Indeed. If I drop rocks a 1000 times and then drop a coin 1000 times and then something else over and over again. I might conclude that dropping ANYTHING will make it fall to the ground.
But that is not a fact, dropping a helium balloon will not drop to the ground. So my theory that dropping anything will make it fall to the ground is wrong. That's exactly why it's a theory. That's why we explore it further instead of throwing the whole thing away and then discover things like atmospheric pressure and density.
If we drop rocks into the water and they always sink to the bottom. We might conclude that all rocks sink in water... but that would also be wrong. We need to redefine what a rock is (yes, there are rocks that can float).
My point is, we take it on faith that things will work out based on our theory. It is entirely possible (in the case of evolution, the new arsenic based life form) that something will come along and show us that our theory is incomplete. Unfortunately, many people tend to take that to mean that "it is wrong".
"We can see evidence of evolution within our own genome" I said, sorry... I should give you an example. Look up Human Chromosome #2... very interesting stuff.
I'm just curious what you mean by "I have seen countless countless cases were fossil evidence has been falsified. And I have never seen a single case of one species evolving into another. Quite the opposite in fact it seems to me that the DNA we are made up of is rather fragile and tends to degenerate rather than improve."
What do you mean by falsified? What are these cases of fossil evidence? why do you think that DNA is fragile and degenerates rather than improves. As a quick example, Amoeba have among the largest genomes documented. Mutations within that could cause all sorts of new gene expressions (both bad and good). Probably, most of them bad... the point is, over a long timeline, those beneficial mutations will be selected for and end up in a more fit organism. Check out sickle cell anemia within the African population. That's a single allele within the population, but couldn't you see that as more and more develop (say... because of geographical separation from other members of the same species) that they might even become a different species altogether?
Here's just one that I found. http://news.discovery.com/animals/fish-evolution-conservation.html
The point is, this stuff is happening. How YOU define it or not is up to you. We can see evidence of evolution within our own genome. The real issue is that something as complex as human life evolving from a previous life form cannot be seen in real time. But the evidence is there. If you choose to ignore it then it's your prerogative to do so. Just don't impose it on the rest of us.
There ARE other explanations for these observations, but none as compelling as evolution. I don't doubt that we may find a better explanation (or at least a more complete understanding) in the future. But as it stands, it is not the "only reasonable explanation" (as you put it) just the best.
I've read Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box and a number of other papers that he's written. He's a smart guy, he does believe in evolution, just not evolution by natural selection. He believes in evolution directed by Intelligent Design. However, his evidence is sorely lacking. Mainly because the invisible hand of an intelligent designer is only possible by inference (i.e. we only assume that the watch had a watch maker because we've never seen one being created spontaneously). But if we did have observations (as we do with evolution) that such a thing were possible, why invoke a supernatural cause?
I don't care if you don't "believe" in evolution. It is the basis by which many of our concepts of biology come from. Even if it isn't FACTUAL by your standards, it's the best description of how the medicine and biology we practice work.
I was once talking to a physicist friend of mine and she was explaining to me that the math is NOT the reality, it's simply the best representation that we have currently, and using it helps us to manipulate the world around us.
If you really CHOOSE to not believe it, you should at least take a pragmatic approach and understand the usefulness of understanding the concepts.
True. I use this example to explain the difference. And why a lot of science DOES actually depend on faith. (Please read the rest of this post before flaming me)
If I drop a rock 1000 times and it falls to the ground. The only thing I can say for certain is that the last 1000 times I dropped the rock, it fell to the ground.
It requires faith on my part to believe that the 1001st time I drop the rock it will also drop to the ground. However, my belief is grounded in previous FACTUAL observation. Scientist recognize this, which is why they called it "a scientific theory". Because, if for the 1001st time I drop something, it might be a helium ballooon, in which case I have to figure out why that's different than the rock that I dropped before.
Sadly, religion tends to say that because the helium balloon didn't drop to the ground, all the other knowledge I gained from the rock dropping is now completely an utterly wrong and uselss. Religious observations are NOT based on fact. Can you say for certain that Moses talked to a burning bush? Have you? However, you CAN drop a rock 1000 times and see what happens for yourself.
Remember, the earth is revolving while the ISS is orbiting, so it will be very confusing to try to figure it out by watching that video. It's not like the earth is standing still while the ISS orbits.
You're ignoring the fact of the economic momentum built up by the previous administrations serious mismanagement.
I like to use this analogy: If you've got a hole in your roof and your solution is to buy a bucket to catch the rain water. That bucket fills up and then you have to buy another one... and another one... When you're whole house is filled with buckets, that's not the time to say that you're not going to spend money to buy buckets anymore. It's time to say, "it's going to cost a lot to fix the roof but it's something that must be done."
The problem is that Obama tried to get a roofer in but caved into pressure to not pay him enough to fix the problem. So now we've got a huge hole in our roof, no more spending on buckets and water damage being done everywhere.
The problem that I have with microtransactions is that a game that's designed around them is usually (I haven't yet seen an exception) that the primary focus is to make profit off the player. Whereas traditionally, the primary purpose was to entertain the player and thereby make money off of them.
The issue of entertaining the player gets completely lost and replaced by psychological tricks to make people spend more and more money without ever actually experiencing any entertainment.
I actually think that "games" like Farmville or The Smurfs are a strange new form of gambling than actual games.
They assassinated him, now they're assassinating his character. It's hard to follow a martyr who's a horny lecherous old man who's into tasty teens. They're basically doing to bin Laden what the western media does to washed up celebrities. It doesn't matter how successful and popular Charlie Sheen may have been... nobody's would follow him into battle now.
Yes, they'll be missing out on a lot of older talent. But it's pretty obvious that record companies are more comfortable telling you what you want to listen to instead of trying to discover new talent.
Google has youtube... the amount of talent on there is ridiculous... they just have to sign people like this.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5WB-p-QBJc
If it came down to it, I wouldn't put it past the cable companies to destroy themselves just to take Netflix down. The cable companies would probably put themselves to the brink of going out of business and only be pulled back by being bailed out by the government.
And at that point, Netflix would be gone and it would be mission accomplished.
No scientific theory is ever really "proven." It is only upheld by the evidence. What happens is that as more and more evidence is presented, the theory is refined so our understand of the underlying processes becomes clearer and more accurate.
The discovery of genetics could have seriously undermined the theory of evolution since a TON of new hereditary and ancestral evidence arose. However, not only did it not refute evolution, it became the strongest evidence to support it.
I also want to point out a major reason why it's difficult for people who don't actually study evolution to understand it and I think it might "head off at the pass" your argument against my previous post.
Evolution does NOT happen within a single organism during its lifetime. A fish isn't born a fish and then some time while it's alive, become another species. It happens progressively through generations. So while (in my Down's Syndrome example) the first person may have an exact copy of chromosome 21, that trait will likely be inherited by any offspring that person may have. Due to the way gametes are produced (via crossing and whatnot) in diploid organism, and how gametes combine to form a single organism, there will be SIGNIFICANT differences not only in the original parent with Down's Syndrome and the child. Thus creating "new information" that is not an exact copy.
I believe the original challenge was to point to how an organism can gain new genetic information. I think I have done that handily.
Also, this example only deals with Down's syndrome and only humans and only across one generation... there are countless other ways that genetic information can erroneously replicate to give a "canvas" to create new information.
Um... see... this is where your lack of knowledge keeps you from seeing the possibilities...
A duplicate of the same information allows you to have additional information through mutation IN ADDITION to the current existing genotype.
So you have one copy of a book... the original book remains the same, but then mutations occur in the copy... which lead to favorable or unfavorable traits IN ADDITION to the traits of the original book. This is the very essence of evolution.
Oh... and I don't need to cite an experiment. I can point to a real world example.
Down's syndrome is caused by the presence of an extra chromosome. THAT is additional genetic information right there.
Just because YOU can't figure out how an organism can gain information (and likely this is because you don't know enough about biology) doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
That is the basis of intelligent design. "I can't figure out how it could happen, that means that it doesn't - And no... I refuse to learn more so that I might be able to figure it out". That's fundamentally the basis of irreducible complexity - I can't figure it out the evolutionary mechanism, therefore it must have been designed. It's sad because others DO... and every example of irreducible complexity offered up by the ID community has plausible processes by which they could have evolved.
This is a fallacy that keeps getting spouted off by ID proponents.
Genetic information CAN be gained... but even if it couldn't, it wouldn't matter. The amoeba... one of the "simplest" forms of life, has one of the largest observed genomes to date.
Simply through mutation of existing genetic information, the passing of it through sexual and non-sexual reproduction we can observe (yes OBSERVE) changes in genotype and phenotype.
It couldn't be that their parents don't care about their kids feelings (and leave them sitting in front of the tv playing violent games) that teaches not to care about the feelings of others.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. If I drop rocks a 1000 times and then drop a coin 1000 times and then something else over and over again. I might conclude that dropping ANYTHING will make it fall to the ground.
But that is not a fact, dropping a helium balloon will not drop to the ground. So my theory that dropping anything will make it fall to the ground is wrong. That's exactly why it's a theory. That's why we explore it further instead of throwing the whole thing away and then discover things like atmospheric pressure and density.
If we drop rocks into the water and they always sink to the bottom. We might conclude that all rocks sink in water... but that would also be wrong. We need to redefine what a rock is (yes, there are rocks that can float).
My point is, we take it on faith that things will work out based on our theory. It is entirely possible (in the case of evolution, the new arsenic based life form) that something will come along and show us that our theory is incomplete. Unfortunately, many people tend to take that to mean that "it is wrong".
"We can see evidence of evolution within our own genome" I said, sorry... I should give you an example. Look up Human Chromosome #2... very interesting stuff.
I'm just curious what you mean by "I have seen countless countless cases were fossil evidence has been falsified. And I have never seen a single case of one species evolving into another. Quite the opposite in fact it seems to me that the DNA we are made up of is rather fragile and tends to degenerate rather than improve."
What do you mean by falsified? What are these cases of fossil evidence? why do you think that DNA is fragile and degenerates rather than improves. As a quick example, Amoeba have among the largest genomes documented. Mutations within that could cause all sorts of new gene expressions (both bad and good). Probably, most of them bad... the point is, over a long timeline, those beneficial mutations will be selected for and end up in a more fit organism. Check out sickle cell anemia within the African population. That's a single allele within the population, but couldn't you see that as more and more develop (say... because of geographical separation from other members of the same species) that they might even become a different species altogether?
Here's just one that I found. http://news.discovery.com/animals/fish-evolution-conservation.html
The point is, this stuff is happening. How YOU define it or not is up to you. We can see evidence of evolution within our own genome. The real issue is that something as complex as human life evolving from a previous life form cannot be seen in real time. But the evidence is there. If you choose to ignore it then it's your prerogative to do so. Just don't impose it on the rest of us.
There ARE other explanations for these observations, but none as compelling as evolution. I don't doubt that we may find a better explanation (or at least a more complete understanding) in the future. But as it stands, it is not the "only reasonable explanation" (as you put it) just the best.
I've read Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box and a number of other papers that he's written. He's a smart guy, he does believe in evolution, just not evolution by natural selection. He believes in evolution directed by Intelligent Design. However, his evidence is sorely lacking. Mainly because the invisible hand of an intelligent designer is only possible by inference (i.e. we only assume that the watch had a watch maker because we've never seen one being created spontaneously). But if we did have observations (as we do with evolution) that such a thing were possible, why invoke a supernatural cause?
I don't care if you don't "believe" in evolution. It is the basis by which many of our concepts of biology come from. Even if it isn't FACTUAL by your standards, it's the best description of how the medicine and biology we practice work.
I was once talking to a physicist friend of mine and she was explaining to me that the math is NOT the reality, it's simply the best representation that we have currently, and using it helps us to manipulate the world around us.
If you really CHOOSE to not believe it, you should at least take a pragmatic approach and understand the usefulness of understanding the concepts.
True. I use this example to explain the difference. And why a lot of science DOES actually depend on faith. (Please read the rest of this post before flaming me)
If I drop a rock 1000 times and it falls to the ground. The only thing I can say for certain is that the last 1000 times I dropped the rock, it fell to the ground.
It requires faith on my part to believe that the 1001st time I drop the rock it will also drop to the ground. However, my belief is grounded in previous FACTUAL observation. Scientist recognize this, which is why they called it "a scientific theory". Because, if for the 1001st time I drop something, it might be a helium ballooon, in which case I have to figure out why that's different than the rock that I dropped before.
Sadly, religion tends to say that because the helium balloon didn't drop to the ground, all the other knowledge I gained from the rock dropping is now completely an utterly wrong and uselss. Religious observations are NOT based on fact. Can you say for certain that Moses talked to a burning bush? Have you? However, you CAN drop a rock 1000 times and see what happens for yourself.
Remember, the earth is revolving while the ISS is orbiting, so it will be very confusing to try to figure it out by watching that video. It's not like the earth is standing still while the ISS orbits.
You're ignoring the fact of the economic momentum built up by the previous administrations serious mismanagement.
I like to use this analogy:
If you've got a hole in your roof and your solution is to buy a bucket to catch the rain water. That bucket fills up and then you have to buy another one... and another one... When you're whole house is filled with buckets, that's not the time to say that you're not going to spend money to buy buckets anymore. It's time to say, "it's going to cost a lot to fix the roof but it's something that must be done."
The problem is that Obama tried to get a roofer in but caved into pressure to not pay him enough to fix the problem. So now we've got a huge hole in our roof, no more spending on buckets and water damage being done everywhere.
The problem that I have with microtransactions is that a game that's designed around them is usually (I haven't yet seen an exception) that the primary focus is to make profit off the player. Whereas traditionally, the primary purpose was to entertain the player and thereby make money off of them.
The issue of entertaining the player gets completely lost and replaced by psychological tricks to make people spend more and more money without ever actually experiencing any entertainment.
I actually think that "games" like Farmville or The Smurfs are a strange new form of gambling than actual games.
Justin Bieber is Canadian.
Personally... I think this is brilliant.
They assassinated him, now they're assassinating his character. It's hard to follow a martyr who's a horny lecherous old man who's into tasty teens. They're basically doing to bin Laden what the western media does to washed up celebrities. It doesn't matter how successful and popular Charlie Sheen may have been... nobody's would follow him into battle now.
Yes, they'll be missing out on a lot of older talent. But it's pretty obvious that record companies are more comfortable telling you what you want to listen to instead of trying to discover new talent.
Google has youtube... the amount of talent on there is ridiculous... they just have to sign people like this.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5WB-p-QBJc
If it came down to it, I wouldn't put it past the cable companies to destroy themselves just to take Netflix down. The cable companies would probably put themselves to the brink of going out of business and only be pulled back by being bailed out by the government.
And at that point, Netflix would be gone and it would be mission accomplished.
Do you french kiss your mother with that mouth?
He calls it a "freedom kiss"
Damn! Mile is a foreign language?! We should change it to 1776 yards in a mile and change the name to a "Freedom"!
This argument is looking at it the completely wrong way. Whether you need it or not, should you have to pay $500/Gb? Poor or not?
No scientific theory is ever really "proven." It is only upheld by the evidence. What happens is that as more and more evidence is presented, the theory is refined so our understand of the underlying processes becomes clearer and more accurate.
The discovery of genetics could have seriously undermined the theory of evolution since a TON of new hereditary and ancestral evidence arose. However, not only did it not refute evolution, it became the strongest evidence to support it.
I also want to point out a major reason why it's difficult for people who don't actually study evolution to understand it and I think it might "head off at the pass" your argument against my previous post.
Evolution does NOT happen within a single organism during its lifetime. A fish isn't born a fish and then some time while it's alive, become another species. It happens progressively through generations. So while (in my Down's Syndrome example) the first person may have an exact copy of chromosome 21, that trait will likely be inherited by any offspring that person may have. Due to the way gametes are produced (via crossing and whatnot) in diploid organism, and how gametes combine to form a single organism, there will be SIGNIFICANT differences not only in the original parent with Down's Syndrome and the child. Thus creating "new information" that is not an exact copy.
I believe the original challenge was to point to how an organism can gain new genetic information. I think I have done that handily.
Also, this example only deals with Down's syndrome and only humans and only across one generation... there are countless other ways that genetic information can erroneously replicate to give a "canvas" to create new information.
Um... see... this is where your lack of knowledge keeps you from seeing the possibilities...
A duplicate of the same information allows you to have additional information through mutation IN ADDITION to the current existing genotype.
So you have one copy of a book... the original book remains the same, but then mutations occur in the copy... which lead to favorable or unfavorable traits IN ADDITION to the traits of the original book. This is the very essence of evolution.
Oh... and I don't need to cite an experiment. I can point to a real world example.
Down's syndrome is caused by the presence of an extra chromosome. THAT is additional genetic information right there.
Just because YOU can't figure out how an organism can gain information (and likely this is because you don't know enough about biology) doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
That is the basis of intelligent design. "I can't figure out how it could happen, that means that it doesn't - And no... I refuse to learn more so that I might be able to figure it out". That's fundamentally the basis of irreducible complexity - I can't figure it out the evolutionary mechanism, therefore it must have been designed. It's sad because others DO... and every example of irreducible complexity offered up by the ID community has plausible processes by which they could have evolved.
This is a fallacy that keeps getting spouted off by ID proponents.
Genetic information CAN be gained... but even if it couldn't, it wouldn't matter. The amoeba... one of the "simplest" forms of life, has one of the largest observed genomes to date.
Simply through mutation of existing genetic information, the passing of it through sexual and non-sexual reproduction we can observe (yes OBSERVE) changes in genotype and phenotype.
Of course it's the games.
It couldn't be that their parents don't care about their kids feelings (and leave them sitting in front of the tv playing violent games) that teaches not to care about the feelings of others.
Radiation is good for you! Ann Coulter says so!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXFUUGeV1DI
I'm pretty sure that fanatical Christians make up a minority in US...
But they sure are the loudest... and possibly have the most influence since they make up a large part of your government.
Not really. This is a matter of law. You can own your own body and still not do things with it that are illegal.
Personally, I think that this is a good idea. People can be pressured into all sorts of things. Selling parts of your body should not be one of those.