John Templeton Foundation awards $2.8 million to examine origins of biological complexity

EurekAlert (AAAS) ^ | 02 January 2006 | Staff

[shuckmaster]

You believe evolution is true, but you do not know why it is true.

Sure we know why. It's called natural selection.

[furball4paws]

Looks like William Shatner to me.

[connectthedots]

Sure we know why. It's called natural selection.

I have no problem with natural selection. Natural selection is no explanation for macro-evolution.

[VadeRetro]

That would be irrelevant if true but you clearly have no idea of the volume of evidence for evolution.

[Right Wing Professor]

Gosh, what an obnoxious post.

[Quark2005]

This Sulu revelation is a genuine shock.

Recall Sulu's quote from the beginning of Star Trek IV:

"San Francisco. I was born there."

It all makes sense now.

[PatrickHenry]

"San Francisco. I was born there."

I'm really shattered over this. Now, whenever I see a rerun from the original series, and Kirk says: "Standard orbit, Mr. Sulu," I'll imagine that Sulu is thinking: Yeah, pretty boy, standard orbit around Uranus!

[<1/1,000,000th%]

The funds will support 18 new grant awards to scientists, social scientists and philosophers examining how complexity has emerged in biological systems.

Uh oh!

[Quark2005]

social scientists and philosophers

Social scientists and philosophers are fine so long as they admit the limits of applicability of their conclusions (just like any other practice, including the natural sciences, or even religion, for that matter).

Social scientists themselves aren't always the culprits; it's usually the (generally liberal) activists who are too eager overextrapolate the usefulness of their 'theories'.

[RightWingAtheist]

It's a special form of schadenfreude :-)

[Quark2005]

"Standard orbit, Mr. Sulu,"

It all seems obvious in hindsight:

[PatrickHenry]

It all seems obvious in hindsight:

Yes ... hindsight!

[longshadow]

Yes ... hindsight!

Oh, you horrible man! How could you make Sulu into a "Cross-dresser"?

[VadeRetro]

Formidable as they were, neither Stonewall nor his army made it through the whole war. The much-depleted Army of the Shenandoah was smashed by Sheridan and Custer at Waynesboro in March, 1865 with only Jubal Early and a few staff officers escaping. Stonewall Jackson had died earlier following a friendly-fire incident at Chancellorsville.

[AndrewC]

Gosh, what an obnoxious post.

I see you are for free speech.(and post 152 and 153 aren't obnoxious?). In any case, someone has decided post 109 is hurtful to the mind. So be it. A picture posted from NCSE along with some text from the same site is obnoxious. I kind of agree with you.(although it might have been the question mark that was offensive?)

[dread78645]

My personal expectation is that hairlessness is an adaptation for heat regulation for long-distance running that went hand-in-glove with the ability to walk upright. (Why? To chase down game. It is said that no land animal can outdistance a well-conditioned human.) Accordingly, I expect that the adaptation goes back millions of years.

... I'll be gobsmacked if there is ever any solid evidence for any of them.

The solid evidence would be when we have a technical understanding of the genes of hair.

Until then, knowing that later Australopithecus (with the larger brain case) indicates that a primate had an improving diet of meat and fats. From this diet of meat and fat we obtain DTA and DHA, two fatty acids essential to developing brain tissue.
Going from shellfish & scavenging to hunter-gather seems to be a relatively short step. Loss of fur would've been part of that step -- giving a rough date of ~1.5 Mya.

YMMV INAA (I'm not an anthropologist)

[dread78645]

... Along with that came large brains (to remember where you were, where you had been, and where the camp was, etc.). Also involved were the high-value foods obtained by hunting.

Should've included you in #156

[dread78645]

Yes ... hindsight!

"Okay. Who left their feather boa at the Darwin Central New Year's Eve party?"

[Right Wing Professor]

I see you are for free speech.(and post 152 and 153 aren't obnoxious?). In any case, someone has decided post 109 is hurtful to the mind. So be it. A picture posted from NCSE along with some text from the same site is obnoxious. I kind of agree with you.(although it might have been the question mark that was offensive?)

It's the anatomical references and personal abuse. Come off it, you ain't this stupid, or weren't, before you decided to sacrifice your brain to the creationist group mind.

As far as free speech; you are free to say it, and I am free to express my contempt.

[AndrewC]

It's the anatomical references and personal abuse.

What anatomical references and personal abuse? The post is now gone so any reference will be uncorroborated thanks to the complaint department. I posted exactly what was on the NCSE site. You can go there, http://www.ncseweb.org/ourstaff.asp, and see for yourself. I now ask you what anatomical reference did I make? What personal abuse did I heap on "Phina"? You brain is fried. Your contempt is returned.