Bizarre sea slug is half plant, half animal
Scientists discover chlorophyll-producing sea slug that can carry out photosynthesis using genes swiped from plants.
Photo: Comments
This is very interesting. An animal with complexities that are extremely different from anything I've seen thus-far. What an amazing world we live in!
I've been reading through the comments on this page, and many of the things mentioned are very intelligent, on either side of the debate of religion (God) versus evolution. We live in an imperfect world, things go wrong, things improve. Whether you're a scientist or a person who follows religion, if what you have in your heart is.... More
TACMIN is an organization with Japan-Vietnam partnership providing support to enhance competitiveness and identity of Vietnamese artisan crafts for products, craft persons, skills and Traditional values, thereby hoping quality of life of the people will be improved. Please visit us by these links below;
ベトナム 工芸
Vietnam crafts
.... More
Why did I think, even for a moment, that there would be anything that even approached interesting discussion about the article in the comments.
This is more of a symbiotic relationship than a true plant/animal hybrid, yes?
Remarkable yes, but out-of-date data. If you follow the real recent literature (especially since 2008) you will notice that the plastids are not mentained because of gene transfer, but rather to a "built-in" abillity of the plastids and/or slugs themselves. A lot of facts are ignored when people discuss this topic. How has the gene reached the germline? Why does a Southern blot not detect the gen in the genome? Why is there no evidence for an algal gene within genetic context of the slug? The.... More
It's sad this amazing discovery gets reduced to a creation vs. evolution debate. It doesn't really help anyone understand anything about this beautiful creature.
Apparently, humans have evolved or were created to absorb energy from negativity ; )
How on earth did all of you get off on this creationism tangent? No where in the article does it argue between evolution and devine creation. Stick to the issue at hand. And what's with the militant disgust for religion? Give it up, Galileo is long gone. Evolution is fact....period the end, but creationism has not been disproved. Have a great day.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this basically the Endosymbiotic theory in action? It is no coincidence that both our mitochondria and plant's chloroplasts have prokaryotic ribosomes and it's amazing to actually see gene incorporation in action.
Just a few quick points 1: This slug is an animal with certain characteristics of plants....not a half plant sci-fi creature. 2: There is another animal (a type of wasp) that also converts solar radiation into energy (uses sunlight as food). 3: This wasp is also an animal and not a half plant sci-fi creature. 4: Neither of these animals existences significantly affect the debate on creationism vs evolution since proponents of either side rely more on faith (yes the evolutionists as well).... More
Your first three points are correct but redundant and altogether irrelevant to your fourth point, which is just plain wrong. Scientists do not rely on belief, they rely on evidence. Intermediate lifeforms constitute evidence that different species from different kingdoms are not necessarily as discreet and independent as they might at first appear. This supports the evolutionist paradigm. It is not proof, but it is yet another piece of evidence which demonstrates evolution as being a more.... More
Absolutely true.
Science is about observation, evidence, facts and interpreting these facts. Facts are NOT opinions only the interpretation of said facts is an opinion and can be debated.
"You can have your own opinions, but you cannot have your own facts"
HAhahahahaaaa!!!
I thought you were getting to a nice point until you dropped number 4... While the two sides may seem to be equally adamant while arguing, that is irrelevant to the substance of the discussion. The truth is that scientists are the only ones actually studying and dedicating their lives to discovering the truth about nature. So far they're doing a very good job and they are the ultimate source of most of our modern comforts. To drag scientists down to the level of the creationists is deceptive..... More
I'm disappointed that creationist side had to throw in a surprise attack at the end. But I'm also slightly upset about you saying scientists are the only onds dedicating their lives to disovering truth about nature. Although I'm not very upset, good job man. I'm glad someone posted it. If creationists want to believe they found truth for themselves and they don't care what science says that's their own judgement. They're allowed to do that. I'm on the science side for seemingly obvious reasons..... More
I want to take issue with your point where you state that if creationists want to believe they have found the truth for themselves, we should tolerate them and respect their judgement.
If a member of society harboured a delusional belief which compelled them to do destructive things, such an individual would be contained and treated a a mental health patient until their dangerous delusions were dispelled. It is time that we begin regarding creationists in a similar fashion. .... More
You have to admit thats some pretty cool stuff.
total-privacy.edu.tc
People who invoke God as the antidote for "evolutionists"... can you hear yourselves? If these things were discovered 30, or even 20 years ago, would so many religious people have flown off the handle like you're doing?? Please slap yourselves. And stop getting all riled up just because some people are atheists or science keeps discovering things. Religion doesn't explain everything. And neither does science! Religion is supposed to be the repository of holiness and spiritual support, not.... More
Religion doesn't explain anything, but claims to explain everything. Science does not explain everything, but has the potential to explain everything. This is because religion is a system of pre-determined notions which are adhered to in spite of available evidence. Science is a method of which utilizes pre-discovered notions to continuously update and refine its vision of reality. Such a method has no theoretical limit as far as what it can explain.
HAHAHA you atheist can deny it all you want but whenever I see an article like this I realize why evolution is so ridiculous. Plants and animals seperated 'billions of years ago'? And you can't fimnd a common link between humans and chimpanzees, who are supposedly like cousins, but you find a common link between a PLANT and an ANIMAL and defend it by saying "Evolution can be more CREATIVE than I ever imagined"! LMAO! Ohh, you evolutionists are really sad... I'm praying for all of you...
This really reminds of the futurama evolution vs creationists episode..
I just wish someone had the balls to argue that both are true.
The link you refer to does not carry the requirement 'common'.
I feel sorry for you and your immaturity. Why would you be praying for "all of you" when the only reason you will (if at all) t is to feed your smug ego because you think you're right.
You are a perfect example of why creationists are dangerously insane people who should be contained from the rest of society until they can be cured of their delusions. Your comments are so far off the mark and so absurdly uninformed that they virtually unapproachable for specific rebuttal.
- The fact that a specific intermediate link between humans and primates has not been discovered does not mean that one does not exist. With that said, a specific intermediate link was announced in.... More
I just wanted to add that while there has been no intermidiate link discovered, as you say - as do many creationists that holds this fact against atheists - there has also not been discovered any Gods anywhere.
I've discussed with christians about this and their defense is the following: You can't find God because he is in the third heaven (the first heaven being earth, the second space) and isn't made of any material which we humans can understand or comprehend. In other words: Its.... More
Get your facts straight, angry man.
Successful troll is successful
I mean, sure this is strange, but it actually doesn't violate anything that the theory of Evolution lays out. The reporters and scientists are just sensationalizing it so people who don't understand genetics will be interested. Despite what people might think, the mechanics of the cells of all organisms (with a few small exceptions like the arsenic using life forms) are identical.
You think that an animal stealing a plant gene somehow puts a nail in the coffin? Geneticists have been.... More
WTF?
I'm honestly not sure if your comment is real, or just created to incite argument. You usage of "common link" doesn't make any sense. If anything, this type of creature provides more evidence for evolutionary development. You come across as incredibly ignorant, and clearly have no grasp over the concepts of evolution, biology, or anything besides blindly believing a religion that you've been spoon-fed.
Keep praying, Danny, and we'll wait for you to develop critical thinking.... More
I am currently a college student studying Zoology, and all I have to say is that you all are throwing around the word "prove" like it is no big deal. In my courses if I turn in a lab report that says that I "prove" anything I will get an F. Science admits that is fallible, and things change, look at mitosis, and the planets. The only thing you can ever have in Science is support. As for God, I believe in intelligent design because everything I have learned in science so far honestly just.... More
But fitness enhancing mistakes!
The possibility of fallibility in science only furthers this point: simply because we do not know the complete answer now does not mean we will not ever know the whole answer. The self-correction of science is a positive trait. It constantly refines itself in a positive feedback loop, gaining evermore clout. I admit, there have been many terrible decisions, policies, outcomes based bad science (tainted by corporate influence, culture, religious.... More
but, you misunderstand the nature of what is happening. Like yourself, I am a college student - a biology major with a chem minor. The process of evolution would be random and meandering, as you seem to suggest, if it were not for selective pressures. It is not random mistakes that get passed down, but mutations that are "most fit" for a given environment. Of course there is a driving force behind evolution, but its not a god - its natural selection. Nothing in biology makes sense outside.... More
"single sell organisms" ? You should probably proofread before knocking others about their spelling...
Seriously??? Glad you went out of your way to point out the 1 word he spelled wrong. You are clearly a god among men
So I'm a university student studying in biotechnology. Evolutionists sometimes try to push creationists to stop believing in God. Most, simply look at the facts presented to them and come to the conclusion that all living beings on the Earth are connected through DNA. Do some research man we have 14% DNA in common with a common weed. The point to science is disproving theories and yourself until you come to a conclusion that it works in the world. So let me tell you my theory about God without.... More
Excellent post Chad but if you look at nature as a whole there is a reason for everything you said. The will for a species to survive. Look at any animal, plant, bacteria, they all mutate and evolve to survive and reproduce. Its embedded in everything, even humans. Think about mothers, there is a chemical released in their brain to stop them from harming their babies. If this chemical wasn't there then the infant mortality rate would be catastrophically high and the race wouldn't survive. .... More
Very well said, and these are my thoughts exactly.
There is a higher-power, but it isn't a conscious entity, it is just a tendency for matter to form, and on occasion, for that matter to sometimes gain mechanical process, which eventually lead to life as we know it (or maybe life as we don't know it elsewhere in the universe..
Why, despite all the evidence, are there some people still dumb enough to believe in a god to create anything ? Why denying science, which is reliable and serious, to the advantage of believing in a god nobody has ever seen or been able to proove its existence ?...
Nothing is quite so amazing to me as a group of biologists attempting to make authoritative comments on theological considerations. I have a pal he is quite an excellent cook, perhaps we should have him consult on brain surgery? Your suggestion that four thousand years of biblical criticism is incorrect because you have decided that the bible is contradictory is more than just offensive to me, I find it arrogant and asinine a shame that your head should so easily swell youngster!.
Nothing is quite so amazing to me as a group of theologians with no formal training in the sciences attempting to make authoritative comments on scientific considerations. I have a pal he is quite an excellent cook, perhaps we should have him consult on brain surgery? Your suggestion that science, in spite of the fact that it has done more for humanity in the last 200 years than religion did in 2000 years, offends me most deeply! I find it arrogant and asinine a shame that your head should so.... More
Sorry, I didn't finish my point, but you get the idea. Science is a thousand times more useful than religion. To think otherwise is to be delusional, bordering on the insane.
Ill be the first to admit that I don't have all if any of the answers but come one people, don't you think that the Bible would have at least been disputed the most when it was first written and appeared? Its like taking a history book from today and saying someone 2000 years from now would clearly be better qualified to determine what actually happened.
The bible is NOT a history book it is a religious text. With that in mind you are supposed to take religious texts word for word without debate. This is paradoxical because they are constantly being reinterpreted. The bible was written 70 years after Jesus. Explain to me how the authors of a book written 2000 years ago are better qualified on GOD then we are today?
Until you realise that the bible wasn't written in jesus' lifetime or by anyone who knew him, do you know how many gospels there are? Dozens, what makes the ones in your book the right ones? A man who decided to destroy the rest.
Not a god, a man decided that too many stories about your savior would ruin your religion, how do you know he picked the right stories? You don't, he picked the ones that suited his needs best, your entire belief system is based on what a lone man wanted it to.... More
