Slashdot Mirror

You were the one that set this up as an analogy for evolution.
Is that what you did? Read what you wrote

Yes, I brought it up in parrelel with your tests to show how unrealistic they were. I guess it worked.

Here are the five laws of the current theory of evolution: http://www.rattlesnake.com/notions/evolution.html [rattlesnake.com]

Those aren't anywhere close to a law in the scientific sense. I'm not even sure why they were claimed to be laws unless someone is attempting to confuse the issue into a situation where change couldn't be made ever again.

Principles might be a better term to use.

This is the evolution that is being used to make predictions, is being taught in schools, and you would be hard pressed to find a reputable scientist involved with biology that does not support it. The fourth law is gradualism, or "minor evolutionary changes principle" as you put it. Disproving Gradualism would disprove the definition of Evolution that is being used. If you wanted to you could come up with a different theory of evolution, and disproving gradualism might not disprove the alternate theory. In fact, you could do that with anything. But, we are talking about the current theory of evolution and whether or not it can be disproved. It can be.

Making predictions and being taught in schools don't mean it is right. It meas that we have elements of it right enough that we can make predictions either through luck, geological and biological information. Yes, I included geological in with that because we might be just as far off with the time span for observations. Besides, We aren't discussing evolution as a whole, we are discussing speciation or macro evolution as some want to coin it. Now, even with the fourth law, it is possible that a lineage can be the same species. The entire common ancestor is convenient speculation. Remember the missing link?

How is this in any way calling something other than it is? You aren't saying this bird is not a finch. You are saying this bird is X species of finch. The birds have distinct physical and genetic differences. You can call something a ring, or you can call it a diamond ring.

Let me express that a little differently. I though the complete section as a whole would have conveyed this but evidently it hasn't. A finch is a finch. If it looks different or have different qualities, it could be a breed like with the various breeds of dogs and other domesticated animals. Calling a ringneck finch a different species then a house or golden finch is inaccurate. But because it was done at one time, it remains or could remain to be done. It is as if they won't follow the defined parameters for words with specific definitions if it suits them.

Anyway, this wasn't your original argument. Let's disagree with modern day biology and broaden the definition of species. Your original argument was that Darwin was confused about what he was studying and realized his error after returning home. As I showed, his original writings suggest otherwise. Do you have any proof to the contrary?

Actually I do. This is common history about darwin and his theory and I assumed that you knew it. Here, take a look at this site, I know, it is wikipedia but it is also backed up by many history books. You can slo find this is correlated with john gould's accounts of the incidents too. Darwin originally thought he had found new species but they were all different breeds of finches.

So, in all the time undisturbed that the finches freely naturally selected themselves before darwin came onto the scene, not one of

So he painted his room blue" is a valid scientific principle now? Paint as the verb or noun?

You were the one that set this up as an analogy for evolution.

What I created was a stain but it is the same as paint. So, no, it doesn't still depend on the means.

Is that what you did? Read what you wrote:

It is quite simple, you take egg whites or animal fats and mix them with pigments to obtain a desired color and proceed to cover walls. Oops. You just created one of the most primitive forms of paint used by the cavemen.

Removing the minor evolutionary change principle doesn't remove the possibility of drastic mutations caused by whatever source that could still effect interspecies evolution.

Here are the five laws of the current theory of evolution: http://www.rattlesnake.com/notions/evolution.html

This is the evolution that is being used to make predictions, is being taught in schools, and you would be hard pressed to find a reputable scientist involved with biology that does not support it. The fourth law is gradualism, or "minor evolutionary changes principle" as you put it. Disproving Gradualism would disprove the definition of Evolution that is being used. If you wanted to you could come up with a different theory of evolution, and disproving gradualism might not disprove the alternate theory. In fact, you could do that with anything. But, we are talking about the current theory of evolution and whether or not it can be disproved. It can be.

That is arbitrary semantics. Calling something other then what it is, doesn't mean it is something else.

How is this in any way calling something other than it is? You aren't saying this bird is not a finch. You are saying this bird is X species of finch. The birds have distinct physical and genetic differences. You can call something a ring, or you can call it a diamond ring.

Anyway, this wasn't your original argument. Let's disagree with modern day biology and broaden the definition of species. Your original argument was that Darwin was confused about what he was studying and realized his error after returning home. As I showed, his original writings suggest otherwise. Do you have any proof to the contrary?

But the fact of the matter is that in all the years of change before Darwin visited the islands, none of the birds became something other then finches.

If they had, the current theory of evolution would be incorrect. They would have been a drastically different species within a short time period.

God could have, there is no evidence suggesting he didn't. However, it is more likely that the expression of the genes or not come from a principle of conservation of energy through natural forces.

The conservation of energy means that energy is neither created or destroyed. What does this have to with explaining why useless DNA exists without the existence of evolution? Wait. Through natural forces? Do you believe in evolution after all :)?

No we haven't. We have recreated nucleic acids like RNA amd precursors for life but we have have not recreated or created life. Abiogenesis is still something that has escaped science. We have been able to manipulate life but not replicate the abiogenesis process in any form in it's entirety. If someone has told you otherwise, they are most likely misleading you or misinformed themselves. I keep up on these things and I have never heard of that breakthrough.

There are lots of examples where self replicating entities of a biological nature have been created from scratch. Julius Rebek is a good person for you to look into for one example. You could argue that the ability to consume and replicate yourself doesn't quali

Of course it's dangerous! It's space! Vacuum, radiation, and all that. And yes, unmanned probes do a wonderful job scouting things out (look at the Voyager probes and the Mars rovers). But unless we're planning to colonize Mars with von Neumann robots and allow them to become an advanced civilization bent on destroying humanity (cue Battlestar Galactica theme [the old one]), Mankind is eventually going out there to face the hazards.

This is the same argument they made when the idea of going to the Moon came up. Jerome Wiesner, head of the Presidential Science Advisory Committee recomended to Kennedy that unmanned Moon probes would be more cost effective and just as useful in beating the Russians. But the Russian had been besting us in human spaceflight, not probes (it seems like every probe they tried to send to Mars crashed or missed the planet) and in the end, men went to the Moon, though the Surveyor and Ranger probes went there first to scope things out.

What it comes down to is that there are alway Nervous Nellies who look at the expense and/or danger factor involved in something and go "we shouldn't do that" while simultaneously hiding under their beds. The movement of Mankind to space is inevitable, just as Columbus, Magellan, Cook, the Wright Brothers, and Lindbergh leading us into new frontiers was in their time. You can't stop progress, and anyone who thinks we're going to sit here on our over-crowded, polution-tinged rock and let the robots have all the fun is kidding themselves.

Besides, I want a job as an asteroid rockhound.

f=c/lambda

Now wack your sig generator amplitude up and watch your saber glowing green light. Wave around to impress the ladies. Fair enough, 500-600THz is a bit of a stretch in terms of technology... but we're getting there.

Robert J. Chassell was a founding Director and Treasurer of the Free Software Foundation. The FSF was founded to support the GNU Project which restarted the movement towards free software and open sources. The GNU/Linux operating system and associated applications are the outcome of these efforts by the Foundation. Chassell writes and edits. He is the author of An Introduction to Programming in Emacs Lisp, co-author of the "Texinfo" manual, and an editor of more than a dozen other books. He graduated from Cambridge University, in England. He flies his own airplane, enjoys astronomy, and has an abiding interest in social and economic history.

Chassell is especially good at introducing the concepts of free software to audiences who have little or no previous experience with the technology.

Chassell can address the following topics:

• He can explain how your legal rights to copy, study, modify, and redistribute software encourage people to work collaboratively and profitably.
• He can describe the way freedom shapes the technology of software to make it accessible and empowering for both programmers and users.
• He can discuss the various business models used by companies to make profits with free software, both in rich and poor countries.
• He can speak on the ethical implications of free and restricted software, and how to arrange matters such that acting in a cooperative and law abiding manner is without doubt the best action, for legal, moral, and practical reasons.
• He can walk an audience of lawyers, and others who enjoy legal discussion, through the GNU General Public License paragraph by paragraph, and compare that license with other, somewhat different licenses.
• From his own experience, he can describe the history of free software from its beginning in the GNU Project through the rise of the phrase "open source" to the present flowering of GNU/Linux.

Chassell speaks English, and has experience speaking to crowds for whom English is a second language.

Robert J. Chassell was a founding Director and Treasurer of the Free Software Foundation. The FSF was founded to support the GNU Project which restarted the movement towards free software and open sources. The GNU/Linux operating system and associated applications are the outcome of these efforts by the Foundation. Chassell writes and edits. He is the author of An Introduction to Programming in Emacs Lisp, co-author of the "Texinfo" manual, and an editor of more than a dozen other books. He graduated from Cambridge University, in England. He flies his own airplane, enjoys astronomy, and has an abiding interest in social and economic history.

Chassell is especially good at introducing the concepts of free software to audiences who have little or no previous experience with the technology.

Chassell can address the following topics:

• He can explain how your legal rights to copy, study, modify, and redistribute software encourage people to work collaboratively and profitably.
• He can describe the way freedom shapes the technology of software to make it accessible and empowering for both programmers and users.
• He can discuss the various business models used by companies to make profits with free software, both in rich and poor countries.
• He can speak on the ethical implications of free and restricted software, and how to arrange matters such that acting in a cooperative and law abiding manner is without doubt the best action, for legal, moral, and practical reasons.
• He can walk an audience of lawyers, and others who enjoy legal discussion, through the GNU General Public License paragraph by paragraph, and compare that license with other, somewhat different licenses.
• From his own experience, he can describe the history of free software from its beginning in the GNU Project through the rise of the phrase "open source" to the present flowering of GNU/Linux.

Chassell speaks English, and has experience speaking to crowds for whom English is a second language.

Robert J. Chassell was a founding Director and Treasurer of the Free Software Foundation. The FSF was founded to support the GNU Project which restarted the movement towards free software and open sources. The GNU/Linux operating system and associated applications are the outcome of these efforts by the Foundation. Chassell writes and edits. He is the author of An Introduction to Programming in Emacs Lisp, co-author of the "Texinfo" manual, and an editor of more than a dozen other books. He graduated from Cambridge University, in England. He flies his own airplane, enjoys astronomy, and has an abiding interest in social and economic history.

Chassell is especially good at introducing the concepts of free software to audiences who have little or no previous experience with the technology.

Chassell can address the following topics:

• He can explain how your legal rights to copy, study, modify, and redistribute software encourage people to work collaboratively and profitably.
• He can describe the way freedom shapes the technology of software to make it accessible and empowering for both programmers and users.
• He can discuss the various business models used by companies to make profits with free software, both in rich and poor countries.
• He can speak on the ethical implications of free and restricted software, and how to arrange matters such that acting in a cooperative and law abiding manner is without doubt the best action, for legal, moral, and practical reasons.
• He can walk an audience of lawyers, and others who enjoy legal discussion, through the GNU General Public License paragraph by paragraph, and compare that license with other, somewhat different licenses.
• From his own experience, he can describe the history of free software from its beginning in the GNU Project through the rise of the phrase "open source" to the present flowering of GNU/Linux.

Chassell speaks English, and has experience speaking to crowds for whom English is a second language.

You might be interested in An Introduction to Programming in Emacs Lisp.

of these - enough power for a notebook, wireless, and more. Solar may be neat but it just can't compete with burning refined dinosaur era hydrocarbons (sunlight energy from long ago locked up in chemical form). Of course, there's only a limited supply of it left....hmmmm.