"It is EXTREMELY doubtful that such an elusive to define concept as IQ is due to a single locus with only two different alleles (dominant/recessive)."
That reminds me of an old Dilbert cartoon where Dogbert is giving a sensitivity training talk. He pulls up a chart and says "people basically fall into these four categories:"
CUTE SMART
CUTE STUPID
UGLY SMART
UGLY STUPID
"I noticed all of you are in this box here..." [wag wag]
If you want to see how badly you can do by agreeing to voluntarily giving up your IP rights for a relatively small amount of money see this guy:
[Gary Kildall]
Wait, are you talking about Seattle Computer Products selling their "QDOS" CP/M clone to Microsoft for $50,000? Or are you talking about Kildall selling Digital Research to Novell for a paltry $120 million?...or about something else entirely..?
There is no proof any more. There was proof 2,000 years ago. There were eyewitnesses to clearly supernatural events, and natural events that fulfilled centuries-old prophecies in a significant way. But we no longer have this proof; all we have is what people wrote about it later.
There is no proof anymore that Zeus appeared to Europa as a white bull. There was proof 2,000 years ago. There were eyewitnesses to clearly supernatural events... But we no longer have this proof; all we have is what people wrote about it later.
state atheism would be a violation of church and state just as state <insert religion of choice here> would be.
Exactly. If the state were promoting or requiring atheism, would we see the huge number of churches we have in the U.S.? Religion is flourishing, not leastwise because the government stays out of it and guarantees freedom of exercise.
Secularism in government is not atheism (or secular humanism). It's just attending to the facets of public life which don't involve religion. It's "rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's," if you like.
Evolution is not a fact. It's "just a theory", an idea which fits the available facts extremely well and makes a great many accurate and useful predictions. That's all it is, and all it ever claimed to be.
I'd just like to point out that the existence of a theory of evolution does not, in principle, exclude evolution from also being fact. After all, it is a theory about a process that is proposed to exist in nature, and if it does, it will continue to be true to its nature whether the theory is correct or not.
Ultimately, science and religion must converge to whatever the ultimate "truth" is. Some may say that reality is subjective (as New Agers seem to be fond of believing), but as long as there is a real world to know anything about, it must be the ultimate arbiter of knowledge. Theories and beliefs that don't jibe with reality will eventually get thrown out, either methodically (as with science) or through attrition (as with religion). Religions evolve too; they arise, change, split, and go extinct all the time.
What's the word for failing to draw a distinction between a representation of something and the thing being representing?
Idolatry? No, that's not it, or rather it is, but specifically with gods. The psychiatric term "paleological thinking" might cover it, but it's probably too general.
You can observe microevolution and artificial selection. To prove to yourself that humans came from lower animals, pretty much the only thing you have to do after that is 1. have an open mind and 2. look at non-human primates.
It's really the open mind part that is the limiting factor, and you don't have to understand punctuated equalibrium to understand the basics of evolution.
Exactly - the most important thing to do would be to come up with a plausible, testable alternative explanation.
Given that evolution didn't occur, and that "life comes from life", as the creationists like to say, is there any possible way that observed mutations and changing allele frequencies would not result in organic evolution?
Is there any possible way that the "trees of life" outlined by the fossil record, genetic mapping, and morphological comparisons could all be wrong? What would explain the correlation if not evolution?
This is really where creationism falls down. Even its ideological heir (the new kid on the block) - ID - can't do it. Even if you call divine intervention into account, how can you explain why evolution would not happen from the moment of creation onward? We've seen the mechanism at work. Some force would have to be at work keeping things "on the design plan" without mutation/selection interfering. No one has ever found anything like that.
Of course, speciation is not simply defined either, so there's bound to be some argument over whether a given two species are truly separate, or merely varieties of the same species.
Creationists talk about "macroevolution" as being transitions between "kinds," whatever those are. Their main gripe is that you don't see one type of existing animal transitioning into another type of existing animal, e.g. half-cat, half-dog. That's based on a misunderstanding of evolution, because transitions will always be between some existing species x and a future species y which is like x, but not x.
Oh, I wouldn't leave out the Civil War (in many ways deadlier, because Americans died on both sides). I only brought up Meuse-Argonne because it's considered the "deadliest battle" in U.S. history. By contrast, trying to make Iraq (or even Vietnam) seem like especially bloody wars is kind of pointless.
Heck, more U.S. soldiers died at Iwo Jima than have died in Iraq to date!
BTW I'm not trying to downplay the sacrifices made by our troops in Iraq. They are in a tough situation, and in many ways have gotten a raw deal from the Pentagon on deployment compared to U.S. soldiers in other wars.
Contrast this with the Meuse-Argonne Offensive in World War I, in which over 26,000 American soldiers died in one battle. That's almost half as many as the entire Vietnam war.
"Trichoplax placozoans are animals that have only four body cell types and no structured organs. They represent descendents of the oldest multi-celled animal, perhaps older even than sponges," said author Stephen Dellaporta, professor of molecular, cellular and developmental biology at Yale.
[...]
"Trichoplax shares over 80 percent of its genes with humans," said Dellaporta. "We are exited to find that Trichoplax contains shared pathways and defined regulatory sequences that link these most primitive ancestors to higher animal species. The Trichoplax genome will serve as a type of "Rosetta Stone" for understanding the origins of animal-specific pathways."
So evidently the good Professor is not suggesting that Trichoplax is a human ancestor - when he says "these most primitive ancestors," he is talking about the "oldest multi-celled animal" he mentioned above, of which Trichoplax is a representative descendant.
Slashdot Mirror
That reminds me of an old Dilbert cartoon where Dogbert is giving a sensitivity training talk. He pulls up a chart and says "people basically fall into these four categories:"
"I noticed all of you are in this box here..." [wag wag]
Wait, are you talking about Seattle Computer Products selling their "QDOS" CP/M clone to Microsoft for $50,000? Or are you talking about Kildall selling Digital Research to Novell for a paltry $120 million? ...or about something else entirely..?
> Unless the andriods form a union.
Androids don't unionize; they cluster into 'botnets.'
Do they speak Bocce? I bet they're programmed for etiquette and protocol.
There is no proof anymore that Zeus appeared to Europa as a white bull. There was proof 2,000 years ago. There were eyewitnesses to clearly supernatural events... But we no longer have this proof; all we have is what people wrote about it later.
Naturally, you believe that story as well, right?
Exactly. If the state were promoting or requiring atheism, would we see the huge number of churches we have in the U.S.? Religion is flourishing, not leastwise because the government stays out of it and guarantees freedom of exercise.
Secularism in government is not atheism (or secular humanism). It's just attending to the facets of public life which don't involve religion. It's "rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's," if you like.
I'd just like to point out that the existence of a theory of evolution does not, in principle, exclude evolution from also being fact. After all, it is a theory about a process that is proposed to exist in nature, and if it does, it will continue to be true to its nature whether the theory is correct or not.
Ultimately, science and religion must converge to whatever the ultimate "truth" is. Some may say that reality is subjective (as New Agers seem to be fond of believing), but as long as there is a real world to know anything about, it must be the ultimate arbiter of knowledge. Theories and beliefs that don't jibe with reality will eventually get thrown out, either methodically (as with science) or through attrition (as with religion). Religions evolve too; they arise, change, split, and go extinct all the time.
> Actually, it's secular humanism which is the religious form of atheism.
No, you're thinking of religious humanism - possibly Unitarianism?
"Secular" means "not religious."
I'd probably be a humanist, except that I have no faith in people! :)
The system is down, yo!
Ah yes, from back in the days when Apple engineers had a sense of humor, and Mac was the "fun" platform to develop on!
My favorite:
They do say that "people don't quit their jobs, they quit their bosses."
I don't know exactly who "they" are, but they should still be modded insightful!
It's just a term. It has a definition which makes it useful, but it's not a thing that has an existence all its own.
Isn't your question a bit like asking "where exactly is the line separating 'skyscraper' from 'office building'"?
Hmmm. Idealism? Delusion?
Or Bugs Bunny:
"Oh mighty warrior, 'twill be quite a task.
How will you do it, might I enquire to ask?"
"I will do it with my spear and magic helmet!"
"Your spear and magic helmet?"
"Spear and magic helmet!"
"Magic helmet?"
"MAGIC HELMET!"
"....pfft, 'magic helmet!'"
Exactly - the most important thing to do would be to come up with a plausible, testable alternative explanation.
Given that evolution didn't occur, and that "life comes from life", as the creationists like to say, is there any possible way that observed mutations and changing allele frequencies would not result in organic evolution?
Is there any possible way that the "trees of life" outlined by the fossil record, genetic mapping, and morphological comparisons could all be wrong? What would explain the correlation if not evolution?
This is really where creationism falls down. Even its ideological heir (the new kid on the block) - ID - can't do it. Even if you call divine intervention into account, how can you explain why evolution would not happen from the moment of creation onward? We've seen the mechanism at work. Some force would have to be at work keeping things "on the design plan" without mutation/selection interfering. No one has ever found anything like that.
"IAU Names Fifth Dwarf Planet Haumea"
Ah, so now it goes: Happy, Sleepy, Sneezy, Grumpy, Planet Haumea, Dopey, and Doc?
Easy. "Macroevolution," as biologists use the term, is evolution at the species level or above.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution
Of course, speciation is not simply defined either, so there's bound to be some argument over whether a given two species are truly separate, or merely varieties of the same species.
Creationists talk about "macroevolution" as being transitions between "kinds," whatever those are. Their main gripe is that you don't see one type of existing animal transitioning into another type of existing animal, e.g. half-cat, half-dog. That's based on a misunderstanding of evolution, because transitions will always be between some existing species x and a future species y which is like x, but not x.
I don't think anyone's still reading the thread!
Perhaps they've all succumbed to Turnerculosis, Goyanorrhoea, or Smallpollacks.
You obviously are not familiar with Bacillus boticelli, Mycolangelobacteria, Salmonellador dalia, or m.c.escher coli.
Oh, I wouldn't leave out the Civil War (in many ways deadlier, because Americans died on both sides). I only brought up Meuse-Argonne because it's considered the "deadliest battle" in U.S. history. By contrast, trying to make Iraq (or even Vietnam) seem like especially bloody wars is kind of pointless.
WWII brought the U.S. about 7 times as many casualties as Vietnam:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_casualties_of_war
Heck, more U.S. soldiers died at Iwo Jima than have died in Iraq to date!
BTW I'm not trying to downplay the sacrifices made by our troops in Iraq. They are in a tough situation, and in many ways have gotten a raw deal from the Pentagon on deployment compared to U.S. soldiers in other wars.
Sorry, but that's just false. We never lost more than 3000 men in Vietnam in a single month. The most KIA was 543 in April 1969.
http://members.aol.com/warlibrary/vwc24.htm
Contrast this with the Meuse-Argonne Offensive in World War I, in which over 26,000 American soldiers died in one battle. That's almost half as many as the entire Vietnam war.
No, Riker was the only one who was in the simulation. The alien didn't have access to any holodeck logs, only Riker's memory.
That was a pretty cool episode up until the ending, which was lame!
On the horizon doesn't do me any damn good. I need it to be much closer than that!
Read, and be enlightened:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/falsify.html
Oh. Never mind.
If you RTFA, you may notice the following quotes:
So evidently the good Professor is not suggesting that Trichoplax is a human ancestor - when he says "these most primitive ancestors," he is talking about the "oldest multi-celled animal" he mentioned above, of which Trichoplax is a representative descendant.
Obviously, he could have been clearer about that!