The Drosophila melanogaster Genetic Reference Panel
Mackay, Richards et al., Nature
North Carolina State University's Trudy Mackay and her colleagues present the Drosophila melanogaster Genetic Reference Panel, "a community resource for analysis of population genomics and quantitative traits."
How About This for a Twist: Can Evolution Explain Religion?
March 05, 2007
In a lengthy feature article in the New York Times Magazine this weekend, writer Robin Marantz Henig tackles the concept of how evolutionary biology fits in with the believe in God. [The debate] is taking place not between science and religion but within science itself, specifically among the scientists studying the evolution of religion. These scholars tend to agree on one point: that religious belief is an outgrowth of brain architecture that evolved during early human history. What they disagree about is why a tendency to believe evolved, whether it was because belief itself was adaptive or because it was just an evolutionary byproduct, a mere consequence of some other adaptation in the evolution of the human brain. This isn't an article to skim, but if you have some time to sit down with it, it's worth a read.
Evolutionary biology cannot explain evolution! They have a million questions they cannot answer. Now they think they are evolved enough to explain the evolution of religion? The cancer growing with secular scientists is something I call 'Arrogance in Ingnorance', which will continue to kill humanity's faith in science. Not only can these self-important idiots not prove they are smarter than God, than cannot prove they are smarter than me!
who is the arrogant here? Religion, which tries to explain the universe and human existence without a shred of evidence, but with plenty of "magic" books and unsupported statements, or a scientist, fallible human being, who tries to explain the world with the best evidence available.<@TM>Unluckily the cancer you talk about has rather grown in a lot of death-fearing weak people who see religion and its power structure as their only hope, while it is simply erasing their only hope of clear thinking. As per God, you can't prove its non-existance as you can't prove the non-existance of the Russell's tea pot orbiting the sun...so what, is that perhaps a good reason to believe in either? <@TM>The true arrogance from ignorance belongs to the Church (any church), my friend.
"faith in science" is an oxymoron. Let's review. Faith - firm belief in something for which there is no proof. Science - a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method. Is there really no proof to support the ability of the scientific method to attain knowledge?
There is no answer- just be comfortable allowing people to do what they want to do, and thik what tey want to think---and that means you religous nuts---back off and allow others to do the research to help save your life when you get to sick to pray to the 'Great Gig in the Sky' -- or if you are not capable of accepting scientific reason, or the advances it brings, I hope you will sign the disclaimer to not give any treatment that is derived from embryonic research when your brain melts from a neurodegenerative disease.
I know the white house would love there to be no secular scientists---and look where has got us recvently--laughing stock of the world in hESC research--criminal negligence