I have always thought the coolest geeks actualy had lives. Feynman was proof of that. (Contrast that insane idiot in PI) ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
No one said it was a productivity issue. Try a sexual harrasment issue, remember pornagraphy in the work place is a public offence even if it isn't public. I think that might be more the legal issue described above. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^ ~
Thats a much better way to put it. I don't mean to be condescending, but it looked like you didn't want to be flamed so I thought I would give some pointers.
Its the crucible of stupidity. Maybe you should think about a few things first.
1) These are development releases. You don't seem to be able to handle them. Its okay to realize your own deficiencies.
2) Give constructive critisism, rather than general "its unusable...I don't hold out much hope for its quality". Layout problems and strange refreshes are a hassle. But its a development release. But without much specific to share, it sounds more like FUD.
There is probably a 3 and a 4, when i think of them I'll write later. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^ ~
It was there most subsantive point. How the money will actually keep the uber-geek programmers that have worked off of the feeling of satisfaction and publicized prowess from continuing there work.
But then, haven't we always been pushing for the day when companies would write there own drivers? Look at what is going on in the graphics card market. All rushing to show that not only are they fastest on Linux, but that they are open source friendly (of which Matrox seems to be winning.)
It is going from sexy to where it should be and always really was. The nerd who just wants to use a particular piece of hardware on his system, and the proud hardware developers that want to see it run well. Maybe even the college kid who wants real world programming experience on what he is learning.
Money is doing exactly what I hoped it would. Adding to the development effort, giving more reasons for more people to contribute. Nothing has happened to scar anyone off, except maybe the level of entry as the kernel and software in general becomes more complex. And that is a good thing. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^ ~
The ratio of beneficial mutations to non benificial mutations is so small that statisticians would argue it doesn't exist.
However for my purposes, it is plenty small enough to show that without an anti-entropic agent (as the AC puts it) it would lead to worsening the conditions of life rather than increasing them. Darwin just throws up his hands and says "Natural Selection" is this agent. Its true, but about as useful as saying the cream in side of twinkies is "just born there." Underlying the AC arguements is specificaly that a natural (random, non-intelligent) mechanism is not sufficient to be such an agent. In the experiment Humans were or created the agent.
There have been many experiments in accelorated mutations in the lab of variously complex organizms (Grasshoppers being about the most complex) and the ratio of good mutations to bad is so low that they have never observed a beneficial mutation. Random mutations have never even produced a "better" bacteria. (This is different than saying they haven't found bacteria that have mutated and are superior.) And it seems the more complex the genetic code, the less likely a beneficial mutation is. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
Well holy crap, I guess I'm never having a kid... I'd have to recreate my house and my job and my planet and my sun and solar system and...
your thinking too "here and now". Your child will buy a house, and he will get a job to survive. This Anonymous Coward has hit on a key principle that you might misunderstand, but is very fascinating and rings as true.
What is the element that keeps any mutation from doing any good? Many reproduced mutations do nothing at all, and all the others do harm. Now what about Genetic Engineering? That is a change but one acted on by a anti-entropic force (intelligence). A person learns the laws of the engineering of a plant and intelligently designes a new feature to it.
The program would halt very soon if it were just left to randomly modify the code. Try writing a self modifying kernel and see how many lock-ups you get. There is a anti-entropic force at work here that is coded into their universe, and our Universe. Evolution and Darwin have failed to point it out or find it themselves. That force especially needs to reproduce life, and the conditions of that life to be "anti-entropic".
I believe this is what the AC has said. Funny the most correct work on slashdot I've read to date, and its by an AC. Go figure.
--ps I don't presume to speak for this AC, and could be misunderstanding it myself. But I'd sure like the AC to contact me sometime to find out. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
I agree, science is blinded to only see what it is looking for. But I see something really interesting in the discussion of "what they found" here.
It seems as though that as far as the criteria of selection is met, a certain intelligence can be applied to maximize its survivability.
Now I bet a perusal of the resultant code finds that the programs still do what they were origionaly designed for, and therfor to some you could say the code is unchanged. But is has in that it meets the criteria better than it did before.
With this we should learn more about how genetic coding might utilize simular techniques. However to me it points out how even more preposterous life from nothing is. Even here life is formed on the basis of following established laws. Nothing here creates itself, or its own purpose.
No ones computer accidentaly spawns these programs, even after billions of computing cycles. These programs were created for a purpose (as you point out) and then continue in that purpose being graded by the conditions of their creation. Its almost religious what they found.... ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^ ~~^~
Natural selection is a law. This is true. Is this a law of evolution? No one knows. Some believe it is, some believe it isn't.
Should it be taught as a law of evolution? Sure! Should it be mandated? No.
These are my points. I don't know who and what you are arguing with.
As far as developing features and changes, for example a domesticated pig, if intorduced to the wild grows tusks and hair just like its, what do you call them, ancestors? Simularly horses decrease in size, and develop heightened sences. Yet in hundreds of documented years and generations of horse breeding and human selection, we do not have a new species of throuroghbred, nor a faster one.
At what point did they go from non-seeing to seeing Trilobytes? Many plants and animals can detect the presence of light. And many of them develop mechanisms to detect it better (enhancing of specific abilities). Did Trilobytes ever evolve a lense to move from detecting light to focusing it to pictures?
Throughout history, and Darwin was just one of many, there is a believed progression to the present day that happens in stages. Archeologists use it to explain things as much as evlutionists.
The problem comes when assumptions like "In the natural progression of the development of steel it went from the Roman Empire who developed it to the rest of the world." For years steel artifacts were dated by guessing how long the technology of steel would travel from Rome to Europe.
Now we find the Europe, and even the mideast had steel before the Roman Empire. These assumptions are dangerous to teach as fact, and even more dangerous to mandate.
that is my point. You can feel free to find that other person you must be arguing with.
(Besides, those "missing links" have very interesting features that do not neccisarily show up on humans. They have teeth that all of a sudden are all molars, then change suddenly (not gradualy) back to incisors, etc... no hybrid intermediaries like you'd expect if they were co-existing mutations.)
I wonder if you are arguing that evolution doesn't have holes? Maybe I need to get out the Scientific American article that I am remembering. It was a good article, and the way I'd like evolution to be taught.
After all, my anthropology teacher told the story...
"one morning I went to take a shower only to find that there was no water. Sure enough we went through the house to find that no water was coming out of anywhere.
I asked my wife, 'did we pay the phone bill?' She went and looked, and sure enough we were late in paying. So I took the morning off of work to run some money down to the Woter Department.
When I asked 'when can you have the water turned back on?' the lady behind the desk replied 'We never shut it off."
It turns out that that very day, the water main broke and the water was shut off. Evidence A and B (past due bill, and water being off) naturaly predicted C. However, there was something completely outside the system we were taking into account that was the truth."
That is what I think about evolution, and why I think Kansas made the right decision. (Now, if you argue that you must quote the decision to prove you actually understand what they did before continuing, okay?) ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^ ~
tens of thousands of years is enough to show a gradual change in animals. This gradual change happens. Where were humans 10,000 years ago, how different did they look? How old is Kenowick(sp) man?
Many changes are missing, and are therefore leaps of logic. Stop gaps. Especially between species. Mutations happen, all the time, but the quantum jumps between species happens, and there seem to be missing links all over the place.
Thats all I'm saying. Not that Evolution is bad, but it is strangely one of the most *protected* theories to me since the Aristotolian theory of the Universe. Most people like you and me can meet in the middle and say... "It makes sence to say that it is full of holes and just theory." It should still be taught, and I even agree that creation should be taught in Sunday school, not in school. But not mandated. Why does it deserve such protection?
But reasonably, too much reaction to anyone that steps up and says "Hey lets have a look at this scientificaly, does it really say what we keep thinking it says?"
When was the first chiuaua? What was its most closest ancestor? Why do we need to even say it has an ancestor, wouldn't the changes be even more gradual than that? ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
But let me explain. To me a pigment is a chemical that adds color for color's sake. Chlorophyl has a distinct color, but its purpose is not to attract bees for instance. How many mutations does it take to add the genetic trait of creating a color that is there to add visual distinction? How many mutations does it take before a flower learns the advantage of visual distinction to fuel such a genetic change? And this is about the tiniest evolution that I can think of. Once a flower's genetics involves color, then changing color is just adaptation.
AFAIK (bait for information) there is no support that flowers were ever *just* green or white, it is an assumption based on evolution rather than support for it. See where people get confused sometimes? See why it shouldn't be mandated or tought as fact? And this is a tiny evolution. It should be able to explain at least that.
Or maybe I'm supposed to believe that chemicals have emotions and feel attractions for each other and that is how reactions occur? ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^ ~
This is well thought out, and very informative. Kudos. This is much more what I like about Slashdot.
Its this background that good teachers teach as science. You are also one of the first to explain that religion does work off evidence also. To often, and I don't know exactly why, but religion is sumarily dismissed as people without a brain, much like Regan supporters in the 80's and Clinton followers in the 90's.
Truth is more along the lines that everyone believes what they want to believe. And for the most part most people want to believe whats true. Why do we spend this effort to know and find these laws that already exist? To predict and plan a succesful future. This is the engineering side of Science, and what pure research ultimately results in.
But to begin engineering, you need to have a goal. This is essentialy "something you want." I wish I could put it succinctly, but notice that circle? You want something, you apply laws that predict success in what you want? First you have to find out those laws.
Why is this important? Because Science not only has a blind spot, but it has blinders. Science can only see what it wants to see. if you do an experiment, you will only gather the information you are looking for. You are looking for it because you wanted to see it.
Evolution was based on this. Darwin went out to look for a more scientific (which to many means simply Godless, but not to me) way for creation. He took what he found and packaged it as a way of creation. Problem is it doens't explain it at all. We will some day find out the answer, but evolution isn't it. We know enough to say that.
Simply put, evolution doesn't explain the fact that mutations inside of species happen very slowly. Yet the mutations between so called species happen in the millions very quickly, or by whole Quantum, all at the same time. We don't have just a missing link. We have nothing but missing links!
Radical changes in the environment are used to explain such changes, yet it is a stretch. It is more a patch on evolution rather than a theory or law. Its a stop-gap. Other stop gaps have come and gone.
The bottom line is that the Kansas Scool Board has decided that there is enough "evidence" against evolution to warrant suspending the mandate teaching it. Its all scientific. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~ ~^~~^~
okay, here's the question I want answered. How many mutations does it take for a flower to begin to add color to its petals? ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~ ^~
Why has Slashdot come to such stupid arguments. How about numerology? Maybe we should eliminate Math becuase Numerology has holes? Wait, Astrology is based on the zodiac, you can see the zodiac every night, Astrology should be mandated!
Please, punk. Get a clue. Astronomy is a science, it has pretty good evidence of planets (I've seen Saturn, and Jupiter and Mars with my own eyes.) Maybe you were refering to Cosmetology? Need a manacure? ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^ ~~^~
No lie, seeing the outlash of people here on Slashdot proves your point better than anything else.
Evolution is a good try, but it isn't any better (and mostly worse) at explaining the genisis of species as many other theories that have been discarded and forgoten. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^ ~~^~
Apparently, if creationism can not be taught, evolution should not be either
Is that what they are saying? Becuase there is a difference between that and what the article refers to as removing the mandate to teach evolution. Why should that theory be *mandated*? Ahhh yes there was the point...
... when educated people start to decide that we should NOT teach scientific theories that have held up to the highest scrutiny, then we have a problem. Should we stop with the Theory of Gravity? If we do, do they think if everyone quits learning about it, we won't fall down? But it's a theory, anyway, so we should quit teaching it..
I learned the Law of gravity, where as the theory of gravity (or rather the mathmatics that describe how one body of mass acts around another) actually didn't hold up to scrutiny, hence the major relavance of the Theory of Relativity from Einstein.
Evolution doesn't explain the creation of species, it just gives a basis for catagorizing them. Oh well, Latin was never mandated but I still have to use it to describe parts of a body. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
What this is is a bunch of geeks taking sensationalistic journalism hook line and sinker. The media loves to cover wars, not stories. So this is portrayed as a war between religios right (yay a victory for the religious right!) and Science. That is not the case, this is a victory for Science and Religion has little to do with it.
Even Scientific American recently addressed the problems of Evolution. Quantum Evolution (where species evolve into other wholy disting species) is something that is not understood and very difficultly explained with current natural models. Some reputable scientists even dismiss it whole heartedly sighting that it is only believed because we can't explain it any other way. I wish I could remember the month, it was a really good article.
Quantum Evolution deals with the *fact* that there is no evidence of small adapting steps between species (something Darwinian Evolution requires). instead you have species develop and remain unchanged for many years. If Darwinian evolution was the case, you would see more gradual changes. Right now, honestly the only support for the belief that one species evolves into another is mearly that they show the same traits. (Ooh that knuckle looks like one from the hand of a person!)
Now, I'm not playing God's advocate here. There have been many scientific beliefs (Aristotle's theory of the Universe for one) that had evidence and was taught in the schools. Why? Becuase there was no other way of explaining it? Isn't that what we are doing now in mandating Evolution as a fact? Talk about knowing better since 1799, I wouldn't want to see us revert back to before 1599.
No one is saying that Genisis will ever be opened in a classroom. Or especially required on a test. But honestly, Evolution has holes, serious ones. It should be tought that way, or stripped down to what we can say is happening (micro-evolution happens).
Linux still doesn't any of the management tools and high end features that AIX has and Monterrey will have.
It may not be long until it does. As many have pointed out, they look more like they are keeping there bases covered. But then what will be the draw to AIX when linux has XFS working, and linuxconf (which could still use some lessons from SMIT) and Catia, and AFS, and... well these things aren't that far off (compated to Monterey.)
Here's a quickie, suppose Monterey is released under some open source, but patent protected in certain sensitive areas? Then anyone can fix it, but only those who have issue to the patents can actually sell/use it. Would it be like the MPL (NPL, APL, EPL, QPL) but only useful to companies and have spin-off control?
Do you suppose that its connected to the Digital machine at all like it says it can be connected to a router? I mean it does use its own port after all. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
Slashdot Mirror
And a good bongo-drum player....
I have always thought the coolest geeks actualy had lives. Feynman was proof of that. (Contrast that insane idiot in PI)
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
I GOT 18 disks on a raid!
~ ^~
Where's the memo on that one?
I see what you do on company time and bandwidth now....
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~
Everyone's a commedian.~ ^~~^~
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~
No one said it was a productivity issue. Try a sexual harrasment issue, remember pornagraphy in the work place is a public offence even if it isn't public. I think that might be more the legal issue described above.^ ~
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~
Thats a much better way to put it. I don't mean to be condescending, but it looked like you didn't want to be flamed so I thought I would give some pointers.
No harm no foul. We can be friends?
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
Yeah, you were right, you'll get flamed.
^ ~
Its the crucible of stupidity. Maybe you should think about a few things first.
1) These are development releases. You don't seem to be able to handle them. Its okay to realize your own deficiencies.
2) Give constructive critisism, rather than general "its unusable...I don't hold out much hope for its quality". Layout problems and strange refreshes are a hassle. But its a development release. But without much specific to share, it sounds more like FUD.
There is probably a 3 and a 4, when i think of them I'll write later.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~
It was there most subsantive point. How the money will actually keep the uber-geek programmers that have worked off of the feeling of satisfaction and publicized prowess from continuing there work.
^ ~
But then, haven't we always been pushing for the day when companies would write there own drivers? Look at what is going on in the graphics card market. All rushing to show that not only are they fastest on Linux, but that they are open source friendly (of which Matrox seems to be winning.)
It is going from sexy to where it should be and always really was. The nerd who just wants to use a particular piece of hardware on his system, and the proud hardware developers that want to see it run well. Maybe even the college kid who wants real world programming experience on what he is learning.
Money is doing exactly what I hoped it would. Adding to the development effort, giving more reasons for more people to contribute. Nothing has happened to scar anyone off, except maybe the level of entry as the kernel and software in general becomes more complex. And that is a good thing.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~
The ratio of beneficial mutations to non benificial mutations is so small that statisticians would argue it doesn't exist.
However for my purposes, it is plenty small enough to show that without an anti-entropic agent (as the AC puts it) it would lead to worsening the conditions of life rather than increasing them. Darwin just throws up his hands and says "Natural Selection" is this agent. Its true, but about as useful as saying the cream in side of twinkies is "just born there." Underlying the AC arguements is specificaly that a natural (random, non-intelligent) mechanism is not sufficient to be such an agent. In the experiment Humans were or created the agent.
There have been many experiments in accelorated mutations in the lab of variously complex organizms (Grasshoppers being about the most complex) and the ratio of good mutations to bad is so low that they have never observed a beneficial mutation. Random mutations have never even produced a "better" bacteria. (This is different than saying they haven't found bacteria that have mutated and are superior.) And it seems the more complex the genetic code, the less likely a beneficial mutation is.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
alas its only paper-tradeing~ ^~~~^~~^~
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~
Well holy crap, I guess I'm never having a kid... I'd have to recreate my house and my job and my planet and my sun and solar system and...
your thinking too "here and now". Your child will buy a house, and he will get a job to survive. This Anonymous Coward has hit on a key principle that you might misunderstand, but is very fascinating and rings as true.
What is the element that keeps any mutation from doing any good? Many reproduced mutations do nothing at all, and all the others do harm. Now what about Genetic Engineering? That is a change but one acted on by a anti-entropic force (intelligence). A person learns the laws of the engineering of a plant and intelligently designes a new feature to it.
The program would halt very soon if it were just left to randomly modify the code. Try writing a self modifying kernel and see how many lock-ups you get. There is a anti-entropic force at work here that is coded into their universe, and our Universe. Evolution and Darwin have failed to point it out or find it themselves. That force especially needs to reproduce life, and the conditions of that life to be "anti-entropic".
I believe this is what the AC has said. Funny the most correct work on slashdot I've read to date, and its by an AC. Go figure.
--ps I don't presume to speak for this AC, and could be misunderstanding it myself. But I'd sure like the AC to contact me sometime to find out.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
I agree, science is blinded to only see what it is looking for. But I see something really interesting in the discussion of "what they found" here.
It seems as though that as far as the criteria of selection is met, a certain intelligence can be applied to maximize its survivability.
Now I bet a perusal of the resultant code finds that the programs still do what they were origionaly designed for, and therfor to some you could say the code is unchanged. But is has in that it meets the criteria better than it did before.
With this we should learn more about how genetic coding might utilize simular techniques. However to me it points out how even more preposterous life from nothing is. Even here life is formed on the basis of following established laws. Nothing here creates itself, or its own purpose.
No ones computer accidentaly spawns these programs, even after billions of computing cycles. These programs were created for a purpose (as you point out) and then continue in that purpose being graded by the conditions of their creation. Its almost religious what they found....
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~
ha! 113 shares at 85.323 baby! Better get out around 60, its not gonna reach 6 for a long time.~
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^
"The Significance of the American Frontier" by Frederick Jackson Turner.
~ ~^~~^~
(I could have the title slightly wrong for which I appologize)
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~
Natural selection is a law. This is true. Is this a law of evolution? No one knows. Some believe it is, some believe it isn't.
Should it be taught as a law of evolution? Sure! Should it be mandated? No.
These are my points. I don't know who and what you are arguing with.
As far as developing features and changes, for example a domesticated pig, if intorduced to the wild grows tusks and hair just like its, what do you call them, ancestors? Simularly horses decrease in size, and develop heightened sences. Yet in hundreds of documented years and generations of horse breeding and human selection, we do not have a new species of throuroghbred, nor a faster one.
At what point did they go from non-seeing to seeing Trilobytes? Many plants and animals can detect the presence of light. And many of them develop mechanisms to detect it better (enhancing of specific abilities). Did Trilobytes ever evolve a lense to move from detecting light to focusing it to pictures?
Throughout history, and Darwin was just one of many, there is a believed progression to the present day that happens in stages. Archeologists use it to explain things as much as evlutionists.
The problem comes when assumptions like "In the natural progression of the development of steel it went from the Roman Empire who developed it to the rest of the world." For years steel artifacts were dated by guessing how long the technology of steel would travel from Rome to Europe.
Now we find the Europe, and even the mideast had steel before the Roman Empire. These assumptions are dangerous to teach as fact, and even more dangerous to mandate.
that is my point. You can feel free to find that other person you must be arguing with.
(Besides, those "missing links" have very interesting features that do not neccisarily show up on humans. They have teeth that all of a sudden are all molars, then change suddenly (not gradualy) back to incisors, etc... no hybrid intermediaries like you'd expect if they were co-existing mutations.)
I wonder if you are arguing that evolution doesn't have holes? Maybe I need to get out the Scientific American article that I am remembering. It was a good article, and the way I'd like evolution to be taught.
After all, my anthropology teacher told the story...
"one morning I went to take a shower only to find that there was no water. Sure enough we went through the house to find that no water was coming out of anywhere.
I asked my wife, 'did we pay the phone bill?' She went and looked, and sure enough we were late in paying. So I took the morning off of work to run some money down to the Woter Department.
When I asked 'when can you have the water turned back on?' the lady behind the desk replied 'We never shut it off."
It turns out that that very day, the water main broke and the water was shut off. Evidence A and B (past due bill, and water being off) naturaly predicted C. However, there was something completely outside the system we were taking into account that was the truth."
That is what I think about evolution, and why I think Kansas made the right decision. (Now, if you argue that you must quote the decision to prove you actually understand what they did before continuing, okay?)
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~
tens of thousands of years is enough to show a gradual change in animals. This gradual change happens. Where were humans 10,000 years ago, how different did they look? How old is Kenowick(sp) man?
~
Many changes are missing, and are therefore leaps of logic. Stop gaps. Especially between species. Mutations happen, all the time, but the quantum jumps between species happens, and there seem to be missing links all over the place.
Thats all I'm saying. Not that Evolution is bad, but it is strangely one of the most *protected* theories to me since the Aristotolian theory of the Universe. Most people like you and me can meet in the middle and say... "It makes sence to say that it is full of holes and just theory." It should still be taught, and I even agree that creation should be taught in Sunday school, not in school. But not mandated. Why does it deserve such protection?
But reasonably, too much reaction to anyone that steps up and says "Hey lets have a look at this scientificaly, does it really say what we keep thinking it says?"
When was the first chiuaua? What was its most closest ancestor? Why do we need to even say it has an ancestor, wouldn't the changes be even more gradual than that?
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^
that is exactly why I asked the question.
^ ~
But let me explain. To me a pigment is a chemical that adds color for color's sake. Chlorophyl has a distinct color, but its purpose is not to attract bees for instance. How many mutations does it take to add the genetic trait of creating a color that is there to add visual distinction? How many mutations does it take before a flower learns the advantage of visual distinction to fuel such a genetic change? And this is about the tiniest evolution that I can think of. Once a flower's genetics involves color, then changing color is just adaptation.
AFAIK (bait for information) there is no support that flowers were ever *just* green or white, it is an assumption based on evolution rather than support for it. See where people get confused sometimes? See why it shouldn't be mandated or tought as fact? And this is a tiny evolution. It should be able to explain at least that.
Or maybe I'm supposed to believe that chemicals have emotions and feel attractions for each other and that is how reactions occur?
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~
This is well thought out, and very informative. Kudos. This is much more what I like about Slashdot.
~ ~^~~^~
Its this background that good teachers teach as science. You are also one of the first to explain that religion does work off evidence also. To often, and I don't know exactly why, but religion is sumarily dismissed as people without a brain, much like Regan supporters in the 80's and Clinton followers in the 90's.
Truth is more along the lines that everyone believes what they want to believe. And for the most part most people want to believe whats true. Why do we spend this effort to know and find these laws that already exist? To predict and plan a succesful future. This is the engineering side of Science, and what pure research ultimately results in.
But to begin engineering, you need to have a goal. This is essentialy "something you want." I wish I could put it succinctly, but notice that circle? You want something, you apply laws that predict success in what you want? First you have to find out those laws.
Why is this important? Because Science not only has a blind spot, but it has blinders. Science can only see what it wants to see. if you do an experiment, you will only gather the information you are looking for. You are looking for it because you wanted to see it.
Evolution was based on this. Darwin went out to look for a more scientific (which to many means simply Godless, but not to me) way for creation. He took what he found and packaged it as a way of creation. Problem is it doens't explain it at all. We will some day find out the answer, but evolution isn't it. We know enough to say that.
Simply put, evolution doesn't explain the fact that mutations inside of species happen very slowly. Yet the mutations between so called species happen in the millions very quickly, or by whole Quantum, all at the same time. We don't have just a missing link. We have nothing but missing links!
Radical changes in the environment are used to explain such changes, yet it is a stretch. It is more a patch on evolution rather than a theory or law. Its a stop-gap. Other stop gaps have come and gone.
The bottom line is that the Kansas Scool Board has decided that there is enough "evidence" against evolution to warrant suspending the mandate teaching it. Its all scientific.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~
okay, here's the question I want answered. How many mutations does it take for a flower to begin to add color to its petals?
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~
Why has Slashdot come to such stupid arguments. How about numerology? Maybe we should eliminate Math becuase Numerology has holes? Wait, Astrology is based on the zodiac, you can see the zodiac every night, Astrology should be mandated!
^ ~~^~
Please, punk. Get a clue. Astronomy is a science, it has pretty good evidence of planets (I've seen Saturn, and Jupiter and Mars with my own eyes.) Maybe you were refering to Cosmetology? Need a manacure?
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~
we don't even have the same number of Chromosomes....~ ~^~~~^~~^~
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^
No lie, seeing the outlash of people here on Slashdot proves your point better than anything else.
^ ~~^~
Evolution is a good try, but it isn't any better (and mostly worse) at explaining the genisis of species as many other theories that have been discarded and forgoten.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~
Apparently, if creationism can not be taught, evolution should not be either
... when educated people start to decide that we should NOT teach scientific theories that have held up to the highest scrutiny, then we have a problem.
~
Is that what they are saying? Becuase there is a difference between that and what the article refers to as removing the mandate to teach evolution. Why should that theory be *mandated*? Ahhh yes there was the point...
Should we stop with the Theory of Gravity? If we do, do they think if everyone quits learning about it, we won't fall down? But it's a theory, anyway, so we should quit teaching it..
I learned the Law of gravity, where as the theory of gravity (or rather the mathmatics that describe how one body of mass acts around another) actually didn't hold up to scrutiny, hence the major relavance of the Theory of Relativity from Einstein.
Evolution doesn't explain the creation of species, it just gives a basis for catagorizing them. Oh well, Latin was never mandated but I still have to use it to describe parts of a body.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^
What this is is a bunch of geeks taking sensationalistic journalism hook line and sinker. The media loves to cover wars, not stories. So this is portrayed as a war between religios right (yay a victory for the religious right!) and Science. That is not the case, this is a victory for Science and Religion has little to do with it.
Even Scientific American recently addressed the problems of Evolution. Quantum Evolution (where species evolve into other wholy disting species) is something that is not understood and very difficultly explained with current natural models. Some reputable scientists even dismiss it whole heartedly sighting that it is only believed because we can't explain it any other way. I wish I could remember the month, it was a really good article.
Quantum Evolution deals with the *fact* that there is no evidence of small adapting steps between species (something Darwinian Evolution requires). instead you have species develop and remain unchanged for many years. If Darwinian evolution was the case, you would see more gradual changes. Right now, honestly the only support for the belief that one species evolves into another is mearly that they show the same traits. (Ooh that knuckle looks like one from the hand of a person!)
Now, I'm not playing God's advocate here. There have been many scientific beliefs (Aristotle's theory of the Universe for one) that had evidence and was taught in the schools. Why? Becuase there was no other way of explaining it? Isn't that what we are doing now in mandating Evolution as a fact? Talk about knowing better since 1799, I wouldn't want to see us revert back to before 1599.
No one is saying that Genisis will ever be opened in a classroom. Or especially required on a test. But honestly, Evolution has holes, serious ones. It should be tought that way, or stripped down to what we can say is happening (micro-evolution happens).
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
Linux still doesn't any of the management tools and high end features that AIX has and Monterrey will have.
It may not be long until it does. As many have pointed out, they look more like they are keeping there bases covered. But then what will be the draw to AIX when linux has XFS working, and linuxconf (which could still use some lessons from SMIT) and Catia, and AFS, and... well these things aren't that far off (compated to Monterey.)
Here's a quickie, suppose Monterey is released under some open source, but patent protected in certain sensitive areas? Then anyone can fix it, but only those who have issue to the patents can actually sell/use it. Would it be like the MPL (NPL, APL, EPL, QPL) but only useful to companies and have spin-off control?
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
Wow, your right!
Do you suppose that its connected to the Digital machine at all like it says it can be connected to a router? I mean it does use its own port after all.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~