?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
11 June 2008 @ 08:36 pm
BAM  
Read it and smile. Evolution has been observed and confirmed in laboratory conditions.

Read that again.

Evolution has been observed and confirmed in laboratory conditions.

Congratulations. You've just taken your first step into a larger world.
 
 
Nyke Youngnykeyoung on June 12th, 2008 03:51 am (UTC)
Yeah, but it's still bacteria, and not a banana, or a dog, or a toaster, or an android. [/Creationist half-wit]
Chrisclipdude on June 12th, 2008 03:54 am (UTC)
That was a really interesting article! Biologists must be really excited.

You might also find this interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0
Bad NoNo the One Man Crimewavenihil_duce on June 12th, 2008 04:11 am (UTC)
*Sigh* Since bacteria were not on the Ark, they are obviously agents of Satan. Therefore their duplicitous ways do nothing to sway the faithful from the one truth.
Drunk on immorality, valium and cherry winescurvykat on June 12th, 2008 04:39 am (UTC)
Someone should tell the vatican to put that in their pope hat and smoke it.
Nyke Youngnykeyoung on June 12th, 2008 06:27 am (UTC)
IIRC, Catholicism doesn't follow most of the Creationist claptrap.

At least when Pope John Paul II was still alive.
Drunk on immorality, valium and cherry winescurvykat on June 12th, 2008 03:47 pm (UTC)
John Paul seemed to be a decent fellow.
But pope Palpatine-I mean Benedict, seems to be the opposite.
Bellybellybalt on June 12th, 2008 11:38 pm (UTC)
You are correct, and it still doesn't. Thank you for your comment. :)
Bellybellybalt on June 12th, 2008 11:35 pm (UTC)
Catholicism is not anti-evolution, and I'm quite tired of us being lumped in that category with the rest of the anti-science, conservative christian crowd. See Pope Pius XII's encyclical Humani Generis, which was written only 20 years after the Mendelian and Darwinian models of evolution were reconciled. It says, among other things, that evolution is not precluded by the sources of faith.

You may have legitimate issues with the Catholic Church, but this is not one of them.
Drunk on immorality, valium and cherry winescurvykat on June 13th, 2008 02:05 pm (UTC)
And you need to chill the fuck out and learn to take a joke, dude.
Bellybellybalt on June 13th, 2008 04:29 pm (UTC)
If that was a joke, then apparently I wasn't the only one who didn't get it.
Drunk on immorality, valium and cherry winescurvykat on June 13th, 2008 04:43 pm (UTC)
I can see that.

Maybe you should all lighten up a little.
clarsaclarsa on June 12th, 2008 10:19 pm (UTC)
Strictly in the interest of science, I would like to point out that proof of evolution does not disprove creationism. Just because one group argues A exists, and another argues that B exists, and now A has been proved, it does not follow that there is no B. To say that a strain of E. choli developing the ability to metabolize citrate proves that man evolved from other primates is just as irrational as saying that the Earth is 6000 years old, because some scrolls give an account of a genealogical line that goes back just that far.

The implications of E. coli evolving a trait which is categorically not an E. coli trait has other, creepier implications. On some level, it is a bit like your cats spontaneously giving birth to a tiger. I'm inclined to wonder if organisms with very short reproductive cycles are at an advantage (since they can fit in 35,000+ generations in less than one human lifetime) or if the human organism, in all its complexity, is hiding natural mutation talents, on very small levels, that we have yet to understand. Consider the immune system, and the amount of "junk" RNA found in cells. We may actually be "evolving", in some sense, within individual bodies rather than across thousands of generations. This could lead to a theory of micro-evolution (as contrasted with evolution at a species level) that would have indications for radically different forms of medical treatment.

Yeah. Cool article.