Why do organisms build tissues they seemingly never use?

Aug 10, 2012

(Phys.org) -- Why, after millions of years of evolution, do organisms build structures that seemingly serve no purpose?

A study conducted at Michigan State University and published in the current issue of The investigates the evolutionary reasons why go through developmental stages that appear unnecessary.

"Many animals build tissues and structures they don't appear to use, and then they disappear," said Jeff Clune, lead author and former doctoral student at MSU's BEACON Center of Evolution in Action. "It's comparable to building a roller coaster, razing it and building a skyscraper on the same ground. Why not just skip ahead to building the skyscraper?"

Why humans and other organisms retain seemingly unnecessary stages in their development has been debated between since 1866. This study explains that organisms jump through these extra hoops to avoid disrupting a developmental process that works. Clune's team called this concept the "developmental disruption force." But Clune says it also could be described as "if the shoe fits, don't change a thing."

"In a developing embryo, each new structure is built in a delicate environment that consists of everything that has already developed," said Clune, who is now a postdoctoral fellow at Cornell University. " that alter that environment, such as by eliminating a structure, can thus disrupt later stages of development. Even if a structure is not actually used, it may set the stage for other functional tissues to grow properly."

Going back to the roller coaster metaphor, even though the roller coaster gets torn down, the organism needs the parts from that teardown to build the skyscraper, he added.

"An engineer would simply skip the roller coaster step, but evolution is more of a tinkerer and less of an engineer," Clune said. "It uses whatever parts that are lying around, even if the process that generates those parts is inefficient."

An interesting consequence is that newly evolved traits tend to get added at the end of development, because there is less risk of disrupting anything important. That, in turn, means that there is a similarity between the order things evolve and the order they develop.

A new technology called computational evolution allowed the team to conduct experiments that would be impossible to reproduce in nature.

Rather than observe embryos grow, the team of computer scientists and biologists used BEACON's Avida software to perform experiments with evolution inside a computer. The Avidians – self-replicating computer programs – mutate, compete for resources and evolve, mimicking natural selection in real-life organisms. Using this software, Clune's team observed as Avidians evolved to perform logic tasks. They recorded the order that those tasks evolved in a variety of lineages, and then looked at the order those tasks developed in the final, evolved organism.

They were able to help settle an age-old debate that developmental order does resemble evolutionary order, at least in this computationally evolving system. Because in a computer thousands of generations can happen overnight, the team was able to repeat this experiment many times to document that this similarity repeatedly occurs.

Explore further: Vietnam's taste for cat leaves pets in peril

Related Stories

'Evolution: A Developmental Approach'

Jan 27, 2011

What separates humans from Chimpanzees? Is it the genetics of our population, or our different structures and behavior capabilities? To Professor Wallace Arthur it is all of these points, which is why his latest book Evolution: A ...

Evolution keeps sex determination flexible

Sep 12, 2011

There are many old wives' tales about what determines a baby's sex, yet it is the tight controls at the gene level that determine an organism's sex in most species. Researchers at Michigan State University have found that ...

Recommended for you

Breakthrough in coccidiosis research

4 hours ago

Biological researchers at the Royal Veterinary College (RVC) are a step closer to finding a new cost-effective vaccine for the intestinal disease, coccidiosis, which can have devastating effects on poultry ...

User comments : 60

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

rod_russell_9
2.9 / 5 (29) Aug 10, 2012
You ask: "Why do organisms build tissues they seemingly never use?" The answer is: Because you have not figured out the reasons yet. It's just like the old "junk DNA" argument: If you don't know what that DNA was for, then it must be "junk". Face it; there's a lot you don't know.
sstritt
2.8 / 5 (16) Aug 10, 2012
Because you have not figured out the reasons yet.

Did you even read the article?
geokstr
3.1 / 5 (14) Aug 10, 2012
Because you have not figured out the reasons yet.

Did you even read the article?


What exactly do you, or the article, disagree with in the statement that "you have not figured out the reasons yet." There are many things we don't know that we don't even know to look for or ask about yet. Or are homo sapiens sapiens so advanced scientifically that they already know everything?

It's called hubris.
Deathclock
3.3 / 5 (13) Aug 10, 2012
You ask: "Why do organisms build tissues they seemingly never use?" The answer is: Because you have not figured out the reasons yet. It's just like the old "junk DNA" argument: If you don't know what that DNA was for, then it must be "junk". Face it; there's a lot you don't know.


How do you like your wisdom teeth? Your coccyx? Your plica semilunaris?

Yeah, vestigial organs are real, and they are one piece of evidence among thousands against your stupid creationist beliefs.
dschlink
5 / 5 (11) Aug 10, 2012
A better analogy would be to the scaffolding and forms using in construction. They are required to provide structure to later stages, but serve no function in the final building and are removed. When my garage was build, the lumber forms for the concrete foundations were removed once the foundation set. Then the boards were removed and used for the walls.
elektron
4 / 5 (2) Aug 10, 2012
his study explains that organisms jump through these extra hoops to avoid disrupting a developmental process that works.


Strange wording used throughout the article. More to the point is that I'm sure there are plenty of attempts to not build unnecessary roller coasters, but lo and behold, it turns out to be a bad move and the genes that were responsible for this 'improvement' die out.
freethinking
2.3 / 5 (31) Aug 10, 2012
There is no such things as vestigial organs. There are just organs we do not know how they are used yet. Only rabit evolutionist still cling to vestigial organ dogma. Good example is the appendix, years ago it would save your life if you got a bad case of the runs.
kochevnik
2.5 / 5 (24) Aug 10, 2012
Religion is a vestigial brain function, which now leads to psychosis in modern man.
Shabs42
3.5 / 5 (11) Aug 10, 2012
There is no such things as vestigial organs. There are just organs we do not know how they are used yet. Only rabit evolutionist still cling to vestigial organ dogma. Good example is the appendix, years ago it would save your life if you got a bad case of the runs.


And what did you or any other human use their embryonic tail for? How about male nipples? Sexual organs in dandelions?

This was a sort of silly article in that the answer was obvious. If something isn't inherently a disadvantage, there is no reason for evolution to remove it entirely, though individuals who devote less resources to vestigial organs could be more successful in other areas, eventually leading to the reduced size and function we see in the above and many other examples.
Deathclock
3.2 / 5 (13) Aug 10, 2012
There is no such things as vestigial organs. There are just organs we do not know how they are used yet. Only rabit evolutionist still cling to vestigial organ dogma. Good example is the appendix, years ago it would save your life if you got a bad case of the runs.


No, this is stupid. Most adults have to have their wisdom teeth removed because our skulls have shrunk and we have too many teeth to fit in our mouth.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3.3 / 5 (16) Aug 10, 2012
Nice generalization of the development bottleneck, which arises for similar reasons of constraints. (Most similar part, the bottleneck between different developments, is where the basic structure unfolds.)

************

Creationists shouldn't comment on science, it is hilarious to see.

Failure to read the article, failure to comprehend biology in a failed attempt to gish gallop - the rest of us know it is wrong anyway.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
2.7 / 5 (12) Aug 10, 2012
"Most adults have to have their wisdom teeth removed".

Indeed, vestigial organs are like our legs that has lost their original functionality as fins, just that there is little or no function left. Take our vestigial tail, the coccyx.

This is even dumbosity from the creationists, because you can find it in Wikipedia. Since I had to check that that is true, as I'm no blabbering creationist making up stuff, I noted that ~ 180 vestigial organs are known in humans. They all test evolution and so reject creationism.
Lurker2358
2.2 / 5 (29) Aug 10, 2012
"An engineer would simply skip the roller coaster step, but evolution is more of a tinkerer and less of an engineer," Clune said. "It uses whatever parts that are lying around, even if the process that generates those parts is inefficient."


Something tells me the author has never been on a real construction site.

Scaffolds, cranes, etc. Heck, for metal buildings and bridges, there can even be things like hooks or eyelets built into the structure for safety harnesses, which are later covered over and inaccessible, etc.

So that's a perfect example of an engineered structure which no longer serves any purpose, but remains even after the fact...

Atheist argument defeated, totally and completely.

Creationists shouldn't comment on science, it is hilarious to see.


Atheists shouldn't comment on science, especially ones as misinformed as you...
Shabs42
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 11, 2012
Atheist argument defeated, totally and completely.


Yep, you've done it. Congratulations. Game over.

Or that's a horrible analogy. A more apt one would be if after building a modern day house you realized there was an outhouse in the backyard. You know, something from an older version of a house that could technically still serve a purpose but had been made thoroughly unnecessary by change over time.
borc
3.7 / 5 (12) Aug 11, 2012
"Atheist argument defeated, totally and completely."
I'm in shock. You somehow think that because his analogy which only served to attempt to illustrate a point was not the most ideal perfect one the entire argument is in any way impacted? Does it hurt for someone as stupid as you to breathe? It must take up at least 75% of your brain power.
sanita
3.2 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2012
You shouldn't forget, for many people the brain matter is atavistic tissue. It just consumes the oxygen, which would otherwise cumulate in their bodies and poisoned the organism.
Digi
3 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2012
We still have vestigal organs because there are no survival advantages in getting rid of them. Evolution isn't sentient, it attempts to present the best organism to survive it's surroundings and inevitably gathers clutter along the way.
kochevnik
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2012
There is no such things as vestigial organs. There are just organs we do not know how they are used yet.
There are also no such things as regulations. There are just rules our wise rulers established but we do not know how they are used yet. See? I can write stupid things too!
sanita
3 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2012
IMO evolution maintains a reservoir of rudimentary genes from good reasons: it's always faster to revive and adopt old rudimentary solution, than to reinvent it from scratch again. For example, the embryos of mammals exhibit gills during certain stage of their development. If the mammals would need to evolve gills very fast during some flood of Biblical scope, probably some underdeveloped mutants could survive and the organisms could return into water quickly. Note that the females in stress abort often. I know, that this example is exaggerated heavily, but it illustrates my point.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (36) Aug 11, 2012
We still have vestigal organs because there are no survival advantages in getting rid of them.
Evolution is a continuous process. Useless organs take time to fully disappear. Sometimes the need for them again occurs and they reappear.

We are a transitional form as are all species.
So that's a perfect example of an engineered structure
Why did god need scaffolding? Did eve require scaffolding? Where is her vestigial Adam-rib?

The question of useless organs is a lot easier for scientists to answer than religionists. Did Adams fall cause us to sprout tails and wisdom teeth and fetal gills, on an otherwise perfect recreation of gods image?

Did Adams fall result in vestigial limbs in whales as well? So many questions religion can't answer except their favorite: 'we cannot fathom the will of god.' But this is an excuse not an answer. Because the more we find out, the less real god can be. Religion fears knowledge, always has. Lucifer means 'the Enlightener'.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (28) Aug 11, 2012
We still have vestigal organs because there are no survival advantages in getting rid of them.
Useless organs rob the body of resources. Like our overlarge, energy-hungry, and defect-prone brains.

This is why we are so desperate to outsource much of what our brains attempt to do, to far more reliable and efficient mechanisms. So they can return to a more sustainable and robust, and natural, configuration.
Lurker2358
2.4 / 5 (20) Aug 11, 2012
Why did god need scaffolding? Did eve require scaffolding? Where is her vestigial Adam-rib?


He didn't idjit, but the offspring of humans are different since they Zygote goes through many stages that the initial created being did not need. Going from egg and sperm through zygote and all the way through fetus and then newborn baby is a lot more fluid and changing process than initial creation.

Just as an example, the placenta and amniotic sac comes from the Zygote as part of it's own tissue, so whenever you were born a large "chunk" of your initial organic matter died in the after birth, which would again be "scaffolding" in the reproductive process.

This is easy to discern as forward planning in the design phase of the construction of humanity.

Atheist fools believe all of these structures and programmed changes happened by "accident plus selection" in just the right order and timing, even though absolutely nothing in nature nor in technology works that way...
Lurker2358
3.9 / 5 (11) Aug 11, 2012
Useless organs rob the body of resources. Like our overlarge, energy-hungry, and defect-prone brains.

This is why we are so desperate to outsource much of what our brains attempt to do, to far more reliable and efficient mechanisms. So they can return to a more sustainable and robust, and natural, configuration.


You're a damn fool.

Your brain comes from a self-replicating system (your parents,) and is a component of a self-replicating system (yourself) in addition to it's primary function.

Your brain is a non-linear learning system which adapts to any number of thousands of problems which have non-linear algorithms. In many cases, computers still can't solve problems that humans do all the time, at least not as precisely or quickly. You just don't THINK about them, because many of them involve environmental concerns or non-mathematical, topological thinking or other concepts.

All computer chips are made by off-board systems and do not need to be self-replicating.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2012
Useless organs rob the body of resources.
Some of such organs may serve just because of it - they're representing the bottleneck of fitness, which speed-ups the evolution via natural selection and some of them have a role of marker in sexual reproduction (proboscis of elephant seals, for example: the larger, but useless trunk, the better male)..
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (32) Aug 11, 2012
You're a damn fool.

Your brain comes from a self-replicating system (your parents,) and is a component of a self-replicating system (yourself) in addition to it's primary function
Lurker/QC you ignorant slut

Our brains are not the result of design with a specific goal in mind. If they were they would work far better. They are a system which has been forced to adapt and compensate far beyond their ability to do so. As such they are prone to all manner of defect and damage. They begin to deteriorate shortly after adolescence.

There are wide variations in function and ability across the species, way more so than in any other species (citation needed). This is due in part to the absence of the rigors of natural selection; many in the general pop no longer have the acumen needed to survive in the wild.

In short, our brains were never meant to do what we have required them to do. We can, and are, and will, design mechanisms which can perform far better than they do.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (26) Aug 11, 2012
Ever since man became able to hunt the things which were hunting him, and to eliminate all the natural attritive elements which had kept his numbers in check, man became the principal enemy of man.

Hunting animals is easy. Hunting fellow humans who are in turn hunting you, is hard. Human groups who could cooperate, communicate, anticipate the actions of their adversaries and conceive plans for defeating them, would be expected to prevail over similar groups.

At this point tribalism became the main driver of human evolution. Our brains developed and adapted far faster than they would have by natural means. Conquest and the mass impregnation of acquired females accelerated this unnatural evolution immensely.

The result is that malignant tumor in your head which, because it is so big, caused your momma to suffer interminably during your birth, and consumes a far greater percentage of resources than any other animal.
cont>
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (26) Aug 11, 2012
The ability to imagine, remember, and scheme, enabled us to anticipate our own futures of inevitable decrepitude and death. No other animal has to suffer with this burden. Its in your book:

"10 I have seen the burden God has laid on the human race. 11 He has made everything beautiful in its Time. He has also set ETERNITY in the hearts of men..." ecc3

This is WHY solomon was so depressed. "Everything is meaningless"...

"16 For the wise, like the fool, will not be long remembered;
the days have already come when both have been forgotten.
Like the fool, the wise too must die!"

"18 I hated all the things I had toiled for under the sun, because I must leave them to the one who comes after me. 19 And who knows whether that person will be wise or foolish? Yet they will have control over all the toil into which I have poured my effort and skill under the sun. This too is meaningless."

-This is the burden our brains have laid upon us QC. Without our fantasies it can drive us insane.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (32) Aug 11, 2012
And this is the principle reason why we invented superstition. Our gods gave us the possibility of escaping the Inevitable, the confinement that our births and deaths presented; a cage which any animal would seek to escape from.

The god delusion is a wildly successful meme, and extremely useful for getting people to behave contrary to their animal natures, as Leaders were to realize later on.

But as adults we realize that its utility does not mean that this meme describes reality, now does it? It is an expedient, an analgesic. Good enough until something healthier and safer and less addictive could be devised.

Hail science.
Lurker2358
3.7 / 5 (15) Aug 11, 2012
Otto:

Your entire rant is not only wrong, but irrelevant.

If humans were perfect beings constructed in a factory and having quantum computer brains which never deteriorated, the basic meaningfulness of our physical existence would be about the same.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (24) Aug 11, 2012
Otto:

Your entire rant is not only wrong, but irrelevant.
Except for the fact that it is right in it's entriety and extremely relevant.
If humans were perfect beings constructed in a factory and having quantum computer brains which never deteriorated, the basic meaningfulness of our physical existence would be about the same.
You are saying nothing with far fewer words. You are improving.

Some day soon we WILL have quantum implants which will record everything we experience and more. AND science should be able to give us lifespans of indeterminate length.

We will see how things look at that point. I am assuming religions will have disappeared by that point as there will no longer be any reason for them, nor any way of disguising their artifice.
Lurker2358
3.7 / 5 (12) Aug 11, 2012
Whether or not you or anyone else finds meaning in life is totally irrelevant to life's functions or origins, which makes your rants irrelevant.

Living longer won't change individual meaningfulness for better or worse.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (24) Aug 11, 2012
Whether or not you or anyone else finds meaning in life is totally irrelevant to life's functions or origins, which makes your rants irrelevant.

Living longer won't change individual meaningfulness for better or worse.
Neither will believing in superstition, in a god who isn't there. Best to look for something real isn't it? Of course it is.

But actually, knowing where we came from and why we are the way we are, and how the world actually works, gives real meaning to life yes?
obama_socks
2 / 5 (27) Aug 11, 2012
The fear of death is strong in OttoBlotto.
He now calls for imaginary dramatic advancements in cell biology to lengthen lifespans and artificial intelligence in some far distant future in order to alleviate the mental anguish of, and postpone approaching death. A future in which he will already have been long dead and forgotten, but whose insanity will linger on in his words of bitter frustration as long as this infernal website has recorded them for posterity, no matter how wrong are his ideas.

OttoBlotto is fond of picking the most depressing passages out of the Jewish bible and applying those passages to Christianity. No matter that the OLD Testament is a HISTORY of the JEWS and Christians did not exist in those times. OttoBlotto continues to quote from the O.T. while completely ignoring the fact that Christians believe in the New Testament as the Word of God.

The NEW Testament, Blotto...the NEW Testament. Try to remember it.
freethinking
1.9 / 5 (18) Aug 12, 2012
Rabid evolutionists, the ones that believe that the universe started from nothing, by nothing, believe that something can come from nothing if you wait a really long time.
Rabid evloutionists, the ones that believe that life can come from non life, but only if you wait a really long time. If you wait long enough not only can something appear from nothing, but life can come from this nothingness as well. Why do they believe that something can come from nothing if you wait long enough? Because they have faith that if you wait long enough, something will come from nothing this same something if you wait long enough will become living. Do I have that right Otto, you have faith that something can come from nothing and this something can become living if you wait long enough?
kochevnik
1.6 / 5 (14) Aug 12, 2012
@Lurker2358 This is easy to discern as forward planning in the design phase of the construction of humanity.
No, it isn't. Unless you believe con artists exploiting the niche of human gullibility is also proof of your imaginary, invisible superfriend.

FYI niches and scaffolding are ubiquitous and ordinary, not extraordinary.
Whether or not you or anyone else finds meaning in life is totally irrelevant to life's functions or origins, which makes your rants irrelevant.
That's an ignorant statement on a grand scale.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (25) Aug 12, 2012
No matter that the OLD Testament is a HISTORY of the JEWS and Christians did not exist in those times. OttoBlotto continues to quote from the O.T. while completely ignoring the fact that Christians believe in the New Testament as the Word of God.
Yeah we know you are a bigot from your use of the jewzrule and racistblackguy sickpuppets. And a liar.
Rabid evloutionists...Why do they believe that something can come from nothing if you wait long enough?
So far this is what the evidence tells us. If there is any evidence at all for intelligent design it is scientists, and not superstitionists, who will find it. Because obviously, you guys have already made up your minds SOLELY on what your books tell you. And as evidence, they have all been thoroughly discredited.

Oh also the epiphany? You know, that thrill you get when contemplating the almighty? All religionists get this whether their god is jebus or Ishtar or the 3rd imam or baskin-Robbins. Ergo not evidence. Only physiology.
jimbo92107
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 12, 2012
There is no such things as vestigial organs. There are just organs we do not know how they are used yet. Only rabit evolutionist still cling to vestigial organ dogma. Good example is the appendix, years ago it would save your life if you got a bad case of the runs.


Vestigial organs are strong evidence for evolution over long time periods. They show that we evolved from a fish form (gills in embryos). They show that we used to eat a lot more dubious food (appendix). Morphological comparisons show that we are closely related to monkeys. Try to see the difference between a human and a chimp embryo before the second trimester.

The fact of evolution is as certain as the fact of gravity. To deny these things requires an emotional rejection of science. Sadly, nature does not care whether or not you like what is true. You cannot make evolution go away with nonsense arguments or attacks on honest people.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (30) Aug 12, 2012
Do I have that right Otto, you have faith that something can come from nothing and this something can become living if you wait long enough?
I have confidence in science because of it's ability to describe the world as it actually is. And so far science has not foundd any reasons to think otherwise.

It has however found many many reasons to reject wholesale the god of your book. Because it can tell us conclusively that the creation myth and the flood and the exodus and the joshuan rampage and the Solomon/Davidic kingdoms, and yes the godman jesus and his band of merry men, never happened.

You know, those things you continue to believe in DESPITE the evidence? But that is the very definition of faith isn't it?

Belief DESPITE evidence. I do have that right don't I FT?
Estevan57
2.3 / 5 (38) Aug 12, 2012
Why do organisms build tissues they seemingly never use?

Ask Otto about his brain. It would qualify.
wwqq
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 12, 2012
It's very difficult to get rid of certain things once they are in place. You're at a local maxima of fitness and you can't get to that greater maxima far in the distance.

Evolution sometimes pulls a rabbit out of a hat by reusing this or that protein for some surprisingly different function(e.g. see the many stages of evolution that have been identified for the bacterial flagelum, which cretinists used to claim is irreversibly complex)

An example of such a problem that is surprisingly "sticky" is the vertebrate eye, which is "wired back to front". The nerves lie on the inside and have to go through a "hole" in the retina as a bundle of nerves, creating a blind spot that the brain has to fill in by "guessing". This is obviously terrible design, and other animals who developed their eyes independently do not share this mistake(e.g. squid).
jimbo92107
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 13, 2012
Useless organs rob the body of resources. Like our overlarge, energy-hungry, and defect-prone brains.

This is why we are so desperate to outsource much of what our brains attempt to do, to far more reliable and efficient mechanisms. So they can return to a more sustainable and robust, and natural, configuration.


You're a damn fool.


Why are you arguing with non-scientists? What do you expect to learn if all you do is throw around vague concepts and insults? You come here and tell us that science doesn't work. You're saying that math doesn't work, that paleontology is a joke played by a capricious magical being.

Guess who sounds like a fool, insisting that the fact of evolution isn't real, because he prefers Santa Claus and fairy dust? Evolution is a legitimate scientific theory because it is an unavoidable conclusion from an overwhelming mountain of facts.

But you know better, because, um, de bibble tellz you so.
kochevnik
1.9 / 5 (14) Aug 13, 2012
Rabid evolutionists, the ones that believe that the universe started from nothing, by nothing, believe that something can come from nothing if you wait a really long time.
Typical stupid scumbag xtian. Believes everything happens for a reason. Doesn't believe in reason!
JGHunter
4.2 / 5 (10) Aug 13, 2012
You know how you cringe when you walk down the street and there's that couple, often both drunk, shouting at each other from across the street, and it's embarrassing? Stumbling across this is sort of like that.

As someone who believes in God, freethinking and Lurker's aggressive close-mindedness is shameful. People showed equal animosity towards the idea that the Earth was not the centre of everything. The Church eventually made concessions on that, though, didn't they? I wonder how much these incredibly angry people actually know about the evidence and mechanics of evolution?

People have misinterpreted ancient writings as scientific enlightenment before, let's not make the same mistake. Do not be so proud as to think that you have been enlightened about the early workings of the universe by God. In the end, it doesn't really matter, if you believe God was behind it, the method doesn't really matter.

Anyway, as someone who believes in God anyway, I find this article interesting.
JGHunter
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 13, 2012
These "creationists" who attack people who seek truth, no matter how misguided scientists may be (in their opinion) have their sights in the wrong place. There are seriously more important things in the world than argue over the internet about the validity of evolution. If aliens saw this conversation they'd think all our other social, economic and international problems must be solved if we have nothing better to "debate".
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (29) Aug 13, 2012
Anyway, as someone who believes in God anyway, I find this article interesting.
Your schism only makes it possible for the belief in god to continue in it's very most malevolent forms. And as long as you maintain this unreasonable stance, you support this malevolence and enable it to continue.

There is no superbeing to grant your wishes or give you eternal life. Be a part of the solution not the problem.
kochevnik
1.8 / 5 (13) Aug 13, 2012
Notice the latest christer troll fraud_hustle_9 is downvoting all the rationals, instead of rebutting. That's the closest equivalent to grand inquisitor in 2012, apart from being a Nazi Pope.
JGHunter
4.7 / 5 (9) Aug 13, 2012
What malevolent form is my "schism" taking exactly?

I do not say for certain that God exists, I acknowledge there is no certainty, but your

There is no superbeing to grant your wishes or give you eternal life


is an incredibly unscientific view. I keep my belief and my interest in science separate. That is to say, I do not try and use science to justify God, and I do not try and use God to "interpret" science. Facts are facts and faith is faith. You on the other hand take a view of certainty which has no place in the realm of science.
JGHunter
5 / 5 (7) Aug 13, 2012
Also, reason happens in science, it's called causality, you can tell reason because it's based on things that have already happened. You're thinking of destiny, a result that happens in the future.

Reason, like logic, happens all the time. It's how thought experiments worked.
Deathclock
4 / 5 (4) Aug 15, 2012
Rabid evolutionists


By which you of course mean 99% of all physical scientists... I imagine that stings pretty bad for people on your side huh?

The most intelligent people in the world disagree with you, almost unanimously. That's really gotta be demoralizing...
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (20) Aug 15, 2012
What malevolent form is my "schism" taking exactly?
Well heres one. You say
Anyway, as someone who believes in God anyway, I find this article interesting.
-But then you say
I do not say for certain that God exists
-God does not suffer waffling.

I will assume you really do believe in god. You support the notion that there is a god. THEREFORE, others can claim the same thing. Their god however tells them that THEY have the exclusive right and duty to establish their religion over all the people, including you.
kochevnik
2 / 5 (4) Aug 15, 2012
@JGHunter There is no superbeing to grant your wishes or give you eternal life
is an incredibly unscientific view.
You haven't thought that through. Many hypothesis, arguably not proposed by the most qualified researchers, invoke a supernatural being. Then the null hypothesis must be proven. Unfortunately for the chirsters the null hypothesis always pans out. That's midschool science. One would think you would know better by now.

Belief itself is incredibly unscientific.
JGHunter
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 16, 2012
God does not suffer waffling.


Waffling? God does not punish doubt, doubt is a necessary human quality.

I will assume you really do believe in god. You support the notion that there is a god. THEREFORE, others can claim the same thing. Their god however tells them that THEY have the exclusive right and duty to establish their religion over all the people, including you.


I don't see your point. As my God does not tell me I have an exclusive right and duty to establish this religion over all people, I can't be compared to them. I really don't see what's so malevolent about my belief in God. As I have never suggested religiosity should be forced on people (a government should allow for freedom to move from one religion to another) I am not being malevolent. What you have a problem with is other people with beliefs that command them to rule over others. Mine does not, so your accusation does not stick.
JGHunter
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 16, 2012
You haven't thought that through. Many hypothesis, arguably not proposed by the most qualified researchers, invoke a supernatural being. Then the null hypothesis must be proven. Unfortunately for the chirsters the null hypothesis always pans out. That's midschool science. One would think you would know better by now.

Belief itself is incredibly unscientific.


I have thought it through and I know that it cannot be proven scientifically, belief is unscientific, yes, but I don't try and converge my belief with science, it's apart. I'm not believing in something that can be proven or disproven with material evidence, my belief in a God and my adherence to science exist separately.

These hypotheses that you talk about are scientific hypotheses, ones that rely on science to be proven, and can therefore be proven true or false using science. However a belief in God is outside the realm of material evidence.
JGHunter
4 / 5 (4) Aug 16, 2012
I will concede that it is not strictly "unscientific" on the basis that it has nothing to do with science. However, a belief that God may exist does not contradict scientific principles, nor does it agree. As such, I can believe God exists with no conflict of interest.
Satene
3 / 5 (4) Aug 16, 2012
What you believe in or not is not testable, so it has no merit in matter of fact discussion. The discussions about God are irrelevant just from this reason - in similar way, like other subjects of belief.
JGHunter
4 / 5 (4) Aug 16, 2012
Satene, that's the point I was trying to make. I was saying that one can believe in something that is not testable, but find matters like this article interesting, yet I was so heavily dismissed on the basis that I believe in God without being a religious nut but also because I accept evolution and was criticising the "fundies" who use stale arguments against evolution, which is thoroughly unfair.
rockwolf1000
5 / 5 (2) Aug 21, 2012
Rabid evolutionists, the ones that believe that the universe started from nothing, by nothing, believe that something can come from nothing if you wait a really long time.
Rabid evloutionists, the ones that believe that life can come from non life, but only if you wait a really long time. If you wait long enough not only can something appear from nothing, but life can come from this nothingness as well. Why do they believe that something can come from nothing if you wait long enough? Because they have faith that if you wait long enough, something will come from nothing this same something if you wait long enough will become living. Do I have that right Otto, you have faith that something can come from nothing and this something can become living if you wait long enough?


And rabid creationists believe god can come from nothing and could create everything from nothing and in only 7 days. That's bold!
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (18) Aug 22, 2012
And rabid creationists believe god can come from nothing and could create everything from nothing and in only 7 days. That's bold!
And rabid religionists like some US politicians can believe that since rape victims can wish their pregnancies away, we don't need abortion. And if rape victims do happen to get pregnant it must mean they really want to be pregnant, and so the rape must not have been legitimate, and so we don't need abortion.

I wonder where they got the idea that wishing for things can make them happen? Scientifically-speaking that is.
Tausch
1 / 5 (2) Sep 10, 2012
If one believes in Nature you are free to assume and assign any purpose. Eventually anything you assume or assign to Nature - even the assumption there is no purpose - becomes superseded and obsolete.

You will eventually find a purpose for believing - whatever it is you believe.

I believe Nature is conservative. Nothing is wasted.
*sigh* Another hijacked thread of commentary.

ziphead
1 / 5 (2) Sep 10, 2012
Does it not strike you as odd that both foam-spitting atheists and religious freaks run on the near identical hardware platform that is human brain?

Makes you wander; where does the difference in the firmware version come from?

It's the software, stupid. But we still don't know where it boots from.