NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: One more time: "creationism" is bogus science, does not further the education of youngsters, and could actually be hazardous to your health!


Evolution Is in the Air (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/opinion/06judson.html?th&emc=th)


By OLIVIA JUDSON
Published: November 6, 2005
London

ANYONE who supposes that evolution doesn't happen, or doesn't matter, should spare a thought for H5N1, the virus causing avian flu. If we're unlucky, this virus will give us a nasty demonstration of evolution in action.

Viruses are among the simplest parasites. They are essentially tiny parcels of genes that are mailed from one organism to another, either directly, through sneezes, feces, semen and the like, or indirectly, through carriers like insects. But these tiny parcels can mean big trouble: viruses reliably feature on nature's roster of top killers.

The influenza virus that caused the infamous Spanish flu pandemic of 1918 had only eight genes - but it brought about more than 20 million human deaths. And alas, its lethality cannot be blithely attributed to wartime deprivation. For one thing, it was particularly deadly in young, healthy adults. For another, in a remarkable feat of genetic engineering, a team of biologists recently reconstructed the 1918 virus and used it to infect mice. The results are sobering. The 1918 virus is far, far more lethal in mice than are other human flu viruses.

H5N1 also has eight genes (by way of comparison, humans have about 20,000). So far, the virus's effects have been more modest than those of the 1918 influenza: it has killed a lot of birds and about 60 people. That's still worrying, however, because it has killed more than half of the people it has infected. For a virus, that is a high death toll.

At the moment, the virus cannot pass easily from one person to another. But there are a couple of ways it could evolve to do so.

The virus might infect someone already sick with a strain of human flu, and the two viruses could have sex, thus creating a new virus that contains some genes from each. Such viral hanky-panky is thought to have led to the flu pandemics of 1957 and 1968. Or the virus could mutate - acquire accidental changes to its genetic material - in such a way that it becomes able to travel between people. Mutations to an avian flu virus are thought to lie behind the 1918 pandemic.

Sex and mutation: these are not special processes reserved for viruses. They are two fundamental mechanisms of evolutionary invention. Mutations alter the information content of genes; sex shuffles the pack, generating new gene combinations. They sound simple, and they are - but don't let that deceive you. Simple processes can have great power. After all, a few mutations to a bird virus could - in the absence of a vaccine - mean the difference between 60 people dead and several million.

Now that we can sequence genes and genomes, we know precisely how evolutionary changes accumulate. We know the differences between a fruit fly and a mosquito, between a human and a chimpanzee, between a virus that kills chickens and a virus that kills people. We can see which genes have been changing quickly and which have hardly changed at all. We can see which genes cause populations to diverge and then split into new species.

What is more, with genes and genomes we can supersede the often patchy fossil record to look back in time. One day, when the crocodile has joined the chicken in having had its genome sequenced, we'll be able to compare birds and crocodiles - the two closest living relations of Tyrannosaurus and company - and conduct evolutionary detective work, using their genomes to infer the genome of a dinosaur.

But the most important point is this: viruses and other pathogens evolve in ways that we can understand and, to some extent, predict. Whether it's preventing a flu pandemic or tackling malaria, we can use our knowledge of evolutionary processes in powerful and practical ways, potentially saving the lives of tens of millions of people. So let's not strip evolution from the textbooks, or banish it from the class, or replace it with ideologies born of wishful thinking. If we do, we might find ourselves facing the consequences of natural selection.

Boobs are awesome
It's not evolution like you're probably thinking of :P

It's sharing of traits between two or more germs in the same place. Bird flu just needs to get in somebody with an easily-transmitted virus and it will get the traits it needs. No natural selection involved :P

Hats off to you Eutrusca. I wonder how many people out there who profess to not believe in evolution are nevertheless worried about the avian flu?

It's not evolution like you're probably thinking of :P

It's sharing of traits between two or more germs in the same place. Bird flu just needs to get in somebody with an easily-transmitted virus and it will get the traits it needs. No natural selection involved :P

Actually, if the avian flu mutates into a form that is more easily transferrable and then multiplies rapidly, that is exactly what natural selection is.

Hybridization is also a factor in evolution. Natural selection is just ONE of the processes that drives evolution.

It's sad you even have to post this thread, Eut.

Actually, if the avian flu mutates into a form that is more easily transferrable and then multiplies rapidly, that is exactly what natural selection is.

Hybridization is also a factor in evolution. Natural selection is just ONE of the processes that drives evolution.
O

Hats off to you Eutrusca. I wonder how many people out there who profess to not believe in evolution are nevertheless worried about the avian flu?
Lots. Trust me on this. :)

It's sad you even have to post this thread, Eut.
I know, but it seems the battle to advance logic, reason and sanity has to be refought with almost every generation.

Lots. Trust me on this. :)

It is, unfortunately, more proof that people are entirely too label-driven. They accept the concept, but not the name, because they've been told the name is bad.

It is, unfortunately, more proof that people are entirely too label-driven. They accept the concept, but not the name, because they've been told the name is bad.
Is that anything like spanking the monkey? :D

Hm. What exactly is "creationism?"

Depending on the answer, I'm not sure I've ever witnessed anyone profess a belief in creationism. :/

Hm. What exactly is "creationism?"

It depends on what variation of "creationism" one is discussing. At it's most basic, "creationism" would be the belief that the universe was intentionally created in some form by some sentient/conscious/intelligent force or being at some time in the past. A religious overtone is implied but not necessary.

Is that anything like spanking the monkey? :D

Meaning that people wax the dolphin or diddle the bean but don't admit it? Yeah, it's analogous. :D

If the close-minded recognized development in bacteria and virii, the Creationism v Evolution debate would have ended long ago.

If the close-minded recognized development in bacteria and virii, the Creationism v Evolution debate would have ended long ago.
Here, I'll try and do an imitation of half the NSGers :)

Ugh. You filthy, uneducated wretch. I regret to have to inform such a vile creature as you that "virii" is not a word in the English language. The only plural form of the noun "virus" is "viruses." UGH. UGGGHHHH.

Seriously, I don't see much reason to hassle creationists (whatever they are) for believing whatever they believe, since I don't see it come up very often, except to be ridiculed by believers in evolution. :/

Here, I'll try and do an imitation of half the NSGers :)

Ugh. You filthy, uneducated wretch. I regret to have to inform such a vile creature as you that "virii" is not a word in the English language. The only plural form of the noun "virus" is "viruses." UGH. UGGGHHHH.

Seriously, I don't see much reason to hassle creationists (whatever they are) for believing whatever they believe, since I don't see it come up very often, except to be ridiculed by believers in evolution. :/

Sigh. Because if fundamental creationists had their way, no one would have any idea that the avian flu could wipe out millions.

Sigh. Because if fundamental creationists had their way, no one would have any idea that the avian flu could wipe out millions.
So people who believe God created the universe are out to exterminate anything that does or doesn't agree with them? Good to know there are bigots out there who believe this garbage.

That is, unless "fundamental creationists" are something else. And if they are, it seems to me from my experience in dialogue that they are either very few in number or not interested in wiping out science anyway.

No, you missed the point. The fundamentalists will outlaw the evolution theory from being taught because it's evil. Therefore the general populace will not know the potential dangers of the virus and won't fund research towards an antidote.

No, you missed the point. The fundamentalists will outlaw the evolution theory from being taught because it's evil. Therefore the general populace will not know the potential dangers of the virus and won't fund research towards an antidote.
They will, will they? What kinds of numbers do these "fundamentalists" have, anyway? Have they told you that studying infectious disease is "evil?"

No, you missed the point. The fundamentalists will outlaw the evolution theory from being taught because it's evil. Therefore the general populace will not know the potential dangers of the virus and won't fund research towards an antidote.
You forget, the Republichristians also think the government should stay out of peoples lives and everything should be privatised. The government shouldn't be funding research anyway.

It's not evolution like you're probably thinking of :P

It's sharing of traits between two or more germs in the same place. Bird flu just needs to get in somebody with an easily-transmitted virus and it will get the traits it needs. No natural selection involved :P
The strongest traits will survive, how is that not natural selection?

They will, will they? What kinds of numbers do these "fundamentalists" have, anyway? Have they told you that studying infectious disease is "evil?"

Oh come on. You know very well I'm specifically commenting on those who categorically oppose the idea of evolution. If their views held sway, then research into such phenomena as the mutation and spread of disease would be seriously stunted, since research and experimentation into scientific disciplines that touch on evolution would be stunted.

They will, will they? What kinds of numbers do these "fundamentalists" have, anyway? Have they told you that studying infectious disease is "evil?"
No, but I talk to them almost every day where I live, and they choose to belive in an ancient, oral myth rather than in the results of scientific inquiry. They choose to believe that the world was created in six days about 10,000 years ago because some monk by name of Usher, who lived in the early Middle Ages, added up all the geneologies in the Bible and concluded that the world had been created at that time.

This sort of thinking is inheretly dangerous. :headbang:

You forget, the Republichristians also think the government should stay out of peoples lives and everything should be privatised. The government shouldn't be funding research anyway.

Sorry, I'm not that used to debating American Politics. I'm already glad that the whole evolution-creationism thing isn't an issue around here :)

Oh come on. You know very well I'm specifically commenting on those who categorically oppose the idea of evolution. If their views held sway, then research into such phenomena as the mutation and spread of disease would be seriously stunted, since research and experimentation into scientific disciplines that touch on evolution would be stunted.
If they held sway? Do you have any idea how many "Republichristians" (hooray for childish renaming) it would take to make the rejection of science itself the prevalent idea? If you're thinking "two more," you're dead fucking wrong.

No, but I talk to them almost every day where I live, and they choose to belive in an ancient, oral myth rather than in the results of scientific inquiry. They choose to believe that the world was created in six days about 10,000 years ago because some monk by name of Usher, who lived in the early Middle Ages, added up all the geneologies in the Bible and concluded that the world had been created at that time.

This sort of thinking is inherently dangerous. :headbang:
There are a lot of ideas that are inherently dangerous. Thankfully, practically all of them are far removed from the mainstream. Unless, of course, your own beliefs are pretty far from mainstream, and you think getting a haircut is inherently dangerous.

Sorry, I'm not that used to debating American Politics. I'm already glad that the whole evolution-creationism thing isn't an issue around here :)
in my experience, there is only real debate on this topic in america. only at school with fundamentalist christians did i ever see this kind of debate around here (australia)

There are a lot of ideas that are inherently dangerous. Thankfully, practically all of them are far removed from the mainstream. Unless, of course, your own beliefs are pretty far from mainstream, and you think getting a haircut is inherently dangerous.
0h n03s! my hair! then the girls won't think i'm cute and then how am i meant to do dirty, dirty things to them?

0h n03s! my hair! then the girls won't think i'm cute and then how am i meant to do dirty, dirty things to them?
:O

DUNT CUT UR HARES!!!

No, but I talk to them almost every day where I live, and they choose to belive in an ancient, oral myth rather than in the results of scientific inquiry. They choose to believe that the world was created in six days about 10,000 years ago because some monk by name of Usher, who lived in the early Middle Ages, added up all the geneologies in the Bible and concluded that the world had been created at that time.

This sort of thinking is inheretly dangerous. :headbang:

It's only dangerous to the rest of us if it affects scientific funding or if they try to force it into schools. Otherwise they can believe what they like. Though I suppose it could be dangerous to them if they actually believe the virus is impossible. I think most of them believe that viruses can mutate, just can't seem to apply the same logic to macroevolution. Hey, it would be sad, but kind of ironic if their disbelief in evolution caused them to not take the vaccine and end up being a victum of natural selection.

There are a lot of ideas that are inherently dangerous. Thankfully, practically all of them are far removed from the mainstream. Unless, of course, your own beliefs are pretty far from mainstream, and you think getting a haircut is inherently dangerous.

Actually, that is quite dangerous if the hairdresser is drunk :p He's playing with sharp metal things near your head, you know ;)

Hey, it would be sad, but kind of ironic if their disbelief in evolution caused them to not take the vaccine and end up being a victum of natural selection.
no, that would be hilarious

They will, will they? What kinds of numbers do these "fundamentalists" have, anyway? Have they told you that studying infectious disease is "evil?"
About half of the population of the U.S.

It's only dangerous to the rest of us if it affects scientific funding or if they try to force it into schools. Otherwise they can believe what they like. Though I suppose it could be dangerous to them if they actually believe the virus is impossible. I think most of them believe that viruses can mutate, just can't seem to apply the same logic to macroevolution. Hey, it would be sad, but kind of ironic if their disbelief in evolution caused them to not take the vaccine and end up being a victum of natural selection.
lol, that would be hilarious. :D

There are a lot of ideas that are inherently dangerous. Thankfully, practically all of them are far removed from the mainstream. Unless, of course, your own beliefs are pretty far from mainstream, and you think getting a haircut is inherently dangerous.
The idea is for mankind to gradually become more rational and logical, not to revert to believing myths, legends and fiction. There is no inherent conflict between the basic beliefs of Christianity and science. It's only when Christians ( or any other group of "true believers" ) takes "the flat earth" approach to what should be grist for scientific inquiry that the real problems arrise.

About half of the population of the U.S.
Where are you getting this?

About half of the population of the U.S.
No. I would say, at most, about 1/4.

Actually, that is quite dangerous if the hairdresser is drunk :p He's playing with sharp metal things near your head, you know ;)
if i was shortening hair while drunk, i'd take the easy way: matches. no more hair almost instanly

The idea is for mankind to gradually become more rational and logical, not to revert to believing myths, legends and fiction. There is no inherent conflict between the basic beliefs of Christianity and science. It's only when Christians ( or any other group of "true believers" ) takes "the flat earth" approach to what should be grist for scientific inquiry that the real problems arrise.
I don't recall ever meeting a "flat earth" christian in my whole career

and there are some pretty weird people in #christian on dalnet

No. I would say, at most, about 1/4.
Well, according to all polls taken in the last 10 or 20 years, it's 1/2.

Well, according to all polls taken in the last 10 or 20 years, it's 1/2.
100% Grade A Purified Bullshit. That, or you're misinterpreting the questions or results.

There are a lot of ideas that are inherently dangerous. Thankfully, practically all of them are far removed from the mainstream. Unless, of course, your own beliefs are pretty far from mainstream, and you think getting a haircut is inherently dangerous.

You see? This is exactly why I have hair down to my waist. :p

But on a serious note: The flu virus is a marvelous model of evolution. It's easy to understand, because it has (if memory serves) seven whole genes. And it reproduces quickly and mutates quickly. This makes it ideal for scientific study of genetic evolution. It's just too damned bad that it has to kill people in the bargain. But then, this is exactly why it's an object of study. How many viruses exist that have never been studied because they have no (or very minimal) harmful effects? Nobody knows.

Now, if only we could engineer a flu virus that only infects people who don't believe in evolution.... Now there's survival of the fittest!

:p

You see? This is exactly why I have hair down to my waist. :p

But on a serious note: The flu virus is a marvelous model of evolution. It's easy to understand, because it has (if memory serves) seven whole genes. And it reproduces quickly and mutates quickly. This makes it ideal for scientific study of genetic evolution. It's just too damned bad that it has to kill people in the bargain. But then, this is exactly why it's an object of study. How many viruses exist that have never been studied because they have no (or very minimal) harmful effects? Nobody knows.

Now, if only we could engineer a flu virus that only infects people who don't believe in evolution.... Now there's survival of the fittest!

:p
You mean, survival of whoever you choose to have survive? :P

Play Wing Commander IV: The Price of Freedom

Pay careful attention to the FMV on Telamon

Try it again

I don't recall ever meeting a "flat earth" christian in my whole career

and there are some pretty weird people in #christian on dalnet
Uh ... it was intended to be metaphor for all who believe in obviously un-scientific myths and legends, which is why it was in quotes. :rolleyes:

Uh ... it was intended to be metaphor for all who believe in obviously un-scientific myths and legends, which is why it was in quotes. :rolleyes:
I know, and that's the sense in which I meant it.

Now, if only we could engineer a flu virus that only infects people who don't believe in evolution.... Now there's survival of the fittest!
Heh! Probably beyond the capabilities to design a virus to be specific enough.

But on a related issue, I have it on very good authority ( a former Special Forces bio-weapons expert who now works for an unnamed civilian genetics contractor ) that a poppy-specific variant of wheat-rust is in the late stages of development. The possiblities boggle the mind!

Well, according to all polls taken in the last 10 or 20 years, it's 1/2.

I've heard those kinds of numbers before. I don't know how believable they are, but I can say that being from the midwest the majority there didn't believe in evolution (at least where I was from). But that's just the number of people who don't believe in evolution. Most of them could care less about science policy. And just about none of them are aware of or even understand how evolution is used in biology to explain things such as the creation of nasty strains of the flu. Just about all of them continue to support biomedical research, as long as the money isn't going dirrectly to evolution studies. When I go back to my old midwestern home town I usually get praised by the locals for doing my part to combat human illness. Though every now and then when I mention I'm in the biological sciences someone will say, "Good, you can help prove evolution doesn't exist." I also heard one of them tell me there was no sense studying HIV because that was an incurable disease that the human race has been cursed with because of the fall of man. Not quite sure where she got that from, but most of them aren't like that. Oh, and that woman was from the East Coast (so it isn't just those midwesterners).

"creationism" is bogus science, does not further the education of youngsters, and could actually be hazardous to your health!
But if we had sufficiently studied Creationism then we would know how to harness the Jesus-Magick and send all of the flu into Europe where it would kill off the Godless, Commie Socialists!

Of course, it is also just as possible that the avian flu will evolve to be less harmful to humans, evolution is not always a good thing. This is the best case scenario, but I doubt it will happen. :)

This could also just blow over like SARS did.

Of course, it is also just as possible that the avian flu will evolve to be less harmful to humans, evolution is not always a good thing. This is the best case scenario, but I doubt it will happen. :)

This could also just blow over like SARS did.

No, you don't understand. Almost all mutations make things worse. But those just die off and aren't noticed. Not everything mutates only a single one does and if it is just as good as the original you get the mutated form and the original form side by side. If the mutation is advantageous then the mutated form will outperform the other forms and become the prominant form. Mutation is blind and doesn't make organisms better, but natural selection ensures that the most adapted form survives. Most experts I've talked to (yes I actually know people who work with influenza and have talked to people who make vaccines) think that its not so much a matter of if the virus will mutate to be passed between people, but when, and how bad will it be when it does.

Hats off to you Eutrusca. I wonder how many people out there who profess to not believe in evolution are nevertheless worried about the avian flu?

When people say they dont believe in evolution, what they are refering to is the creation of life. Not the changing of it from time to time. I refuse to believe in an unscientific godless creation of the universe.

When people say they dont believe in evolution, what they are refering to is the creation of life. Not the changing of it from time to time. I refuse to believe in an unscientific godless creation of the universe.
Then thoes people are stupid as the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life nor universe

Then thoes people are stupid as the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life nor universe

Whose fault is that? Certianly not the people opposing it. Its those scientists who claim that science disproves the Bible using evolution as a cited example.

Whose fault is that? Certianly not the people opposing it. Its those scientists who claim that science disproves the Bible using evolution as a cited example.
How so ... evolutionary theory contradicts the TIME frame of the creation of animals ... and the order they were created in

In that way it can be seen to contradict the bible

It has nothing to do with the origin of life

This is what happens when we let things like ID into our science class rooms ... people cant seem to understand the basics

But if we had sufficiently studied Creationism then we would know how to harness the Jesus-Magick and send all of the flu into Europe where it would kill off the Godless, Commie Socialists!
YEAH! KILL dem socialist commie nazis! Let God sort 'em out afterwards! :rolleyes:

Whose fault is that? Certianly not the people opposing it. Its those scientists who claim that science disproves the Bible using evolution as a cited example.
Scientists don't claim that science contradicts the Bible. Science hasn't found evidence to support a literal interpretation of the Bible. The difference is subtle but important.

Of course, it is also just as possible that the avian flu will evolve to be less harmful to humans, evolution is not always a good thing. This is the best case scenario, but I doubt it will happen. :)

This could also just blow over like SARS did.
It could, and I pray that it does, but we can't count on that and the cosequences could be so dire that we dare not take it lightly.

It could, and I pray that it does, but we can't count on that and the cosequences could be so dire that we dare not take it lightly.
eh

i say let it go

maybe it'll be funny

I'm not a Darwinist myself, but it should still be taught, provided the teacher emphasizes it is a theory, and not a proven fact. ID/Creationism on the other hand, has no place in a classroom.

I'm not a Darwinist myself, but it should still be taught, provided the teacher emphasizes it is a theory, and not a proven fact. ID/Creationism on the other hand, has no place in a classroom.
Whats a darwanist?

And do I really have to point out that gravity is only a theory? in science theories do NOT ever turn into "facts" they are constantly being updated

But some people choose to ignore that fact

Whose fault is that? Certianly not the people opposing it.

So you're telling me that if a person doesn't take the time to actually learn about something before opposing it, it isn't their own fault that they don't understand it?

So if I intentionally didn't pay attention in math class, it would be my teacher's fault that I didn't understand math?

So if I intentionally didn't pay attention in math class, it would be my teacher's fault that I didn't understand math?Only if you flunk math (then you can sue him/her). ;)

YEAH! KILL dem socialist commie nazis! Let God sort 'em out afterwards! :rolleyes:
Please tell me that you didn't really believe that someone would seriously make a statement with the word "Jesus-Magick" in it?

Please tell me that you didn't really believe that someone would seriously make a statement with the word "Jesus-Magick" in it?
LOL! People make all sorts of strange statements on here. Who am I to say they're not serious? :D

When people say they dont believe in evolution, what they are refering to is the creation of life. Not the changing of it from time to time. I refuse to believe in an unscientific godless creation of the universe.
evolution has absolutly nothing, I repete, NOTHING, to do with the creation of life. Evolution is the concept of already existing life changing over time. What you are speaking of is abiogenesis.

Whose fault is that? Certianly not the people opposing it. Its those scientists who claim that science disproves the Bible using evolution as a cited example.

I don't think I have ever met a single person who was actually educated in the ideas of evolution who ever argued it had any relation to the bible at all. The bible is not a scientific text. Therefore, scientists do not, on the whole, ever use it for or against their studies. If those opposing the idea are educated in it, fine. The only people I have ever heard argue that the bible and evolution are mutually exclusive are ironically the ones arguing for the bible (ya know, that book that preaches education, intelligence, and tolerance of other view points?)