Skip to comments.
Discovery Overturns Long-Held Genetic Belief
ScienceDaily ^
| 6/7/05
| Staff
Posted on 06/07/2005 9:35:00 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
A classic belief found in genetics and evolution textbooks since the 1930s has been overturned by powerful new techniques combined with the willingness to question dogma.
Researchers from the University of Chicago report in the January 4, 2002, issue of Science that, contrary to expectations, the tiny fourth chromosome of the fruit fly, believed to be identical in every member of the species, actually has several regions that vary.
"This classic conviction of genetics and evolution, this rock-bottom-solid conclusion, which has become a textbook example of natural selection's propensity to eliminate variation from closely linked genes, just doesn't hold up," said Manyuan Long, Ph.D. assistant professor of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago and director of the study.
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
TOPICS: Extended News; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: crevo; genetics; scienceeducation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-147 next last
Seems more and more researchers are questioning Genomic Darwinism "dogma."
Bolding added by me.
To: Elsie; LiteKeeper; AndrewC; Havoc; bondserv; Right in Wisconsin; ohioWfan; Alamo-Girl; ...
2
posted on
06/07/2005 9:36:12 AM PDT
by
Michael_Michaelangelo
(The best theory is not ipso facto a good theory. Lots of links on my homepage...)
To: Michael_Michaelangelo
Everyone knows fruit flies multiply by spontaneous generation.
3
posted on
06/07/2005 9:37:15 AM PDT
by
NautiNurse
("I'd rather see someone go to work for a Republican campaign than sit on their butt."--Howard Dean)
To: Michael_Michaelangelo
Check out scientific creationism.
4
posted on
06/07/2005 9:37:38 AM PDT
by
Conservatrix
("He who stands for nothing will fall for anything.")
To: Michael_Michaelangelo
Oh great, here we go.
Science makes mistakes. Any search for truth does. New information causes us to reconsider past views, and our understanding deepens with each new discovery.
The fact that evolutionary theory is constantly being revised by new data strengthens it, not weakens it. But those who oppose it on ideological grounds will seize on this as some evidence that the theory is flawed, which indicates either ignorance of the scientific method or a disingenuousness.
5
posted on
06/07/2005 9:44:34 AM PDT
by
highball
To: Michael_Michaelangelo
To: highball
Whenever an error or inconsistency in evolutionary theory or in the understanding of genetics is discovered, the Evolutionist start jumping up and down and say "We're right! Again! We found an error, and that shows that our premises are rock solid and not-to-be-questioned!"
To: highball
The point is that children shouldn't be taught something in school as fact that is full of more holes than Swiss cheese.
To: ClearCase_guy
Whenever an error or inconsistency in evolutionary theory or in the understanding of genetics is discovered, the Evolutionist start jumping up and down and say "We're right! Again! We found an error, and that shows that our premises are rock solid and not-to-be-questioned!" No, evolution, like any scientific theory, is subject to refinement via the scientific process.
9
posted on
06/07/2005 9:53:33 AM PDT
by
LWalk18
To: ClearCase_guy
Whenever an error or inconsistency in evolutionary theory or in the understanding of genetics is discovered, the Evolutionist start jumping up and down and say "We're right! Again! We found an error, and that shows that our premises are rock solid and not-to-be-questioned!"I don't follow you. When evolutionary theory gets clarified, Evolutionists celebrate the error?
No reputable scientific organizations seriously doubt evolution. They may argue about details, but the theory is indeed rock-solid.
10
posted on
06/07/2005 9:54:08 AM PDT
by
highball
To: over3Owithabrain
It isn't. Your understanding may be, but evolutionary theory is in fact rock-solid.
The only scientists who don't accept it are those with a political reason for not doing so.
11
posted on
06/07/2005 9:55:47 AM PDT
by
highball
To: Michael_Michaelangelo
Seems more and more researchers are questioning Genomic Darwinism "dogma." Questioning commonly held beliefs is the way it's always been in science and is more a result of technological progress than anything else.
12
posted on
06/07/2005 9:56:11 AM PDT
by
Moonman62
(Federal creed: If it moves tax it. If it keeps moving regulate it. If it stops moving subsidize it)
To: Michael_Michaelangelo
Let's not lose sight of the bigger picture. Stephen Gould summarized the evidence for Neodarwinism into 3 categories: 1 thing (the only thing) that's directly observed and 2 inferences:
1. Natural selection-- limited variation inherent in the "kind" (sp. or perhaps gn.) has been observed. Thousands of generations of directed selection for fruit flies has produced: ugly fruit flies. Naturally selected pepper mmoths are still pepper moths; long-beaked finches, still finches. From that observed limited variability, macroevolutionists assume that entirely new and more complex creatures, higher orders of information, can also be caused by natural selection.
2. The fossil record (Darwin and Huxley weren't comfortable with that "evidence" in 1859, honest paleotologists even less so 150 years and thousands of digs later).
3. Comparative anatomy/homology. Assumes if things are similar, and if there are imperfections, then evolution must have been the cause.
One limited observation and 2 inferences= a full blown campaign and claims that Evolution is "a fact." In light of that, this article is not earth shaking. All it does is add to the observed limitations of natural selection and variability. Not surprising.
To: Michael_Michaelangelo
14
posted on
06/07/2005 9:59:53 AM PDT
by
Matchett-PI
(Bad news for atheists: Postmoderns reject all meta-narratives including yours (macro-evolution))
To: highball
Your Post #5 basically says that whenever an error is found, and something is put forward to replace it, this strengthens Evolutionary Theory, rather than weakening it. To paraphrase:
Our theory is better, because we have to correct it so often.
Theres something ironic there, but perhaps you cant see it.
To: Michael_Michaelangelo
I think that a close examination of this data will lead to not only a refinement of current scientific fact and the strengthening of accepted theories but to the inescapable conclusion that Creationists are short a couple of chromosomes of their full 2N complement of genetic material.
16
posted on
06/07/2005 10:02:37 AM PDT
by
DoctorMichael
(The Fourth Estate is a Fifth Column!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
To: highball
Science makes mistakes. Yes, and every mistake proves evolution :-)
17
posted on
06/07/2005 10:02:50 AM PDT
by
Tribune7
To: ClearCase_guy
Of course, let the same thing happen with the Bible (translation/contextual error) and it is absolute proof of No God. Evolutionary theory was never a fact, and now it is a religion. Those holding to it can never let go, much like a zealot in any religion.
To: LWalk18
This article doesn't affect the creationist/ evolution controversy at all.
19
posted on
06/07/2005 10:04:16 AM PDT
by
Soliton
(Alone with everyone else.)
To: highball
Science makes mistakes. Any search for truth does. Yep. And it's the fact that scientists are willing to publish results like this that prove that some of them, at least, are playing it straight.
20
posted on
06/07/2005 10:06:17 AM PDT
by
Oberon
(What does it take to make government shrink?)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-147 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson