This stems from a confusion of what information is. Creationists define information as something intelligent beings make and therefore evolution is wrong as DNA contains information. This is a crappy circular argument. The information in DNA comes from the environment - evolution (described as a information process) can be described as the transfer of information from the environment to DNA. Natural selection ensures that those creatures whose DNA closely match the environment are allowed to continue into the next generation. Hence over time the DNA has more and more information about the environment.
No matter how stupid this question is, creationists still think it somehow stumps evolutionary biologists!
I think the focus of science class, nay all of school, should be to teach children how to think, not what to think. Facts and such can be picked up from books - proper ways of thinking are much more important to society.
The other problem esp with climate change and evolution is that it has been politicised, and so effectively it doesn't matter any more what the underlying truth is, for most people your belief about it is formed as an extension of your other beliefs which don't have anything to do with the issue.
Atheists are resistant to being formed into groups - they don't all agree on any set principles so its hard to have a unifying cause that will motivate them all.
I would like to see these "Atheist groups" that are dividing people into groups, and intimidating people...
Good hospitals rotate the disinfectant used on a monthly basis. That way as soon as a sizable portion of the bacteria has gathered resistance a new disinfectant is used. What often is ignored is that antibiotic resistant bacteria preform poorer than non-antibiotic resistant bacteria in non-antibiotic environments. So over time the percentage of resistant bacteria drop, and eventually are completely eliminated, especially if large parts of the population are removed due to a new challenge - allowing the the disinfectant's reuse.
Re:It gives you something just as bad...
on
Review: Spore
·
· Score: 1
Problem with this is that you have no incentive to make your open-source software easy to use. In fact your income is directly proportional (to how useful it is * how hard it is to manage/use). This is not a strategy for building good software!
I know you are not a creationist but just in case there are people wondering about these questions I will attempt to answer them. Especially as the previous attempt by another commenter was so appallingly bad.
Why are chicken eggs so tasty? Animals have been stealing eggs from birds for millions of years, shouldn't they have evolved some non-tasty additives by now?
I would see here two main reasons: one that if eggs changed their taste to discourage predation, predators would be under evolutionary pressure to change their taste sense to ensure they liked the taste of eggs - so this problem could not be directly solved. Some animals develop poisons to discourage others to eat them, but generally this only works for a short while before the main predators develop immunity to that poison, and now developing the poison is a penalty to you as you have to spend resources to make it while giving no benefits. The second part is that for eggs it might be more functional to focus ALL resources in getting the chick to the stage where it can defend itself / run away rather than diverting resources to producing some kind of deterrent.
Iron is an essential part of metabolism. Brains and nervous systems are basically electrical systems. Some animals even have a compass. So why do no animals have radios? Not even primitive ones.
This is an interesting question - but you have to look at what benefits a very weak radio might give a creature over using your voice (Hint: also think about possible downsides)? Generally once a solution has evolved to a problem, better solutions even if they are already in a primitive stage are blocked from evolving by being out competed.
Impressive results have been seen in modeling evolution - for example, genetic algorithms - but all of these systems plateau after a certain amount of runtime. This is the so called "local maxima" problem. Yet biologists claim with a straight face that Darwinian evolution is open ended.
Well I work in genetic algorithms so this one is easy to field. GP/GAs have a massive limit in that they don't have a simple success/failure measure like natural selection. In nature the only qualification is that you can survive, and success is easy to measure. But if you are trying to develop say an better antenna the success can be hard do measure. Now nobody says that evolution can explore all the search space - that is a basic limitation of this search algorithm - but natural selection is still massively better than our implementations of it. Co-evolution is another force multiplier for natural selection that is hard to replicate in GAs - while a GP problem might see a plateau after a while, nature will not as not only do they have to solve a problem (stay alive) they have to compete against other beings that are being evolved - leading to an arms race, and the red queen effect (you have to run as fast as you can to stay in the same place).
Horizontal gene transfer has been observed in the lab between multi-cellular organisms.. doesn't this just completely blow away the traditionalist "tree of life" assumption?
Well this is not really a question, and all I can say is so what? Hybrids are common in nature as well and a model doesn't fit well in the tree metaphor either. If something doesn't fit any more with data its replaced with something that does.
Not to get at your actual question - the reason they don't pursue these tactics is that their current tactics are successful enough at their target audience. They are not targeting people who will think will logically about this - they want the people who like easy mantras "evolution is just a theory","I'm not related to apes","randomness != order". Evolution can be hard to comprehend as it is a complex dynamic that is not easily understood by our brains which are evolved for solving linear causality - and hence the mantras appeal to our "common sense". And they don't need to disprove it either, they just need to chip away at the confidence people have in it - inserting a bit of doubt so they can have support for introducing their "Alternative theories".
Not really, the point of that is so that the judge can have some leeway in deciding the seriousness of the offence, and sentence accordingly. The real problem is when laws call for mandatory sentencing and you get people in jail for years for stealing a pizza.
Yeah but eventually you have to pop it open and take a peek inside - making conclusions from observable behaviour only takes you so far. Unfortunately neuroscience was stuck in a rut for a long time and only in the early 90s did it begin to emerge and embrace some new ideas.
Fossil fuels are - but what about nuclear, geothermal, tidal? The sun is certainly not the only source of energy on this planet (or solar system for that matter). I thought this was obvious but I guess it is not.
Ah yes, the Global Warming Industry - last year earning a billion trillion dollars by harvesting the energy from the frustration of having to separate the recyclables. Also it eats kittens.
Its not the science that is not objective its the spin / media surrounding it - don't blame the scientists if they put out a paper and some reporter blows it all out of proportion - instead read the original paper.
Slashdot Mirror
In fact, everything we know about the world is wrong where it contradicts my opinions.
This stems from a confusion of what information is. Creationists define information as something intelligent beings make and therefore evolution is wrong as DNA contains information. This is a crappy circular argument. The information in DNA comes from the environment - evolution (described as a information process) can be described as the transfer of information from the environment to DNA. Natural selection ensures that those creatures whose DNA closely match the environment are allowed to continue into the next generation. Hence over time the DNA has more and more information about the environment.
No matter how stupid this question is, creationists still think it somehow stumps evolutionary biologists!
For more information: http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm
I think the focus of science class, nay all of school, should be to teach children how to think, not what to think. Facts and such can be picked up from books - proper ways of thinking are much more important to society.
The other problem esp with climate change and evolution is that it has been politicised, and so effectively it doesn't matter any more what the underlying truth is, for most people your belief about it is formed as an extension of your other beliefs which don't have anything to do with the issue.
Why wait? Attend a church today!
Atheists are resistant to being formed into groups - they don't all agree on any set principles so its hard to have a unifying cause that will motivate them all.
I would like to see these "Atheist groups" that are dividing people into groups, and intimidating people...
English is his preferred language. He could speak Hebrew, but he always had a thick accent.
Good hospitals rotate the disinfectant used on a monthly basis. That way as soon as a sizable portion of the bacteria has gathered resistance a new disinfectant is used. What often is ignored is that antibiotic resistant bacteria preform poorer than non-antibiotic resistant bacteria in non-antibiotic environments. So over time the percentage of resistant bacteria drop, and eventually are completely eliminated, especially if large parts of the population are removed due to a new challenge - allowing the the disinfectant's reuse.
Just take them to McDonalds, and the cycle continues!
superstition = causal logic + incomplete data
Notably the same as any other kind of reasoning. The only stupid thing is hanging on to some belief after it has been disproved.
This article is such easy pickings for trolls.
The water cannon?
Insert post about here
Problem with this is that you have no incentive to make your open-source software easy to use. In fact your income is directly proportional (to how useful it is * how hard it is to manage/use). This is not a strategy for building good software!
Why are chicken eggs so tasty? Animals have been stealing eggs from birds for millions of years, shouldn't they have evolved some non-tasty additives by now?
I would see here two main reasons: one that if eggs changed their taste to discourage predation, predators would be under evolutionary pressure to change their taste sense to ensure they liked the taste of eggs - so this problem could not be directly solved. Some animals develop poisons to discourage others to eat them, but generally this only works for a short while before the main predators develop immunity to that poison, and now developing the poison is a penalty to you as you have to spend resources to make it while giving no benefits. The second part is that for eggs it might be more functional to focus ALL resources in getting the chick to the stage where it can defend itself / run away rather than diverting resources to producing some kind of deterrent.
Iron is an essential part of metabolism. Brains and nervous systems are basically electrical systems. Some animals even have a compass. So why do no animals have radios? Not even primitive ones.
This is an interesting question - but you have to look at what benefits a very weak radio might give a creature over using your voice (Hint: also think about possible downsides)? Generally once a solution has evolved to a problem, better solutions even if they are already in a primitive stage are blocked from evolving by being out competed.
Impressive results have been seen in modeling evolution - for example, genetic algorithms - but all of these systems plateau after a certain amount of runtime. This is the so called "local maxima" problem. Yet biologists claim with a straight face that Darwinian evolution is open ended.
Well I work in genetic algorithms so this one is easy to field. GP/GAs have a massive limit in that they don't have a simple success/failure measure like natural selection. In nature the only qualification is that you can survive, and success is easy to measure. But if you are trying to develop say an better antenna the success can be hard do measure. Now nobody says that evolution can explore all the search space - that is a basic limitation of this search algorithm - but natural selection is still massively better than our implementations of it. Co-evolution is another force multiplier for natural selection that is hard to replicate in GAs - while a GP problem might see a plateau after a while, nature will not as not only do they have to solve a problem (stay alive) they have to compete against other beings that are being evolved - leading to an arms race, and the red queen effect (you have to run as fast as you can to stay in the same place).
Horizontal gene transfer has been observed in the lab between multi-cellular organisms.. doesn't this just completely blow away the traditionalist "tree of life" assumption?
Well this is not really a question, and all I can say is so what? Hybrids are common in nature as well and a model doesn't fit well in the tree metaphor either. If something doesn't fit any more with data its replaced with something that does.
Not to get at your actual question - the reason they don't pursue these tactics is that their current tactics are successful enough at their target audience. They are not targeting people who will think will logically about this - they want the people who like easy mantras "evolution is just a theory","I'm not related to apes","randomness != order". Evolution can be hard to comprehend as it is a complex dynamic that is not easily understood by our brains which are evolved for solving linear causality - and hence the mantras appeal to our "common sense". And they don't need to disprove it either, they just need to chip away at the confidence people have in it - inserting a bit of doubt so they can have support for introducing their "Alternative theories".
Well you are not that far off, it was always part of the plan to release add-ons much like the sims series.
Not really, the point of that is so that the judge can have some leeway in deciding the seriousness of the offence, and sentence accordingly. The real problem is when laws call for mandatory sentencing and you get people in jail for years for stealing a pizza.
And that sarcastic comment is always applicable.
Yeah but eventually you have to pop it open and take a peek inside - making conclusions from observable behaviour only takes you so far. Unfortunately neuroscience was stuck in a rut for a long time and only in the early 90s did it begin to emerge and embrace some new ideas.
Dont trust the skull
Fossil fuels are - but what about nuclear, geothermal, tidal? The sun is certainly not the only source of energy on this planet (or solar system for that matter). I thought this was obvious but I guess it is not.
the -only- source of energy in our solar system.
are you on drugs mate? Wtf are you using to run your car.
And plz don't embarrass yourself further by trying to claim it all came from the sun as well...
Pirates!
Ah yes, the Global Warming Industry - last year earning a billion trillion dollars by harvesting the energy from the frustration of having to separate the recyclables. Also it eats kittens.
Its not the science that is not objective its the spin / media surrounding it - don't blame the scientists if they put out a paper and some reporter blows it all out of proportion - instead read the original paper.
Leave science to the scientists, and the conspiracy theories to the loon... oh I see... carry on.