I've been using a Logitech Trackball for many years now. Even when I got a new "optical" mouse and used it for a bit I went back to the old 3" marble, especially when I started Gaming. Anyway the only thing I miss is a scroll wheel. If I had a scroll wheel on my trackball, life would be... well almost perfect:-P
The trouble with Linux for the Desktop is that the Linux Developers ARE focused on the enterprise server market. There's little effort to getting the kernal up to par with what Desktop users need for easy, quick use.
I'm a Linux Desktop user, and have been so for a number of years and during this time, Windows has alway been a) Quick to boot on recommended hardware, b) Never LOST functionality between versions. and c) Easy to use.
To a) I have been waiting for a long time for linux to boot up quickly. Some purists ask me "Why turn off the computer at all?" well the answer to that is "To save power...." after all the desktop doesn't have a WORKING power management system, not like windows.
To b) On the weekend I had to 'fix' my mothers scanner system.. it seems that under Ubuntu Dapper my mums Canon LiDe20 scanner would have worked "out of the box" but in feisty fawn I had to make a script wrapper that poked the scanner to keep it awake AND install scanbuttond in order to get it working right... we ALL have to admit this is a DIRTY hack. To top this off, this has been a known bug for the last six months AND NOTHING'S been done about it.
To c) While the developers are working on getting it user friendly enough it's still not up to par with Windows unfortunately. And while I give kudos to the devs, this is a fact. I like the interface but then I class myself as a geek, there are a lot of others who aren't as IT savvy as myself and would die of fright having to go to the console or dig into the technicals to get things to work.
I think this China thing should be a wake up call to the kernal devs to start looking at where Microsoft got it's start... not on the servers of the world, but on the desktops. Once people are familiar with it on the desk they will not feel so daunted by getting deeper into if for other purposes.
Still though science is only science if it's reproducible AND observable. Evolution is not reproducible as you have outlined therefore by this definition it can't be science just as ID can't be science using this same definition. As for evidence of evolution, it's only evidenced based on assumptions, most of which are taken to be fact blindingly. EG uranium dating assumes a specific volume of uranium uniformly spread throughout the earth at a given time. In addition this uranium must not be able to wash out or be introduced. If the uranium is washed out then the sample is compromised. Any rational human being living in the real world must see this logic. If therefore the dating systems cannot be trusted then how can anyone say for certain exactly when a fossil or animal existed. In addition if the dates of fossils cannot be trusted then how can any fossil from one part of the globe match with a fossil at another location. The whole dating system is flawed therefore any ages for any stratum is flawed, any age of fossils is not trust worthy. The list goes on.
If however you have faith that the assumption underpinning the dating system is right then I put it to you that evolution is based on faith.
As for fossil evidence, there is not one species of animal which shows a constistant, and constant transition between "lower" evolutionary forms and modern forms. There is not one which shows a gradual change (which is why the theory of punctuated equilibrium has been floated). Or do you have an example where the evidence is 100% incontrovertible. Please say the human species I need a good laugh, it's so full of holes you couldn't strain gravel with it.
Your argument about micro evolution on this basis is not consistant with the evidence I have seen. If however by micro evolution you mean the changing forms of moths or breeds of dogs, there is no evidence from what I see of any species changing fundamentally from what they are. Moths will be moths, dogs will be dogs, I see no evidence that a dog is evolving or changing into something else.
If you mean that micro evolution is Natural Selection I have no issues with this, however natural selection does not imply a fundamental change in dna to change the species. What it does imply is that a species not suited to a particular natural environment will be reduced or eradicated, but changing to another species, I think not.
Regarding Gravity, I can create a series of reproducible experiments to demonstrate that there is a tendency for items to be attracted to the earth. This is reproducible AND observable, whatever I call this attraction it is evidenced. Therefore I do not need faith to believe that there is an attraction of free items to the earth.
Doesn't Evolution also demand faith.
I'm not an expert but certainly all the dating systems that I've heard of also demand that certain assumptions are made. Whenever assumptions are made there is faith that the assumptions hold true for the vast majority of the time.
In my opinion evolution is also based on faith, maybe it shouldn't be taught in Science class either.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been using a Logitech Trackball for many years now. Even when I got a new "optical" mouse and used it for a bit I went back to the old 3" marble, especially when I started Gaming. Anyway the only thing I miss is a scroll wheel. If I had a scroll wheel on my trackball, life would be ... well almost perfect :-P
The trouble with Linux for the Desktop is that the Linux Developers ARE focused on the enterprise server market. There's little effort to getting the kernal up to par with what Desktop users need for easy, quick use.
I'm a Linux Desktop user, and have been so for a number of years and during this time, Windows has alway been a) Quick to boot on recommended hardware, b) Never LOST functionality between versions. and c) Easy to use.
To a) I have been waiting for a long time for linux to boot up quickly. Some purists ask me "Why turn off the computer at all?" well the answer to that is "To save power...." after all the desktop doesn't have a WORKING power management system, not like windows.
To b) On the weekend I had to 'fix' my mothers scanner system.. it seems that under Ubuntu Dapper my mums Canon LiDe20 scanner would have worked "out of the box" but in feisty fawn I had to make a script wrapper that poked the scanner to keep it awake AND install scanbuttond in order to get it working right... we ALL have to admit this is a DIRTY hack. To top this off, this has been a known bug for the last six months AND NOTHING'S been done about it.
To c) While the developers are working on getting it user friendly enough it's still not up to par with Windows unfortunately. And while I give kudos to the devs, this is a fact. I like the interface but then I class myself as a geek, there are a lot of others who aren't as IT savvy as myself and would die of fright having to go to the console or dig into the technicals to get things to work.
I think this China thing should be a wake up call to the kernal devs to start looking at where Microsoft got it's start... not on the servers of the world, but on the desktops. Once people are familiar with it on the desk they will not feel so daunted by getting deeper into if for other purposes.
Linux FTW
Still though science is only science if it's reproducible AND observable. Evolution is not reproducible as you have outlined therefore by this definition it can't be science just as ID can't be science using this same definition. As for evidence of evolution, it's only evidenced based on assumptions, most of which are taken to be fact blindingly. EG uranium dating assumes a specific volume of uranium uniformly spread throughout the earth at a given time. In addition this uranium must not be able to wash out or be introduced. If the uranium is washed out then the sample is compromised. Any rational human being living in the real world must see this logic. If therefore the dating systems cannot be trusted then how can anyone say for certain exactly when a fossil or animal existed. In addition if the dates of fossils cannot be trusted then how can any fossil from one part of the globe match with a fossil at another location. The whole dating system is flawed therefore any ages for any stratum is flawed, any age of fossils is not trust worthy. The list goes on. If however you have faith that the assumption underpinning the dating system is right then I put it to you that evolution is based on faith. As for fossil evidence, there is not one species of animal which shows a constistant, and constant transition between "lower" evolutionary forms and modern forms. There is not one which shows a gradual change (which is why the theory of punctuated equilibrium has been floated). Or do you have an example where the evidence is 100% incontrovertible. Please say the human species I need a good laugh, it's so full of holes you couldn't strain gravel with it. Your argument about micro evolution on this basis is not consistant with the evidence I have seen. If however by micro evolution you mean the changing forms of moths or breeds of dogs, there is no evidence from what I see of any species changing fundamentally from what they are. Moths will be moths, dogs will be dogs, I see no evidence that a dog is evolving or changing into something else. If you mean that micro evolution is Natural Selection I have no issues with this, however natural selection does not imply a fundamental change in dna to change the species. What it does imply is that a species not suited to a particular natural environment will be reduced or eradicated, but changing to another species, I think not. Regarding Gravity, I can create a series of reproducible experiments to demonstrate that there is a tendency for items to be attracted to the earth. This is reproducible AND observable, whatever I call this attraction it is evidenced. Therefore I do not need faith to believe that there is an attraction of free items to the earth.
Doesn't Evolution also demand faith. I'm not an expert but certainly all the dating systems that I've heard of also demand that certain assumptions are made. Whenever assumptions are made there is faith that the assumptions hold true for the vast majority of the time. In my opinion evolution is also based on faith, maybe it shouldn't be taught in Science class either.
Can Evolution be disprovable? If not then maybe it shouldn't be taught in Science classes either.