Natural selection is not the only factor in the mutational history of an organism.
The hypothesis is that when an organism is under stress it's genetic code is altered in small ways that may SEEM random but that in reality reflect basic information about the nature of the stress (not enough food, not enough water, harmful chemical in the environment) that information is stored in the huge portions of DNA that currently seem to serve very little purpose. Based on this information the organism will favor, or at least not as aggressively discourage, the mutation of certain areas of the genetic code that are influenced by that area of stress.
Now before all of you post-graduate geneticists start your flame throwers I am not proposing this hypothesis directly, it is a CRUDE and BAD example of something that could be postulated by someone far more informed on the subject than myself. The purpose is to show that it would be possible to construct a hypothesis that a basic intelligent system could increase the likelihood of mutations in certain areas of the genome. This would mean that the mutations involved in evolution are not purely random. Just by increasing the chances of a mutation in a certain area instead of relying on random mutations system wide would increase the chances of a beneficial mutation enormously. Such a system would address many of the criticisms of "non-theistic" intelligent design proponents. Is it entirely misguided (the concept, not my two minute hypothesis)? Would it cause a HUGE disruption in the the theory of evolution? Does it even remotely look like creationism?
The biggest reason this wouldn't work well right now is because there are so many pieces of software that are written by small companies that couldn't afford a massive change in liability laws.
This would turn software into a business that needs an enormous amount of money to enter the market, which would essentially destroy small startups and leave the business to large well-funded corporations. Open source software would never be usable outside of a very narrow range of applications that present little to no legal liability unless a large company were willing to absorb their liability costs (insurance, etc.).
As it stands even Microsoft states in its EULA that it does not warrant Windows or Office to be good for any purpose. If every student or business person could sue Microsoft for losing their important document minutes before their presentations, even Microsoft, with their billions in the bank, would not be able to stay in business long.
In addition, the reason companies fix publicly disclosed bugs is not because of liability, it is because a known bug makes them look bad to prospective customers. If they had to worry about the sort of liability you are talking about they would be hesitant to fix any bug that didn't open them to a lawsuit, just in case the FIX created an issue they could be sued for.
Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. If you didn't pick up the mail that is casually mentioned in the first few moments of the game, you are essentially screwed once you get on the Vogon ship. If you didn't by the extra "hint" books some of these things where almost impossible.
Apparently Microsoft has decided that the market is now mature enough to start tightening up on the availability of pirate versions. They have the 90% market penetration, now they want to get the money out of that market. The first hit was free now it is time to pay.
The Chinese government has been under a lot of pressure to show more concern about "intellectual property" so let the dog and pony begin.
Sorry this is off topic, but this twit just slapped my "kick me, I'm an ASS" button.
Thank you for taking this opportunity to put down other religious groups by pointing out that your particular brand of Christianity (let me guess...Catholic?) is both the "proper Apostolic Authority" and the home of "true Authority Christians". Get off your high horse and realize your "ACCURATE translations of the Bible" didn't come together for 200+ years, knocking a few years of of your 1500 year estimate. (I think the Coptic Church may have beaten you on that one and they can trace their age at least as far as the Catholic Church and with far less interference from pagan worshipping Monarchs "helping" them get their act together in Nicea.)
I heard a Catholic priest during his homily say that manna from Heaven was a swarm of insects (presumably because the people of Israel were too stupid to know they were eating insects and simply write that instead), is that Official Authorised One True Faith(TM) doctrine or was it some doddering priest talking out of his head? It isn't literal, it's literalistic so that makes it reasonable instead of subjecting you to ridicule for believing something silly. It also denigrates something the Catholic Church has called a miracle for centuries to a happy and slightly disgusting accident.
You may have deluded yourself into thinking that your church has taken a logical and reasonable stance in balancing science and scripture, but if you really pin down the doctrine of the Catholic Church they will tell you that thier official view on several Bible "stories" is far more literal than you may want to believe. The OFFICIAL belief of the Catholic Church- the parting of the Red Sea was not a seasonal event that should have been perfectly familiar to everyone involved, Israeli and Egyptian alike. Christ fed 5000 people with a couple fish and a loaf of bread. Christ DIED and 3 days later RESURRECTED, and every time you take communion your are EATING THE BODY OF CHRIST and and DRINKING HIS BLOOD. So the next time you want to point out the absurdity of someone else's beliefs realize that your own sometimes stretches the standard model of reality.
Hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine eye, and then thou wilt see clearly to cast out the mote out of the eye of thy brother.
If you don't believe something man up and say you don't believe it, don't bend and twist your religious teachings so don't look like an idiot for believing it. Half of what most Catholics will tell you about their "literalistic" view of the Bible would have gotten them excommunicated and burned 500 years ago.
I think the point that many people are trying to make is that suppressing the minority view by shouting them down or dismissing them is crackpots is rarely a productive stance. No one cares if someone claims global warming can be stopped by wearing underwear on your head unless enough people begin to believe it.
Some are beginning to make noise about stripping dissenting scientist of certification and awards if they publically denounce the concept of global warming. Why? Because each "anti-warming" voice gives a little extra support to people who would rather not address the issue because of greed, apathy, our political expediency. The dissenting voices may truly believe that global warming is not happening, or is not caused by humans, and in some cases they may have data to support their case, but their reasonable and well thought out ideas are used in broad and irresponsible ways to serve political ends. The debate is not being driven by opposing scientific opinion, it is being guided by self interest on both sides. Scientific consensus, like all consensus, is sometimes wrong and should not be allowed to protect itself from criticism by shutting down the debate. The same is just as true for evolution, general relativity, and quantum mechanics, as it was for the Earth-centric model of the Universe, Alchemy, abiogenesis and the hundreds of other "scientific" ideas that have fallen by the way side.
Someone will always point out that many failed "scientific" models failed before rigorous use of the scientific method was common, and that is true, but the scientific method REQUIRES dissenting ideas to test against or it is nearly worthless.
One hastens to point out that the thou shalt not kill commandment says "THOU" not I, leaving God perfectly free to smite at will. Also there are some who would say that when taken back to the original language the commandment is thou shalt not MURDER, which is completely separate from God sponsored righteous killin'. While I must assume that is the actual meaning of said commandment, given God's later instructions to Saul concerning going into a village, killing every man, woman, child, and farm animal in said village then knocking down the buildings until no two stones were still on top of one another, it does seem like a big loophole.
Remember kids, Jesus loves you, God on the other hand uses world wide floods to do his spring cleaning, so keep the prayers coming.
RSSOwl http://www.rssowl.org/ I agree that whatever it is doing shouldn't be necessary but I just wish I had a choice between answering the prompt EVERY time I open this, and turn off UAC completely. I can't believe that Microsoft didn't read some of the beta reviews that mentioned that the UAC could be much less annoying if it had mechanism for "whitelisting" an app. Maybe they just couldn't think of a secure way to implement it.
Then why does it prompt me EVERY time I open my RSS reader? Including needing a password if I am running in a non-admin user? Why does an RSS reader need admin access?
D: Nortel takes the loss and redoubles its efforts to produce a VOIP system that is BETTER THAN THE OTHER OPTIONS!
If companies would just shut up and stop trying to use lawyers and politics to keep customers and silence competitors maybe they could consentrate on making a product that is worthy of being used.
And the crop should be an easy to grow non-food crop, not one that need tons of fertilizer and may sell better on a food market one day and a fuel market the next. A good example would be kudzu, or for all those in favor of GM crops hemp with THC sliced out of the equation.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, so let us re-frame the debate.
Hypothesis:
Natural selection is not the only factor in the mutational history of an organism.
The hypothesis is that when an organism is under stress it's genetic code is altered in small ways that may SEEM random but that in reality reflect basic information about the nature of the stress (not enough food, not enough water, harmful chemical in the environment) that information is stored in the huge portions of DNA that currently seem to serve very little purpose. Based on this information the organism will favor, or at least not as aggressively discourage, the mutation of certain areas of the genetic code that are influenced by that area of stress.
Now before all of you post-graduate geneticists start your flame throwers I am not proposing this hypothesis directly, it is a CRUDE and BAD example of something that could be postulated by someone far more informed on the subject than myself. The purpose is to show that it would be possible to construct a hypothesis that a basic intelligent system could increase the likelihood of mutations in certain areas of the genome. This would mean that the mutations involved in evolution are not purely random. Just by increasing the chances of a mutation in a certain area instead of relying on random mutations system wide would increase the chances of a beneficial mutation enormously. Such a system would address many of the criticisms of "non-theistic" intelligent design proponents. Is it entirely misguided (the concept, not my two minute hypothesis)? Would it cause a HUGE disruption in the the theory of evolution? Does it even remotely look like creationism?
The biggest reason this wouldn't work well right now is because there are so many pieces of software that are written by small companies that couldn't afford a massive change in liability laws. This would turn software into a business that needs an enormous amount of money to enter the market, which would essentially destroy small startups and leave the business to large well-funded corporations. Open source software would never be usable outside of a very narrow range of applications that present little to no legal liability unless a large company were willing to absorb their liability costs (insurance, etc.). As it stands even Microsoft states in its EULA that it does not warrant Windows or Office to be good for any purpose. If every student or business person could sue Microsoft for losing their important document minutes before their presentations, even Microsoft, with their billions in the bank, would not be able to stay in business long. In addition, the reason companies fix publicly disclosed bugs is not because of liability, it is because a known bug makes them look bad to prospective customers. If they had to worry about the sort of liability you are talking about they would be hesitant to fix any bug that didn't open them to a lawsuit, just in case the FIX created an issue they could be sued for.
Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. If you didn't pick up the mail that is casually mentioned in the first few moments of the game, you are essentially screwed once you get on the Vogon ship. If you didn't by the extra "hint" books some of these things where almost impossible.
Apparently Microsoft has decided that the market is now mature enough to start tightening up on the availability of pirate versions. They have the 90% market penetration, now they want to get the money out of that market. The first hit was free now it is time to pay. The Chinese government has been under a lot of pressure to show more concern about "intellectual property" so let the dog and pony begin.
Sorry this is off topic, but this twit just slapped my "kick me, I'm an ASS" button. Thank you for taking this opportunity to put down other religious groups by pointing out that your particular brand of Christianity (let me guess...Catholic?) is both the "proper Apostolic Authority" and the home of "true Authority Christians". Get off your high horse and realize your "ACCURATE translations of the Bible" didn't come together for 200+ years, knocking a few years of of your 1500 year estimate. (I think the Coptic Church may have beaten you on that one and they can trace their age at least as far as the Catholic Church and with far less interference from pagan worshipping Monarchs "helping" them get their act together in Nicea.) I heard a Catholic priest during his homily say that manna from Heaven was a swarm of insects (presumably because the people of Israel were too stupid to know they were eating insects and simply write that instead), is that Official Authorised One True Faith(TM) doctrine or was it some doddering priest talking out of his head? It isn't literal, it's literalistic so that makes it reasonable instead of subjecting you to ridicule for believing something silly. It also denigrates something the Catholic Church has called a miracle for centuries to a happy and slightly disgusting accident. You may have deluded yourself into thinking that your church has taken a logical and reasonable stance in balancing science and scripture, but if you really pin down the doctrine of the Catholic Church they will tell you that thier official view on several Bible "stories" is far more literal than you may want to believe. The OFFICIAL belief of the Catholic Church- the parting of the Red Sea was not a seasonal event that should have been perfectly familiar to everyone involved, Israeli and Egyptian alike. Christ fed 5000 people with a couple fish and a loaf of bread. Christ DIED and 3 days later RESURRECTED, and every time you take communion your are EATING THE BODY OF CHRIST and and DRINKING HIS BLOOD. So the next time you want to point out the absurdity of someone else's beliefs realize that your own sometimes stretches the standard model of reality. Hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine eye, and then thou wilt see clearly to cast out the mote out of the eye of thy brother. If you don't believe something man up and say you don't believe it, don't bend and twist your religious teachings so don't look like an idiot for believing it. Half of what most Catholics will tell you about their "literalistic" view of the Bible would have gotten them excommunicated and burned 500 years ago.
I think the point that many people are trying to make is that suppressing the minority view by shouting them down or dismissing them is crackpots is rarely a productive stance. No one cares if someone claims global warming can be stopped by wearing underwear on your head unless enough people begin to believe it. Some are beginning to make noise about stripping dissenting scientist of certification and awards if they publically denounce the concept of global warming. Why? Because each "anti-warming" voice gives a little extra support to people who would rather not address the issue because of greed, apathy, our political expediency. The dissenting voices may truly believe that global warming is not happening, or is not caused by humans, and in some cases they may have data to support their case, but their reasonable and well thought out ideas are used in broad and irresponsible ways to serve political ends. The debate is not being driven by opposing scientific opinion, it is being guided by self interest on both sides. Scientific consensus, like all consensus, is sometimes wrong and should not be allowed to protect itself from criticism by shutting down the debate. The same is just as true for evolution, general relativity, and quantum mechanics, as it was for the Earth-centric model of the Universe, Alchemy, abiogenesis and the hundreds of other "scientific" ideas that have fallen by the way side. Someone will always point out that many failed "scientific" models failed before rigorous use of the scientific method was common, and that is true, but the scientific method REQUIRES dissenting ideas to test against or it is nearly worthless.
One hastens to point out that the thou shalt not kill commandment says "THOU" not I, leaving God perfectly free to smite at will. Also there are some who would say that when taken back to the original language the commandment is thou shalt not MURDER, which is completely separate from God sponsored righteous killin'. While I must assume that is the actual meaning of said commandment, given God's later instructions to Saul concerning going into a village, killing every man, woman, child, and farm animal in said village then knocking down the buildings until no two stones were still on top of one another, it does seem like a big loophole. Remember kids, Jesus loves you, God on the other hand uses world wide floods to do his spring cleaning, so keep the prayers coming.
RSSOwl http://www.rssowl.org/ I agree that whatever it is doing shouldn't be necessary but I just wish I had a choice between answering the prompt EVERY time I open this, and turn off UAC completely. I can't believe that Microsoft didn't read some of the beta reviews that mentioned that the UAC could be much less annoying if it had mechanism for "whitelisting" an app. Maybe they just couldn't think of a secure way to implement it.
Then why does it prompt me EVERY time I open my RSS reader? Including needing a password if I am running in a non-admin user? Why does an RSS reader need admin access?
D: Nortel takes the loss and redoubles its efforts to produce a VOIP system that is BETTER THAN THE OTHER OPTIONS! If companies would just shut up and stop trying to use lawyers and politics to keep customers and silence competitors maybe they could consentrate on making a product that is worthy of being used.
And the crop should be an easy to grow non-food crop, not one that need tons of fertilizer and may sell better on a food market one day and a fuel market the next. A good example would be kudzu, or for all those in favor of GM crops hemp with THC sliced out of the equation.