself up to its initial state. If it has no capability to wind itself up it too is dependent on something else, and therefore fully dependent (unless there is a external self-existing cosmic gas station that reverses the cosmic entropy process ).
To escape the necessity of a non-dependent transcendent cause outside the universe to the atrophic cosmic fine tuning, scientists normally head for the unverifiable faith based (theoretical) multiple universe option. The problem here is that as the multiple universes are all parallel equivalents to this universe, they too must be likewise dependent in nature, and also heading towards heat death. And if any of these has been around for an infinite amount of time they would have already reached heat death
There is no escape! As acknowledged by Nobel Prize winner, David Gross, one of the founders of string theory. “We don’t know what we are talking about. . .Strings and M-Theory are based on little more than fancy math and a grab-bag of ideas.” (BBC Focus, May 2006.) Michio Kuku agrees: “Once we try to mathematically calculate the quantum fluctuations that give rise to new universes, the answer blows up, in other words the theory becomes meaningless.” (Astronomy. May 1996). Such beliefs are purely hypothetical, and therefore based on blind faith that prove nothing. Such “God replacing” concepts are more imagined than real. We are ultimately left with a “dependent” dying universe, that is unable to explain itself.
This ultimately leaves us with only two logical options. Either an infinite regress of "dependent" causes where nothing ever has the capacity to bring itself into existence, not ever. Or a non-dependent self-existing first cause, which is ultimately the only philosophical and scientific option to explain why anything exists.
Therefore, to ask the question as to who made God, is to automatically put God in the infinite dependent regress category which can never provide a basis for existence, and so the question is self defeating. [ Incidentally, both in philosophic and scientific terms, anything that is dependent is by nature limited, and anything limited cannot be self-existing.]
The bottom line is that an intelligent dependent effect, always ultimately demands a non-dependent self-existing first cause. That’s real science, and sound philosophy!
"Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo with these considerations in mind, here are currently 82... erm... anomalies in this intelligently designed living world.
http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm "
Look at this and see how implausible "Intelligent Design" is..
Supposed poor design has more to do with genetic loss, genetic divergence, genetic corruption, or genetic mutations over time, rather than imperfect design or incomplete evolution. For example, small pygmies, tall Massai, while most are normal height. In short, a design corruption and divergence over time accompanied by genetic decay. Moreover, most of this has already been addressed by theistic minded scientists. Here, www.creation.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience is the study of objective observation. Technology is the use of that understanding to imprint individual consciousness on those forces observed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTherefore before drawing theories, we should have learned by now we need to ask more questions.
Evolution is a theory. All scientific evidence leads to creation. All scientific evidence also leads to pure existence. There is no beginning or end. We use time as a reference point of observation and organization, much like the control in an experiment.
There might be a force or energy of time. There simply is no empirical evidence showing that this is true.
Just because Einstein created E=MC2 does not mean that this theory is true. It is simply the best guiding post we currently have.
None of these observations identified the impact on man traveling outside the Schumann cavity, but we found out through observation that man cannot exist outside of the Earths Magnetic Field for an extended duration.
Funny how this isn't in any Sci Fi movies. Yes Astronauts must take a generator of the earths energy field with them when they leave the earth.
What do you think now about traveling around the universe. I am certain e will find other energy fields important to our survival as well.
Off the coast of Florida 2200 ft. beneath the sea lies a city as large as L.A.. This is where we need to go for answers.
We need to know how long we have been here and what we looked like back then. After this, we can postulate theories. Right now we just have questions.
The problem with theories is that they form belief systems that close the objective process of observation. This in turn limits not just the originator of the theory but the society that places its trust in the institution putting forth the guess.
I fear that no guess is educated, because you don't know the level of education required to understand your observation.
I mean come on, we were saying the earth was flat despite all evidence to the contrary. Haven't we learned that a little more patience is in order.
A scientist cannot seek out a theory, research has to be based on the cause and effect of observable phenomenon and this should be the focus until such time as a law can be declared.
E=MC2 means nothing to the lay person. However Lorentz and Faradays laws are the very foundation of energy generation.
There is no observation of meaning leading man to believe in the "Theory of Evolution".
It is natural Viruses and Bacteria adapt to their environment just like we do.
Does a athlete adapt or evolve?
It is impossible to separate science from systems of belief. You can separate the institutions, but you cannot separate the man from his system of belief.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is why the Catholic Church was formed. America is an experiment and the experiment is failing.
We talk about finding GOD. Is there a Unified field. Forget the theory. We know the "dual particle field" is observed in every segment of reality. They should have taught us this, but chose to simply not expound upon the findings of Roy Davis and Rawls in 1975, because of the disruption this would cause to the educational, scientific, political, medical and economic agenda. They were nominated for the Nobel prize in Medical Physics in 1976. It is Everywhere! It controls everything. This is a fact. My very thoughts are made of this energy and everything I can touch including the light by which I see the universe and the sensation of touch itself. Electricity, Light, Sound and Magnetism are but frequencies of it.
Understanding the Dual Particle Theory which is so huge many laws are encompassed by it is fundamental to"ANY" true scientific progress. It also says if you can't get past the old thinking of Separation of Church and State, there is no way you will be able to comprehend Dual Particles, because everything is connected by it, including how you feel(Happy, Sad, etc...). Everyone searching for the Akashic field and we found it in 1975.
Not understanding the Dual Particle theory and observations of Davis and Rawls, is akin to believing the Earth is Flat. Your belief system is obsolete, it's not real.
This field has not ever been fully explained (explain electricity, magnetism) because it is life. If it is life and is everywhere forming everything ....What is GOD again?
I don't think GOD cares about titles.