Slashdot Mirror

Yes there is. There are many graphs like this.
http://globalization.icaap.org/content/special/Leigh01.png

Star catalogs aren't data: they're the results of decades of observations, corroborations, corrections and debates over just exactly what that particular black spot on the white plate was. You want the raw telemetry from every telescope that isn't read out with a Mark I eyeball, and every plate ever taken and scientist's observation note from those that were? You want all the calibration data from WMAP, and all the histograms that were plotted to analyze them and turn them into corrections for the main data so they actually *mean* something?

Particle physics, "data" is the 1s and 0s from every piece of sensory equipment in the detector hall, beam area and points between: often millions of readout channels, each of which means something and has its own quirks and problems that need to be measured and understood with more and different types of data (calibration, cosmic rays, etc). And, these readings are taken at frequencies between thousands and millions of times per second. We often have to analyze the data to a preliminary level just to decide whether they're worth keeping to analyze properly later because there's neither the bandwidth nor the storage space nor the computing power -- even now -- to keep them all. The LHC experiments store petabytes of data per month, and storage, access and transfer costs are significant: you pay for access to those data by contributing to the experiment.

OK, now let's assume you get the raw data. Now what? Good luck with that. There's a reason scientist groups and expert contractors spend years and sometimes decades writing the reconstruction and analysis software for particle physics experiments: teasing useful results from the data are hard. If we were to spend our timing pointing out the rookie mistakes of every schmo who fiddled with the data for a while and thought he'd found something new, the work would never be done. "Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle Untenable," anyone?

If you're implying that the egg came first, you're wrong, but not for the reason you might suspect. The question is not about evolution of eggs or chickens, and pre-dates evolutionary theory. Originally it was probably a metaphysical question, how do you have a chicken that lays eggs without either a chicken or an egg? It never was about timetables, it was about where do things come from if they don't exist?

"If there has been a first man he must have been born without father or mother -- which is repugnant to nature. For there could not have been a first egg to give a beginning to birds, or there should have been a first bird which gave a beginning to eggs; for a bird comes from an egg."

Aristotle, (Isis Unveiled I, 428.)
http://www.blavatsky.net/magazine/theosophy/ww/additional/ancientlandmarks/PlatoAndAristotle.html

With the your understanding, we can declare eggs the winner. But it still does not quell the anti-evolutionary forces which ask ok fine, which came first the dinosaur or the egg? The question can be rephrased for today's audience as: how do codependent traits arise? How can something irreducibly complex as the human visual system come from nothing?

We know the answers to those questions, roughly speaking, just as we knew the answer to this one. But we didn't have a concrete explanation of just how that happened.

In addition, the questino of chicken-egg primacy has always implied hard-shelled eggs, at least to my understanding. So reptiles and extinct species would not count. Hard shells came from the same place chickens did, at the same time, is the implication. Finding the protein means we have an explanation that hard shells are independent of an actual chicken. Many reptile species probably contain the ability to create this protein, but it is supressed or under-developed. Finding that would be the best way to put to rest anti-scientific rhetoric. The hard-shell egg probably came both before and after chickens, and we have just the one species left that has both chickenness and hard eggs.

An updated version of the question is asked and addressed here, along the lines of your thought, but this is merely grafting modern terminology onto an ancient question and making it a concrete, rather than abstract question:
http://radicalpedagogy.icaap.org/content/issue5_2/04_garner.html

but clearly mathmatics doesn't exist as some kind of absolute form.

The meaning of "exists" unnecessarily complicates any argument pertaining to math and logic. All theorems in math and logic follow directly from the axioms upon which it is founded. So all theorems are discoveries. The axioms themselves are often postulated, or invented, by observing something in the world around us, or a relationship in another math or logic. So axioms too are both invented, and discovered.

the egg comes first folks since the first instance of what we define as "a chicken" was a genetic aberration born to a non-chicken

The egg the first chicken hatched from was NOT a chicken egg though, it was an egg from the chicken's progenitor, as the hen constructs the eggs not the embryo (assuming it was hatched at all, and if it wasn't the chicken comes first anyway). The egg material and structure of the chicken's progenitor could differ from its mutated offspring, thus, a chicken hatched from its progenitor's egg, not from a chicken egg. This same argument can be extended inductively back to the creation of the first egg-bearing species, likely a singular or multi-cellular organism, from its a progentior, a non egg-bearing species, by whatever mechanism its progenitor reproduces. So in fact, contrary to popular belief, and your own deductive reasoning, the chicken came first.

Better than endowing mediocrity. Some children are never going to amount to anything useful in a society where all service jobs can be replaced by robotic systems. What do you with them? No one knows.

here are two pages that deal with the subject. one and two.

here are two pages that deal with the subject. one and two.