Merriam-Webster Online Reports “Agnostic” Among Top Twenty Most Looked-Up Word in December, 2005

Agnostic

See etymology in their January 2006 online: Click title this post.

TonySeb: Of course, everyone knows who coined the word.

"Despite Appearances, Science Doesn't Deny The Existence of God"

The Wall Street Journal Online, January 27, 2006

Read entire article, click on this post’s title, or

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113832581304557736.html

SCIENCE JOURNAL
By SHARON BEGLEY

January 27, 2006; Page B

Excerpts and comments:

“…science has been saddled with the canard that it arbitrarily and a priori rules out the existence of a deity.”

"It is a serious error to arbitrarily insert God or the supernatural as explanations for scientific mysteries," says biologist Richard Colling of the evangelical Olivet Nazarene University, Bourbonnais, Ill. "But it is equally unjustified to claim science excludes God."

TonySeb: Or that it excludes other mysterious supernatural forces, or even denizens from a parallel universe.

“As Barbara Forrest, a philosopher of science at Southeastern Louisiana University, Hammond, explains, ‘Science doesn't rule out anything a priori. Saying it does is false, and makes science look dogmatic.’

TonySeb: Yes, scientists must keep an open mind, but not so open that their brains fall out.

Charles Darwin: Evolution of a Scientist

Newsweek article [for complete article, click on title of this post]:

By Jerry Adler, with Anne Underwood and William Lee Adams

A few excerpts:

“He had planned to enter the ministry, but his discoveries on a fateful voyage 170 years ago shook his faith and changed our conceptions of the origins of life.”

“His own life exemplifies the painful journey from moral certainty to existential doubt that is the defining experience of modernity.”

“To a world taught to see the hand of God in every part of Nature, he suggested a different creative force altogether, an undirected, morally neutral process he called natural selection.”

The authors conclude:

“For all his nets and guns and glasses, Darwin never found God; by the same token, the Bible has nothing to impart about the genetic relationships among the finches he did find. But it is human nature to seek both kinds of knowledge. Perhaps after a few more cycles of the planet, we will find a way to pursue them both in peace.”

TonySeb: “Human nature”—perhaps.

See:

Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon,
by Daniel C. Dennett, Penguin Group, 2006

Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory,
by Edward J. Larson, Random House, 2004

Charles Darwin on “natural selection”, from the first edition of Origin of Species

NATURAL SELECTION. CHAP. IV., pp. 80-81

HOW will the struggle for existence, discussed too briefly in the last chapter, act in regard to variation? Can the principle of selection, which we have seen is so potent in the hands of man, apply in nature? I think we shall see that it can act most effectually. Let it be borne in mind in what an endless number of strange peculiarities our domestic productions, and, in a lesser degree, those under nature, vary; and how strong the hereditary tendency is. Under domestication, it may be truly said that the whole organisation becomes in some degree plastic. Let it be borne in mind how infinitely complex and close-fitting are the mutual relations of all organic beings to each other and to their physical conditions of life. Can it, then, be thought improbable, seeing that variations useful to man have undoubtedly occurred, that other variations useful in some way to each being in the great and complex battle of life, should sometimes occur in the course of thousands of generations? If such do occur, can we doubt (remembering that many more individuals are born than can possibly survive) that individuals having any advantage, however slight, over others, would have the best chance of surviving and of procreating their kind? On the other hand, we may feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed. This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection. Variations neither useful nor injurious would not be affected by natural selection, and would be left a fluctuating element, as perhaps we see in the species called polymorphic.

From:

ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION, OR THE PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE. BY CHARLES DARWIN, M.A., October 1st, 1859 [First Edition].


Excerpt taken from:

The writings of Charles Darwin on the web
by John van Wyhe

Whye website: click title of this post

"Acts of God?"

“Acts of God?”

Editorial by Donald Kennedy, Editor-in-Chief of Science

“We know with confidence what has made the Gulf and other oceans warmer than they had been before: the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human industrial activity, to which the United States has been a major contributor. That's a worldwide event, affecting all oceans.

“When Katrina hit the shore at an upgraded intensity, it encountered a wetland whose abuse had reduced its capacity to buffer the storm, and some defective levees gave way.

“Not only is the New Orleans damage not an act of God; it shouldn't even be called a "natural" disaster. These terms are excuses we use to let ourselves off the hook.”

Science 20 January 2006: Vol. 311. no. 5759, p. 303;
DOI: 10.1126/science.1124889

TonySeb: Comments?

Read the entire Editorial: click title this post.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/311/5759/303

Did viruses invent DNA, enabling them to invade the earliest RNA-containing cells?

On January 12, 2006, the editor of the science journal, Nature, introduced a “News Feature” in the journal that reported on the idea of evolutionary biologist Patrick Forterre (University of Paris-Sud, Orsay) that viruses “…invented DNA as a way around the defences of the [RNA] cells they infected.”

The editor’s note, entitled, “War of the worlds”, referring to the RNA and DNA worlds, reads:

“In life's early days, most biologists believe, there was no DNA; instead, life stored its information in RNA, a versatile molecule that can also act as an enzyme. So how did DNA eventually take over this 'RNA world'?

“Evolutionary biologist Patrick Forterre suggests that viruses, not cells, triggered the change, adopting DNA not because of its merits as an information store but because it allowed them to evade the defences of RNA-based cells. The rest is evolutionary history.”

John Whitfield, a freelance science writer. wrote the “News Feature”, entitled “Origins of DNA: Base Invaders”, Nature 439, 130-131 (12 Jan 2006) doi: 10:1038/439130a.

You can find Forterre’s original article, “The two ages of the RNA world, and the transition to the DNA world: a story of viruses and cells”, in the journal, Biochimie, Vol. 87, pgs. 793-803, 2005

doi: 10.1016/j.biochi.2005.03.015

The Abstract of Forterre’s article reads (paragraphing added for ease of reading):

“Most evolutionists agree to consider that our present RNA/DNA/protein world has originated from a simpler world in which RNA played both the role of catalyst and genetic material. Recent findings from structural studies and comparative genomics now allow to get a clearer picture of this transition. These data suggest that evolution occurred in several steps, first from an RNA to an RNA/protein world (defining two ages of the RNA world) and finally to the present world based on DNA.

“The DNA world itself probably originated in two steps, first the U-DNA world, following the invention of ribonucleotide reductase, and later on the T-DNA world, with the independent invention of at least two thymidylate synthases. Recently, several authors have suggested that evolution from the RNA world up to the Last Universal Cellular Ancestor (LUCA) could have occurred before the invention of cells.

“On the contrary, I argue here that evolution of the RNA world taken place in a framework of competing cells and viruses (preys, predators and symbionts). I focus on the RNA-to-DNA transition and expand my previous hypothesis that viruses played a critical role in the emergence of DNA.

“The hypothesis that DNA and associated mechanisms (replication, repair, recombination) first evolved and diversified in a world of DNA viruses infecting RNA cells readily explains the existence of viral-encoded DNA transaction proteins without cellular homologues. It also potentially explains puzzling observations from comparative genomic, such as the existence of two non-homologous DNA replication machineries in the cellular world.

“I suggest here [in the article] a specific scenario for the transfer of DNA from viruses to cells and briefly explore the intriguing possibility that several independent transfers of this kind produced the two cell types (prokaryote/eukaryote) and the three cellular domains presently known (Archaea, Bacteria and Eukarya).”


TonySeb: Quite a story. Check out the “News Feature” and Forterre’s article.

Human-modified ecosystems and future evolution

Article:

Western D. Human-modified ecosystems and future evolution. PNAS 2001;98:5458-65.

Full-text of complete article for free-viewing and/or free-downloading at:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/10/5477

I present the Abstract below, which I paragraphed for ease of reading.

“Our global impact is finally receiving the scientific attention it deserves. The outcome will largely determine the future course of evolution.

“Human-modified ecosystems are shaped by our activities and their side effects. They share a common set of traits including simplified food webs, landscape homogenization, and high nutrient and energy inputs.

“Ecosystem simplification is the ecological hallmark of humanity and the reason for our evolutionary success. However, the side effects of our profligacy and poor resource practices are now so pervasive as to threaten our future no less than that of biological diversity itself.

“This article looks at human impact on ecosystems and the consequences for evolution. It concludes that future evolution will be shaped by our awareness of the global threats, our willingness to take action, and our ability to do so.

“Our ability is presently hampered by several factors, including the poor state of ecosystem and planetary knowledge, ignorance of human impact, lack of guidelines for sustainability, and a paucity of good policies, practices, and incentives for adopting those guidelines in daily life.

“Conservation philosophy, science, and practice must be framed against the reality of human dominated ecosystems, rather than the separation of humanity and nature underlying the modern conservation movement. The steps scientists can take to imbed science in conservation and conservation in the societal process affecting the future of ecosystems and human well-being are discussed.”

Tonyseb: PNAS has many other articles on the future of evolution in the same issue one finds the above article: A Colloqium on the Future of Evolution.

See:

http://www.pnas.org/content/vol98/issue10/index.shtml

Q & A on Evolution and Intelligent Design

From the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

Q & A on Evolution and Intelligent Design

See: www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution/qanda.shtml

Below, I list the question. See AAAS’s answers with link above.

What is evolution?

Is evolution "just a theory?"

Is there "evidence against" contemporary evolutionary theory?

Is there a growing body of scientists who doubt that evolution happened?

What is intelligent design?

Is intelligent design a scientific alternative to contemporary evolutionary theory?

Why did AAAS boycott the recent Kansas State Board of Education hearings on evolution?

Aren't scientists really just afraid to debate proponents of intelligent design?

Doesn't fairness require that alternatives to contemporary evolutionary theory be taught in the public schools?

Still, it appears that scientists are arrogant or elitist when they refuse to participate in debates.

Are scientists trying to stifle discussion of intelligent design?

Are science and religion inherently opposed?

Can science stimulate religious thought?

Is the science classroom the appropriate place to discuss the religious interpretations of science?

Have scientists underestimated the impact of the intelligent design movement?

What are the stakes?

Tonyseb: I would answer some questions differently, especially those that include mention of “faith”. Thoughts?