Post by Teckor on Jan 9, 2006 16:33:56 GMT -5
Read this.
Only one of these things is even remotely (and at best, distantly remote) to "evolution", which is the single gene separation between an armoured fish, and a non-armoured fish... otherwise, I fail to see how any of it is an "evolutionary breakthrough". Like, for goodness sakes, if it was something like actually "accelerating" or even "proving" evolution, then I'd call it a breakthrough. Otherwise, my personal opinion is just that this is nothing more than a weak (at best) attempt to promote evolution (despite its flawed, and weak "evidences").
P.S. If I'm trolling, then bear with me plz, I have a deep hatred for idiocy, especially counter-productive idiocy.
Evolution 'breakthrough of the year,' Science journal declares
Last Updated Thu, 22 Dec 2005 14:39:31 EST
CBC News
The journal Science had declared genetic studies of evolution the breakthrough of 2005.
The genetics research findings included:
¡P A study showing a 4 per cent difference between human and chimpanzee DNA.
¡P Mapping the 1918 pandemic flu virus.
¡P Discovering a single genetic change turns one species of stickleback fish into an armour-less variety that is landlocked.
¡P FROM APRIL 12, 2002: Gene activity in human brain sets us apart from chimps
¡P FROM FEB. 5, 2004: Scientists probe why 1918 flu was so deadly
"In 2005, scientists piled up new insights about evolution at the genetic level and the birth of species, including information that could help us lead healthier lives in the future," the journal's editors wrote.
"Ironically, these often-startling discoveries occurred in a year when backers of "intelligent design" and other opponents of evolution sought to renew challenges to this fundamental concept."
¡P INDEPTH: Creationism in disguise?
The publication comes two days after a judge ruled intelligent design cannot be taught in high school biology classes in Pennsylvania public schools.
Proponents of intelligent design argue that natural selection cannot fully explain the existence of complex life forms, and say an unseen force is behind the development of humanity.
Many members of the scientific community hold intelligent design is invalid as a theory because it cannot be tested and offers no hypotheses.
The editors say areas to watch for in the next year include the development of drugs and vaccines for avian flu, ultra-high-energy cosmic rays, and the search for more evidence of the ivory-billed woodpecker, long presumed extinct but rediscovered in 2004.
Other top discoveries of 2005
„h Explorations of the moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, a comet, an asteroid, Saturn and the edge of the solar system.
„h Molecular biology of seasonal flowering.
„h The violent nature of neutron stars.
„h The possible relationship between "faulty wiring" in the brain of a fetus and diseases such as schizophrenia, Tourette syndrome, and dyslexia.
„h The roots of where Earth got its building blocks, whether elsewhere in the solar system or deep within the planet.
„h Discovery of a protein that controls the flow of potassium ions to cells, which is key to how nerves and muscles work.
„h Fresh evidence of climate change from ocean studies, ice cover and altered migratory patterns of birds.
„h An engineering approach to molecular biology and superconductivity.
„h How cells respond to chemical and environmental signals.
„h France wins bid to host ITER, the world's first fusion reactor.
Last Updated Thu, 22 Dec 2005 14:39:31 EST
CBC News
The journal Science had declared genetic studies of evolution the breakthrough of 2005.
The genetics research findings included:
¡P A study showing a 4 per cent difference between human and chimpanzee DNA.
¡P Mapping the 1918 pandemic flu virus.
¡P Discovering a single genetic change turns one species of stickleback fish into an armour-less variety that is landlocked.
¡P FROM APRIL 12, 2002: Gene activity in human brain sets us apart from chimps
¡P FROM FEB. 5, 2004: Scientists probe why 1918 flu was so deadly
"In 2005, scientists piled up new insights about evolution at the genetic level and the birth of species, including information that could help us lead healthier lives in the future," the journal's editors wrote.
"Ironically, these often-startling discoveries occurred in a year when backers of "intelligent design" and other opponents of evolution sought to renew challenges to this fundamental concept."
¡P INDEPTH: Creationism in disguise?
The publication comes two days after a judge ruled intelligent design cannot be taught in high school biology classes in Pennsylvania public schools.
Proponents of intelligent design argue that natural selection cannot fully explain the existence of complex life forms, and say an unseen force is behind the development of humanity.
Many members of the scientific community hold intelligent design is invalid as a theory because it cannot be tested and offers no hypotheses.
The editors say areas to watch for in the next year include the development of drugs and vaccines for avian flu, ultra-high-energy cosmic rays, and the search for more evidence of the ivory-billed woodpecker, long presumed extinct but rediscovered in 2004.
Other top discoveries of 2005
„h Explorations of the moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, a comet, an asteroid, Saturn and the edge of the solar system.
„h Molecular biology of seasonal flowering.
„h The violent nature of neutron stars.
„h The possible relationship between "faulty wiring" in the brain of a fetus and diseases such as schizophrenia, Tourette syndrome, and dyslexia.
„h The roots of where Earth got its building blocks, whether elsewhere in the solar system or deep within the planet.
„h Discovery of a protein that controls the flow of potassium ions to cells, which is key to how nerves and muscles work.
„h Fresh evidence of climate change from ocean studies, ice cover and altered migratory patterns of birds.
„h An engineering approach to molecular biology and superconductivity.
„h How cells respond to chemical and environmental signals.
„h France wins bid to host ITER, the world's first fusion reactor.
Only one of these things is even remotely (and at best, distantly remote) to "evolution", which is the single gene separation between an armoured fish, and a non-armoured fish... otherwise, I fail to see how any of it is an "evolutionary breakthrough". Like, for goodness sakes, if it was something like actually "accelerating" or even "proving" evolution, then I'd call it a breakthrough. Otherwise, my personal opinion is just that this is nothing more than a weak (at best) attempt to promote evolution (despite its flawed, and weak "evidences").
P.S. If I'm trolling, then bear with me plz, I have a deep hatred for idiocy, especially counter-productive idiocy.
