5 ms·
(Disclaimer: I'm reading HN because I'm procrastinating work on my Ph.D. thesis...on an evolutionary model ;-) There isn't a good reason why this would ever ma
by jballanc 17y ago
(Disclaimer: I'm reading HN because I'm procrastinating work on my Ph.D. thesis...on an evolutionary model ;-)
There isn't a good reason why this would ever matter to someone.
How's this for a reason why it should matter: You pay taxes, as do your neighbors. When you pay those taxes, you expect them to pay for things you feel are worth while. You also vote, and you will probably vote for people who you are confident will steer those tax dollars to projects you feel are worth while.
I'm a scientist (or at least, I am for now...I don't think I'll be able to make a living at it for much longer. I'll have to get a "real" job). Most of the research I do is funded, directly or indirectly, by tax dollars. When the people who value evolution and an understanding of the biological world had their way, a lot of money was steered toward funding that sort of research. Then, people who didn't accept evolution came into power. They steered money away from this sort of research, and into fighting wars of aggression. For nearly the past decade, funding has remained flat (after doubling in the preceding 5 years...a rate which was probably too fast, but that's a whole 'nother story).
Why would you care about my research? Well, I research evolution. Specifically, I'm interested in how to determine what factors will function as selective pressures a priori. Why is that important? Remember last April when OMG SWINE FLU!!!1!!11 Do you remember the pundits and professors and learned people of all sorts that got on the TV and the radio? Do you remember the hosts of all those show asking: Now what? How bad? And do you remember that nobody could give a straight answer?
You know why they couldn't give a straight answer? It's not so much because the don't know why the flu might be more or less severe. There's been a lot of research into that lately, and we have a good idea what mutations might make the flu a killer, and which are mostly harmless. No, the reason they couldn't give you a straight answer is because which of those mutations would be acquired, and in what proportions, depends on evolution, on selective pressures...and we can't predetermine what those selective pressures will be! Maybe we could, if you'd be ok giving some tax dollars to fund evolution research, or at least vote for people who would be ok with that.
Oh, and for the entrepreneurs that will predictably say that I shouldn't rely on the government for funding, and that I should instead count on the private sector? Here's the deal I'll offer you (and I think you'll be hard pressed to find a better offer): I give you a 5% probability that the research I will do in the next, say, 40 years, at a cost of only $15mil a year, will lead to being better able to predict where the next pandemic might occur. Would you fund me? Or, more importantly, could you find a government that would allow us to keep that information as a trade secret until the original investment of $600mil (adjusted for 40 years of inflation, of course) was recouped?
/rant phew...now about that thesis...
- rv77ax 17y ago(^ that was the longest comment i ever read on HN) there is one thing that i don't understand about evolution. if evolution is true than human, bear, elephant, and any-big-animal-that-exist-today-except-whale should be the "biggest" thing that happened today, after evolving. but, why there is exist monstrous animal like t-Rex, whale, mammoth, etc. ? EDIT: for anyone who could not see my face when typing this, "that was the longest comment i ever read on HN" is a compliment, not a sarcasm.
- chrischen 17y agoI'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. Are you saying that things can only evolve to become physically bigger, but not smaller? Why is that true?
- rv77ax 17y ago> I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. there is a theories that say human ancestor evolve after dinosaurs extinct, and another theories say human and dinosaurs live coexist. so, if i take first theories it's like saying "how can a thing evolve so big like dinosaurs, but human does not exist yet ?"; or if i take the second theories it's like saying "OK, first experiment is fail, let's try evolve to another morph" same like saying we evolve because an accident. see, how confused am here ? > Are you saying that things can only evolve to become physically bigger, but not smaller ? no. i believe it's become smaller. FYI, this evolution-y thing is new to me, in fact i don't care, until recently. it's not as much as am interested in tech and music. so please forgive me for my poor knowledge. and asking does not mean rejecting.
- chrischen 17y ago> ...and another theories say human and dinosaurs live coexist. Are you sure that wasn't a movie? I've never heard of the theory that humans and dinosaurs coexisted, at least not with credible evidence. It's probably something the creationists propagated. Evolution is partly by chance. But evolution takes millions of years. So basically, what are the chances of something like humans eventually coming along? Well apparently after millions and millions of years and countless iterations of random morphs the chances are good. It's like a startup, except without smart founders behind it. That's why it takes so long and so many iterations before evolution gets it "right." With a startup if you get something wrong you change it because the previous method failed (if you don't change it the startup fails). In evolution the species that doesn't get it "right" fails. The iteration of the species that does get it right obviously continues to thrive. So over millions of years there are constantly new iterations and the best ones make it through to now. If this is new to you, it shouldn't be. Where are you from? As far as I know all schools in the US should get you up to speed with evolution. But judging from your writing you're probably not from an english speaking country?