Slashdot Mirror
Slashback: OpenDocument, Intelligent Design, More DRM
Sony still not "getting it". c writes "Mark Russinovich continues his investigation of Sony's DRM as he tries out the official uninstaller. His verdict? 'I've analyzed virulent forms of spyware/adware that provide more straightforward means of uninstall.'" Relatedly Cronos1388 writes "According to the Inquirer an Italian group is also suing Sony over the rootkit." Also, an unexpected side effect of this technology is that script kiddies have been able to leverage Sony's tool to hide unauthorized cheat programs from the watchful eye of MMO creators.
Intelligent design supporters ousted. PMuse writes "The Register and others are reporting that all eight of the members of the Dover, PA school board that had required Intelligent Design to be taught alongside Evolution have been canned by voters in yesterday's election."
What does avian flu look like? DevL writes "Swedish photographer Lennart Nilsson has managed to capture images of a H5N1 (bird flu) virus entering and taking control of a cell. While the text is in Swedish, the images speak for themselves."
Torrent user goes up the river. stinerman writes to tell us that the Hong Kong man who was recently arrested for making several movies available via BitTorrent has had his sentence handed down. Chan aka "Big Crook" uploaded Daredevil, Red Planet, and Miss Congeniality which landed him 3 months in jail.
Golden weighs in on OpenDocument debate. OSS_ilation writes "With so much FUD and anti-FUD flying in the face of Massachusetts' decision to go with OpenDocument, it's no surprise that open source advocate Bernard Golden weighs in with his take on current events."
User says new downloadable television just plain "sucks." Thomas Hawk writes "In the past few weeks the three major studios have all announced deals to begin offering downloadable television for consumers -- Apple/ABC, DirecTV/NBC, and Comcast/CBS. The problem with each of these respective offerings is that they largely suck. Apple sells expensive low res limited television from ABC. NBC's new service will only work on DirecTV DVRs (uh hello McFly, why pay money for this service when I can just record it for free). And CBS' downloadable programming could contain commercials."
I not sure their desire to put in DRM on their CDs won't cause them more grief than it saved them in non-pirated copies of the disc (which is probably already on P2P sites, most probably because of this fiasco)
...that they went after the guy that uploaded Daredevil, Red Planet, and Miss Congeniality. Does this mean that they are really serious and will protect their copyrighted materials no matter how crappy they may be? Or, are they so pissed at this guy for reminding P2P users that these three movies were made that they had to do something to punish him? If the latter, I hope whoever posted Gigli on eDonkey has a good lawyer.
blarg.
Why don't the networks give people the choice to either download HDTV shows in WITH ADS from their site for FREE or download HDTV shows WITHOUT ADS for $2.00? They could even create their own torrent type network that only works with their network to lessen the load.
The H5N1 SWF is like watching clouds,
before a tornado rips you apart,
Apple video uses QVGA, which is Quater VGA. It means exactly what you think it does, you can put 4 tiles of QVGA into one VGA image. That's 320x240 pixels. 320x240 VERY compressed pixels. VGA is the same resolution as NTSC. Yes, it's crappier than network television quality, if that's possible.
Go to TorrentSpy.com and download a 350 meg episode of Prison Break. With just DSL you can download faster than you can watch. Or go for a 700 meg version, which is insane quality.
These are just words, and words can not describe the bullshit that Apple is selling.
Recent developments in Kansas have paved the way for the largest increase of "Science" class offerings to our next generation of young Americans. Take "CZO140: A field study of the behavior of Unicorns" for example. Students will learn how to make Unicorn calls, analyze a maidens purity through Unicorn reactions and extract faerie dust from Unicorn droppings. For years "Rational Science" has frowned upon the link between faerie dust and Unicorn dung, likening it to a futile study of plain old horse shit. But now that science is not limited to natural explanations of phenomena jobs in academia are readily available to anyone with a wild imagination and a fragile grasp on reality!
detailed at Washingtonpost.com's Security fix blog.:
From the article: "A class-action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of California consumers who may have been harmed by anti-piracy software installed by some Sony music CDs. A second, nationwide class-action lawsuit is expected to be filed against Sony in a New York court on Wednesday seeking relief for all U.S. consumers who have purchased any of the 20 music CDs in question.
The suit alleges that Sony's software violates at least three California statutes, including the "Consumer Legal Remedies Act," which governs unfair and/or deceptive trade acts; and the "Consumer Protection against Computer Spyware Act," which prohibits -- among other things -- software that takes control over the user's computer or misrepresents the user's ability or right to uninstall the program. The suit also alleges that Sony's actions violate the California Unfair Competition law, which allows public prosecutors and private citizens to file lawsuits to protect businesses and consumers from unfair business practice."
The Post also has a PDF of the California filing and suggests another nationwide class action will be filed in New York shortly.
Sony may have a black eye over this, but in the end they are gonna win. In fact all the big media conflagrations are going to win.. Its not because their music is better, its because the minute they hear something open and interesting they just copy it, change it around and feed it to the million of idiots paying for their antiquated system of development (read theft). They have been stealing IP (intellectual property) for so long,that they feel they can do anything. Well not only *can* but *will*... Thats the reason you don't hear anything new out there, and the reason the song mills of Nashville, LA, and New York are busier than ever. Busy churning out shit.. Why should they reward creativity that does not fit in with their designs on control? They don't have to because they can clone any sound and any look. They not only can they do.. Thats why most of the great music is dead. They don't really need DRM, they already have a version of it far superior.. that being total A&R control.. They want minions of slave musicians.. and they have it. If i sound embittered it because I am, but not for the most obvious reasons. although they all are valid/
On related news about the Sony DRM,
Antivirus companies are going to start detecting it as harmful software:
http://news.com.com/Antivirus+firms+target+Sony+co py+protection/2100-1029_3-5942265.html
The article also has claims from CA that the DRM damages the computer's ability to make rips of ANY CDs including non-copyrighted CDs.
According to Computer Associates, the Sony software makes itself a default media player on a computer after it is installed. The software then reports back the user's Internet address and identifies which CDs are played on that computer. Intentionally or not, the software also seems to damage a computer's ability to "rip" clean copies of MP3s from non-copy protected CDs, the security company said. "It will effectively insert pseudo-random noise into a file so that it becomes less listenable," said Sam Curry, a Computer Associates vice president. "What's disturbing about this is the lack of notice, the lack of consent, and the lack of an easy removal tool."
And the original patch has been replaced by one one third of the size. Mark Russinovich posted new info on the (smaller) patch on his blog showing it causes BSODs in Windows.
http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.j html?articleID=173601122
If they do start including commercials in downloadable TV, what's to stop people editing them out?
I am so sick of this.
I am also a True Believer and attend a worship service every Sunday.
That said, ID is NOT true science. It is simply a score of men who wish to get nonsense into our textbooks.
We MUST stop ID!
If you "get" pointers add me as a friend (116)!
Is if Sony practices what they preach?? If I start sharing $SYS$Daredevil.AVI and $SYS$AllMetalicaSongs.mp3.zip, will their network monitoring tools not notice it? Seeing what they have done with their little rootkit, that seems only logical for them..
What are we going to do tonight Brain?
Kudos to Bernard Golden for a well written article. It summarizes the situation well and gives several perspectives - historical one, that of Microsoft, that of State of Massachusetts. I am often dissapointed by blogs written by "technology experts", but I was impressed by Golden.
blarg.
OpenDocument DRM, Intelligently Designed.
I think the interest in Sony's rootkit methods will only grow as spyware writers begin to include a rootkit with their install routines, so that Spybot, MS Antispyware, and competitors will begin to have further trouble cleaning up customer's computers. Perhaps it's already started?
And as a side note, today AVG detected my Adaware 1.06.exe file as containing a trojan downloader. I guess whichever site like Download.com that I got it from was less than trustworthy, or has Adaware gone to the dogs according to Grisoft.com?
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
"Pennsylvania is Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in between" is the quote from James Carville and his joke is a pretty accurate portrayal of the state. It is good to see this garbage get quashed in an area like that. Maybe we can have some hope in this area for Kansas. This atheist is all for those Christians reveling in their salvation and even getting crazy in the public square, but keep your filthy mitts off of science class. Go sell crazy somewhere else, like comparative religions or macro economics.
In other words, the lawyers are lining up to ease the pain of the affected consumers by securing a $2 off coupon for the next DRM'ed CD while collecting $12 million for themselves.
If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
Since the Avian flu video couldn't be purchased online because it sucks, and the DVD's can't be purchased because they have a rootkit, the State of Massachussets proposed to download an Open Document version of it. Luckily, this became available for all, including intelligent design proponents in Kansas who realized someone very evil had to design those viruses, because they couldn't just simply evolve. In related news, a new torrent file of the Avian Flu virus was distributed in Hong Kong, but a misunderstanding led to the government think that the distributor was actually committing bioterrorism, so they got him arrested. In his defense, he said: "the Flying Spaguetti Monster made me do it."
It is nice to know that some people in the US aren't so apathetic that they will pay attention, fight this ID crap, and actually win. Score one for Pennsylvania.
If only the same thing could happen in Kansas (among others).
Though, I expect this whole thing to get a lot worse before it gets better.
Glad to hear voters in Dover chucked all 8 school board members trying to force creationism into the public school system. I have been following the Dover case on the online newspapers from Dover - lots of allegations floating around about several of the board members having perjured themselves. Which would be par for the course.
Those obscene damage awards, while doing little for the consumers but lots for attorneys, do accomplish one important thing: deterrence. So it's a win-win. The lawyers get paid, and the people who bought the DRM-infected CDs don't have to come up with the money to hire a lawyer to sue.
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
... enough energy for your Entropy to equal infinity.
This does NOT make YOU God, however.
If the second coming ever happens, God is going to be so busy, with the troubles of his own flock, and of course, twits like you.
Me, I'm hoping there's enough of my corpse left for the Valkiries to carry me back to Valhalla, to spend Eternity drinking and whoring with Thor and that bunch; I'm sure Heaven would be fucking boring.
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
I find it interesting that despite the Mass. government moving to the OpenDocument format, Microsoft chose my school, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, as a "Microsoft IT Showcase School."
ID is NOT science, there fore it doesn't belong in a science class.
I, for one, would like to thank Kansas for taking the first step that leads us to a new dark age!
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I'd like to be the first to thank the citizens of Kansas for stepping up to the plate and speaking against the egregious mistake that the board made.
No wait, this is comedy: It should be "your," not "you're." Who is stoopid now?
" NTSC is 720x480, not 640x480."
l s
Its neither of those resolutions.
Take a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTSC#Technical_detai
and you'll see that while NTSC allows for up to 525 scan lines, only 480 are used due to their use for specific purposes (i.e. sync, vertical retrace)
For the horizontal resolution, the limit is really how small the dots that can be made, but in practice, that amouts to 440 (http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/vidres.htm).
Thus, the maximum resolution of NTSC is 480x440.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Heavens! Commercials you say?
You want hi-res Hollywood quality (Lost) television on the cheap with no advertisements? Come on.
To say a service sucks, go ahead and cite things like low-resolution, klunky DRM, limited playback options, platform dependence, or anything like that. But don't complain that their either charging for it or showing ads.
Ok, I rarely comment on lame moderation, but really, you're currently moded "Flamebait" for that?!? Someone needs to turn in their geek card and have their moderation responsibilities take away from them. Until someone can come up with an experiment to prove the existence of a deity, that's not flamebait, it's fact. "Intelligent Design" is not a Scientific Theory, it's not even really qualifiable as a Scientific Hypothesis... in order to be either there would need to be a way to test it. There are experiments to test all sorts of wacky quantum physics things, but not I.D., and there is a reason for that. How the heck do you propose to prove that "some intelligent designer" "guides" evolutionary forces?
Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean that it's done by magic.
Thank god those school board lamers got voted out. The petty power-hungry jerks that end up on school boards in America, I swear... they're the worst... you just *know* there are real, serious needs of the students that went unaddressed while these guys were pushing their religious agenda.
Whew. The system works. In the time it took me to write and preview my comment, you went from flamebait to insightful. Faith in humanity partially restored, given that and recent election results ;-)
Careful, don't irritate those valkyries that take you away, otherwise you'll be hearing:
... and if you keep annoying them, they'll just make weird horse noises and mumble to themselves.
"This is very interesting...but stupid."
"I have ways of blowing things up."
"You're being very naughty."
"Who's your mommy?"
"One of the old school board members who lost his seat in the election has said he will challenge the result. Voting machines recorded no votes for James Cashman at all in one precinct, but in others he says he polled plenty of votes."
Sounds like grounds for a hand-recount of that precinct. Sadly, unless the race was close there probably won't be one.
Anyone know if these were those new-fangled paperless-you-can't-recount-them-by-hand machines?
If they are, the Pennsylvania may go the way of California and add a paper audit trail.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
all eight of the members of the Dover, PA school board that had required Intelligent Design to be taught alongside Evolution have been canned by voters in yesterday's election.
That Schoolboard actually has nine members, of which only eight came up for reelection this year.
You can expect the ninth to get the boot next year, but for now, they still have one idiot left. Let's just hope their charter doesn't include a lot of ways for a lone moron voice to cause endless trouble.
I would hope Sony recalls these (I would call them infected) CDs and replaces them with a clean copy for free. Maybe Sony could even pay for someone to come over to the customer's house and manually remove the rootkit Sony so generously installed for you. Now THAT would be justice.
There are no theories in evolution about how life began. You're yet another example of why people who don't know what they're talking about should keep it shut.
Overreact much?
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
How the heck do you propose to prove that "some intelligent designer" "guides" evolutionary forces? How the heck to you propose to prove that life spontaneously emerged from nothing? I don't want religion in science classes, but I do want honesty. If scientific observation indicates that current theories are inadequate to explain the complexities biological structures, why would you want to supress that information?
"There are no theories in evolution about how life began."
I know. One time, someone tried to tell me that Darwin's work was called "Origin of Species". Some people are just so dumb.
Learn the scientific method, read Origin of Species, and read Darwin's Black Box. (Brief History of Time might come in handy too, though "brief" is a relative term here.) THEN you may discuss the ID v Evolution debate.
While you're at it, teach your kids the scientific method. School won't.
Inteligent Design is "science" once you redefine the term "science" to be more broad minded. It's like Microsoft redefining "Open" file formats to include Microsoft Word. *Heh* Perhaps we'll see an "Intelligent Document" format come out of Redmond soon.
No no no no no. You don't understand. Big bang, Evolution and ID are not scientific theories. The first two are facts and the last one is something for slashdotters to mock. /sarcasm
That said, ID is NOT true science.
Well, unless you take a page out of the Kansas school board's book, and redefine the term. Heh!
If Intelligent Design were toilet paper, I wouldn't even wipe my ass with it.
~X~
~X~
"We MUST stop ID!"
GOD COMMANDS IT!
Wait a minute......
Become a pirate to stop global warming!
http://www.venganza.org/
Unless you're talking about Intelligent Falling, then all bets are off. In all seriousness, this is just a little speedbump in the march of progress. The Kansas creationists tried this in 1999, and got voted out. Now they're are back, but they'll be easier to beat this time. Teaching creationism was found to be unconstitutional in Edwards v. Aguillard. In the Intelligent Design (ID) trial in Dover, strong evidence has been presented showing that "ID" is a drop-in replacement for "scientific creationism." For instance, in the ID book "Pandas and People" we have the remains of a word processor search and replace operation with "cdesign proponentsists" being the resulting "transitional fossil," as Pandas' Thumb puts it. The Dover transcripts make for some particularily hilarious reading, especially Mike Behe's testimony, or when members of the Dover school board perjure themselves. We can count on a trial taking place in Kansas very soon, and it will go in much the same manner as it did in Dover. The Kansas Kangaroo Court has already laid the groundwork, providing good evidence on the motivations of the IDers, and how they are indistinguishable from creationists. These guys have shot themselves in the foot so badly that if either Dover or Kansas went to the Supreme Court it is hard to imagine the outcome for ID being any different than it was in the Edwards v. Aguillard decision back in '87. The two dissenters in Edwards v. Aguillard were Scalia (predictable) and Rhenquist, so even with if Roberts and Alito* vote theocratic (unlikely, they seem rational to me, at least) it'll be a 5-4 split with ID losing. IANAL, tho. I think the big take home message of this is that all of us who care about science need to keep up on what the kooks are doing. While I'm fond of following the creationist movement and even have a small collection of creationists books I've picked up from used book stores, I don't have the slightest idea of who is on the local school board and whether they are pro- or anti-science. That's going to change, though.
How the heck to you propose to prove that life spontaneously emerged from nothing?
How do you propose to prove that God spontaneously emerged from nothing? And let's not have the "oh he was always there" chickenshit answer - if that can happen with God, it can happen with the Universe.
Plus, evolution makes no comment on the origin of life. It is a theory on the origin of new species, which is a different thing entirely.
If scientific observation indicates that current theories are inadequate to explain the complexities biological structures, why would you want to supress that information?
That information is not being surpressed. Scientists acknowledge that, for example, we don't know what was around prior to the Big Bang. Scientists acknowledge that we're not sure of the exact mechanism of the beginning of biological life. Scientists acknowledge that we're still learning bits about how evolution works.
Intelligent design is being surpressed, but that's a different story alltogether. ID is just saying "we don't know how this works yet, so LET'S MAKE SHIT UP!"
Are You Infected by Sony-BMG's Rootkit? has a list of known infected CDs.
Here's the list as of this post:
==========
Trey Anastasio, Shine (Columbia)
Celine Dion, On ne Change Pas (Epic)
Neil Diamond, 12 Songs (Columbia)
Our Lady Peace, Healthy in Paranoid Times (Columbia)
Chris Botti, To Love Again (Columbia)
Van Zant, Get Right with the Man (Columbia)
Switchfoot, Nothing is Sound (Columbia)
The Coral, The Invisible Invasion (Columbia)
Acceptance, Phantoms (Columbia)
Susie Suh, Susie Suh (Epic)
Amerie, Touch (Columbia)
Life of Agony, Broken Valley (Epic)
Horace Silver Quintet, Silver's Blue (Epic Legacy)
Gerry Mulligan, Jeru (Columbia Legacy)
Dexter Gordon, Manhattan Symphonie (Columbia Legacy)
The Bad Plus, Suspicious Activity (Columbia)
The Dead 60s, The Dead 60s (Epic)
Dion, The Essential Dion (Columbia Legacy)
Natasha Bedingfield, Unwritten (Epic)
Ricky Martin, Life (Columbia) (labeled as XCP, but, oddly, our disc had no protection)
Several other Sony-BMG CDs are protected with a different copy-protection technology, sourced from SunnComm, including:
My Morning Jacket, Z
Santana, All That I Am
Sarah McLachlan, Bloom Remix Album
==========
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
No. Just the people in the south, great plains, and portions of Pennsylvania (All except Lancaster, Alleghenny, and greater Philly)
"Hello 911? I just tried to toast some bread, and the toaster grew an arm and stabbed me in the face!"
"...all eight of the members of the Dover, PA school board that had required Intelligent Design to be taught alongside Evolution have been canned by voters in yesterday's election." :P
Can I just say "Amen to that!"
I have to admit to finding the whole situation somewhat bemusing, I'm English and historically the Church and State are not so seperate (i.e within the Church of England) yet we have none of these problems (although social contexts with this respect are, I understand, pretty different). I'm not even sure if there would be a system/law to prevent ideas like this seeping into our education system (short of decent common sense).
What is equally confusing is why the religious groups are so against classifying their views as a philosophy or a theological opinion? Both are respectable academic fields, yet the war wages on against science. Is it that they preceive science as being more valid, and therefore must associate their religious thinking with it?
Look here dumbass, if you are brainwashed into thinking evolution has anything to do with the big bang, with amino acid formation, with anything relatively close to origins of life issues, you've been had by the fundies and need a bitchslap. I suggest you go to your dictionary and look up the word "Evolution" in the english language. Then come back and see tell me where it says anything about Origins. In case you're just too lame, here is a link for you to click lamo http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evolution
It takes a mental genius to redefine a term and then bash it.
A good portion of the voting Americans are crazy anti-science religious zealots, who are well-organized, and write lots of letters to Congressmen. How do you think Bush got elected? Well, a good portion of the Bush electorate are simply rich people who want to keep their tax breaks and ability to pollute without repercussion (specifically his homies in Texas--I'm looking at you, ALCOA).
Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a soportar Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a espabilar
Uh, you are wrong. Origin of Species talks about how one species may, or may not, give rise to additional species. Perhaps you should go read it a bit. Brief History of Time, while an excllent read, is more appropriate for universe origins stuff, but has nothing to do with populations of living organisms. Behe's & Dembski's lunitic ravings require us to dismiss most of the stuff that we've learned from chaos, quantum, and complexity theories since thier inceptions. However, their rationalles based upon ad hominem tactics haven't been limited by reality nor anything more complex than high school algebra.
You may not post much, but you should probably post less, considering how much stupidity you managed to pack into that one post. Also, I love the lecture about how the guy should read the Origin of Species when it's painfully obvious that you have never done so.
I'm putting together a letter to Microsoft right now, regarding this Sony rootkit disaster. Basically, it asks MS to publically come out opposed to this sort of behavior. This is exactly the kind of programming that MS (claims, at least) gives Windows a bad name. MS consistently says that it is bad applications and bad drivers that cause stability problems, and that spyware and viruses are mostly Windows centric because Windows is the most dominanat desktop platform.
Yet when Sony installs a DRM rootkit, with now exposed security and stability issues, MS says nothing. Sony's DRM only works on Windows, thus giving a reason to move to Mac OS and Linux, and by not censuring this kind of behavior, MS effectively says "it's okay for vendors to cripple our OS and drive business to our competitors, it's okay for Sony to implicitly install a bad driver, it's okay for Sony to make a mockery of our OS, and to make public one of it's weaknesses".
It's embarassing for those folks who administer Windows machines to have to go into work, and be asked why they still run Window's boxen when the one big advantage of MS - support from a large company - is nowhere to be found when blackhat tactics like rootkits are used by a major vendor. Even a well written rootkit (which this is not) still will introduce bugs in other applications that must go through the same subsystem the kit is bound to - having this kind of tactic tacitly approved of by the software vendor only leads to a world where it's more dangerous to upgrade applications, for fear of conflict - the traditional Linux distro problem, now twice as bad in the Windows world.
I urge everyone to point these facts out to MS. Even if MS approves of this kind of user bait and switch, and over invasive DRM on principle, I believe these arguments will force MS into the position of having to publically disapprove. Which has the nice side effect of giving this invasion of consumer rights the attention in the media that it deserves.
Many current boards of education are there because (a) they're the only ones who cared enough to run, or (b) they were elected to oust the sort of people who want to show first graders how to use condoms. "Public" schools have become a battleground for people who want to warp everybody's children their way. Everyone loses.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
It may also be possible that they could force your customers to register for the right to use your software (so they know who to 'go after', in cutting off your air supply).
And, of course, if your company gets bought out, your license disappears.
I can see lenders and shareholders running screaming from any business that embarks on a major undertaking, having accepted these terms. You would have to be either foolish or desparate to do so unless you could recoup the full cost of your endeavor with your first contract (which could raise the cost of your contract, making you non-competetive).
Unlike the ODF, which (contrary to MS's FUD) does not place any restrictions on a company using it(*), Microsoft's XML license would leave any company accepting it at the abject mercy of a convicted monopolist.
Good luck. You'll need it.
(*)Unlike KOffice (which also implements ODF), Open Office is LGPL, which means that a company could legaly compile in proprietary extensions to OO without having to release their own code. That is, in fact, precisely what SUN does with StarOffice. This opens up opportunities for local vendors that would never be available under MS-Office.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
What a crappy list of artists. Anyone with Celine Dion in his PC deserves whatever he gets.
sulli
RTFJ.
It takes a mental genius to redefine a term and then bash it. ... which is exactly what hundreds of Slashdotties have been doing to ID for the past week. Redefining it then bashing it.
Basically, you're saying that in Kansas, they don't speak English anymore at school.
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
Your sarcasm is misplaced. The big bang and evolution are indeed facts as they are observations. We can observe that all matter diverges from a single point. We can observe how varying traits are benefitial or harmful, leading to improvment in the progression of life. They simply cannot be wrong, they are observations. I think you go a step furthur and assume these two observations imply the begining of the universe and life. That's not the case. We dont know where the big bang or life came from and we will never know. But what happened afterwards is fact. Also, since we don't know or will never know you cannot attribute it to a higher power. You weren't there to observe that and neither were the men who wrote it so. Science does not make a conculsion about this one way or the other. It does however state that there is no evidence of a higher power's involvement or lack of. Just leave it at that, and don't start pulling gods out of your ass.
So, if there is a new evolution-friendly school board, does that make the outcome of the court case irrelevant? If they follow the same route as Kansas a few years back (not the current crop of idiots), the school board is likely to rescind the ID requirement, regardless of the outcome of the trial. I suppose it could always be useful as a precedent (one way or another), but it would seem that ID is finished in Dover schools no matter what (for the time being anyway).
> Oops, your bias is showing. You've assumed evolution to be true.
Oops, your lack of a brain is showing.
Unless you have a theory that is able to predict more that evolution.
Sorry, you failed it.
It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a soportar Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a espabilar
Materialistic evolution (The standard view of contemporary science) supposes that all living systems evolved from simpler forms, down to the first single celled organisms, previous to which our knowledge is (understandably) incomplete. ID claims (rightly or wrongly) to have evidence that some living systems could not have come about in this manner. In short, they claim to have counter-examples to the fundamental premise of materialistic evolution. By eliminating materialistic evolution, the only remaining hypotheses are by definition non-materialistic, or "supernatural", or even "non-scientific". This is a perfectly logical conclusion based entirely on the strength of the counter-examples. Most critics of ID fail to see this. The smart critics reply that all of the supposed counter-examples can be refuted, or are at best inconclusive.
If materialistic evolution cannot be fairly criticized in this manner (that is, attempting to find counterexamples or logical inconsistencies), then it is entirely unscientific itself in so much as it is unfalsifiable.
Evolution is an observable fact, you're incorrect here. The point of contention seems to always lie with people who don't believe that we evolved from monkeys, which is fine, I don't necessarily think that should be taught in class, but evolution is something that we know to happen on a gradual basis.
Teach students the theory of evolution, sure, but it's not the school's place nor the teacher's place to attempt to claim that it is a fact of science that we evolved from apes. Anyways, I don't know when you were in school being taught this sort of stuff, but when I was, about 2-6 years ago (My HS career) we were explicitely informed that it's a theory and it does leave many questions unanswered in the scientific communities.
Now if you think that proposing an observed scientific theory be definitively linked with the origins of ourselves and the rest of life on Earth is a bad idea, I don't see how it would be any better to attempt to tell students, in a class of science, that intelligent design (Which is a trojan horse, no more, no less) is something to look into, really. The belief of a higher being, a creator, isn't something to be taught in public schools, that's something for one to find on their own or through their family. Preferably on their own so they can truly make up their mind on what they feel is best.
"We invented personal computing." - Bill Gates
Too bad no one has ever performed a scientific experiment in attempt to answer the (as of yet unanswered) question of the origin of life, which, as another poster pointed out, is separate from the theory of evolution.
Centralization breaks the internet.
Think of it as political evolution in action.
I think it's getting to the point where the first thing any candidate for school board should be asked is how they feel about the teaching of Evolution and Intelligent Design in schools. This is a mandatory pass/fail question.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
Plus, evolution makes no comment on the origin of life. It is a theory on the origin of new species, which is a different thing entirely.
Whose theory of evolution are we talking about? The Continental School? Neo-Darwinists? Darwin may have shied away from that problem, but the neo-Darwinists seem to think they've got the origin of life all wrapped up. How? By applying the ideas of evolution and competition to chemicals. Sic.
So saying that evolutionary theory posits a mechanism for the origin of life is not as incorrect as you lot are trying to make out.
Scientists acknowledge that, for example, we don't know what was around prior to the Big Bang.
Who are these "scientists" that you all keep referring to? What the turd in Turkey would a paleobotanist know about cosmology?
Most physicist regard it as a non-question. The Big Bang was the beginning of everything and the phrase "prior to the big bang" is semantically null.
Which is just as much of a cop-out as "God made it all" although presented as being self-evident truth and therefore intellectually superior.
Whether these physicists know what the hell they're talking about outside their narrow fields of specialisation is another matter, but a pertinent one and even inside their field of specialisation they can easily make mistakes. Thinking that you know the answer can lead you into horrendous gaffes, the Monty-Hall problem and Einstein's adherence to the Steady State Theory and an Objective Universe being two memorable examples.
Paul Feyerabend makes the point that someone who has invested their life in proving a small set of facts to be true often has a more rigid world-view than your average schizophrenic. I have met many such people over the years, some are religios, some are politicians, some are scientists. Most are Daily Mail reading rightwing scum-fucks, but that's another argument.
Scientists acknowledge that we're not sure of the exact mechanism of the beginning of biological life. Scientists acknowledge that we're still learning bits about how evolution works.
Yet still run around using words like "fact", "truth", "we know" and "certainty" with a blinkered hubris that is worthy of the fundamentalist mindset.
In case you missed the current model, it is that scientific theories have domains of applicability. Sometimes the theories turn out to have larger or smaller domains than previously thought. Some theories don't agree with each other, and some have serious philosophical incompatibilities with other theories. Some scientists believe a given theory to be true and others don't. A corollary is that some theories get more support than others.
An example of this is that there are many interpretations of Quantum Theory which all predict the same results, yet the Copenhagen Interpretation is considered to be the offical version of reality. This is not about crackpot science or flawed or irreproducible data, just politics. And as I think we are learning, politics seldom leads to the truth.
Intelligent design is being surpressed, but that's a different story alltogether. ID is just saying "we don't know how this works yet, so LET'S MAKE SHIT UP!"
Like a hypothesis for example.
Personally I think that ID is unintersting, intellectually worthless and purely political in motivation, and I like the belief systems and constructs of most sciences; but you people really need to stop worshipping at the Church of Absolute Truth of All Science and get yourselves some more enquiring minds.
The big bang and evolution are indeed facts as they are observations.
The Big Bang is an observation? The process of evolution is an observation?
We can observe that all matter diverges from a single point.
No we deduce that from a set of observations. In the case of evolution, as many biologists admit, that set is painfully thin.
You are very naively ignoring half of science, which is the theory part. And as an observation gets more complex, the theory becomes a greater part of the observation.
I've apparently done single photon interference, but I've never observed a single photon interfering. I've allegedly measured the speed of light, but never actually observed the speed of light, or even observed light to be travelling in any way.
The world doesn't cut up into little tiny rational observation quanta like you seem to think. Your presentation of scientific empiricism is crass and infantile.
*Evolution is an observable fact, you're incorrect here.*
Partially correct. Microevolution - variation within species - is an observable fact. Evolution as a mechanism for the emergence of new species has NOT been observed. It is theorized, and that is where the current debate arises.
The evidence for macroevolution is no stronger than that for creation. Evolutionists look at the (ahem) hierarchy of life forms and infer a slow progression from less advanced to more advanced. Creationists look at the complexity of life forms at every level and infer a creator. In both cases the theories are reasonably inferred from scientific observation.
If the definition of science allows only theories incorporating natural processes, then science must either admit that it is a trojan horse for atheism, or that it is potentially doomed to an eternal search for a truth it can never acknowledge.
In other words, science must either disclaim entirely the possibility of the supernatural (atheism), or admit that science may be (by definition) incapable of discovering the truth.
Thanks for listening.
This is one of the most reasonable, rational, balanced, and true comments to found here so far. Mod him up!
The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
This is another great post I've seen here. It's very true. I must have stepped into the wrong slashdot.
Mod him up!
The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
Very interesting comment. Mod him up!
The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
Why can't science and God coexist? The laws of physics are God. God is the laws of physics. I don't see why God is always a character sitting on a throne looking down upon us. God is nature, or at least, nature is a part of God. Why then is it so bad to study this in a way that asks questions and poses falsifiable answers within this observable portion? An atheist may well look at science as a way to explain things without the God of Gaps; fine. A theist may well look at science as a way to be closer to God; fine.
P.S. I was under the impression that DNA similarities across species was at least a bit of evidence for macroevolution. Science is about deductive reasoning. The reason for X is Y. Well is it? Let's check Z... nope. How about A? nope; B? nope; C? nope; Does that mean Y is really the reason for X? No. But it does mean that it could be. And it also means that if the check for D turned out true that we'd have to rethink our "Y causes X" statement. But with Intelligent Design or Creationism, there will always be parts of nature not yet understood via natural explanations that can be attributed to a higher power. Thus no evidence exists that if found would destroy either.
Take gravity for example. I presume you don't dispute its existence. I do. I submit that what you call gravity is naught but completely random whims of particles and objects. It just so happens that the completely random whims have created the illusion of gravity through pure chance. One of these is science (e.g. Newtonian gravity), the other is not (conspiracy of randomness). If you were to drop an apple and see it float, you would be forced to question Newtonian gravity. However, nothing could possibly happen that would contradict the conspiracy of randomness. It may indeed be true; but it is not science.
"Oops, your bias is showing. You've assumed evolution to be true."
that's your assumption. still, you would come across much more credible than this if you would actually pose an *argument*
i will not argue against ID. it's crap, although you may believe anything you like. it's impossible to argue against a belief, because belief infers and absolute Truth, which is something i refuse to believe in *grin*
:-) ) cannot tell if there's a God or not, most certainly not scientifically.
you write: "In other words, science must either disclaim entirely the possibility of the supernatural (atheism), or admit that science may be (by definition) incapable of discovering the truth."
let's split this up in two, shall we?
- where did you get the idea that science claims or disclaims the possibility of any sort of supernatural phenomenon? science is about making sense of (verifiable) *observations*. most scientists i know (and i know quite a few
- science *is* by definition incapable of discovering the Truth. thruth is a construct. there is no such thing.
now that's funny, i don't care which state you're from (modified larry the cable guy line)
*sigh* despite firefox (yes you, I am looking at you evil version 1.0.7) b0rking the fuck out of this post (in its cute, 'OMG look, I can just close magically' trick) I write it again... without the preamble...
The title about the torrent guy getting sentenced is totally misleading.
I rewrote the first two lines, because I forgot what I originally wrote
==t3h fucking po3m==
I fucking hate firefox, because of late,
Its one success is making me irate.
Its obvious his crimes were copyright,
Not protocol or application, right.
Well better than nothing. Thanks firefox, you bastard.
*sigh* poont you shortsighted bastards. Why bother? because some peoples only claim to fame is being born with opposable bloody thumbs. And we all have to live with stupid people like that every day.
please type the word in this image: gymnast
random letters - if you are visually impaired, please email us at pater@slashdot.org
PS: yeah, watch the moderators put this in flamebait hell, I am beyond caring.
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
The rootkit (among other things) hides all files matching $sys$*.* (including itself) as well as various registry keys.
It (via the DRM) installs (without telling you) a filter driver right deep into the windows CDROM drivers (they dont tell you how to uninstall it and if you remove it, it can screw up your CDROM drive)
Plus, it reports to sony & co various things (naturally, sony wont tell you exactly what they are or why sony is collecting them).
In my book, this has all the properties of spyware/malware & should be identified as such (and removed properly) by anti-virus and anti-spyware programs.
The right way to avoid this kind of negative PR etc in the future is to:
A.Dont attempt to hide any DRM or copy protection that is installed.
B.Tell people upfront about it and give them the option to either install it and play the CD or not install it and not play the CD on their PC (something like "This CD is copy protected and requires software installed on your computer in order for it to function on a PC. The software does . If you do not wish to install the software, this CD can still be played on a regular CD player." with an ok/cancel button would work)
C.Make it possible to uninstall the software completly and cleanly (with an attached "if you choose to uninstall this software, any copy protected audio CDs will no longer play on this computer" or something)
That way, people can see that its installing this software and exactly what the software does (e.g. "The software includes drivers designed to detect when an attempt is made to copy a copy protected CD with CD copying software." or whatever") and can uninstall it later if they like.
Anyone smart enough to know that you dont have to install the software in order to use the CD (and that not installing it allows you to rip it and defeat the copy protection) is smart enough to know how to bypass the installer (turn off autorun, hold down the shift key, terminate the installer before it installs anything, rip it using an alternative OS that doesnt install the protection software etc etc).
Anyone else (i.e. the people who dont know much about ripping CDs beoynd how to use the ripping program included with their fancy new MP3 player who the DRM is designed to thwart) is going to blindly click ok when the sony installer says "if you want to play the CD on your computer, you need this software" and get the DRM anyway.
The smart people know how to get around it and avoid it (and the rootkit does nothing to stop these people) and the dumb people will install it anyway no matter what it says. So there is no need for sony to use techniques to hide the program and drivers. Or to hide what the program does.
Or to make it impossible to uninstall. (again, the smart people will be able to avoid installing it in the first place and the dumb people will believe the "if you remove this, the copy protected CDs wont work on this computer anymore" spiel from sony)
In any case, I havent bought any sony music products recently so I can feel good about not supporting this crap (or does buying sony DVDs mean you are supporting this crap too...?)
I believe that one of the biggest reasons that the Church of England doesn't jump on hare brained ideas such as "Intelligent Design" is because the Church of England is not a fundamentalist church. It seems that only fundamentalist christians are pushing the "Intelligent Design"/anti-evolution agenda. For some reason, the United States has developed a whole series of fundamentalist christian churches that believe that the christian bible must be interpreted literally AND that they must force everybody else to also be a fundamentalist christian. "Intelligent Design" and Kansas redefining Science to allow for the existance of the Easter Bunny and Unicorns are just new ways for American fundamentalist christians to try to circumvent the separation of church and state in order to brainwash others to be fundamentalist christians.
AC's confusion is because these election results seem to say the opposite: ID proponents were voted out. Meanwhile, I read a poll the other day that showed a majority of Americans believing in some form of ID, though for many of them it was of a "God's hand guided evolution" form.
So why wasn't that reflected in the election? My guess -- and it's pure speculation -- is that only when it becomes a campaign issue, as in this case, does it get examined seriously by the average voter. Whereas, when those ID proponents first got voted in, they probably didn't campaign openly on an ID platform (though I'm sure they always had it in mind), but rather on innocuous-sounding non-issues like "bringing values back to our schools", or some such rot.
Share and Enjoy: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
3 months for sharing movies, or 3 months for sharing THOSE movies?
I think he deserves more for having shared those steaming piles of film to people.
My biophysics courses back in grad school did in fact cover evolution at the biochemical level. It's a student exercise to calculate the probabilities that an organism of a given complexity can arise under given assumptions. Essentially the organism has a DNA 'key' of a certain length, and you need to determine the time required for known evolutionary processes to break the key. Lots of assumptions needed, but once you state them, the calcuation is relatively straightforward (i.e. more than half of the PhD students can get it right in a few days). What I found interesting was that the outcome is typically that there has not been sufficient time since the Earth cooled for today's DNA to have arisen through random mutation. There were various hypotheses that can 'fix' the calculation: a) Life began off-earth (so it had more time elsewhere), or b) Life did more of its evolving in high-radiation and/or high temperature regimes than geologists allow for (more mutations per generation), or c) Lots of the DNA does not contribute to speciation (so there are lots of keys - you only have to generate one), or d) Intelligent design...
> > "In other words, science must either disclaim entirely the possibility of the supernatural (atheism), or admit that science may be (by definition) incapable of discovering the truth."
:-) ) cannot tell if there's a God or not, most certainly not scientifically.
> let's split this up in two, shall we?
- where did you get the idea that science claims or disclaims the possibility of any sort of supernatural phenomenon? science is about making sense of
(verifiable) *observations*. most scientists i know (and i know quite a few
Well, the science textbooks he is talking about push a unobserved and *unverifiable* theory of macroevolution which exclude direct supernatural cause. Which brings you back to the parent posters point.
> - science *is* by definition incapable of discovering the Truth. thruth is a construct. there is no such thing.
Your statement isn't true, then.
How the heck to you propose to prove that life spontaneously emerged from nothing?
The discussion is on evolution vs. "Intelligent Design". Evolution says nothing whatsoever regarding life spontaneously emerging from nothing. In fact, there is no hypothesis in biology that makes such a claim.
Misrepresenting the position of science only makes you look unqualified to speak on the debate with any level of credibility.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
I have to say that I have no arguments with the idea that we may have been intelligently designed, but the Intelligent Design (ID) movement is not scientific. Materialistic evolution SHOULD be criticized, but not with the ulterior motive of promoting religion. The problem with ID is that it makes the same mistake you made (with all due respect). You said: *****"By eliminating materialistic evolution, the only remaining hypotheses are by definition non-materialistic, or "supernatural", or even "non-scientific".***** Just because one scientific theory of the emergence of species has weaknesses, or even if it is completely discredited, one does not have to jump to supernatural explanations. One merely looks further for a scientific explanation. To be completely clear, looking for evidence of a process of design by intelligence is scientific. To claim supernatural processes, (as ID does) is not scientific, it is religion.
My wife says I'm impossible. I'm not. I'm just extremely unlikely. There's a difference...
Whose theory of evolution are we talking about? The Continental School? Neo-Darwinists? Darwin may have shied away from that problem, but the neo-Darwinists seem to think they've got the origin of life all wrapped up. How? By applying the ideas of evolution and competition to chemicals. Sic.
This is a semantic game playing on the fact that as you get to "simpler" and smaller forms of life, the distinction between what is "life" and what is "non-life" becomes unclear.
Ultimately you have a point where you do not have chains of molecules making imperfect copies of themselves (the chains, not the individual molecules). When you have that, you get evolution. If you don't have that, then you don't have evolution and describing what caused those molecular chains to come into existence is not in any way a part of the theory of evolution.
So saying that evolutionary theory posits a mechanism for the origin of life is not as incorrect as you lot are trying to make out.
Evolution deals with diverse sets of populations resulting from common ancestry as a result of imperfect replication. Discussing the origin of life necessitates a distinct point where imperfect replicators did not exist. If there are no imperfect replicators, then there's no evolution, so evolution cannot formally address the entirety of the origin of life. It just might be the case that the distinction between what can be called "life" and what can't might have to be adjusted.
Of course, then you have the bonehead creationists who insist (despite being totally unable to provide a professional reference to support their claim) that the theory of evolution covers the formation of the planet, the solar system and the universe as a whole. But that's a whole long rant for another time.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
belief infers an absolute Truth, which is something i refuse to believe in
The existence of absolute, invariant truth is the fundamental axiom of science. Without that, we have no reason to expect that observations can be replicated and that theories can't be falsified one day and validated the next.
I don't think you really mean that.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
a theory is a theory. observations are verifyable, theories are means by which the observations are translated into a working model. in my opinion, a working model that plausibly explains the origin of species is formed by darwins' ideas (and the countless number of evolutionary biologists after him). a theory based on (shaky) arguments against a plausible theory is not viable. it doesn't matter whether GGP, you, or me are right.
;-)
anyway, time and meme selection will weed out the idea that's least acceptable. whether it's on scientific grounds or not...
then you write in reply to my little paradoxical attempt at humour:
>> - science *is* by definition incapable of
>> discovering the Truth. thruth is a construct.
>> there is no such thing.
> Your statement isn't true, then.
ah, you got the point! mission accomplished
I am also a True Believer and attend a worship service every Sunday.
then you go on to say:
That said, ID is NOT true science. It is simply a score of men who wish to get nonsense into our textbooks.
How do you do this?
I am serious. I am not saying religion is "nonsense", but it is most assuredly mythology. How do you get up each morning thinking to yourself "yes, this over here is science, and this is how the scientific method works, but I will ignore all of that knowledge and understanding when it is regarding this subject over here"...?
It is intriguing to me that individuals all over the world - many who are extremely and highly intelligent, some who are actual scientists - can hold on to this form of "doublethink", and compartmentalize their minds in such a way as to allow them to hold two self-contradictory paths of thought at one time. Let me also note that at one time I practiced a solitary form of Wicca, which is something I no longer do - but for the life of me I cannot figure out how and why I matured past such delusions and have moved on to secular humanism (for lack of another term). At the time I was practicing, I myself was holding those self-same contradictory notions - but I don't know how or why.
Do you know or have an understanding of such? Furthermore, do you think you will mature past it as I feel I have (I can say that I would probably have said "no" to this question when I was in your place)?
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Thanks alot! (jerks)
-
We can know a lot about how chickens make eggs and how eggs develope into chickens without even touching on which came first.
-
You would be amazed. My new Intelligent Lifting theory explains it all.
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
Suddenly there is a gray box half way down the article (covering part of a post), the pointer disappears when I go into the bounds of the box, and at the bottom of the article under the /. links in the black area was a picture of guys at a football game with the letters ROD SEX on their chests.
I checked my machine for spy ware and add ware but I can find nothing. Did someone sneak something in?
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
They make that claim, but is it backed up by anything even remotely resembling real science?
Your Flying Spaghetti Monster comment is spot-on, by the way.
One doesn't attempt to directly prove the existence of God through ID. ID argues that the non-existence of a higher-power can be disproved.
Uh... I fail to see how "prove the existence of X" logically != "disprove non-existence of X". Honestly. X exists or does not. This is independent of the *fact* that the evidence to "disprove non-existance" is pretty much "we don't understand this process, so it must be X at work!", which is hardly scientific.
I mean really. Come on. Be honest with yourself for a second...
Who is suppressing that information?
My science teachers were always very clear that there's a limit to what we currently know, and that there is still a lot of interesting work to be done in research science, as there are many things we don't know about every single science subject you could study.
Did someone try to teach your kid that we know everything there is to know about the origin or life?
Are you implying that teaching pseudoscientific or religious-based explanations for the origin of life ( or any other less-than-certain scientific topic ) is the right way to combat some supposed "suppression" of "information" ? Does that really make sense to you ?
Or would you just like to see your religious-based views taught in public schools? Be honest, please...
It seems pretty clear that life here has undergone substantial evolution. Either this evolution was guided, or it wasn't. ID claims to have eliminated the unguided part, leaving only some sort of guide.
Either ID has succeeded in disbunking unguided evolution, or it hasn't. This debate takes place in the realm of evidence and logic. It seems to me to be a stretch to suggest that unguided (materialistic) evolution is wrong* while also suggesting that some other non-supernatural (or alien, if you want to go there) "scientific" forces brought about life as we know it.
* (By "wrong", I don't just mean "not fully flushed out", but logically impossible.)
Maybe the ID'ers are full of crap, but the discourse on this matter has been very lowbrow, especially coming from the would-be defenders of "science".
They would say yes. Frankly, the discussion about this evidence is way above 99% of the population, including myself. I watched something on TV (Cspan?) where both sides were presented by folks w/ PhDs, I think both were college professors. Again, I'm not here to defend ID balls-to-the-wall, I'm just sick of the Spaghetti Monster people making arguments that are totally irrelevant.
Uh... I fail to see how "prove the existence of X" logically != "disprove non-existence of X".
I was (uneloquently) trying to make the point that you don't just go digging up a piece of God, proof positive. ID makes more of a negative argument, which is totally in-bounds in any field of study... math, science, philosophy. But yes, the end result is the same.
This is independent of the *fact* that the evidence to "disprove non-existance" is pretty much "we don't understand this process, so it must be X at work!", which is hardly scientific.
ID claims to have found irreducably complex systems. (I'm not about to discuss whether they've got the goods or not.) An irreducably complex system is logically inconsistent with everything that has ever been said about materialistic evolution. This is very much a scientific discussion, even if much of the public discourse isn't.
Not anymore, the recent class action lawsuit reform law passed by Congress makes the coupon scheme illegal. They'll have to give customers cash or find a new way to screw them over.
You are wrong. There are multiple theories which fully take into account all observations while positing an ever-existing universe.
As an added bonus, they have testable differences from the standard Big Bang theory, some of which (such as low-frequency gravity waves) we're working on detectors for even now.
I think you and I pretty much agree. I don't believe that ID has debunked unguided evolution. I believe that irreducible complexity has not been demonstrated.
My only suggestion is that there are other possibilities that may be explored, maybe panspermia (I know, it only shifts the time-frame), maybe something we just don't have any concept of now. There is a lot of evidence available now that suggests panspermia is not so far-fetched. http://www.panspermia.com/. There is a large part of the genome that is highly preserved and we don't know what it does (so-called junk DNA).
My wife says I'm impossible. I'm not. I'm just extremely unlikely. There's a difference...
Evolution as a mechanism for the emergence of new species has NOT been observed.
Wrong.
The point of contention seems to always lie with people who don't believe that we evolved from monkeys, which is fine
Well, no, it's not, as that means they completely misunderstand evolution and thusly shouldn't be talking about it at all until they educate themselves.
Evolutionary theory is that monkeys and humans evolved from a common ancestor.
Saying that evolution says we're descended from monkeys is like saying you're descended from your siblings instead of your parents. It is simply not true.
we were explicitely informed that it's a theory
Fine, as long as they give the scientific definition of "theory". From Wikipedia: "In scientific usage, theory is not the opposite of fact. Theories are typically ways of explaining why things happen, usually after the fact that they happen is no longer in scientific dispute."
I was under the impression that DNA similarities across species was at least a bit of evidence for macroevolution.
A good point.
I've seen it phrased in what I thought was a clever way of getting the point across: If a student handed in an "original play" that had 95% of the same words in the same order as Shakespeare's Macbeth, would you consider it a) plagarism or b) a trick by Satan?
> a theory based on (shaky) arguments against a plausible theory is
:-/ Yeah sure, after-the-fact humor covers a whole multitude of logic flaws.
;-) ;-D
> not viable. it doesn't matter whether GGP, you, or me are right.
Darwin's theory is only plausible if you accept a non-supernatural origin of the species as axiomatic, and then ignore the problems with it. For more information: http://answersingenesis.org/
> anyway, time and meme selection will weed out the idea that's
> least acceptable. whether it's on scientific grounds or not...
I hope it's on scientific grounds.
> then you write in reply to my little paradoxical attempt at humour:
>>> - science *is* by definition incapable of
>>> discovering the Truth. thruth is a construct.
>>> there is no such thing.
>> Your statement isn't true, then.
>ah, you got the point! mission accomplished
Indeed. Now only if you'd get the same point
Finding his example with transponsons would still be pretty ugly for evolution, but as you indicate it could be explained as a freak transfer event for two reasons.
t /full/1998/1022/1 membership required
8 1023txt A short synopsis here
I'm not even sure that I would call it a freak transfer. According to Lynn Margulis, a prominent, main-stream bioligist, "Viruses today spread genes among bacteria and humans and other cells, as they always have... We are our viruses". She said this in a book written in 1998. For me, transposons of just about any stripe would not falsify evolution, with the following exception:
If you found the same viral DNA insertion in whales and in humans - and in fact found it inserted in precisely the same location - and it was absent in chimpanzees - that would be a huge problem for evolution. The insertion of the same viral DNA at the exact same location cannot reasonably be dissmissed as a random occurance, and finding multiple such examples would be overwhelming evidence.
That would, for me, be strong evidence of intelligent tampering with the genome. I don't expect to find that, though. IF we do someday find evidence of design, I think it will be along the lines of a genetic "terraforming package". A library of a lot of useful genes, with some viruses to shuffle them around, loaded into some hardy bacteria and seeded into the cosmos. I think this model has the potential to explain what we see around us without requiring a miracle and without completely invalidating evolution. This theory (panspermia) has the added benefit of being falsifiable. If we get out there and don't find bacteria, it obviously didn't happen that way.
You mentioned common descent. I'm not so sure, with what we now know about transposition, that common genetic descent is a requirement. We have already found strange bits of DNA where they have no right to be. Eukaryote genes in prokaryotes and the like. Chlamidia trachomatis, for example, contains more than 30 eukaryotic genes.
URL:http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten
URL:http://www.panspermia.com/whatsne4.htm#%209
My wife says I'm impossible. I'm not. I'm just extremely unlikely. There's a difference...
> The point here being that we can at least theorize and then try to create
> experiments to understand this stuff.
Well we can't perform experiments in a perfect vacuum can we, except as abstract, unreal thought experiments.
Just like we can't perform experiments on the creation of space and time.
We can approximate, but we shouldn't then rush into ontological assertions: the map is not the territory, the model is not the reality. If there is a reality. Einstein's belief that there is such a thing was proven to be wrong according to the canon.
I think the point is that scientists are much freer to make this sort of speculation than most of their religious counterparts, although there is still an orthodoxy in science, and dissent from that orthodoxy is basically treated as heresy.
Look at the recent treatment on these pages of Randell Mills. A stream of invective and name-calling, but how many people had actually looked at his CQM and criticised it on scientific grounds, and how many people just yelled crank without any technical knowldege of the errors he may be making?
None of this is directed at the parent, by the way, I'm just using it as a foil to further my rant.
> Unless of course, you happen to believe that your God has a rather sick and
> twisted sense of humor
Well let's not mistake Abrahamic Creationism for creationist theories in general, of which there are probably thousands. Many of them do include joker gods who take the piss out of humankind and the planet in general.
This is a semantic game playing on the fact that as you get to "simpler" and smaller forms of life, the distinction between what is "life" and what is "non-life" becomes unclear.
What is semantic game-playing? What does "this" refer to?
My stating that there is more than one school of thought on the theory of evolution and that people should therefore clarify what they mean by "evolution"?
Or the theory of replicators?
Defining what you mean and understanding the limits of those definitions is not "semantic game-playing", it's the basis of rational discourse.
But look, if one thinks the theory of the evolution describes speciation, from humans continuously down to simpler and simpler entities until one has clearly moved from the domain of biology to the domain of chemistry, then one is using the theory of evolution to explain the origins of life.
To pretend otherwise is disingenuous at best.
Ultimately you have a point where you do not have chains of molecules making imperfect copies of themselves (the chains, not the individual molecules). When you have that, you get evolution
You are saying:
"When you have [a point where you do not have chains of molecules making imperfect copies of themselves], you get evolution"
which you later contradict:
"If there are no imperfect replicators, then there's no evolution".
and describing what caused those molecular chains to come into existence is not in any way a part of the theory of evolution.
I don't think anyone is claiming that the genesis of molecular chains is part of the theory, apart from a bunch of Watchtower propagandists.
But whilst their genesis might not be, the existence of molecular replicators _is_ included into the evolutionary model by people like Dawkins, and he then applies imperfect replication and the directive force of Malthusian competition continuously up from the molecular chains into the domain of complex living organisms. So in Dawkins world, evolution does talk about the origins of life. That's my contention.
If there are no imperfect replicators, then there's no evolution, so evolution cannot formally address the entirety of the origin of life.
However, in this model, at the point of the origin of life there is replication and there is therefore evolution.
To be honest, I'm struggling to understand your argument, largely because you contradict yourself, use pronouns that don't refer to anything obvious, and keep begging the question.
How the heck to you propose to prove that life spontaneously emerged from nothing?
That's like attacking chemistry on the basis that it does not explain the origin of elements.
Chemistry starts from the existance of elements and explains how those elements behave. Chemistry says absolutely nothing about the origin of elements. The theory addressing the origin of elements is nuclear fusion. Nuclear fusion was many years later than chemistry in being developed as a successful established field to be taught in highshools.
Evolutionstarts from the existance of life and explains how that life can and will change over time to create the vast range and complexity of life we see today. The very word "evolution" means change. Evolution says absolutely nothing about the origin of life. The theory addressing the origin of life is abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis has little or no place in highschool science curriculums because it is currently a an extremely undeveloped field with little explanatory power and has made few predictions and has received minimal experimental confirmation and had insignifigant agreement and acceptance by the scientific community. Just like we generally do not teach String Theory in highschool science class. It is not a developed and supported and broadly established theory.
If scientific observation indicates that current theories are inadequate to explain the complexities biological structures, why would you want to supress that information?
For the same reason I'd want to "suppress" the information that nuclear fusion is somehow inadaquate explain the the sun.
Oh there are certainly a very a couple of scientists going with this "Electric Universe" thing, and they have certainly published some claims chalenging the nuclear fusion model of powering the sun, but those papers and been evaluated and dismissed by the relevant scientific community. Two or three scientists... out of the all of the physiscists on the planet... two or three who have their claims peer reviewed and rejected does not amount to a genuine scientific controversy. Stellar nuclear fusion is the indisputed accepted scientific theory. It is fully accepted by at least 99.9% of all physicists.
Oh there are certainly a very small handful of scientists claiming evolution inadequate to explain the complexities biological structures, and they have certainly published some claims challenging evolution, but those papers and been evaluated and dismissed by the relevant scientific community. Two or three scientists... out of the all of the biologists on the planet... two or three who have their claims peer reviewed and rejected does not amount to a genuine scientific controversy. Every single time one of them attempts to cite a biological system and claim it could not have evolved it is immediately demonstrated why they are mistaken. Even Behe... the ID'ers star antievolution biologist... Behe admited on the stand in Kansas that his own research indicated that "Irreducably Complex systems" would naturally arise through evolution quite rapidly in a realistically sized population. Evolution is the indisputed accepted scientific theory. It is fully accepted by at least 99.9% of all biologists.
If you think there are scientific observation indicating that current theories are inadequate to explain the complexities biological structures then you have not been reading anything written by mainstream biology professionals. You have either been reading vague empty claims, or you have been reading examples that have been peer reviewed and resolved.
There is no controversy over evolution in the scientific community. All, I repeat *ALL* of the controversy is in the political arena and in public oppinion. There is a religious fundamentalist group rasing millions of dollars in donations and waging a PR campaign. They are wedded to a "literal" interpretation of the Bible that says that God did not.. that God COULD NOT... have chosen to use evolution as his means of creating the universe he
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Look, clearly you've bought what the ID folks are selling ( and again I ask, honestly, have you bought into this in part due to your religious views? ), so it's not productive for me to spend much more time arguing this with you, *but*...
this whole "irreducably complex systems" argument? It's totally bullshit, and, no matter what someone with some sort of degree said on TV, *not* 'inconsistent with everything'... 'about evolution'... microevolution, maybe, but not really. The key example the ID gang likes to talk about is the eye. Really, there *are* rudimentary eyes, and slightly more advanced eyes with only 'cones', and really, it's not clear why they think the eye is so 'irreducably complex' that it means, uh, someone must have designed it... that's a hell of a conclusion to reach from "boy, this is a complex organ".
Really, their argument is a little like "all the atoms in this crystal are lined up *exactly* in a matrix formation! That's too weird. It *must* have been arranged that way by an intelligent being!". Which of course ignores the possibility that more basic self-organizing properties of matter are at work...
To summarize: of course they'd say yes, they have proof. Any scrutiny of that 'proof' shows that, really, they have nothing. We all have to determine if they 'have the goods', and after reviewing the evidence, even *they* know they don't have the goods ( check the science journals if you want ), they're just trying to make it look like there's some doubt about evolutionary theory so they can introduce their own religious-based pseudo-pseudoscientific ( I call it that because it tries to be pseudoscience ) ideas taught as "science".
If they weren't all about obviously pushing a religious agenda, it'd be more difficult to figure out what's going on, but let's face it... these I.D. folks? Easy-to-spot religous nuts, funded by and founded by well-known religious nuts. Not scientists. People with an agenda. Not people concerned with your children learning about science. If you're fooled, you wanted to be, or you weren't really paying attention...
Ok, I slightly overstated the ID position, but not as much as you think. The designer could have been a super-advanced race of aliens, wholly material and not supernatural. However, it seems to me that the "aliens" explanation is even more fantastic than a supernatural one, and not substantially more "scientific".
Oh I don't know, there's something called crown ecologies (such as certain coniferous forests) which are very static, even if metastable. If an alien species wanted companionship, they might go on a regular circuit of all the planets capable of developing life within a region and, when they came upon a planet that had reached a metastable state without intelligent life, shove it out of that state to re-activate/accelerate evolution by giving a new set of creatures a competitive advantage. For instance they might use a big meteor impact to change the weather and kill off very large fauna. That circuit between the stars might give them an almost regular arrival of a few hundred million years.
Fact is, if there's nothing out there right now, maybe we should start doing that very thing. As things go, it wouldn't be a bad purpose in life to be an intelligence farmer. We humans have a long history at farming and so probably would any other intelligent species out there.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." - The Origin of Species
I will also refer you to my original post:
The smart critics reply that all of the supposed counter-examples can be refuted, or are at best inconclusive.
In short, I'm sick of the uninformed masses denouncing an idea they don't even comprehend just because of who supports it. Reject it for the evidence; don't reject it because of its implications. (That I've been accused of falling prey to religious nuts for merely trying to point the discussion where should be is quite telling, and frankly, annoying.)
"Darwin's theory is only plausible if you accept a non-supernatural origin of the species as axiomatic, and then ignore the problems with it. For more information: http://answersingenesis.org/"
congratulations with your observations on the existence of a Deity (that supernatural origin of species). you're obviously more lucky than this mortal sinner is.
Then answer the question! Do you have religious motivation to defend I.D., or are you atheist/buddist/FSMist/newAgeist/whatever ???
And that's a *very* cogent point; if you're not backing some religious view, ( actually, a specifically Christian religious view ) you are *not* going to find yourself backing I.D. That's a very, very telling *fact*, and you shouldn't ignore it- you should take it to heart, and at least have the guts to stand up and say "yes, I believe in the story of Genesis as told in the Bible and that's part of why I think I.D. is a valid theory". If you don't have that faith in your convictions and religious beliefs, then I have a hard time respecting you intellectually... because on it's own merits, there's very little to I.D.
Nice straw man with the "eye" example - nobody has seriously used that in quite some time.
Ok, so the eye was a straw man ( I honestly wasn't aware of that... when did the I.D. guys take that as a defeat? I saw it used here less than a month ago )... so, what's the new thing? The eye seemed like a pretty good candidate... and most other things, the heart, limbs, etc... they all seem more straightforward... what's supposed to be irreducibly complex? or, if
all of the supposed counter-examples can be refuted, or are at best inconclusive
then what's the point you're trying to make by bringing that up as the most serious 'scientific' leg of I.D.? It sounds like I.D. is pretty hard to defend scientifically, doesn't it? Why are you trying?
I'm sick of the uninformed masses denouncing an idea they don't even comprehend just because of who supports it. Reject it for the evidence; don't reject it because of its implications.
a) sometimes who supports an idea *is* important, and can tell you a lot about the possible result of adopting the idea.
b) what about the informed masses denouncing an idea they do comprehend ? It's only the I.D. folks who are trying to make the evidence and theories sound *really* complicated... the evidence is pretty hard and easy to demonstrate, and I'm willing to bet that well over 25% of the general public grasp the concepts, which, for science, is a pretty large number. Personally, I've tried really, really, really hard to look for solid evidence behind I.D., and I'm afraid it just doesn't seem to be there, as much as I might like it to be.
C) do you think people would reject an idea just because it proved the existence of some sort of deity?!? Are you kidding? As unsettling as it'd be to find that there is a god that just doesn't seem to mind us starting wars, etc, it'd be one of the most awesome discoveries of all times, and we'd all love it ! Well, most of us would, anyway. It'd be like finding aliens, or perpetual motion, only even cooler...
Unfortunately, the simple fact is that I.D. is just some wealthy religous guys blowing smoke to try to get religious views taught as science in U.S. schools, and nothing more... and that's sad, because if mom and dad want to teach their kid about Genesis, that kid should be going to Sunday School already. And other kids? They don't need that teaching from the state, m'kay?
In the long run, this *is* really all about trying to get religious views are taught in public schools, isn't it?
> If we get out there and don't find bacteria, it obviously didn't happen that way.
Not that it affects your point much, but if we get "out there" there will be a whole lot of places to look for bacteria. So many that ruling it out by exploration alone would be impossible. What if it was just one asteroid/whatever that came from a galaxy far, far away but its bacteria only came to Earth and deposited life nowhere else on the way? Then we'd have to get to that galaxy to prove it.
Not that it affects your point much, but if we get "out there" there will be a whole lot of places to look for bacteria. So many that ruling it out by exploration alone would be impossible. What if it was just one asteroid/whatever that came from a galaxy far, far away but its bacteria only came to Earth and deposited life nowhere else on the way? Then we'd have to get to that galaxy to prove it.
That is a good point. My assumption has been that if something like that were to happen, it would, of necessity, be a large-scale endeavor. But, yes, you are correct, we could find no bacteria and still not be able to completely rule out the possibility. Of course, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. So, for me, if we don't find bacteria easily, panspermia is mostly invalidated.
My wife says I'm impossible. I'm not. I'm just extremely unlikely. There's a difference...