> In any case, the mainstream media puts up token opposition.
And even that has only started in the past 6-8 months. For the most part the media has given GWB a free pass on account of 9/11. But he has taken advantage of it for too long, and the country's too obviously headed down the wrong path, so the media, the comedians, and even some of the Democrats are growing enough spine to make some feeble noises now and then.
When the straw that breaks the camel's back comes along, there's going to be a shit-storm of pent up frustrations let loose.
> That's exactly what is happening with the CIA right now, where guys who have happily served both Republican and Democratic administrations for decades are suddenly being dictated to on how to perform their jobs by people who are barely qualified to operate the paper shredder.
And operating a paper shredder appears to be a very important skill for Bush appointees.
> Everyone who ignores posts by Anonymymous Cowards, make an exception and take a look at the parent. It's rational, knowledgeable, and highly informative.
Seconded. And doubly notable because it's from an A/C who claims some modest expertise on an esoteric topic and actually comes across as someone who has a clue about it.
Every time a new species' genome is sequenced a prediction of evolution is fulfilled.
Unless you know of a species with a genome unrelated to the rest of us.
And that's not the limit of it. For example, the existence and general nature of intermediate species in the whale's family tree was predicted. In fact the paleontologist making the predictions also predicted the approximate time one of the intermediates should have existed, approached geologists to find where on the planet ancient seabeds from that time are now exposed on the surface, visited one such site, and found the fossils literally lying on the ground there.
> I think the reason that Americans get hung up on "macroevolution" is this: [...] However, in America the religious fundamentalists are many and vocal, and their children are educated to see a dichotomy between the origin story presented at school and the one presented at church.
Evolution deniers have latched on to the macro/micro distinction because their position is increasingly untenable as science progresses and various procedures such as gene sequencing and paternity tests become familiar to more and more of the public. The macro/micro distinction lets them admit that lots of evolution really does happen, while holding on to the belief that it does not go beyond some taxonomic level.
It isn't rare these days to hear even the most knee-jerk of evolution deniers allow evolution "within a kind", where "kind" is as high as family.
Of course, a lot of that backpeddling has as much to do with trying to rationalize the Noah story as it does with accepting science.
> Macro evoltuion/micro evolution are not concepts in evolutionary theory. They are ideas introduced by the ID/creationist camp after they could not directly assault evolution.
Actually, the biologists on t.o. say that it was biologists who originally made the distinction. They just represent looking at the process on different scales.
> I'm saying that using Evolutions as an Origin theory opens the door to other origin theories in the argument.
You have been vague by what you mean by "origin theory". Evolution is only concerned with the origins of biological structures, behaviors, and species. The big bang is concerned with cosmological origins. We have other theories that address the origins of galaxies, stars, planets, mountains, canyons, volcanos, hurricanes, etc. And all are taught in the apropriate science classes.
You appear to be inventing an ad hoc category to support your argument.
> Because the Question of Origins is a metaphysical question not scientific.
There you go again. And you're completely wrong. To whatever extent science can investigate [Oo]rigins, it's perfectly appropriate to do so.
> I haven't touched on any of the questions of whether ID, Evolution, Alien seeding, or any other answer to the question of Origin's are provable or logically valid. But if you wan't to diverge into those area's then feel free to do so. I'd be happy to meet you on those grounds too.
> All I said was that if you treat evolution as an origin theory don't complain if someone else comes offers a counter theory to yours.
Well, due to the lack of competing theories no one is complaining anyway.
> If you treat is as origin theory then you open the door to Intelligent Design. If you want ID to stay in the Philosophy or Religion Class then keep evolutions out of the origins discussion when teaching it in the science class.
You misunderstand: ID isn't kicked out of science classes because it's an origin theory, but rather than because it's pseudoscience.
> The question of "how it all started" doesn't not belong in a science classroom. Let me say that again. The question of "how it all started" doesn't not belong in a science classroom.
Why not? Let me ask again, Why not?
If something is amenable to study by the methods of science, it's legitimate fodder for science classes. The only reasonable filters for keeping stuff out are (a) how solid vs. tentative are the results on that topic, and (b) how important is that topic in comparison to other topics, since we don't have time to teach everything.
Re (a), the basics of evolution are incredibly solid.
Re (b), if you're going to teach biology at all, evolution is one of the first things you should teach, since it explains so incredibly much of everything else we'll teach in a biology class.
> Biology curriculum insist on putting it there though then everyone complains when there answer to the idea gets challenged in that same classroom.
Again, there aren't any challenges to evolution that are any more respectable than alchemy, astronomy, and "electric universe theory". Creationism is a traditional belief, completely unsupported by evidence. ID is a pseudoscience used as a disguised for a religious/political agenda.
If you can come up with a real challenge to the idea of evolution, you'll make yourself one of the most famous scientists of all time.
But for some reason evolution deniers prefer to claim they're persecuted instead of doing the competitive science. Why do you suppose that is?
> Actually I've studied it a great deal. As I said... If you can teach it without going into how it is an explanation for origins then feel free to teach it without it's conterpoint. When you go into a school however and listen to the curriculum it is all about origins. And if you insist on teaching origins in that setting then you better be prepared for the counter arguments. Evolution does indeed exist as a method for biological change. It is observable. It is not however the only possible explanation for "the origins of all life"
Evolution doesn't explain "the origins of all life". It's what happens to imperfect self-replicators, such as life.
However, the study of evolution does indicate that all known life on earth had a common ancestor, regardless of where that ancestor came from.
> I was referring to Evolution (The proof that we don't have a creator). If you don't think it's taught that way then your either blind or self-deluded.
Evolution doesn't prove that we don't have a [Cc]reator, but it does prove that some specific religious beliefs are wrong.
> That's because evolutions at it's heart is based on just one thing: "There is no Creator."
Are you unaware of how many people, including scientists, accept the reality of evolution and also believe there is a Creator?
> And since using "God" as a counter argument doesn't fit into the Scientific Method you have the convenient fall back of dismissing the only possible counter argument as "not science."
God is excluded from scientific explanations for the same reason Invisible Pink Unicorns aren Flying Spaghetti Monsters are. The notion that an unevidenced power of unlimited capability and unknowable intentions did something is compatible with any observation, and thus explains nothing. In CS/IT Geek terms, it's like explaining an observation by saying "a * made that happen".
> So, if I may, I'd like to point out that the question of "where it all started" doesn't belong in a Science classroom.
If it can be treated scientifically it's certainly reasonable to include it in the science curriculum.
> if you are a scientist you had better have pretty thick skin if you want to challenge the status quo. There is no room in scientific circle for multiple leading theories, there is "one true religion" and the rest are all crackpot theories.
You obviously don't know what goes on among scientists. Articles challenging prevailing opinion - such as this one - are published quite regularly in scientific journals.
> A perfect case in point is the current debate over teaching evolution in public schools. You'd think that it was a religious debate on both sides, the way they act. Since they currently have the upper hand, they are determined not to give any ground, the mere mention that evolution has some competing theories is completely unacceptable
Evolution doesn't have any competing theories. The much discussed "Intelligent Design" movement is transparently a political movement disguised as a religious movement disguised as a scientific movement.
> We simply can't allow young impressionable minds access to any facts that might contradict evolution
If you know of any facts that contradict evolution there are lots of scientists that would like to know what they are.
What scientists - and a lot of theologians - object to isn't the idea that evolution might have some competition as an explanation, but rather to the idea that we should introduce pseudoscience into the public school curriculum in order to advance a religious/political agenda.
> It could be done in a way that is not endorsing any particular "religion" and would certainly lead to some interesting class discussions.
Yes, if I were a school teacher I'd find an excuse to start a discussion of the anti-evolution movement, to help the students understand the difference between science and pseudoscience.
Ditto if there was public pressure to introduce "2+2=5 Theory" into math classes.
> Do you view internet ads as different from say, TV ads?
Yes and no. In terms of presumed obligation to pay attention, no. In terms of annoyance, both are annoying but IMO Web ads more so.
> What about in a magazine? Do you not buy a magazine because it has too many?
Most magazine editors don't try to make their adds as annoying as possible and don't clutter the page with them so that it's hard to read the content without distractions. Also, a magazine with more ads doesn't take me 30 seconds to turn a page.
> I believe the solution known as "dark matter" is an approach known as multiplying entities.
Funny, I call it "the best hypothesis so far". It may lose that status if the new one stands up to scrutiny, but that's no justification for dismissing it as a hack.
Wikipedia is a wonderful resource for pop culture - you can find anything you want to know about bands, movies, books, etc.
It's also good for a quick reference when you run across a term you're not familiar with.
The problem is the way the articles are polluted by true believers. Proponents of a religion, nationalism, and other ideology are really bad about modifying articles to be Politically Correct from their ideological POV. They're also really bad about finding an excuse to mention their views in all kinds of articles where their views wouldn't be relevant even if given a balanced treatment.
I still use it a lot, but I rarely contribute anything anymore. I've good better things to do than clean up behind True Believers and other kooks.
Slashdot Mirror
> In any case, the mainstream media puts up token opposition.
And even that has only started in the past 6-8 months. For the most part the media has given GWB a free pass on account of 9/11. But he has taken advantage of it for too long, and the country's too obviously headed down the wrong path, so the media, the comedians, and even some of the Democrats are growing enough spine to make some feeble noises now and then.
When the straw that breaks the camel's back comes along, there's going to be a shit-storm of pent up frustrations let loose.
> "Unqualified" can be handled by becoming qualified.
Yeah, that's why on my job applications I always put "CEO" in the "Position applying for" field.
> That's exactly what is happening with the CIA right now, where guys who have happily served both Republican and Democratic administrations for decades are suddenly being dictated to on how to perform their jobs by people who are barely qualified to operate the paper shredder.
And operating a paper shredder appears to be a very important skill for Bush appointees.
> Everyone who ignores posts by Anonymymous Cowards, make an exception and take a look at the parent. It's rational, knowledgeable, and highly informative.
Seconded. And doubly notable because it's from an A/C who claims some modest expertise on an esoteric topic and actually comes across as someone who has a clue about it.
> Name one prediction that has come to pass.
Every time a new species' genome is sequenced a prediction of evolution is fulfilled.
Unless you know of a species with a genome unrelated to the rest of us.
And that's not the limit of it. For example, the existence and general nature of intermediate species in the whale's family tree was predicted. In fact the paleontologist making the predictions also predicted the approximate time one of the intermediates should have existed, approached geologists to find where on the planet ancient seabeds from that time are now exposed on the surface, visited one such site, and found the fossils literally lying on the ground there.
If you want more, ask on talk.origins.
> I think the reason that Americans get hung up on "macroevolution" is this: [...] However, in America the religious fundamentalists are many and vocal, and their children are educated to see a dichotomy between the origin story presented at school and the one presented at church.
Evolution deniers have latched on to the macro/micro distinction because their position is increasingly untenable as science progresses and various procedures such as gene sequencing and paternity tests become familiar to more and more of the public. The macro/micro distinction lets them admit that lots of evolution really does happen, while holding on to the belief that it does not go beyond some taxonomic level.
It isn't rare these days to hear even the most knee-jerk of evolution deniers allow evolution "within a kind", where "kind" is as high as family.
Of course, a lot of that backpeddling has as much to do with trying to rationalize the Noah story as it does with accepting science.
> Macro evoltuion/micro evolution are not concepts in evolutionary theory. They are ideas introduced by the ID/creationist camp after they could not directly assault evolution.
Actually, the biologists on t.o. say that it was biologists who originally made the distinction. They just represent looking at the process on different scales.
Not that that's any help to evolution deniers.
> I'm saying that using Evolutions as an Origin theory opens the door to other origin theories in the argument.
You have been vague by what you mean by "origin theory". Evolution is only concerned with the origins of biological structures, behaviors, and species. The big bang is concerned with cosmological origins. We have other theories that address the origins of galaxies, stars, planets, mountains, canyons, volcanos, hurricanes, etc. And all are taught in the apropriate science classes.
You appear to be inventing an ad hoc category to support your argument.
> Because the Question of Origins is a metaphysical question not scientific.
There you go again. And you're completely wrong. To whatever extent science can investigate [Oo]rigins, it's perfectly appropriate to do so.
> I haven't touched on any of the questions of whether ID, Evolution, Alien seeding, or any other answer to the question of Origin's are provable or logically valid. But if you wan't to diverge into those area's then feel free to do so. I'd be happy to meet you on those grounds too.
Ok. "ID is utter bunkum." Comments?
> All I said was that if you treat evolution as an origin theory don't complain if someone else comes offers a counter theory to yours.
Well, due to the lack of competing theories no one is complaining anyway.
> If you treat is as origin theory then you open the door to Intelligent Design. If you want ID to stay in the Philosophy or Religion Class then keep evolutions out of the origins discussion when teaching it in the science class.
You misunderstand: ID isn't kicked out of science classes because it's an origin theory, but rather than because it's pseudoscience.
> The question of "how it all started" doesn't not belong in a science classroom. Let me say that again. The question of "how it all started" doesn't not belong in a science classroom.
Why not? Let me ask again, Why not?
If something is amenable to study by the methods of science, it's legitimate fodder for science classes. The only reasonable filters for keeping stuff out are (a) how solid vs. tentative are the results on that topic, and (b) how important is that topic in comparison to other topics, since we don't have time to teach everything.
Re (a), the basics of evolution are incredibly solid.
Re (b), if you're going to teach biology at all, evolution is one of the first things you should teach, since it explains so incredibly much of everything else we'll teach in a biology class.
> Biology curriculum insist on putting it there though then everyone complains when there answer to the idea gets challenged in that same classroom.
Again, there aren't any challenges to evolution that are any more respectable than alchemy, astronomy, and "electric universe theory". Creationism is a traditional belief, completely unsupported by evidence. ID is a pseudoscience used as a disguised for a religious/political agenda.
If you can come up with a real challenge to the idea of evolution, you'll make yourself one of the most famous scientists of all time.
But for some reason evolution deniers prefer to claim they're persecuted instead of doing the competitive science. Why do you suppose that is?
> Actually I've studied it a great deal. As I said... If you can teach it without going into how it is an explanation for origins then feel free to teach it without it's conterpoint. When you go into a school however and listen to the curriculum it is all about origins. And if you insist on teaching origins in that setting then you better be prepared for the counter arguments. Evolution does indeed exist as a method for biological change. It is observable. It is not however the only possible explanation for "the origins of all life"
Evolution doesn't explain "the origins of all life". It's what happens to imperfect self-replicators, such as life.
However, the study of evolution does indicate that all known life on earth had a common ancestor, regardless of where that ancestor came from.
> I was referring to Evolution (The proof that we don't have a creator). If you don't think it's taught that way then your either blind or self-deluded.
Evolution doesn't prove that we don't have a [Cc]reator, but it does prove that some specific religious beliefs are wrong.
> That's because evolutions at it's heart is based on just one thing: "There is no Creator."
Are you unaware of how many people, including scientists, accept the reality of evolution and also believe there is a Creator?
> And since using "God" as a counter argument doesn't fit into the Scientific Method you have the convenient fall back of dismissing the only possible counter argument as "not science."
God is excluded from scientific explanations for the same reason Invisible Pink Unicorns aren Flying Spaghetti Monsters are. The notion that an unevidenced power of unlimited capability and unknowable intentions did something is compatible with any observation, and thus explains nothing. In CS/IT Geek terms, it's like explaining an observation by saying "a * made that happen".
> So, if I may, I'd like to point out that the question of "where it all started" doesn't belong in a Science classroom.
If it can be treated scientifically it's certainly reasonable to include it in the science curriculum.
> if you are a scientist you had better have pretty thick skin if you want to challenge the status quo. There is no room in scientific circle for multiple leading theories, there is "one true religion" and the rest are all crackpot theories.
You obviously don't know what goes on among scientists. Articles challenging prevailing opinion - such as this one - are published quite regularly in scientific journals.
> A perfect case in point is the current debate over teaching evolution in public schools. You'd think that it was a religious debate on both sides, the way they act. Since they currently have the upper hand, they are determined not to give any ground, the mere mention that evolution has some competing theories is completely unacceptable
Evolution doesn't have any competing theories. The much discussed "Intelligent Design" movement is transparently a political movement disguised as a religious movement disguised as a scientific movement.
> We simply can't allow young impressionable minds access to any facts that might contradict evolution
If you know of any facts that contradict evolution there are lots of scientists that would like to know what they are.
What scientists - and a lot of theologians - object to isn't the idea that evolution might have some competition as an explanation, but rather to the idea that we should introduce pseudoscience into the public school curriculum in order to advance a religious/political agenda.
> It could be done in a way that is not endorsing any particular "religion" and would certainly lead to some interesting class discussions.
Yes, if I were a school teacher I'd find an excuse to start a discussion of the anti-evolution movement, to help the students understand the difference between science and pseudoscience.
Ditto if there was public pressure to introduce "2+2=5 Theory" into math classes.
> There has been no observable evidence, only inferences.
Isn't everything scient tells us the result of inferences built upon inferences?
Making inferences (and weeding out the bad ones) is what science is all about.
> And to save electrons.
It's ok, they recycle them.
> why do you block ads?
Slows loads, clutters pages.
> And with what?
userContent.css
> Do you view internet ads as different from say, TV ads?
Yes and no. In terms of presumed obligation to pay attention, no. In terms of annoyance, both are annoying but IMO Web ads more so.
> What about in a magazine? Do you not buy a magazine because it has too many?
Most magazine editors don't try to make their adds as annoying as possible and don't clutter the page with them so that it's hard to read the content without distractions. Also, a magazine with more ads doesn't take me 30 seconds to turn a page.
> I believe the solution known as "dark matter" is an approach known as multiplying entities.
Funny, I call it "the best hypothesis so far". It may lose that status if the new one stands up to scrutiny, but that's no justification for dismissing it as a hack.
> ...the simplest solution turns out to be the best.
Surely GR & QM are better than the super-simple Newtonian/Euclidian model that went before.
> It'd be nice if we could stick with general relativity without dark matter.
That's neither here nor there for me; I just want the model to match whatever is really out there.
> How do tech-savvy people view Wikipedia?
Wikipedia is a wonderful resource for pop culture - you can find anything you want to know about bands, movies, books, etc.
It's also good for a quick reference when you run across a term you're not familiar with.
The problem is the way the articles are polluted by true believers. Proponents of a religion, nationalism, and other ideology are really bad about modifying articles to be Politically Correct from their ideological POV. They're also really bad about finding an excuse to mention their views in all kinds of articles where their views wouldn't be relevant even if given a balanced treatment.
I still use it a lot, but I rarely contribute anything anymore. I've good better things to do than clean up behind True Believers and other kooks.
> How will researchers confirm that their new "baby" isn't some mutant Frankenstein-monster strain?
As if the original wasn't already a mutant monster.
> After bending over backward, after being a loyal employee, this is the reward?
Hint: don't bend over backward.
> Cthulhu (alternate spellings: Tulu, Cthulu, Ktulu and many others)
On Slashdot, there are alternate spellings for every word.
DON'T welcome this particular overlord!
> In a move that aims to put the RIAA on the same level as your average organized crime syndicate
How can you 'put' something where it already is?
> He may have also used nuclear magnetic resonance to date the specimen. I'm currently describing a new bug in amber and plan to use an NMR technique.
Do you think that technique could be applicable to bugs in programs?