On the Origin of Transformers
Even though I have never seen any of the Transformers movies, nor do I plan to, I found this interesting. Are Transformers evidence of Intelligent Design?
The advocates of ID, who are arguing that their belief should be included in science classes in Texas, Tennessee and other states, say that if a living organism has a design that cannot be explained by the theory of natural selection, it is proof of an Intelligent Designer. If you consider a Camaro, for example, wouldn't it obviously have had a Designer? Could its parts have been assembled by a hurricane (or a trillion hurricanes) blowing through a junkyard?
It does seem strange that an alien race would take the form of a Camaro, an Earth automobile. Unless the Camaro is some kind of universal constant.
Trouble in the Fourth Domain?
The current model for the "Tree of Life" consists of three main branches, or domains: bacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes. Recent research had pointed to a possible fourth domain containing the giant viruses.
The linked article above highlights two recent findings, one which further supports the existence of the fourth domain, while the other casts some doubt on it. It seems as though there is not enough evidence at this point for the four-domain tree to be widely accepted, but neither is there enough to say that it does not exist. I definitely feel that viruses belong on the Tree of Life somewhere, since they are very highly evolved and interesting organisms.
53 comments:
That first article was just...wow. I think it was kind of silly trying to use a fictional movie to support his claim of the existence of an intelligent designer. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the author was making fun of the idea by using a fictional movie.
Even though I find the article somewhat frivolous, it definitely brings up some interesting thoughts. One being the rapid growth of artificial intelligence. The processes that our mind and body undergo everyday are becoming dehumanized into patterns of information that can be mimicked, perhaps even improved upon by technology.
As technology advances, we will surely continue to grow more used to it and our dependence will increase. As computers approach the power of human thought, their assistance should be warmly welcomed. They are sure to outdo us in the clarity and understanding of their consciousness, and as long as such is done in our benefit, scientific advancements should be embraced.
Sorry, kind of off topic - I know, but my thoughts started trailing.
Loved that second article. For once a scientific blogger isn't imposing his ideas as fact and presents both sides of the argument!
I can't really have an opinion on this without seeing some actual experimental evidence and the scientists' method, but just based on this article, I'm going to have to say that I don't think there is a fourth domain. Or rather, there isn't substantial evidence to suggest that there is. As the latter study suggests, Raoult failed to avoid homoplasy. That seems like a fairly elementary mistake to make, and a pretty significant one, considering the claims he is trying to make.
That just shows the intricacies of experimentation that scientists must consider. They walk the thin line between exploring a novel idea, gaining completely new and profound knowledge or wasting the efforts, money, and time of so many (and being laughed at). Unfortunately for Raoult, that is exactly what happened.
That being said, it is very possible that this fourth domain exists, but as members of the scientific community, we need proof!
I just read Jon Eisen's comment. 'We did use some of the methods Embley used in their paper and found that the sequences we found to be novel still appeared to be phylogenetically novel. However, issues like homoplasy are hard to rule out when one has very long branches in a tree – and this is one of the reasons we took a toned down approach to our claims.' The more I read, the more confused I am! I guess there IS a pretty good chance of that fourth domain!
By the way, I recently saw 'The Tree of Life.' Loved it - You all should see it!
To clarify some areas of the Transformers movie saga that Mr. Ebert was unaware of, all Transformers possess the ability to change what exactly they transform into while on Earth. In the second film, 2 of the autobots change from a jointly-formed ice cream truck into 2 individual street cars because it suited their tactical needs in fighting the Deceptacons, the "bad" Transformers. This ironically makes their state of existence even more incredible, since they not only possess the ability to transform for matters of disguise, they also do it for purposes of warring against each other. As for what the Transformers look like when they are set apart from human technology, they are seen rising from the dust on the moon in the 3rd movie and appear as standing, almost humanoid machines with nothing to transform into, they only transform when it is imperative to their safety that they flee, or fight. It's interesting that so many human characteristics are included, such as the "fight or flight" adrenaline rush that humans and other animals possess, and emotions as well. The Autobots have a clear sense of morality, as well as emotions. As for the second article, there is a surprising amount of undetected life at the molecular level, even though science has come a long way. Though viruses are technically not alive, they imitate life and can serve as a model for evolution and study of DNA, so alive or not they are at least useful, which is more then we can say about unwanted summer pests like the return of the stinkbug. Post an article on how to keep them away please?
First and foremost the movie was amazing, just thought I would put that out there. As reading the article I came upon the question of why is it that the auto bots take the place of a Camaro and other car in our world. After thinking it through the only way I could see that happening is if the planet of Cybertron followed the same evolutionary path of our world just at a different timeline, allowing the same cars to be created. But after that, something happened to remove all humans from the planet and the cars where left. After that something happened to create life with the left or materials which were the cars. It’s a very farfetched idea but it’s the only possible explanation I see.
As for the second artical, I remember in freshman year biology we learned about the three domains what we know of, bacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes. But to think there might be one more domain that slipped past us for all this time. This is a reminder to everyone the science is forever growing. If giant viruses aren’t in the other three domains, then what do we classify it as? It needs to be places in a group and if there is no group for it, then it should make its own.
1st Article:
First of all, Transformers 3 was a good movie. But aside from Transformers, the main idea I took from the article was intelligent design. Even though the article was Transformers themed, it still showed some light on intelligent design. I think that intelligent design is just creationism restated in non-religious terms.
2nd Article:
Before reading this article, I have never heard of "The Tree of Life." I think it is an interesting concept. I didn't know that there were such things as giant viruses. The Tree of Life should have a fourth branch to it because it is very possible that giant viruses evolved over time.
I read the second article on the discovery of a fourth domain. Origionally we have 3 branches of life, bacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes. This fourth domain consists of "giant viruses." They were first discovered in water in air conditioners. I found it weird that they were first found in an every day appliance rather than some exotic ecosystem. The newest discovery is called Cafeteria roenbergensis (I don't know how to put words in italics). It infects an ocean-dwelling amoeba. Didier Roult was sure that these giant viruses were unlike any other virus or parasite so they deserved their own domain. However, another study brought up some doubts in the fourth domain. This new study explained how basing trees on DNA is tricky because when a virus is in a host is adapts to its surroundings and the DNA evolves into something different. So, each virus is unlike the next and ultimately cannot be traced down to a common ancestor.
In my opinion, I feel Raoult is getting too excited over this. Yes, it is exciting that we have found this new giant virus that could link us to greater knowledge. However, we do not know enough information about these giant viruses to be jumping to conlclusion that there is a fourth domain. It is a very interesting subject and as I am writing this I am reading up about it.
If there were to be a fourth domain it should just be for viruses (I know this probably will never happen but it's good to dream). We now know how different viruses are and don't really belong in any other domain. So, it could be a possibility that if these giant viruses are similar to viruses that they can join together and form their own domain. If alike, they can form a nice happy family.
In my history class last year we discussed the idea of Intelligent Design and debated whether or not it should be taught in science classes. Personally, I think that Intelligent Design should be taught in schools, as long as it is taught alongside evolution. It would show students various viewpoints and allow them to choose which one they support. As Roger Ebert explained, an alien species like the Transformers is evident of Intelligent Design. Transformers could not have possibly been created “naturally” but rather created from a Designer. Since cars are not created naturally and the Transformers are able to take on the shape of various cars, it makes sense that the Transformers were Designed.
After reading the second article about the possibility of a fourth domain, I also agree that giant viruses do belong somewhere on the Tree of Life and it is amazing that these viruses may give scientists insight into the earliest stages of evolution. The experiment carried out at the University of Newcastle does prove however, why these viruses have not been added to the Tree of Life as a fourth domain. I am interested to see how the Tree of Life will change in the future with the discovery of new species.
The Transformers article, I guess, was supposed to be a satirical piece detailing how Transformers could not have naturally evolved, but instead, were intelligently designed. A lot of what was said basically tried poking holes in the movie franchise, pointing out that it is ridiculous to try making a dark, gritty film off something that began as simple Hasbro toys. As such it posed the question, ‘Was it possible for a force of nature to cause an organism to evolve into the shape of cars or jets?” Realistically, the answer would would be ‘no’. This however, caused the author to propose that the Transformers were created beings, designed by a foreign entity. I agree with that statement, however don’t necessarily believe that, if they were real, the Transformer’s original form would incorporate disguises as various Earth vehicles. In fact, maybe the Transformers didn’t start out as massive robots, but simple Artificial Intelligence. As such, would it be possible for AI’s to experience natural selection and evolve into beings who could shift their forms like those in the movie? This seems to be the case of other Hollywood plots, like the Terminator, in which machines evolve themselves to take over their home planet. This could have been the case for Transformers, as Terminator had shapeshifting androids well. Maybe they were created by organic life on their home planet and evolved to become the dominant power. Needless to say, though, so this supports the conclusion that the Transformers, at least to some respect, were Intelligently Designed, as someone would still be needed to program the AI’s.
For the second article, a theory was provided on whether or not a newly discovered group of giant viruses could possibly make up a new branch or domain on the tree of life. My first reaction to this was asking myself, were viruses even considered living? In previous sciences classes, I was taught that viruses were not living organisms as they did not perform all the categoristic functions of life (like how they cannot reproduce without a host organism). The fact that viruses need host organisms actually plays a pivotal role in this article, as it seemed that the possibility of a fourth domain on the tree of life could possibly be false, caused by an extreme case of homoplasy combined with horizontal gene transfer. Homoplasy is a mirage of DNA where certain stands of genetic material evolve independently to look as if they were evolved from a recent ancestor, when in fact they are not related at all. The scientist who has proposed the fourth domain had neglected to take homoplasy into account in his studies, making the likelihood that of a fourth domain ambiguous at best. It was possible that the giant viruses obtained new genes because of their hosts through horizontal gene transfer, which then evolved within the virus to look different from what they originally were and appear to be unlike any other previous domain. As the topic is still under analysis, there is no concrete conclusion as to whether the giant viruses belong in their own branch of life.
It took some time for me to understand the logic behind Roger Ebert’s angle on the latest installment of Transformers; however I appreciate the fact that he puts the idea of Intelligent Design into a context that was easily comprehensible to me (once I understood). The intricate and metamorphic state of these robots composed of common car parts did not randomly come to be so it is easy to see how the advocates of ID would support the fact that the robots in Transformers had a creator. But, I hope that this idea does not hinder the research that is conducted on living organisms today; hopefully researchers won’t be tempted to credit seemingly inexplicable designs to ID.
On the other hand, the complex and intricate nature of the tree of life poses a challenge for researchers to take into account the possibility of homoplasy and horizontal gene transfer which could otherwise fool them into thinking that a fourth branch truly exists at the moment. For example, Didier Raoult and his men overlooked the possibility that the similar genes that the giant viruses shared could have just been sufferers of homoplasy. It’s exciting to think about the tens of thousands of species that are still yet to be discovered out there; as we come across more of them, more evolutionary branches can be filled in which were previously separated by millions of years of evolution. This will hopefully allow us to develop evidence that fully supports the existence of a fourth domain.
Ebert raises some interesting points against creationism. Evolution demands a basis from which it could occur, a simple life form from which it could grow and adapt. Evolution does not create life, it changes it. Since the Transformers basis would be a hunk of metal, adaptation could not occur, and intelligent design is really the most logical theory.
Animals evolve based upon the challenges their environment presses upon them. They must adapt and change to their or die, defined as natural selection. Thus, only the stronger evolved animals survive. This is an argument for evolution. Yet one must wonder what sort of environment would create the need for instantaneous transformation into fighter jets and Camaros, plasma cannons, and the ability to speak and travel in space without extra equipment. Such complex and frankly arbitrary features probably could not be bred only by natural selection.
Of course, this method of thinking really only works on Cybertron, where the Transformers have no arguable "animal" cousins who share certain characteristics. At least humans can argue for evolution by saying that they evolved from chimpanzees and other apes. Where we have a basis, Transformers do not.
Reading some of these comments, I'm having new thoughts on the first article. I now view it as a creative spin on mocking creationism - completely missed that the first time around. :)
And @BigDrew, I believe the 'something' you are referring to is evolution! Progressive improvement of these cars to become the ridiculously insane transformers that they are! :)
@trolby, I was totally thinking of the androids from terminator when I read this too!!
In the Transformers article, I agree with the idea that transformers are not naturally occurring and intellectually designed. In reality, however, I do not think that it is possible for anything to fold naturally into cars, jets, or anything for that mater. I do not believe that transformers really exist nor so i think that it will be possible to create them at this point and time. Honestly, I do not think this article had any evidence of the idea that transformers really exist. This article was almost completely based on the movies and I do not know intention of the the author by this article nor do i understand the point of it.
The second article, in my opinion, was a lot more interesting. This article talked about the possibility of there being a fourth domain, of which giant viruses inhabit. If these giant viruses actually do become a part of a new domain, many people will be eager to find out how these viruses play a role in evolution. There is a possibility that a fourth domain does exist and, if it does, many people will be itching to see how these organisms play a part in our lives. However, I do not believe that the facts given in this article is enough information to form a hypothesis on whether or not the fourth domain actually exists. Overall, this article shows how much more we have to learn about and discover.
Since I have not watched the series of Transformer movies (and now I definitely am contemplating on seeing them), my knowledge in regards to the plot and the actual ability of these machines is very vague. Nonetheless I found this article to be pretty interesting; the whole conjunction with the Intellectual Designer idea is what really intrigued me. The whole concept of attempting to justify the existence of an intelligent designer, in my opinion is pretty feeble; however I do believe that the growth of artificial intelligence will ultimately one day be able to bring about such a creature. Nevertheless, in the mean tie our reasoning and explanation for the creation of these machines is subjective. Personally, I believe that there is an ultimate intellectual designer of humans and by being given the intellect and ability to create humans correspondingly are able to become intellectual designers and create machines, such as cars and daily technicalities. After reading the article I understood that these Transformers are composed of common car parts; the creation of these creatures thus is contingent on the creation of life forms that created the material which form these creatures. That ultimately means that if there were to be an intellectual designer of this race of contraptions then by default the same creator is responsibility for the creation of the human race.
Carl Zimmer raises a groundbreaking theory in regards to the existence of a fourth domain in the traditional tree branches of the Tree of Life. The original three branches of life include bacteria, eukaryotes, and archea. Since the novel discovery of the Cafeteria roenbergensis, which targets ocean-dwelling amoeba, the idea that these giant viruses exist arose; here is where Didier Roult’s firm stance on the necessity for these giant viruses to have a whole domain comes to play. Subsequently after this discovery, multiple studies suggest that there is a very slim possibility of Roult’s claim to be truth. I personally feel that Roult is jumping to conclusion without actually having any concrete data and experimentation. I still feel that viruses should not be represented in the tree of life since they are not capable of reproducing nor can they survive without a cell to attach to.
In the first article, I think that the idea of having actual transformers in our future is not all that farfetched as people may think. Technology has advanced so much over the years that what once would have seemed as impossible could actually be in our future. Having these transformers in our lives could save human lives. Take wars for instance, instead of sending in humans to fight we could send in transformers. In my opinion, these transformers could not miraculously come together by trillions of hurricanes and Intelligent Design would be the only other option since evolution would not be able to alter car parts and heaps of metal.
In the second article, I think that these new giant virus deserve a spot somewhere in the tree of life. To think that they could be the oldest lineages on Earth and that they could possibly teach us something about life’s early evolution stages is pretty amazing. Before reading this article I had no idea what homoplasy was and how it could alter a scientific discovery. It would be very interesting to see what other branches the scientist discover in order to reach their goal of finding a place for the giant virus in the tree of life.
The first article really had me perplexed the first couple of times i read it. However, as i kept on reading it i realized the point the author was trying to make. I was actually amazed by this. He was talking about a God-like figure known as the Designer, who creates organisms in such a manner that it represents artificial objects. For example, Transformers look like cars which were created by humans. I believe this theory has some basis because as time progresses, technology is "evolving" at the speed of light. However, I believe that once a ID is in place, nature cannot affect these organisms. For instance, if transformers were created by a Designer, they will stay that way forever.
For the second article, I agree on the possibility of a 4th Domain. However, whether or not that domain is Giant Viruses still remains to be find out for sure. Raoult said that the Giant Viruses shared similar traits but overlooked the possibility of homoplasy. Even though this could largely disprove his theory, I feel that there is much more research and experimentation to be done on different species on this topic. Hopefully, soon enough, we will discover the truth.
Article 1
I found this article very interesting because its a unique way to look at evolution. The possibity that our universe is actually not as big as we thought it would be is quite intriguing. There can be many arguments made about the theory of evolution but in this case i believe that there are not many living organism that can evolve into giant robots that shot missile out of their hands. Even thought we do not know much about their home planet cybertron, we can imagine the nutural changes they could have faced. We know that some special are forced to evolve during natural selection but most of them will not turn into flying robots. The most possible explanation is intelligent designed because unlike our cars, tv and other electronic devices, these robots can not just come together on their own.
Artical 2
Before i read this artical i was unfamilar with the tree of life and what actually was in the tree of life. The posibilty of the forth domain is a very complex topic. There are no theorys that prove that such a thing can or cannot exist all thought the discovery of giant viruses is a start. These viruses are not like any of the other three domain. Some studied this and came to a conclusion that there are a few different kind of giant viruses and which leads to existence of the forth domain. However others conclude that such viruses are more recent rather than old and are not part of the tree of life. For now there is no place for these giant viruses to fit in the tree of life however science is always growning and hopefully one day they will be added to the tree of life as well.
I thought it was clever how Mr. Ebert used Transformers to discuss Intelligent Design. Since Autobots are basically just metal parts strewn together, evolution could not take place. Evolution occurs as the environment around an organism changes, and consequently that organism must adapt to survive. Car parts cannot change to adapt to the environment, so transformers could not have been created by means of evolution. Instead, the only viable option would be Intelligent Design. A Designer would have to place the various pieces of metal together to form the transformers.
The second article quickly captured my attention, as I was amazed that giant viruses could potentionally be placed on the tree of life. Scientists could discover more information on the early stages of evolution from these new giant viruses. I was not aware of homoplasy before reading the article and now I understand how important it is for scientists to avoid it in order to perform accurate experiments. Even though there is controversy over whether or not giant viruses should deem the creation of the fourth branch of life, scientists will continue to find new organisms, which could lead to more branches of life in the future.
As a person who loves action films, i actually liked the Transformers franchise, however, I didn't think about how the robots came about. I just took the movie as it was, which is how i normally take movies, without wondering too much about a back story, unless the movie itself provokes such thought. That said, I have not watched the newest movie in the franchise. But as the author of the article suggests, the Autobots and the Decepticons must have been products of Intelligent design. They are composed of many different parts and although they can become compact cars ten times smaller than they are. The cars that they "transform" into in order to blend in with the rest of the inhabitants of the earth had a creator. Is it not reasonable to say that these robots had an intelligent creator who put much thought into their creation. In any case, by tossing a bunch of the appropriate car parts into a junk yard, and (if it were possible) sending a couple hurricanes, thunderstorms, and tornadoes, would it be possible for a car to miraculously appear?
In the same way, is it possible to throw together a bunch of components for an amoeba and except it to miraculously appear and the in some freak accident become a fish, which will turn into a lizard which grows into a bird and then becomes a lion which becomes a monkey which THEN evolves and ends up as a human being? In the first place all of these organisms have COMPLETELY different internal organs and parts for them to have evolved into the other. in the second place, each of these different organisms are unique and complex enough to warrant a creator. the car did not just evolve from the carriage. Someone had to make the necessary modifications and the create an engine so that the car could run on its own. Certainly, this does not rule out evolution in every sense. Evolution, is a natural process by which the organisms which live in this world, adapt to survive to the surroundings. However, there is evidence of a Creator, as these organisms cannot just come to exist on their own, with perfect functions and the ability to survive.
The other article pointed to a new domain. As the sciences are currently being discovered and rediscovered and everything is constantly being reevaluated it is hard to say whether what Raoult and his team have discovered is true and absolutely valid. To be honest, I hadn't thought about the three domains/branches. However, viruses are indeed organisms although they are parasitic and cause various problems for the other organisms that they infect. It is interesting that Raoult was able to find the gene that connected the virus to the rest of the other branches. But, is the simple fact hat the evolutionary tree that joined the genes together had a four branch structure compelling enough evidence to prove that there are four domains? As the other study points out,going backwards on the evolutionary chain is tricky business because we obviously can't go back in time to see how things evolved, and it would take a lot of time. Also, nothing is perfect and nothing is ever as perfect as the theory is. As a result, many of the ideas that resulted because of Raoult's study may not have been true. While I'm not saying that either of these two studies are completely right or wrong, it is very hard to determine if the fourth domain even exists. Certainly there are many viruses and they multiply quickly, and in some cases they will take some genes from their hosts in order to adapt adequately, their primary goal in life is to infect other cells so that they become like the viruses. At this point, to whichever point that the viruses have evolved to, it is tricky to go back and work backwards to see what evolutionary tree and genes and branch it originally spawned from.
As Deepa stated, I too find it silly that the author tried to connect Transformers as evidence of Intelligent Design. Autobots, Decepticons, and Cybertron are merely fictional parts of a movie and should not be used for a basis of support for Intelligent Design. Although, it does make sense to use this assumption because Autobots were not assembled by Cybertron's natural causes and there could be no other explanation for the existence, complex appearances, and unusual personalities of Autobots. Also, to insist that there is Intelligent Design means that there is an Intelligent Cause or Designer. Albeit it is a controversial topic, many believers and theorists of Intelligent Design infer that God/god is the Intelligent Designer. There is little difference between ID and Creationism. Thus, Intelligent Design cannot be taught and included in the school curriculum of any state.
After reading both sides of the belief that there is a fourth domain of giant viruses, I'm leaning towards it being unlikely. All of Raoult and his colleagues's evidence, such as the evolutionary model that unsuccessfully avoided homoplasy, were disproved by Embley and his colleagues. Although giant viruses share the same genes as other forms of life in the "Tree of Life", they could have just recently gained the genes and thus evolved into different forms than their original ones. However, to just dismiss the idea altogether, without sufficient amount of evidence on both sides, should not be done. And without further support of or not of it, no one can fully say that there is a fourth domain.
While reading the second article I was quite amazed to see that scientists around the country had been discovering these new giant viruses that had not been seen before. I had never really been informed or educated on the aspects of the 3 domains of life. However even so I found it really cool that scientists may have discovered that there is a fourth domain in the tree of life. I'm personally not sure who is right in whether these giant viruses are proof of a fourth dimension due to the fact that there is evidence stating otherwise. It seems that aspects of each domain are fairly complex and would require more evidence and data to prove that there is in fact a fourth dimension.
At first, while reading the first article, I was confused by Ebert’s logic on the origins of Transformers, but now I seem to understand what he means by intelligent design. Like the transformers, some animals and organisms have unique characteristics that help them win in the competition of “survival of the fittest.” however these characteristics show that they could not have evolved because they are so unique. The Transformers and other unique organisms can not be explained by the theory of evolution which shows that they were intelligently designed. I believe ID is just a spin on creationism.
After reading the second article, I do believe giant viruses should be placed as a fourth domain on the tree of life. These giant viruses are so complex and the article states that we might even be able to learn about the earliest stage’s in evolution. However, Williams, Embley and Heinz showed that Raoult could have been tricked by homoplasy by thinking the giant viruses are similar, but rather they have independent origins. I think adding giant viruses as a fourth domain would fill in more branches on the tree of life.
Article 1
After reading the first article I thought it was unusual to compare a fictional movie to Intelligent Designing, but it is true that Autobots do not come from natural selection because automobiles are man made. If Autobots exist then they have to be designed by an Intelligent Designer. I believe that it would be interesting to learn about Intelligent Design along with natural selection and evolution in our science classes.
Article 2
The second article was very interesting because of how the fourth domain could have given some important facts about the earliest life. Even though there is no proof that the fourth domain exists, I believe that there are many unknown living things in this world that have not been discovered yet. There are still chances to find out if the fourth domain is real or not.
I found the article on the Transformers very strange. It seems as though any mechanical or electronic thing would have to have a designer in order to work. Who knows maybe the government sent out some rocket with AI on it and those units landed on Cybertron and evolved into the transformers seen in the movie. Also since Transformers were designed in order to market them, then I would expect to see elements of intelligent design just as I would expect to see evidence of intelligent design in a car or robot of some sort. Of course since Transformers are fictional then they would be a poor example of Intelligent Design anyway.
As to the second article I find the idea of a fourth branch on the tree of life interesting. Considering that there are so many forms of life out there that have yet to be discovered I would say there probably is another branch. Giant viruses could perhaps be that fourth branch. However the two opposing studies seem to show that it will take a lot more to prove or disprove this theory. Perhaps the discovery of more giant viruses could lead to a better idea of whether or not they should be the fourth domain.
I was amazed how the first article used a movie to explain intelligent design. It shows how evolution cannot occur in Autobots because evolution occurs from changes in the environment and its impact on the organisms. The ones that can survive the change go on further than the ones that cannot survive with the changes. Car parts cannot change with time unless it is by a designer. Intelligent design in my opinion should be taught alongside the study of evolution to better understand the two concepts.
Before reading the second article, I had never heard about The Tree Of life. The possibility that there might be a fourth domain is a very interesting topic to discuss. In my opinion there may very well be a fourth domain. Before reading this article I did not know about giant viruses. I think that giant viruses should be added to the tree of life because they could have evolved over time. One interesting thing I read in the fourth article was that the fourth domain gives scientists insight on the earlier stages of evolution.
Since I have not watched the series of Transformer movies (and now I definitely am contemplating on seeing them), my knowledge in regards to the plot and the actual ability of these machines is very vague. Nonetheless I found this article to be pretty interesting; the whole conjunction with the Intellectual Designer idea is what really intrigued me. The whole concept of attempting to justify the existence of an intelligent designer, in my opinion is pretty feeble; however I do believe that the growth of artificial intelligence will ultimately one day be able to bring about such a creature. Nevertheless, in the mean tie our reasoning and explanation for the creation of these machines is subjective. Personally, I believe that there is an ultimate intellectual designer of humans and by being given the intellect and ability to create humans correspondingly are able to become intellectual designers and create machines, such as cars and daily technicalities. After reading the article I understood that these Transformers are composed of common car parts; the creation of these creatures thus is contingent on the creation of life forms that created the material which form these creatures. That ultimately means that if there were to be an intellectual designer of this race of contraptions then by default the same creator is responsibility for the creation of the human race.
Carl Zimmer raises a groundbreaking theory in regards to the existence of a fourth domain in the traditional tree branches of the Tree of Life. The original three branches of life include bacteria, eukaryotes, and archea. Since the novel discovery of the Cafeteria roenbergensis, which targets ocean-dwelling amoeba, the idea that these giant viruses exist arose; here is where Didier Roult’s firm stance on the necessity for these giant viruses to have a whole domain comes to play. Subsequently after this discovery, multiple studies suggest that there is a very slim possibility of Roult’s claim to be truth. I personally feel that Roult is jumping to conclusion without actually having any concrete data and experimentation. I still feel that viruses should not be represented in the tree of life since they are not capable of reproducing nor can they survive without a cell to attach to.
"They're arguably the least interesting aliens in the history of science fiction..."
I have one thing to say in response. Jar-Jar Binks and the Gungans.
Anyway, I understand that Mr. Ebert doesn't like Transformers, but I don't see how Transformers can be appropriately applied to Intelligent Design. I highly doubt that when Hasbro first created the Transformers toys that they had evolution in mind for them, and I doubt that Michael Bay thought about evolution and intelligent design when he made Transformers into a billion dollar franchise. Mr. Ebert's inaccuracies about Transformers also made it hard for me to take the article seriously (although I didn't particularly like him in the first place anyway.)
I found the second article very interesting. Prior to reading it, I was unfamiliar with the "tree of life" and giant viruses. After reading it, I can't say I have an opinion on whether giant viruses should be admitted to its own branch on the tree of life, since I haven't done any research on it. That being said, I think future research on the subject will be very interesting.
In this article I understood that evolution cannot be used to describe transformers. Evolution could not have taken place because the transformers did not evolve as a result of the environment. The transformers were built a certain way in response to intellectual design, and created exactly how the inventor envisioned. It is true that transformers have changed over the years; however they are not the result of evolution. Transformers were created a certain way by their creators and will not change due to factors of the environment.
The second article was insightful because it introduced the idea that there was a fourth domain in the tree of life. In response to the possibility of the fourth domain, it proves that the science community is forever evolving and new discoveries can be made every day. Also the giant virus is interesting because it was first discovered in an air conditioner, and does not exactly belong to one of the domains. However due to the uncertainty of the giant virus, it can only be categorized with in-depth experiments and accurate results.
It is really interesting how Mr. Ebert uses Transformers as evidence for Intelligent Design. It is a different way of approaching natural selection and the concept of "the survival of the fittest". Autbots show similar characteristics as those of living organisms in that they both have to be the most advanced whether in traits or auto parts, to survive. I can see the creation of something similar to autobots in the future due to the rapid pace of advancement of technology.
After reading the second article it is hard for me to conclude if giant viruses should be considered a fourth domain in the tree of life. As Mr.Zimmer described it is difficult to make any conclusions since there is a very large experimental process and research necessary. But these viruses are vital for researchers in there studies of the first organisms and relationships between hosts and viruses. I predict that with more research and discoveries of giant viruses we can get a clearer view on place of giant viruses.
As far as the first article goes the whole idea of intelligent design really gives me a headache, you might as well ask yourself "what came first the chicken or the egg?" and don't bother watching transformer, it's a movie to be seen by those who love explosions and special effects (Napoleon Dynamite had a more interesting plot.) Aside from that, I believe advocates of ID don't have much of an argument; ID cannot really be proven its pretty much based off the idea that if there is no explanation then it must be because of Intelligent Design...
Now the second article actually doesn't seem like much of an article. Viruses are technically not considered living organisms so therefor they do not belong on the "tree life." I agree with you Dr.H, that viruses are highly evolved and interesting, but they aren't organisms. That's the only argument I really need.
While it may be easy (and, admittedly, not very witty) to name Hasbro as the "Creator" of Transformers, I did think that Ebert's points were interesting. I enjoyed how he toyed with Creationism by using literal "toys" as examples. As Stephanie W pointed out, I found that it was easier to understand the concept of an Intelligent Designer by using fictional robots as examples, no matter how satirically he chose to enlighten us through the "history" of these Transformers. Although rather simple, his argument of the existence of an Intelligent Designer made a lot of sense to me; how were Transformers created in the first place? Which came first, the chicken or the egg? When evolution fails to come up with an answer, suddenly the existence of a "higher being" seems more plausible. The idea of an Intelligent Designer can seem either comforting or terrifying, depending on one's own reaction to the realization that his life may not be all his own. While these worries may not be applicable to, say, aliens with a penchant for human automobiles, I feel that we, as humble humans, should acknowledge the concept of Creationism in science. A very unique and insightful new point of view would be offered in the irony of grouping their very contrasting fundamentals - science, with its basis in observation and known facts, and Creationism, with its tempting proposal of providing answers to the seemingly unknown - in the same realm.
As others have stated, I appreciate how Zimmer included both sides of the argument on a possible fourth domain. While the giant viruses are a fascinating and exciting discovery, I agree that there is not enough evidence to support the notion of adding a whole new branch. However, a fourth branch may very well be possible as more experimentation and information is uncovered. As Zimmer eloquently reminds us, there are still so many more species to be discovered and more pieces of the puzzle to be fit together.
Even though I fell asleep watching any of the three transformers movies, I still understood what Ebert was trying to explain. Although, I did find it kind of unreasonable since he used a fictional movie to depict his thoughts, he did however, bring up a that can be arguable. The idea of an existing Intelligent Designer had to be necessary in order for these autobots to exist. Them being able to pack in all that metal in tiny structures like a camaro cannot be supported just through natural occurrences like hurricanes and tornadoes. The whole article is just knocking on evolution's door.
Giant viruses compared to the other three branches on the tree of life don't really have enough analysis to actually be its own branch. Even though Rauolt found genes in them similar to bacteria and eukaryotes, homoplasy was still a factor that he did not consider. Embley's studies oppose the idea of giant viruses being its own separate branch. Since there's not enough data, it's really hard to consider either side.
The evidence of Intelligent Design in the Transformers movies arguably stands valid. In other words, I understand how such a case can be made about Transformers since there isn't an obvious explanation for their being through natural selection. Interestingly, the further I researched ID, the more my thoughts were directed toward religious value/beliefs. The definition of ID reads: the theory that the universe and living things were designed and created by the purposeful action of an intelligent agent. Wiki also mentions that it is a form of creationism restated in non religious terms. However, I feel that claiming the existence of an "intelligent agent" without being able to identify such a force, entity, etc. is unscientific. If anything, the subject crosses with one's core beliefs/values on why things exist as they do; it touches on the explanation of life.
Article two regarding the possibility of a fourth branch is simply put: baffling. Because I know so little on the three branches, let alone a fourth, I found myself being compelled to agree with both sides of the argument. On one hand, the giant bacteria are simply viewed as objects with similar DNA structures which does not necessarily present evidence of a recent ancestor. In opposite, giant bacteria are thought to belong to an individual, fourth group because they seems to be remarkably different. Although I have no clear standpoint on the fourth branch topic, I do believe this: our world, the universe is a very large and unexplained place. I am sure there will be questions about life in the immediate or distant future because we as human beings do not know everything.
Article 1:
The idea that the Transformers and Decepticons came into being due to an Intelligent Designer seems to make sense compared to the idea that a hurricane or some natural event randomly combined certain parts together. While I was reading the article, I started to realize that this could be a possible way to explain the creation of many species. However, there isn't much support to the theory by saying that these humanoid robots existed due to some Designer. Since the movies are fictional, we can attribute their creation to a possible Intelligent Designer and say that they evolved into different disguises as time went on.
Creationism states that a supernatural being created the world and creates controversy when brought into classrooms. Intelligent Design deviates from Creationism, losing the religious aspect, making it slightly less controversial. There must have been something that jumpstarted evolution, whether it was natural or deliberate can be debated. As for organisms on Earth, something had to initially create them. A theory such as intelligent design could coexist with evolution since both explanations appear to be possible. It really depends on a person's beliefs but the article explored other possibilities that make readers think about how species actually evolved into diverse and unique categories.
Article 2:
I feel as though more support is needed before classifying giant viruses in a fourth domain. There are so many confounding variables that make it difficult to pinpoint if this fourth domain truly exists. Both Raoult and Embley's studies contradict themselves since viruses aren't necessarily considered to be living things. Before anyone can make claims on the fourth domain, more research needs to be executed. It's very interesting that they have found such large viruses. It reminds all of us that there are many things in the universe that are yet to be discovered and that science is ever-changing. Certain theories can be modified if necessary, once solid evidence is uncovered.
First of all, I've never seen anything Transformers related, and I had no idea what I was reading for the first three minutes of reading. I agree with Tolby that the Transformers article was definitely meant to be satirical in nature as well as Jason. Transformers is a work of fiction, and to apply this theory of intelligent design is ludicrous. After all, fiction isn't meant to represent reality accurately. To say that Transformers are evidence of intelligent design is pretty comical. If these advocates of intelligent design want to be taken seriously, maybe they shouldn't be using Transformers as proof that it exists.
As for the second article, I'm not sure as to whether I agree with Raoult or Embley. I don't know that much about viruses to claim either one right, but if I recall correctly, Dr. H did a lot of work with viruses. I'm sure his opinion that viruses should have their own branch in the Tree of Life is based on substantial evidence.
Viruses are definitely very evolved, complex beings. They have the ability to quickly evolve themselves and infect people as we've seen from the H1N1 virus havoc from a couple years ago. Even with this world's highly advanced medicines, we can't cure viral illnesses; all we can do is let them run their course. If viruses can have this much of an impact on our lives, maybe they really do deserve to be living creatures.
After reading the first article, I was initially confused by what Ebert meant by intelligent design, but another quick read-through fixed that. He explains that survival of the fittest stems from changes in its environment and how an organism adapts. Scraps of metal cannot just assemble themselves in response to the environment; it must be changed and shaped by the hands of a designer. Perhaps Transformers has a more futuristic concept where the machine and the living have been put together. Today we are edging closer and closer as we find new ways to attach robotic arms and legs to take the place of lost limbs and also add other metal parts into our body.
As for the second article, a fourth domain seems like a sound theory, but there are arguments both for and against it. One can say that horizontal gene transfer and mutations could be the source of the unique genes of these giant viruses. Others can say that it might have branched off very early from another group. I feel that these giant viruses should not be given their own domain until extensive research can provide some concrete evidence and some major differences between giant viruses and its smaller counterparts.
I can also say that I am also an admirer of Darwin for his achievements have shed light on a concept, the theory of evolution and natural selection. I would also add that perhaps the best benefits we as people have received from Darwin’s theories is that it keeps the debate open between those who believe in Evolution and those who believe in creationism or intelligent design.
In connection with the first article, I once heard a story about a young man who wanted to get advice for a decision he had to make about buying a diamond ring for his wife to be. The advice came in the saying, “If you want to buy diamonds, don’t talk to the butcher”. Roger Ebert is a movie critic and while he may do an admirable job at explaining a movie, he is no scientist. This is sort of the same feeling I get when I listen to Al Gore, a politician talking about global warming. Where are the scientists?
While I appreciate Roger Ebert’s effort in explaining the movie Transformers, it is hardly the movie to justify his idea of evolution since this movie is basically for kids and while I do admit having seen it, it wasn’t very good either.
Trouble in the Fourth Domain?, as the title states, argues that even evolution has a slippery slope which can sometimes fool scientists even with the best of intentions. The second article described the possible addition of a fourth domain to the Tree of Life. The discovery of giant viruses, which are 100 times bigger than regular viruses and can have over a thousand genes, poses the question of whether scientists should add another branch or whether these giant viruses could be the victims of homoplasy’s deception and confusion.
Believing that Raoult may have been tricked by the slippery nature of evolution, Tom Williams, Martin Embley, and Eva Heinz conducted a new study. The trio realized that one of the big challenges in drawing evolutionary trees based on DNA is that similarities can be deceiving since the DNA may have independently evolved into a similar state in each lineage. They found that scientists can avoid this by staying away from genes prone to homoplasy by looking at DNA that is highly unlikely to suffer from these effects homoplasy has on DNA.
While this experiment may not have provided the perceived results it does speak highly of peer review. Competition and open argument make science stronger.
I like how the author of the first article used the Transformers series to support his theory of the existence of the possibility of intelligent designers. Using a movie that is well-known throughout the world allows people to get a better understanding of what he is saying, but Autobots aren't living organisms. The advocates of ID state "that if a living organism has a design that cannot be explained by the theory of natural selection, it is proof of an Intelligent Designer," but Autobots are just robots. Anything with a computer has to have an intelligent designer. I believe this article is a satisfactory argument for intelligent design, but it doesn't prove much for the existence of intelligent design in reality. This leads me to conclude that this article wasn't meant to be a serious argument and was written with the purpose of enlightening the argument of IDs.
For the second article, I feel that it is too early to take a stance on a fourth domain. Although Raoult and his colleagues conducted experiments that supported a fourth branch, he did not take homoplasy into consideration. If they did, a fourth branch would be highly likely, but since they did not it is still too early to take sides. Embley and his colleagues disproved the possibility of a fourth branch, but there are still many discoveries to be made in the scientific world. In my opinion, as of now, there is a chance for a fourth branch and there is also a chance that there is no fourth branch.
I do not believe that the use of Transformers as an example for Intelligent Design was appropriate. Though the transformers' ability to change into vehicles only seen on Earth raises some questions as to how their original design allowed this, I believe their creation was not meant to be analyzed to this detail. Also, Roger Ebert stated that a Camaro's parts could not have been assembled by hurricanes or forces of nature. I disagree with this, since life originated from on Earth, billions of years ago, under the perfect conditions. What if these perfect conditions could have led to the design of a Camaro.
For the second article, I believe that more research needs to done so that we can further our knowledge of these "giant viruses". I believe that if we still cannot classify a domain for them, then we clearly do not know enough and need to investigate further. I agree with the author when he states "By studying them we might learn about the earliest stages in life’s evolution."
I enjoyed reading the Transformers article. It made fun of multiple aspects of science, such as Darwin's theory of evolution and the universe. It also makes fun of certain aspects of American culture: the political references, the moon landing conspiracies, etc. The aspect that I enjoyed the most was that, even through all the jokes, Mr. Elbert taught me the basics of ID. Albeit, he used the example of the Autobots, I will say that he successfully got the idea across.
I found the second article just as interesting. From previous knowledge, I knew that scientists were contending whether to add viruses as a separate domain. However, I did not understand what the problem was. By reading this article I understood that the scientists have to find some proof of evolution or common ancestor to put it on the "tree of life". Raoult's conclusion seemed sound to me until the argument that homoplasy might be the reason for the assumed evolution (this shows how little knowledge I have on evolution). To end on a lighter note, I am happy that even world renown scientists make mistakes!
I agree with @Deepa and @Victoria T.; it is silly to try to fit in a fictional film into evolution (I emphasize 'fictional' because it seems impossible to make sense of something not real). But to answer your question, I guess Transformers are evidence of Intelligent Designers since there is no way in heck that a shape-shifting Camaro would ever come about naturally.
Before reading the second article, the terms "archaea", eukaryotes" and more importantly, "the tree of life" intimidated me already since I hadn't a clue what they meant, so I had to google them. Then it all came back to me; archaea and eukaryotes are almost opposites -- archaea meaning microorganisms that doesn't consist of nuclei or organelles and eukaryote meaning organisms that do contain nuclei and organelles (Thanks to www.wisegeek.com's brevity)…
In reading Raoult and his colleagues' point of view, I was convinced that it would make sense to name a fourth domain to the different/mysterious 'giant viruses'. The Cafeteria virus, with its unusual genes, is unique enough to be placed under its own domain. However, I could understand the extensive research that is needed to prove such a domain.
After reading Embley and his colleagues' stance on the fourth domain, I immediately looked down on Raoult and his colleagues' theory; their hastiness caused them to research something not worth researching. They, as Embley implied, most likely forgot to consider homoplasy's annoyance and ability to mislead.
@Deepa, thanks for referring to Jonathan Eisen's comment, now I know that there's a slight chance of a fourth domain! Oh and I just googled "The Tree of Life" and I am planning to watch it (it stars Brad Pitt!!!!).
Reading the article, I think the author thought too much about these fictional movies. I like the Transformers movies and have always been fascinated by the thought of intelligent life forms. However, the author's intelligent design theory seems weak because it is based on a movie, meant to be fictional. I think the "intelligent designer" who created these transforming cars is not some powerful being but the casts, crew, and writers of the Transformers comic books and movies.
Living organisms are more complicated than I thought. I never really knew anything about the tree of life so it is very interesting to learn that there are three main branches and that each branch is still divided up to a hundred more branches. I don't know much about the tree of life yet but to me, the thought of a fourth branch seems unlikely. Living species evolve everyday to more complex genetic combinations but all would still have, at least, a part of them from their origin. It is more proabable that the fourth branch is just a new complex genetic combination that is still part of one of the three main branches.
I have think to terms of gratefully seeing these CGI concept films. I've seen all three of them, but not much of the first film though. I just enjoyed the movie how it was and not really think about how Transformers came to be. But identifying an intelligence designer on a fiction film is quite foolish. Though I'm not really a crazed fan of Transformers, and I know nothing about their creative works, I've always wondered how these so called "Autobots" and "Deceptacons" developed their structures and how they evolved. Is it the fact that they were made by designers as Roger Ebert said? "How did inhabitants of Cybertron learn of modern human automobile designs?" sparked my interests. It's peculiar enough that these machines know enough of the human world. It seems that Transformers does have an easy access on the whole Intelligence Design. Well I hopefully think that scientists wouldn't have to deal with the idea of the ID concept with living organisms starting out a designer.
For the second article, I didn't know or even heard about the "Tree of Life." After reading this article, I think Raoult can get the idea of the fourth domain since evolution is growing rapidly. But I have to agree with Embley and his colleagues. Homoplasy can be the result of Raoult to contain the existance of the fourth domain. Viruses' activities may contain common organic life, but they are missing many other traits. Evolution comes in so many ways and paths. So therefore, there are always various of unknown species to research for and knowingly that there can be a fourth domain.
Regarding the first article, the author does a poor job in a scientific sense to undermine Creationism by using a fictional movie developed by Hollywood to mock the idea. Obviously this article was meant to be humorous, and is not a serious explanation of Darwin's theory of natural selection or creationism. Although it is a funny article, there really is no point to it because you cannot associate a fictional movie with a scientific theory.
As for the second article, the discovery of a giant virus should not necessarily be a clear indication to another branch to the tree of life, as Raoult and his team suggested. His team failed to steer clear of homoplasy. This is why constructing evolutionary trees is so difficult, because evolution is so complex. New species are discovered on a daily basis, especially in least explored areas such as on the ocean floor, and in tropical rain forests. Each new discovery leads to new information, which can ultimately change the way we think of evolution.
After a week of sitting in a car for a family road trip, it’s about time I got the chance to comment on this blog, don’t you think? Anyways, as many others have said, I found it rather silly to use Transformers as a basis of proof of an intelligent designer. However, on a more practical note, I understood what Ebert was trying to get across. If Transformers were real, how did they start off? Clearly, they were not the result of evolution and it would also be highly unlikely that natural causes created the high-tech Transformers. Reading this article raised questions about how some organisms came to be. I can see how some people would argue the existence of an ID, when the origin of an organism cannot be fully explained. As for the argument on whether or not ID should be taught at schools, I believe that having it taught alongside evolution may allow students to see science through different perspectives.
Basing my opinion on the information gathered from article 2, I agree that not enough is known about these giant viruses to consider there to be a fourth domain. Although Raoult did find some evidence that a fourth domain could exist because the giant viruses had the same genes as some other viruses, he failed to include the possibility of homoplasy in his research. This left the possibility that the new giant virus could have just been a result of evolution. It's interesting how evolution in viruses works out; they evolve so quickly that they become complex and difficult to place on the tree of life. Hopefully more light would be shed on this topic in the future!
In the first article, I thought it was interesting that Mr. Ebert used Transformer as evidence for Intelligent Design and using it to explain natural selection because even though the Transformer are fictional characters, he explains that transformers adapted to the change in environment.
In the second article, I have never heard the idea of fourth domain and i agree with sayan.royc that they should not be given tier own domain until there is research showing major differences and evidence is found
In my honest opinion, the first thing I thought while I was reading the first article was overanalyzing. Yeah, I agree that of course the autobots had some sort of intelligent designer, but comparing “autobot” intelligent design to human intelligent design is somewhat foolish. It says “They're arguably the least interesting aliens in the history of science fiction, but how much can you expect from an intelligent race that began as a line of Hasbro toys?”. Well, how can you even make a compelling or interesting argument if A. people think they are uninteresting (aka: no one cares) or B. they are Hasbro toys. Enough said. And just people tend to jump to the conclusion of ID if the thing they are talking about doesn’t quite fit the qualifications of creationism or evolution, imo.
My personal opinion is that people try so hard to find a purpose for something. Why can’t something just exist? Why must we put labels on it or categorize it until we’ve beaten it to pulp. Isn’t it exciting to know the mysteries of nature? Once again, just my opinion. And I’m not saying be ignorant and try to argue with someone if you know absolutely nothing about the subject; just let things be.
The second article made me think a little bit more, but after reading everything I thought…how can something (viruses…or in this case giant viruses) be on “the tree of life” if it isn’t even considered a living organism? Maybe that statement is a bit broad or uneducated but it’s quite a simple concept. Discovering a possible new branch on the tree of life is exciting and probably will give the scientist who thought of it a bunch of credit and fame, but once again there is not enough evidence at the moment, therefore, I am not convinced.
I read the comments at the bottom of the second article and it said “Cafeteria got its name from its ability to feed on a wide range of foods.” HOW CLEVER.
In my opinion, the first article is fairly ineffective in providing any substantial support for the theory of Intelligent Design. Transformers are fictional beings, which means that any conclusions one might draw based upon them are also fictional until proven in real life. However, the relationship between Transformers and the theory of Intelligent Design certainly exists. This article may fail to support the theory of Intelligent Design, but I think the analogy presented by Robert Ebert could be useful in helping others to understand what exactly ID is.
In his argument, Ebert also exposes a faulty assumption that is frequently made by supporters Intelligent Design; the notion that if something cannot be explained by natural selection, an Intelligent Designer must have been involved. This assumption is terribly illogical, and if anything it discredits the author's argument. That being said, Ebert's subtle sarcastic tone leads me to believe that this article is a satire, not a serious scientific examination. I was unaware that the "giant viruses" discussed in this article even existed.
In response to the second article, I was definitely intrigued by idea that scientists are considering editing the Tree of Life; something that forms the very foundation of the life sciences. I really liked the way the author provided a multi-faceted look at the subject, instead of just arguing for one side or the other. Before reading this article, I was unaware that "giant viruses" even existed. Personally, I think that there is still a large amount of research to be done before any sort of decision can be made about a fourth domain.
Happy to finally be able to comment on the blogs again after settling in from a 3-week tour around Europe!
I think that the first article was definitely unique in explaining the mechanisms behind the theory of Intelligent Design. Even though in my opinion it would be ludicrous to use a fictional series featuring robotic aliens as legitimate support for a pressing scientific argument, I appreciate that Ebert was able to break down the idea of Intelligent Design into an easier form that we all can understand! Still, this article is oddly convincing. At one point I was thinking, "Wow, hurricanes couldn't have possibly created a race of complex robot life forms.. maybe Intelligent Design could be true!" But then I conveniently remembered that the Transformers are a fictional franchise, and that robot aliens don't exist. (As far as we know, that is.) Either way, be it satire or not, I believe that this article did a great job explaining the background behind Intelligent Design.
The second article was more compelling in my opinion. Imagine, a complete new domain on the tree of life! This would open up entire new fields of scientific research. I find that very exciting. Like everyone, I really appreciate the fact that the author of the article wasn't bias and provided evidence both supporting and against Raoult's research. Personally, I am torn between the two sides. I agree with Raoult in saying that giant viruses are organisms that should have their own place on the tree, yet agree with Embley in saying that Raoult's research did an inadequate job in avoiding homoplasy. Maybe one day, when more research on these giant viruses have been conducted, scientists will be able to clearly identify whether they should get their own place on the tree of life or not.
Looks like I skipped this article when I was away, but I suppose it's better late than never. I have never watched any Transformers movies, so it took me a little while to understand exactly what Transformers is about and how the author uses it as a premise (quite silly, I must admit) in his conclusion that there might be an Intelligent Designer. This whole concept of a designer and of creationism makes me think about an evolution course I took this summer at a science program/camp in which it seemed like the singular purpose the teacher had was to rid us all of any belief in a designer. I'm sort of brainwashed at this point to say, "Intelligent Designer? NO." I do suppose that if we lived in a world in which Transformers were real, the author certainly has valid points, particularly that Transformers have no evolutionary line and can't follow natural selection, they are made of pieces of metal. However, Transformers (thankfully?) are not a part of our world, so his argument is null. Nevertheless, the article was an enjoyable read. It's interesting to see how the proponents of a designer arrive at their conclusions via an indirect proof.
The second article is interesting, as it presents a contradiction to the basics of biology--the existence of three domains. The existence of a fourth domain, a huge change to the phylogenetic tree, was supported by the discovery of abnormally large viruses, ones that could possibly give us information about early evolution. As scientist Embley and some of his colleagues brought up, the study that proposed a four-domain structure failed to consider homoplasy, also known as convergent evolution. When they added some constraints to their model that would account for that, the four-branch structure was no longer the best fit. It's always fascinated me how phylogenetic trees are created because there are so many things to consider when organizing species, including convergence. It reminds me of the same evolution course I discussed before. One of my major questions was how can scientists create an evolutionary tree with so little data/information and so many confounding variables? I think some of my concerns and questions were brought up by the author of this article and reflected by Embley's work. Thsi goes to show inn dealing with evolution, and I suppose science in general, it's extremely important to consider everything!
2) After reading the first article by Roger Ebert, I found that it was a criticism of both creationism and intelligent design, lumping them together. The author feels that only people in rural states (i.e. Texas and Tennessee), and the Republican Party (which tends to be more conservative) would tend to believe in creationism or ID. Personally, I believe that the theory of intelligent design does have some merit. Some things cannot be explained by natural selection. Transformers did not just develop over time; they had to be put together in some way by a designer. Those things had to be made or put in place by something else, in this case an intelligent designer. The article however, seems to tease the ideas of both ID and creationism, leaving only natural selection and science as the “correct” way to view evolution. Great movie too by the way.
About the fourth domain, it sounds completely possible that there could be a fourth branch of evolution. The scientists researching have found information that both support and oppose the theory. It would be very interesting to find an entirely new branch of organisms. Giant viruses seem to have very different genes than usual viruses. The Cafeteria Roenbergenis ameba acting as a host for one giant virus could have very well passed its genes on to the virus and developed quickly. Although it is not proven, I think the idea of a fourth scientific branch of life is very provoking.
Sorry for the late response, I've been away for a while without a dedicated internet connection.
After reading the first article, I found it funny that the author could relate something as fantastical as Transformers to a controversial theory of universal creation. Although this article is clearly satirical in nature, he proposes an interesting point. Machines and robots are all associated with artificiality and man's own creation here on Earth. As such, one wouldn't think that basic minerals could find a way to turn themselves into robotic creatures, like the Transformers, without some intervention. Ebert uses this idea to "support" the fact that the universe must have been designed by an intelligent agent. At least in the way of giant robotic alien cars, that's surprisingly hard to contest...
As for the second article: I always think it's cool when a new development comes along that challenges the norms of science. In this case, the predominant idea was that the the tree of life had only three major branches, but sir Raoult's research seems to point to the existance of a fourth branch housing these "giant viruses". Not too long, after, however, scientist Embley noted that Raoult's research failed to account for homoplasy; These giant viruses may not have branched off from a recent ancestor, but rather convergently evolved to have similar DNA. After performing new research, taking care to seal the potential gaps in the old experiments, Embley's team suggests that the fourth branch may not be all too plausible. This shows the volatile nature of what we can consider scientific fact!
In the first article, the belief that transformers are a possibility of the future is not at all insane. With technological advances continuing to progress robots could one da be invented. Transformers are just robots that are larger and more advanced in all aspects. However ,we should not be so quick to turn a blind eye to the possibility of intelligent design creating such an organism full of defects the first time around.
Post a Comment