How Quantum Physics Can Teach Biologists About Evolution

New York Times ^ | July 5, 2005 | Cornelia Dean

[thejokker]

science is more then a plausible concept (intelligent design).

doesn't intelligent design assume a creator as it's central premise? science is about supporting or disproving a central premise and since god or an intelligent designer cannot be proven then one needs only reject the unsupported premise to discredit the argument. one can present evidence to support or discredit evolution; it can be "argued" therefore the scientific method can be applied to it. god or an intelligent designer requires faith and cannot be argued in a scientific manner therefore it is religious and not science.

"religious" people need to leave "scientific" people alone and learn to co-exist...

[general_re]

Remember "Newton's Apple"? Ira shoulda stuck to kids shows :)

[Doctor Stochastic]

In the fall of 1900, a young German physicist, Max Planck,...

That's only if you consider 42 to be young and someone who had his PhD 21 years earlier and was director of a prestigious institute to be at the "beginning" of a career.

[Squawk 8888]

Even the "science correspondents" are horribly incompetent at reporting science.

David Suzuki is living proof of that assertion ;-)

[ValerieUSA]

They cite radiocarbon dating to show that Earth is billions of years old, not a few thousand years old, as some creationists would have it.

OH, For Heaven's sake! Let's just claim modern creationists also believe the world is flat and the sun revolves around the earth. I know many Christians who believe in a Creator, but none who are stuck in this silly NYTimeswarp.

[TXnMA]

Your comments are as fact-filled as your tagline...

[adam_az]

ping!

[Strategerist]

OH, For Heaven's sake! Let's just claim modern creationists also believe the world is flat and the sun revolves around the earth. I know many Christians who believe in a Creator, but none who are stuck in this silly NYTimeswarp.

There are Young Earth Creationist FReepers (not a LOT, but not an insignificant number) and one of the most prominent Creationist "research" outfits, the Institute for Creation Research, is still a bastion of Young Earth Creationism.

[Strategerist]

Yep....don't even have to be in the field, once you really begin to understand a field even as a layman, the repeated errors in science reporting are just as obvious.

Anyway, I noticed that people noticed the egregious NYT blunder regarding "radiocarbon" dating, but never actually said what it was.

For the benefit of those who may not know, it's actually a common Creationist belief that ALL dating of old objects is "radiocarbon" dating; actually it's only used for very recent, biological items....I believe it goes back only 50,000 years....will have to look that up.

When rocks billions of years old are dated a variety of other techniques are used such as argon-argon, etc.

[adam_az]

didnt see you were already here.

agreed, this article sucks!

[RightWingAtheist]

I loved that show! Ira reminded me of a less goofy version of Gabe Kaplan.

[spinestein]

This is from a David Suzuki website:

[David has received numerous awards for his work, including a UNESCO prize for science, a United Nations Environment Program medal and the Order of Canada. He has 15 honorary doctorates from universities in Canada, the US and Australia. For his work in support of Canada's First Nations people, David has received many tributes and has been honoured with five names and formal adoption by two tribes.]

I can't find anything about any discoveries he's made or scientific accomplishments he's achieved, just a bunch of awards. Perhaps I'm wrong and he has actually contributed to the body of scientific knowledge, but I can't find anything anywhere other than a bunch of awards for popular scientific activism.

[spinestein]

[Ira reminded me of a less goofy version of Gabe Kaplan.]


Ira reminded me of the actual Goofy. You know... Mickey Mouse's friend.

:^)

[plain talk]

Not always. I'm a creationist. I believe the earth is billions of years old. But I'm not pig-headed about it. It is certainly possible it's only 6000 years old. I just see more scientific evidence for old earth.

The point is not how old the earth is. The point is that God created man and the universe. God could have chosen any number of ways to do it including doing it in six literal days 6000 years ago. I don't have a clue how he did it other than what's been left to us via the inspired words Moses wrote down in Genesis.

I have actually seen people not accept Christianity just because of this young earth interpretation of Genesis. What's more important IMO is to understand the true gospel of Jesus Christ and what Christianity is focused on rather than getting lost in this one issue.

[RightWingAtheist]

I met Suzuki years ago as a kid. Yes, he's very passionate and often stubborn about his beliefs, but he's also very sincere about them, and is a nice guy to boot.

[hc87]

The "Punctuated Equilibrium" hypothesis is fundamentally inconsistent with the theory of evolution which requires movement of specie development in minute increments.

Wrong. There is nothing about Evolution which requires "species development in minute increments." Evolution only requires that natural selection favors (selects) certain indviduals for reproduction over others based on the suitability of those individuals to the environment in which they live. To the extent that such selection favors certain genetic mutations/characteristics and leads to the perpetuation of such genetic characteristics to the exclusion of others, speciation occurs.

Gould's hypothesis on punctuated equilibrium was that rather than this process occurring gradually over millions of generations, in the case of sufficient selective pressure, it would occur in a matter of thousands of generations. Such selective pressure could be provided by catastrophe or geographic isolation.

[RightWingAtheist]

[RightWingAtheist]

Under punctuated equlibirium, you have to think of evolution as proceeding like John Travolta's career. Instead of a steady and linear procession, it consists of spectacular bursts of activity interspersed within long, boring lulls of failed attempts at variation :-)

[RightWingAtheist]

Sorry, this is what I meant to post to you:

[hc87]

That's a wonderful simile. I'm going to use it from now on!