But do we know if in these very news we're talking about it applies to humans?
I didn't look up the actual peer-reviewed article, and I don't generally trust reporters to accurately summarize scientific results. However, as a rule of thumb, in biology one study doesn't really mean much at all, unless it is demonstrating a new experimental method. The results must be duplicated in several experiments. In this case, I wouldn't be confident that the 'news' applies even to mice (the experimental subjects), let alone humans. If it does apply to mice, though, then it probably also applies to humans. The important thing to recognize is that relating these studies to cognition or higher mental processes is pure conjecture.
The real story here is the imaging technique, which could lead to further insight into the nervous system. The results about neuron growth do not seem nearly as interesting... My Neurology textbook detailed descriptions on how neurons branch out, and why they form synapses. These scientists are studying certain details about that process; it's not a new paradigm. The best part about this experiment has less to do with neural-connections than the imaging technique which could be used in further neurological research.
This whole thing is about mice brains actually, how do we know how that applies to adult human brains? The RTFA doesn't seem to say much about that..
That is actually an important observation that often goes unexplained. The fact is, mice are genetically very close to humans, but they reproduce quickly, are cheap, and their genetics and physiology are very well understood. That makes them a great animal to experiment on.
At the cellular level, most mammals are very, very similar to each other. In fact, we know so little about neurology in the first place, any understanding we can draw from mice helps us understand the basics of the vertebrate nervous system.
Most importantly, we cannot breed and sacrifice humans for the purpose of experimentation. The best we can do is use animals and hope that they are close enough (usually they are, by the way).
It is a common misconception that these phones can't be economically feasible because only a small number of 'geeks' will use them. Yes, I would like a 'geek-friendly' phone, but more importantly, I want a 'developer-friendly' phone. One with a nice API to access bluetooth and wifi capabilities.
When that happens, the general non-geek population benefits due to the availability of quality software that will run on the phone.
So, step 1: make the phone easy to use
Step 2: make the phone customizable
Step 3: make the phone developer-friendly
Step 4: let me use the same API for different phones; I'm sick of recoding half of my program to make it compatible with a different phone!
1.) "Evolution is not a fact"
True. I never said it is a fact. I said that much of the theory is fact. For example, Natural selection is part of the theory of evolution. So are certain principles of genetics.
2.) "It is hard for me to attribute amazing things to simple dumb luck and time"
Evolution has nothing to do with "luck". I will admit, though, it does take some time.
3.) "My faith has not budged"
Good. Neither has mine. Science does not replace religion; the two subject ask and answer different questions.
Religion asks "Why does life exist?" And it answers "Because of God."
Science asks "How was life created?" And it answers, "Evolution is our best model so far."
Combine the two, and you get real insight:
"God created humans and other life; God did this with a method we model as evolution."
I don't think you are a fool for your beliefs. I do find it bothersome that people say "Evolution implies Luck". Where in heavens do you get that idea? To me, the process that we model as evolution is a beautiful, elegant system of design. Please, please, please come up with a better model if you want to tell me evolution is wrong! So far, I have not heard of any alternative model proposed in the last several decades. Opponents of evolution invariably point out the flaws in the theory without proposing an alternative. No, "God created life" is not a model. I understand that God created life; that is true by definition. My question is "How?" And I say that evolution is the most reasonable explanation. Without a doubt, it is the most sophisticated and elegant.
Those who doubt the veracity of 'evolution-like systems' such as "Wikipedia, prediction markets, and recommendation systems" should not be compared to those who argue against evolution. The Theory of Evolution has a great deal of scientific evidence supporting it; indeed, much of the 'theory' is actually considered scientific Fact.
While I support Wikipedia, I don't consider those who doubt its value to be idiots. Those who argue against evolution, on the other hand....
The original 7 wonders are not complete - there needs to be additions, but they should be added individually, and with great discretion. Experts in this field should be polled, as they will have the best perspective on the 'wonders of the world'. Not being an expert, though, I suspect that both the Taj Mahal and the Roman Colosseum could be considered wonders.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't look up the actual peer-reviewed article, and I don't generally trust reporters to accurately summarize scientific results. However, as a rule of thumb, in biology one study doesn't really mean much at all, unless it is demonstrating a new experimental method. The results must be duplicated in several experiments. In this case, I wouldn't be confident that the 'news' applies even to mice (the experimental subjects), let alone humans. If it does apply to mice, though, then it probably also applies to humans. The important thing to recognize is that relating these studies to cognition or higher mental processes is pure conjecture.
The real story here is the imaging technique, which could lead to further insight into the nervous system. The results about neuron growth do not seem nearly as interesting... My Neurology textbook detailed descriptions on how neurons branch out, and why they form synapses. These scientists are studying certain details about that process; it's not a new paradigm. The best part about this experiment has less to do with neural-connections than the imaging technique which could be used in further neurological research.
That is actually an important observation that often goes unexplained. The fact is, mice are genetically very close to humans, but they reproduce quickly, are cheap, and their genetics and physiology are very well understood. That makes them a great animal to experiment on.
At the cellular level, most mammals are very, very similar to each other. In fact, we know so little about neurology in the first place, any understanding we can draw from mice helps us understand the basics of the vertebrate nervous system.
Most importantly, we cannot breed and sacrifice humans for the purpose of experimentation. The best we can do is use animals and hope that they are close enough (usually they are, by the way).
It is a common misconception that these phones can't be economically feasible because only a small number of 'geeks' will use them. Yes, I would like a 'geek-friendly' phone, but more importantly, I want a 'developer-friendly' phone. One with a nice API to access bluetooth and wifi capabilities.
When that happens, the general non-geek population benefits due to the availability of quality software that will run on the phone.
So, step 1: make the phone easy to use
Step 2: make the phone customizable
Step 3: make the phone developer-friendly
Step 4: let me use the same API for different phones; I'm sick of recoding half of my program to make it compatible with a different phone!
1.) "Evolution is not a fact"
True. I never said it is a fact. I said that much of the theory is fact. For example, Natural selection is part of the theory of evolution. So are certain principles of genetics.
2.) "It is hard for me to attribute amazing things to simple dumb luck and time"
Evolution has nothing to do with "luck". I will admit, though, it does take some time.
3.) "My faith has not budged"
Good. Neither has mine. Science does not replace religion; the two subject ask and answer different questions.
Religion asks "Why does life exist?" And it answers "Because of God."
Science asks "How was life created?" And it answers, "Evolution is our best model so far."
Combine the two, and you get real insight:
"God created humans and other life; God did this with a method we model as evolution."
I don't think you are a fool for your beliefs. I do find it bothersome that people say "Evolution implies Luck". Where in heavens do you get that idea? To me, the process that we model as evolution is a beautiful, elegant system of design. Please, please, please come up with a better model if you want to tell me evolution is wrong! So far, I have not heard of any alternative model proposed in the last several decades. Opponents of evolution invariably point out the flaws in the theory without proposing an alternative.
No, "God created life" is not a model. I understand that God created life; that is true by definition. My question is "How?" And I say that evolution is the most reasonable explanation. Without a doubt, it is the most sophisticated and elegant.
Those who doubt the veracity of 'evolution-like systems' such as "Wikipedia, prediction markets, and recommendation systems" should not be compared to those who argue against evolution. The Theory of Evolution has a great deal of scientific evidence supporting it; indeed, much of the 'theory' is actually considered scientific Fact.
While I support Wikipedia, I don't consider those who doubt its value to be idiots. Those who argue against evolution, on the other hand....
The original 7 wonders are not complete - there needs to be additions, but they should be added individually, and with great discretion. Experts in this field should be polled, as they will have the best perspective on the 'wonders of the world'. Not being an expert, though, I suspect that both the Taj Mahal and the Roman Colosseum could be considered wonders.