There I fixed it for you. The whole "systemic risk" crap we hear is nothing more than fear mongering. Fear so that the old "governing" elite stays in power at all cost. Had the US let AIG, Citi, JPG, GS, BoA and others drown in their own cesspool it wouldn't have changed much.
And I suppose you have actual evidence to support your blind free-market ideology?
Huh, yeah. Didn't think so. Meanwhile, the government actually analyzed the counterparty risks associated with an AIG collapse. And guess what? They concluded that systemic risk was a real likelihood. So, what analysis have *you* taken part in?
The story is about a scorpion asking a frog to carry him across a river. The frog is afraid of being stung, but the scorpion reassures him that if it stung the frog, the frog would sink and the scorpion would drown as well. The frog then agrees; nevertheless, in mid-river, the scorpion stings him, dooming the two of them. When asked why, the scorpion explains, "I'm a scorpion; it's my nature."
My wife, who is NO audiophile (which makes her a good test subject) can hear the differences.
Yeah, I'm sure it was a double-blind test and everything, too!
Look, people better at creating proper studies than you have already demonstrated that 320kbps MP3 is basically transparent for virtually everyone. Just because you can't believe that because of your audiophile religion, doesn't make it true. As for FLAC versus CD? That's just flat out comical.
So in effect AIG is the middleman where the government gives money to AIG who then pays it to Citi and BofA and whatever other banks (including foreign banks) took out policies. Why couldn't we have just let AIG fail and bail out these banks as necessary (for those who contend that it was necessary) since thats basically what we are doing anyway?
Hey, did you watch that episode of Charlie Rose and Hank Greenburg, too? Because that's what Hank, ex-CEO of AIG, proposed. What they *should've* done was examine the counterparty risk, and for those institutions that would become insolvent with an AIG bankruptcy, they should've provided funds directly to them. The rest could then take a haircut.
The thing that pisses me off sooooo much is that if we had just LET THEM FAIL, AIG would have filed for bankruptcy and these contracts would have been nullified.
And then the CDOs they underwrote would be marked down. And then those banks would take a haircut. And many of them would become insolvent, and so they'd go bankrupt. And then their counterparties would get screwed, etc, etc, etc.
You must not know what the definition of "lossless" is vs. lossy... which is amazing because you use the term lossy, so you must know the other end of the scale: lossless.
Meh, I'll repeat myself a third time. I quoted the wrong bit. I intended to quote the "more and more, people are realizing that FLAC is just as good as" bit that's absolutely hilarious.
Yes, the average consumer on the street today is not likely to know about FLAC, but when I tell them about FLAC (as I have done) they immediatly become concerned that they should have been using FLAC all along.
Yeah, because audiophile idiots sell them snakeoil. I bet if you tell then the copper cables in their stereo have dreaded "oxygen" in them, and therefore they're getting inferior sound, they'll get pretty concerned, too. Doesn't make those concerns valid. It just means they're willing to listen to someone who uses fancy sounding words (do you tell them about the superior "imaging" and "soundstage" of FLAC, too?)
If given the option, people want the bigger, better version - the problem is that most people don't even know they have a choice.
Right, because people are stupid.
Look, will some people want to waste a ton of space storing FLACs that are marginally better than high-bitrate lossily-encoded audio? Sure. It's not that bright, but whatever, that's their choice. But if you told people the truth: that the difference between FLAC and, say, 320Kbps MP3 is marginal for most people, guess what? They'll pick the MP3. Why? Because it's faster to download, and means they can store more music on their iPod.
Yeah yeah, I quoted the wrong bit. It was "it's becoming more popular" BS that I wanted a citation for. Obviously FLAC must be at least as good as the WAV/CD source it was pulled from, as it's completely lossless compression.
But no one is going to use it. Well, no one outside of a very tiny group of people who care. ie, not people who use magic words like "imaging" and "soundstage" (BTW, anyone who seriously uses those terms in casual conversation immediately gets the label "audiophile douchebag", IMHO... the very fact you believe you can tell the difference between FLAC and CD because of "USB jitter" just proves it).
Yeah, I quoted the wrong part of his post. It was the "unsung hero of this age" hilarity and the "more and more, people are realizing that FLAC is just as good" bit that set me off, and should've been the bit I quoted.
The idea that FLAC is anything more than a nifty technological achievement that few outside the audiophile community could give two shits about is truly hilarious. Is it great for archival? Yup. Do most people care one way or the other? Yeah, no. I mean, storage may be cheap, but most people, myself included, are simply unwilling to sacrifice 300MB per album for a tiny level of increased quality over, say, a 320Kbps MP3 or a higher bitrate OGG. Hell, *most* people would happily transcode CD -> MP3 -> AAC -> MP3 and not even notice the difference, let alone understand what they're doing to their music.
In short: people are dumb. FLAC is marginal at best. And I maintain that won't be changing any time soon.
However, more and more, people are realizing that FLAC is just as good as CD quality,
Got a citation for that? I mean, sure, you and your audiophile buddies favour FLAC, but something tells me the average consumer on the street has no idea what the hell a "FLAC" is, let alone why it would be better (or worse, depending on your requirements) than MP3/OGG/<insert your favorite lossy codec>. Hell, just start off with the phrase "lossy codec" and watch their eyes glaze over.
Seriously... you're just living in a world of confirmation biases. FLAC is still a niche product, and it will probably always be a niche product.
Because "being a perfectionist" isn't a logical fallacy. The name "Nirvana fallacy" refers to a specific form of argument. And it need not be employed by a "perfectionist". A politician interested in shooting down a plan for partisan reasons is just as likely to invoke the fallacy, as it often plays well with the base (see any counterargument to social welfare, specifically the invocation of the free rider problem, a classic example of the Nirvana fallacy at work).
Perhaps. It depends on the nature of the criticism. In this case, people are complaining that the website isn't accessible enough. Yet no one is arguing that the idea isn't excellent, or that what we have isn't better than nothing. Thus it's the very essence of the Nirvana fallacy: that the current implementation wasn't worth doing because, shucks, it ain't perfect by some arbitrary metric.
On the flip side, let's say you're criticising, I dunno... the Iraq war. Most of the criticisms of said war aren't that the invasion of Iraq wasn't done perfectly, but rather that it should never have been done at all for various claimed reasons (eg, diverted attention from Afghanistan, ended up being a quagmire, provided base for terrorist activities, strengthened Iran, etc). That's very different from the Nirvana fallacy.
Conversely, one could invoke the Nirvana fallacy when responding to criticism of No Child Left Behind, if, for example, the counterargument was that the plan didn't completely fix the education system. It really all comes down to how the attacks are phrased. If the argument is "well, while I admit that the plan will succeed in achieving X and Y, it has flaws W and V and therefore there's just no point", that's the essence of the Nirvana fallacy. It's the argument that, because a plan has any flaw whatsoever, it's not worth doing, because it doesn't measure up to some imaginary, perfect solution.
The Nirvana Fallacy is when you dismiss anything in the real world because you compare it to an unrealistic, perfect alternative, by which it pales in comparison. It wouldn't be a problem, except it keeps us from getting anything done.
Pathetic when Cracked is out there teaching such basic lessons... *sigh*
And my point, which you apparently completely missed, is that the system of justice we have results in the relevant facts being brought to light because each side is interested in providing evidence to support their case. What you're claiming is that there may be evidence brought up by neither the prosecution nor the defense that will affect the trial. But if that's the case, then either the prosecution or the defense has done a very terrible job, or, and this is far more likely, you or the "evidence" you've dug up are in error (otherwise one of the sides would've already mentioned it).
Here, let me try to put it more succinctly: the *entire point* of an adversarial justice system is to remove bias, because any bias present in the evidence provided by the defense will be countered by arguments and evidence offered by the prosecution, and vice versa.
Frankly, if I want to know the details about a case, why would I trust the media (who are digging deep and trying to sensationalize trivial details in order to keep me from changing the channel) any more or less than the lawyers (who are digging deep and trying to distort facts to try to "persuade" me to vote in their favor)?
Because the lawyers are on opposing sides, and so the balance of the evidence they bring forward should produce a complete picture (unless they're colluding or something). There's simply no way you, with a blackberry, are going to be able to find evidence relevant to the case that the two parties won't already have brought forward (unless they, or the investigators in the case, did a truly terrible job).
The *only* evidence you'll gain access to is that which was ruled inadmissable by the judge. But that evidence is inadmissable for a reason. Who are you to decide whether or not you'll abide by that ruling? I mean, jebus, those rulings are made for a reason!
IMHO, you're much better off with an ad-removing proxy like Privoxy if you really want to live without a built-in solution like AdBlock. It gives you much finer control over what is and isn't blocked.
Even Einstein's relativity could at any time be proven false however so far it can not only provide explanations for observations but it made many predictions which were subsequently proven correct. But there is still faith involved that it is true for all situations, otherwise it would be a law.
Umm... there is no such faith. Only a layman believes that relativity is believed "true for all situations". At the very small, relativity breaks down, which is why quantum theory exists, and why there's an effort to reconcile the two.
But more fundamentally, the only reason, say, an engineer will "assume" relativity works is because, in general, it's predictions match expectations, and so it acts as a reasonable approximation of how the universe works. But if it turned out to be wrong? Big deal. It gets replaced, much like Newton's Laws, and we all move on.
Evolution involves even more faith and assumptions though because the fossil record is incomplete and scientists fill in those gaps with still frames of the "evolution movie" with the intent of making a complete movie that makes sense.
Also wrong. Evolution has been observed happening in the frickin' wild. No "faith" or "assumptions" required.
Of course, perhaps your complaint is with "macroevolution"? Also silly. Macroevolution is just microevolution in the large. Change an organism over millions and millions of generations, and yeah, believe it or not, it could become something completely different.
Surprise, a new octopus fossil is found that looks very much like the alive, present-day version. What will this do for evolution?
Umm... why would it say anything? Evolution doesn't preclude organisms remain unchanged. Here, let me describe, very simply, the theory of evolution:
1) Each generation, individuals may experience random mutations. 2) Evolutionary pressures then act as a fitness function, giving some individuals a higher or lower probability of reproducing. 3) The fit traits, based on the aforementioned fitness function, are thus passed on.
In this case, the explanation is simple: either the Octopus hasn't experienced any new, significant evolutionary pressures to warrant dominance of new mutations (because it's already very well adapted), or the pressures applied to it continually select for the current form of Octopus.
Bottom line: why are assumptions and faith allowed in science but are chastised as non-science in the context of religion when referring to the natural world?
Because they aren't "assumptions and faith". They're hypothesis backed by, and this is the most vital bit, *evidence*. Further, those hypothesis predict things, and we can test for them. And any new observations must fit in with said hypothesis. If predictions fail to manifest, or evidence arises that cannot be explain by the hypothesis, then scientists alter or replace the hypothesis in order to fit the new body of evidence.
How you can't see that this is *completely* different from "assumptions and faith", I honestly do not understand.
The problem with evolution is that it does not predict anything
Here. Go get your learn on. Not that I expect you to actually believe any of that... after all, it doesn't fit with your worldview, and an echo chamber combined with a heavy dose of confirmation bias is ever so comforting...
Or: My vehicle is a frightening deathwagon, and that's the way I likes it!:)
For the record, I do object to lifted vehicles. As a driver of a small car, you've done two things: decreased your chances of bottoming out when off-roading (good), and increased the odds of causing *massive* damage on the next vehicle you hit, as you're no longer going to make contact with typical crumple zones (bad). IMHO, the latter should outweigh the former, and the height of bumpers should be restricted if they're going to be driven on normal roadways. Alas, most people driving such vehicles couldn't give a shit...:(
I generally agree with the overall tenor of your post, but there's some things that puzzle me:
As for lack of evidence, the whole point of the OP making the statement was to preface what at least appeared to be indicative of that very thing.
Uhh... no he didn't. He started with:
I know that there's no intelligent motive behind evolution, it is an impersonal process of optimization for a set of conditions and there's no selection bias for complexity, as we humans would view such things
He then said:
There's no personified mind involved, nature is not a guiding intelligence
Which supports his previous statement. Then he goes on to imagine the octopus' wife nagging him to get out of his rut. Are you saying his wife is the intelligent designer he previously stated didn't exist?:)
Or are you saying that the lack of evolution in the octopus is somehow evidence of intelligent design (ie, the lack of evolution is the teapot's shadow)? Because *that* is simply ridiculous. It just demonstrates an organism where either no significant new pressures have forced a change in the organism, or where conversely, pressures on the organism are such that any variation results in a disadvantage.
As for the term "magical thinking", I do not think that means what you think it means. It generally means applying causation without an intermediary
Really! I suppose you have a source for your apparently authoritative definition? I tend to use the term "magical thinking" when referring to *any* belief that's irrational, and that applies both to beliefs that aren't grounded in fact, and those that are flat out unverifiable. Whether or not that's an appropriate use of the term is, I think, a matter of opinion more than anything else. But, I admit I may be wrong... *shrug*
What is the point of having evidence if people are either going to interpret it wrong by accident or interpret it with purposeful bias which helps them accomplish their agenda?
Because then other scientists can go and verify your results, and contradict you if you're wrong? See, that's one of the key differences between magic and science. The latter is actually verifiable (and falsifiable).
I hope you realize how many assumptions and faith go into many scientific theories, including evolution, because by definition the evidence for many theories, including evolution, is not complete, and assumptions are made to fill in the gaps.
Such as? Please, name me one single "faith-based" assumption included in a theory of your choice (you've already mentioned evolution, so I expect you'll pick that, but I'll happily leave the field open). Go head, try me. Because I *strongly* suspect you simply don't understand how the scientific process (or the theory you select, whatever that happens to be) works (don't worry, it's not your fault... solid, logical thinking isn't exactly stressed in schools these days, and it's *definitely* not emphasized in the average adult's day-to-day life).
Well, what do you do if people do stop where they are past the loop?
Put up a sign that says "loops are <here>", with a nice little arrow. If you're past the loops and no one's behind you at the intersection, you'll back up. If someone is, then as you've already pointed out, it doesn't matter, the loops will trigger. This has the pleasant side-effect of changing drivers habits, as they'll learn they need to stop before the friggin' stop line, thus freeing up the crosswalk so pedestrians don't have to walk out into traffic.
Actively *encouraging* drivers to encroach on the sidewalk is just stupid. You might as well just get rid of crosswalks entirely, as clearly, they no longer have a useful function (that being to provide a pedestrian with an unobstructed path across the intersection that's outside the flow of traffic).
"No one has demonstrated intelligent motivation behind evolution" does not justify the claim "I know there is no intelligent motivation behind evolution." Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Fair enough. The OPs phrasing was poor. He should've said "there is no evidence for intelligent motivation behind evolution".
That said, God in the Gaps is not a theory. The statement "there is no evidence for the lack of intelligent motivation behind evolution", which is what you're advocating, is silly and pointless. There's also no evidence for the lack of a teapot orbiting between earth and mars, but I don't believe in that, either. It's nothing more than magical thinking. And that's what the AC I was responding to was defending, and what I strenuously object to.
You must have spectacularly wide crosswalks. Around here, at triggered intersections, if you were to stop such that your back end was past the stop line, your front end would be in the intersection and obstructing traffic (larger intersections with unusually wide crosswalks are timed, not triggered).
And either way, you could just install a pair of loop sensors to catch the morons who apparently can't stop behind the line. But I maintain that *requiring* people obstruct a crosswalk in order to trigger a stop light is moronic. I can't believe you'd even bother to argue otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
Ahem. Yes. Well. Touche. :)
There I fixed it for you. The whole "systemic risk" crap we hear is nothing more than fear mongering. Fear so that the old "governing" elite stays in power at all cost. Had the US let AIG, Citi, JPG, GS, BoA and others drown in their own cesspool it wouldn't have changed much.
And I suppose you have actual evidence to support your blind free-market ideology?
Huh, yeah. Didn't think so. Meanwhile, the government actually analyzed the counterparty risks associated with an AIG collapse. And guess what? They concluded that systemic risk was a real likelihood. So, what analysis have *you* taken part in?
Wasn't that one called the the Scorpion and the Frog?
If they're too big to fail, they're too big. Period.
Yes, and the sky is blue, and water is wet. Congratulations, Mr. Obvious!
lewl, make that "doesn't make it false". Bah, you know what I meant...
My wife, who is NO audiophile (which makes her a good test subject) can hear the differences.
Yeah, I'm sure it was a double-blind test and everything, too!
Look, people better at creating proper studies than you have already demonstrated that 320kbps MP3 is basically transparent for virtually everyone. Just because you can't believe that because of your audiophile religion, doesn't make it true. As for FLAC versus CD? That's just flat out comical.
So in effect AIG is the middleman where the government gives money to AIG who then pays it to Citi and BofA and whatever other banks (including foreign banks) took out policies. Why couldn't we have just let AIG fail and bail out these banks as necessary (for those who contend that it was necessary) since thats basically what we are doing anyway?
Hey, did you watch that episode of Charlie Rose and Hank Greenburg, too? Because that's what Hank, ex-CEO of AIG, proposed. What they *should've* done was examine the counterparty risk, and for those institutions that would become insolvent with an AIG bankruptcy, they should've provided funds directly to them. The rest could then take a haircut.
The thing that pisses me off sooooo much is that if we had just LET THEM FAIL, AIG would have filed for bankruptcy and these contracts would have been nullified.
And then the CDOs they underwrote would be marked down. And then those banks would take a haircut. And many of them would become insolvent, and so they'd go bankrupt. And then their counterparties would get screwed, etc, etc, etc.
They don't call is systemic risk for nothin'...
You must not know what the definition of "lossless" is vs. lossy... which is amazing because you use the term lossy, so you must know the other end of the scale: lossless.
Meh, I'll repeat myself a third time. I quoted the wrong bit. I intended to quote the "more and more, people are realizing that FLAC is just as good as" bit that's absolutely hilarious.
Yes, the average consumer on the street today is not likely to know about FLAC, but when I tell them about FLAC (as I have done) they immediatly become concerned that they should have been using FLAC all along.
Yeah, because audiophile idiots sell them snakeoil. I bet if you tell then the copper cables in their stereo have dreaded "oxygen" in them, and therefore they're getting inferior sound, they'll get pretty concerned, too. Doesn't make those concerns valid. It just means they're willing to listen to someone who uses fancy sounding words (do you tell them about the superior "imaging" and "soundstage" of FLAC, too?)
If given the option, people want the bigger, better version - the problem is that most people don't even know they have a choice.
Right, because people are stupid.
Look, will some people want to waste a ton of space storing FLACs that are marginally better than high-bitrate lossily-encoded audio? Sure. It's not that bright, but whatever, that's their choice. But if you told people the truth: that the difference between FLAC and, say, 320Kbps MP3 is marginal for most people, guess what? They'll pick the MP3. Why? Because it's faster to download, and means they can store more music on their iPod.
Got a citation for that?
Yeah. My EARS.
Yeah yeah, I quoted the wrong bit. It was "it's becoming more popular" BS that I wanted a citation for. Obviously FLAC must be at least as good as the WAV/CD source it was pulled from, as it's completely lossless compression.
But no one is going to use it. Well, no one outside of a very tiny group of people who care. ie, not people who use magic words like "imaging" and "soundstage" (BTW, anyone who seriously uses those terms in casual conversation immediately gets the label "audiophile douchebag", IMHO... the very fact you believe you can tell the difference between FLAC and CD because of "USB jitter" just proves it).
Yeah, I quoted the wrong part of his post. It was the "unsung hero of this age" hilarity and the "more and more, people are realizing that FLAC is just as good" bit that set me off, and should've been the bit I quoted.
The idea that FLAC is anything more than a nifty technological achievement that few outside the audiophile community could give two shits about is truly hilarious. Is it great for archival? Yup. Do most people care one way or the other? Yeah, no. I mean, storage may be cheap, but most people, myself included, are simply unwilling to sacrifice 300MB per album for a tiny level of increased quality over, say, a 320Kbps MP3 or a higher bitrate OGG. Hell, *most* people would happily transcode CD -> MP3 -> AAC -> MP3 and not even notice the difference, let alone understand what they're doing to their music.
In short: people are dumb. FLAC is marginal at best. And I maintain that won't be changing any time soon.
However, more and more, people are realizing that FLAC is just as good as CD quality,
Got a citation for that? I mean, sure, you and your audiophile buddies favour FLAC, but something tells me the average consumer on the street has no idea what the hell a "FLAC" is, let alone why it would be better (or worse, depending on your requirements) than MP3/OGG/<insert your favorite lossy codec>. Hell, just start off with the phrase "lossy codec" and watch their eyes glaze over.
Seriously... you're just living in a world of confirmation biases. FLAC is still a niche product, and it will probably always be a niche product.
Because "being a perfectionist" isn't a logical fallacy. The name "Nirvana fallacy" refers to a specific form of argument. And it need not be employed by a "perfectionist". A politician interested in shooting down a plan for partisan reasons is just as likely to invoke the fallacy, as it often plays well with the base (see any counterargument to social welfare, specifically the invocation of the free rider problem, a classic example of the Nirvana fallacy at work).
Perhaps. It depends on the nature of the criticism. In this case, people are complaining that the website isn't accessible enough. Yet no one is arguing that the idea isn't excellent, or that what we have isn't better than nothing. Thus it's the very essence of the Nirvana fallacy: that the current implementation wasn't worth doing because, shucks, it ain't perfect by some arbitrary metric.
On the flip side, let's say you're criticising, I dunno... the Iraq war. Most of the criticisms of said war aren't that the invasion of Iraq wasn't done perfectly, but rather that it should never have been done at all for various claimed reasons (eg, diverted attention from Afghanistan, ended up being a quagmire, provided base for terrorist activities, strengthened Iran, etc). That's very different from the Nirvana fallacy.
Conversely, one could invoke the Nirvana fallacy when responding to criticism of No Child Left Behind, if, for example, the counterargument was that the plan didn't completely fix the education system. It really all comes down to how the attacks are phrased. If the argument is "well, while I admit that the plan will succeed in achieving X and Y, it has flaws W and V and therefore there's just no point", that's the essence of the Nirvana fallacy. It's the argument that, because a plan has any flaw whatsoever, it's not worth doing, because it doesn't measure up to some imaginary, perfect solution.
Go read this. Here, let me quote:
Pathetic when Cracked is out there teaching such basic lessons... *sigh*
I would like to be able to hear all of the facts.
And my point, which you apparently completely missed, is that the system of justice we have results in the relevant facts being brought to light because each side is interested in providing evidence to support their case. What you're claiming is that there may be evidence brought up by neither the prosecution nor the defense that will affect the trial. But if that's the case, then either the prosecution or the defense has done a very terrible job, or, and this is far more likely, you or the "evidence" you've dug up are in error (otherwise one of the sides would've already mentioned it).
Here, let me try to put it more succinctly: the *entire point* of an adversarial justice system is to remove bias, because any bias present in the evidence provided by the defense will be countered by arguments and evidence offered by the prosecution, and vice versa.
Frankly, if I want to know the details about a case, why would I trust the media (who are digging deep and trying to sensationalize trivial details in order to keep me from changing the channel) any more or less than the lawyers (who are digging deep and trying to distort facts to try to "persuade" me to vote in their favor)?
Because the lawyers are on opposing sides, and so the balance of the evidence they bring forward should produce a complete picture (unless they're colluding or something). There's simply no way you, with a blackberry, are going to be able to find evidence relevant to the case that the two parties won't already have brought forward (unless they, or the investigators in the case, did a truly terrible job).
The *only* evidence you'll gain access to is that which was ruled inadmissable by the judge. But that evidence is inadmissable for a reason. Who are you to decide whether or not you'll abide by that ruling? I mean, jebus, those rulings are made for a reason!
IMHO, you're much better off with an ad-removing proxy like Privoxy if you really want to live without a built-in solution like AdBlock. It gives you much finer control over what is and isn't blocked.
Even Einstein's relativity could at any time be proven false however so far it can not only provide explanations for observations but it made many predictions which were subsequently proven correct. But there is still faith involved that it is true for all situations, otherwise it would be a law.
Umm... there is no such faith. Only a layman believes that relativity is believed "true for all situations". At the very small, relativity breaks down, which is why quantum theory exists, and why there's an effort to reconcile the two.
But more fundamentally, the only reason, say, an engineer will "assume" relativity works is because, in general, it's predictions match expectations, and so it acts as a reasonable approximation of how the universe works. But if it turned out to be wrong? Big deal. It gets replaced, much like Newton's Laws, and we all move on.
Evolution involves even more faith and assumptions though because the fossil record is incomplete and scientists fill in those gaps with still frames of the "evolution movie" with the intent of making a complete movie that makes sense.
Also wrong. Evolution has been observed happening in the frickin' wild. No "faith" or "assumptions" required.
Of course, perhaps your complaint is with "macroevolution"? Also silly. Macroevolution is just microevolution in the large. Change an organism over millions and millions of generations, and yeah, believe it or not, it could become something completely different.
Maybe just go read this.
Surprise, a new octopus fossil is found that looks very much like the alive, present-day version. What will this do for evolution?
Umm... why would it say anything? Evolution doesn't preclude organisms remain unchanged. Here, let me describe, very simply, the theory of evolution:
1) Each generation, individuals may experience random mutations.
2) Evolutionary pressures then act as a fitness function, giving some individuals a higher or lower probability of reproducing.
3) The fit traits, based on the aforementioned fitness function, are thus passed on.
In this case, the explanation is simple: either the Octopus hasn't experienced any new, significant evolutionary pressures to warrant dominance of new mutations (because it's already very well adapted), or the pressures applied to it continually select for the current form of Octopus.
Bottom line: why are assumptions and faith allowed in science but are chastised as non-science in the context of religion when referring to the natural world?
Because they aren't "assumptions and faith". They're hypothesis backed by, and this is the most vital bit, *evidence*. Further, those hypothesis predict things, and we can test for them. And any new observations must fit in with said hypothesis. If predictions fail to manifest, or evidence arises that cannot be explain by the hypothesis, then scientists alter or replace the hypothesis in order to fit the new body of evidence.
How you can't see that this is *completely* different from "assumptions and faith", I honestly do not understand.
The problem with evolution is that it does not predict anything
Here. Go get your learn on. Not that I expect you to actually believe any of that... after all, it doesn't fit with your worldview, and an echo chamber combined with a heavy dose of confirmation bias is ever so comforting...
Or: My vehicle is a frightening deathwagon, and that's the way I likes it! :)
For the record, I do object to lifted vehicles. As a driver of a small car, you've done two things: decreased your chances of bottoming out when off-roading (good), and increased the odds of causing *massive* damage on the next vehicle you hit, as you're no longer going to make contact with typical crumple zones (bad). IMHO, the latter should outweigh the former, and the height of bumpers should be restricted if they're going to be driven on normal roadways. Alas, most people driving such vehicles couldn't give a shit... :(
I generally agree with the overall tenor of your post, but there's some things that puzzle me:
As for lack of evidence, the whole point of the OP making the statement was to preface what at least appeared to be indicative of that very thing.
Uhh... no he didn't. He started with:
I know that there's no intelligent motive behind evolution, it is an impersonal process of optimization for a set of conditions and there's no selection bias for complexity, as we humans would view such things
He then said:
There's no personified mind involved, nature is not a guiding intelligence
Which supports his previous statement. Then he goes on to imagine the octopus' wife nagging him to get out of his rut. Are you saying his wife is the intelligent designer he previously stated didn't exist? :)
Or are you saying that the lack of evolution in the octopus is somehow evidence of intelligent design (ie, the lack of evolution is the teapot's shadow)? Because *that* is simply ridiculous. It just demonstrates an organism where either no significant new pressures have forced a change in the organism, or where conversely, pressures on the organism are such that any variation results in a disadvantage.
As for the term "magical thinking", I do not think that means what you think it means. It generally means applying causation without an intermediary
Really! I suppose you have a source for your apparently authoritative definition? I tend to use the term "magical thinking" when referring to *any* belief that's irrational, and that applies both to beliefs that aren't grounded in fact, and those that are flat out unverifiable. Whether or not that's an appropriate use of the term is, I think, a matter of opinion more than anything else. But, I admit I may be wrong... *shrug*
What is the point of having evidence if people are either going to interpret it wrong by accident or interpret it with purposeful bias which helps them accomplish their agenda?
Because then other scientists can go and verify your results, and contradict you if you're wrong? See, that's one of the key differences between magic and science. The latter is actually verifiable (and falsifiable).
I hope you realize how many assumptions and faith go into many scientific theories, including evolution, because by definition the evidence for many theories, including evolution, is not complete, and assumptions are made to fill in the gaps.
Such as? Please, name me one single "faith-based" assumption included in a theory of your choice (you've already mentioned evolution, so I expect you'll pick that, but I'll happily leave the field open). Go head, try me. Because I *strongly* suspect you simply don't understand how the scientific process (or the theory you select, whatever that happens to be) works (don't worry, it's not your fault... solid, logical thinking isn't exactly stressed in schools these days, and it's *definitely* not emphasized in the average adult's day-to-day life).
Well, what do you do if people do stop where they are past the loop?
Put up a sign that says "loops are <here>", with a nice little arrow. If you're past the loops and no one's behind you at the intersection, you'll back up. If someone is, then as you've already pointed out, it doesn't matter, the loops will trigger. This has the pleasant side-effect of changing drivers habits, as they'll learn they need to stop before the friggin' stop line, thus freeing up the crosswalk so pedestrians don't have to walk out into traffic.
Actively *encouraging* drivers to encroach on the sidewalk is just stupid. You might as well just get rid of crosswalks entirely, as clearly, they no longer have a useful function (that being to provide a pedestrian with an unobstructed path across the intersection that's outside the flow of traffic).
"No one has demonstrated intelligent motivation behind evolution" does not justify the claim "I know there is no intelligent motivation behind evolution." Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Fair enough. The OPs phrasing was poor. He should've said "there is no evidence for intelligent motivation behind evolution".
That said, God in the Gaps is not a theory. The statement "there is no evidence for the lack of intelligent motivation behind evolution", which is what you're advocating, is silly and pointless. There's also no evidence for the lack of a teapot orbiting between earth and mars, but I don't believe in that, either. It's nothing more than magical thinking. And that's what the AC I was responding to was defending, and what I strenuously object to.
You must have spectacularly wide crosswalks. Around here, at triggered intersections, if you were to stop such that your back end was past the stop line, your front end would be in the intersection and obstructing traffic (larger intersections with unusually wide crosswalks are timed, not triggered).
And either way, you could just install a pair of loop sensors to catch the morons who apparently can't stop behind the line. But I maintain that *requiring* people obstruct a crosswalk in order to trigger a stop light is moronic. I can't believe you'd even bother to argue otherwise.