Such a unit, he theorizes, would be capable of some degree of self-directed mutation, a principle he calls 'cooperative evolution.'The article ends with this quote: 'It's unlikely that the revolution in biology will come from within biology, because (biologists) lack the abstraction,' Ben- Jacob said.
Our capacity for creative endeavor is far beyond the animals, but so is our capacity for Evil. No other animal organizes large armies to attack and destroy other members of the species. No other animal carries out cruelty on the scale that humans have achieved. No other animal is capable of the deliberate, planned, and intentional evil that we see in our human societies and nations. Animals kill each other and not always for food, but only mankind makes the intelligent choice to fall for satan's temptation.
Since its publication a century and a half ago, Darwin's theory of evolution has explained how natural selection winnows out the mutations most helpful in allowing a species to survive.
If their theory [facilitated variation] - that explains seemingly random genetic change - passes muster, they will have successfully filled one of the biggest gaps in evolutionary theory, the gap that has recently been exploited by intelligent design (ID) advocates.
The alleged weakness of this explanation, coupled with attacks on evolutionary theory by ID advocates, have forced scientists to re-examine the scientific explanations regarding random genetic change.
More than 75 percent of Danish and French citizens and more than 60 percent of adults in Germany, Austria, Britain, Spain, Italy and the Netherlands said they believed evolution was "definitely" or "probably" true, according to a study by Jon D.
Lest that first word rub up dangerously close to "intelligent", the blurb assures us the book provides a "timely scientific rebuttal to modern critics of evolution who champion intelligent design." Wow, I hope for the sake of a future movie somebody came bursting into the court room, waving a copy of this hot-off-the-press book, and shouting "Surprise witness for the plaintiffs!!!" "Facilitated variation".
Scholarly publishers and librarians are interdependent species, and so as we move into this new participatory culture, we have to actively work together to stay read, and to stay relevant. Risk is a tough thing for us all, but is required for us to prosper in the New Ecosystem. We must find ways to integrate our intelligently designed gardens into the larger open ecosystems. Climate change is upon us, and we must respond.
5. Perhaps the Genesis account is more literal than you think. We have already established that it's okay for the Bible to be non-literal, but applying that principal too broadly to Genesis still makes me uncomfortable. When I began this project I thought I was limited to an allegorical (but still true) version of Genesis 1-2. Then I discovered the works of Hugh Ross and Glenn Morton. Ross and Morton are Christians who believe in an old earth, and they demonstrate that an old earth is consistent with the Bible. Ross also gives a careful exegesis of Genesis that supports the local flood. He does not accept evolution. Morton has an unconventional but scripturally sound proposal for the creation of mankind. It's the only creation theory that's ever brought tears to my eyes. No matter what you may think of Morton's theory, it's nice to come across a scientific proposal that demonstrates some of the great themes of the Bible:
Climate change can happen abruptly, as I’ve said, and its ecological repercussions can also happen rapidly, for particular species. We are entering a complex, New Ecosystem, and it will keep on creating evolutionary pressures for the foreseeable future. Our publishing and library imperatives, our organizational and business models, our underlying funding streams, and our status-conferring confirmations, all of these will be changing, relatively continuously. This kind of change is something we have no history doing, but which we’d better learn how to do—and do as partners. Be proactive, not reactive.
It takes a mighty lucky - I won't say "intelligent" - solar flare or supernova to knock a bunch - a bunch - of nucleotides in just the right order in a DNA strand to create the genes in one of the sex cells of a mama or papa lizard that will get passed on (fat chance!) to the baby and oversee the process of forming a tiny chip of toenail on his snout.
"Oh, we are so busy being brilliant that we just can't be bothered getting the uncleansed masses to understand our brilliant ideas." Instead of all the testy argumentation, wouldn't it make more sense to make your case for evolution clearly and compellingly, once and for all?
Teenage boys are the greatest risk-takers across the primate species—even across mammals in general. It’s sensible, from an evolutionary sense—young males are the most dispensable, in terms of maintaining reproduction. But if the risky behavior (in eating different foods, going farther afield, or leaping even farther across trees) ends up opening up a new environmental niche, then those genes may prosper. The older generation tends to take fewer risks.