Maybe someone wrote this virus so we'd think the RIAA did it. Or maybe the RIAA wrote it so we'd think that someone wrote it to pin the blame on the RIAA. Or maybe someone wrote it so we'd think RIAA wrote it to make us think that someone wrote it to pin the blame on the RIAA. Or maybe the RIAA wrote it so we'd think that someone wrote it to make us think the RIAA wrote it so we'd think that someone wrote it to pin the blame on the RIAA. Or maybe...
> No, broken will be the inevitable sequel. *No* movie makes that kind of money without a sequel. The way I see it, we have about a year and a half before "THE PASSION 2: DAWN OF THE DEAD."
> Out of thousands of specimen in a species, once in a while there will be born a mutant. In the great majority of the cases, this will be a harmful mutation and the mutant will die off.
Actually, the vast majority of mutations are neutral.
Of course, the resulting genetic diversity may help ensure that some members of some future generation survive a change to their environment.
> And if you're talking about a series of such "positive" gradual micromutations happening in a row, even millions of years and a corresponding number of generations does not mathematically make that possible.
Please show your math so we can evaluate it. (Be sure to spell out all your assumptions.)
Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story.
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
> Ha! Among Darwinist evolutionists I encounter the greatest zealotry
Zealotry? What's different about these discussions and everything else that goes on on Slashdot? Or anywhere else on the internet?
> and unwillingness to listen.
Maybe it's because we've spent the last couple of years patiently explaining what's wrong with your claims and watching others do likewise, only to have you jump in with the same claims again every time the subject comes up.
> As for zealotry, woe to anyone who questions the holy grail of Darwinist evolution, for he shall be beat down on by hordes of angry slashdotters, atheists and agnostics worldwide, and not to mention a handful of theistic evolutionists. Ever tried holding a conversation with 5 people at once, all desparate to defend their pet theory? Ever looked at a christian forum where evolutionists hang day and night to correct people on creationism? That's zealotry.
The persecution complex doesn't become you.
> If you really want to persuade people you need to show evidence for darwinist evolution. Not general stories with no predictive power. Take some risks. Make a prediction that if false will demonstrate evolution a lie.
A few million years from now, the biological makeup of earth will be substantially different from now.
As we continue to harvest information about the past, we will continue to see that a few million years ago the biological makeup of earth was substantially different from now.
> Ah, I just had a thought. My discussions on slashdot about evolution seem to be of a more primitive nature than those I'm used to of recent times. So undoubtedly one of you will point to something akin to Darwin's finches and natural selection as evidence. To which my reply is: What if natural selection does not improve the species? What if all living things were created in their best form, and have been heading downhill since then?
Great! Now all you have to do is define what you mean by "created in their best form" and what it means to head downhill from that form, and then you can start going through the mountains of evidence we have about biohistory to see how well your conjecture fits the facts.
It's quite possible that our piscine ancestors were better than we are, but without a definition of "better" I'm reluctant to venture an opinion on it.
Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story.
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 1
> When I said an absence of natural selection I was not speaking about reality, but a hypothetical situation. For us to understand what natural selection does, we must be able to imagine what would happen if it did not play a part.
That's easy enough: download the code for your favorite genetic algorithm, hack it to replace selection-by-fitness with random selection, and see how well it works.
> Please define "evolution", as it has different meanings in different contexts and for different things. Quite often darwinists will point to proof of one use of the word "evolution" and try to fool people into thinking it's proof for other types.
Could you give an example of what you're talking about?
Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story.
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 1
> On the other hand, very few rational believers of intelligent design theory
Rational people see that ID is based on some very elementary logical fallacies. Nor does it have any more of a theory behind it than spoon bending does.
> You'd be hard pressed however, to find an evolutionist who accepts the possibility that intelligent design and evolution might not be mutually exclusive.
No I wouldn't. I'd go over to talk.origins and post a message with subject line "Ping Stanley Friesen", and get a response from one of the most respected 'evolutionists' and one of the very few respected Christians in the group.
Lots of Christians accept the reality of evolution. The only ones that don't are those who have promoted evolution denial to the status of "article of faith".
Re: Eugenics? Pull the other one...
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 1
> But anyway, if I suppose that evolution is true, what moral argument can you give me to stop me from murdering the weak, hurting the downtrodden, and generally getting my way when I know I can get away with it? As far as I can tell, any argument you give me I can respond with, "so?". As long as it's benefitting me, what do I care?
Kind of like with atomic theory, eh?
Also, regarding your speculative position, do you observe that people who accept evolution behave any worse than people who don't?
I know creationists much prefer armchair arguments over arguments based on observations, but in this case you might want to give it a try.
> There is something wrong when many of the consumers of the television feel strongly about *not* seeing bare breasts and are watching a show in which they feel that they will not see particularly risque content
I thought we were talking about the Superbowl half-time show.
Slashdot Mirror
> Nah, if it was Orin's, it would melt down the computer and throw acid in your eyes for being an "evil pirate"
> I cant tell you how many computers I've cleaned when people get PIF email attachments and open them thinking they were PDF's.
Did you explain that one is "Portable Document Format" and the other is "Potential Idiot Format"?
> This would make a great Poll. It would fairly accurately state what flavor of tin-hatter is in the majority here:
[...]
D: ?
[...]
D: FUD from tinfoil salesmen.
> smooth, soft, vibrant grass
Unusual fetish you've got there, buddy.
> In all seriousness, sounds like those afraid of controlling it are just spreading FUD.
Don't fall for it, people! The grass has already taken over nuclear305!!!
> winning the game will double at least.
Are you saying we should have assassinated Goering before landing in Normandy?
> OpenGL is used in the Torque engine alongside Direct3D (D3D on Windows, OpenGL on Mac and Linux).
How well do Torque-based games run on Linux?
> Do you perhaps mean Steganography
Yes, he meant Steganography.
> > US politicians have no problem with terrorists, as it only creates more jobs
> Which is why we saw a huge economic takeoff after 9/11, right?
When we get drafted and packed off to Iraq, won't that count as a job?
> No, broken will be the inevitable sequel. *No* movie makes that kind of money without a sequel. The way I see it, we have about a year and a half before "THE PASSION 2: DAWN OF THE DEAD."
More likely Jesus II: Walking Tall
> guess what ? you can't polish a turd
Actually you can, but it's still a turd when you're done.
> Hence the brilliant satire that is Starship Troopers.
Satire, maybe... brilliant, no.
You can't make suckage go away by labeling it "satire" any more than you can by labeling it "prequel".
> What does Dance Dance Revolution have to do with Starship Troopers 2?
They decided that 2 hours of DDR webcam would be more interesting than the first movie, so that's what they're going to release as the sequel.
What's wrong, are engineers getting too much sex?
580 tonnes for only 1300 pounds!
> I still believe they're hidden in George W. Bush's anus.
No, he would have seen them by now.
> No Dave, I haven't taken up the drums. I think you should go check on that noise, Dave.
Dave: [bangs to get back in] It's me, Dave!
HAL: Dave? Dave's not here.
> Out of thousands of specimen in a species, once in a while there will be born a mutant. In the great majority of the cases, this will be a harmful mutation and the mutant will die off.
Actually, the vast majority of mutations are neutral.
Of course, the resulting genetic diversity may help ensure that some members of some future generation survive a change to their environment.
> And if you're talking about a series of such "positive" gradual micromutations happening in a row, even millions of years and a corresponding number of generations does not mathematically make that possible.
Please show your math so we can evaluate it. (Be sure to spell out all your assumptions.)
> Ha! Among Darwinist evolutionists I encounter the greatest zealotry
Zealotry? What's different about these discussions and everything else that goes on on Slashdot? Or anywhere else on the internet?
> and unwillingness to listen.
Maybe it's because we've spent the last couple of years patiently explaining what's wrong with your claims and watching others do likewise, only to have you jump in with the same claims again every time the subject comes up.
> As for zealotry, woe to anyone who questions the holy grail of Darwinist evolution, for he shall be beat down on by hordes of angry slashdotters, atheists and agnostics worldwide, and not to mention a handful of theistic evolutionists. Ever tried holding a conversation with 5 people at once, all desparate to defend their pet theory? Ever looked at a christian forum where evolutionists hang day and night to correct people on creationism? That's zealotry.
The persecution complex doesn't become you.
> If you really want to persuade people you need to show evidence for darwinist evolution. Not general stories with no predictive power. Take some risks. Make a prediction that if false will demonstrate evolution a lie.
- A few million years from now, the biological makeup of earth will be substantially different from now.
- As we continue to harvest information about the past, we will continue to see that a few million years ago the biological makeup of earth was substantially different from now.
> Ah, I just had a thought. My discussions on slashdot about evolution seem to be of a more primitive nature than those I'm used to of recent times. So undoubtedly one of you will point to something akin to Darwin's finches and natural selection as evidence. To which my reply is:What if natural selection does not improve the species? What if all living things were created in their best form, and have been heading downhill since then?
Great! Now all you have to do is define what you mean by "created in their best form" and what it means to head downhill from that form, and then you can start going through the mountains of evidence we have about biohistory to see how well your conjecture fits the facts.
It's quite possible that our piscine ancestors were better than we are, but without a definition of "better" I'm reluctant to venture an opinion on it.
> When I said an absence of natural selection I was not speaking about reality, but a hypothetical situation. For us to understand what natural selection does, we must be able to imagine what would happen if it did not play a part.
That's easy enough: download the code for your favorite genetic algorithm, hack it to replace selection-by-fitness with random selection, and see how well it works.
> Please define "evolution", as it has different meanings in different contexts and for different things. Quite often darwinists will point to proof of one use of the word "evolution" and try to fool people into thinking it's proof for other types.
Could you give an example of what you're talking about?
> On the other hand, very few rational believers of intelligent design theory
Rational people see that ID is based on some very elementary logical fallacies. Nor does it have any more of a theory behind it than spoon bending does.
> You'd be hard pressed however, to find an evolutionist who accepts the possibility that intelligent design and evolution might not be mutually exclusive.
No I wouldn't. I'd go over to talk.origins and post a message with subject line "Ping Stanley Friesen", and get a response from one of the most respected 'evolutionists' and one of the very few respected Christians in the group.
Lots of Christians accept the reality of evolution. The only ones that don't are those who have promoted evolution denial to the status of "article of faith".
> But anyway, if I suppose that evolution is true, what moral argument can you give me to stop me from murdering the weak, hurting the downtrodden, and generally getting my way when I know I can get away with it? As far as I can tell, any argument you give me I can respond with, "so?". As long as it's benefitting me, what do I care?
Kind of like with atomic theory, eh?
Also, regarding your speculative position, do you observe that people who accept evolution behave any worse than people who don't?
I know creationists much prefer armchair arguments over arguments based on observations, but in this case you might want to give it a try.
> He further predicts -- ugh! -- that software will not be written but visually designed.
"Let's start with a blue background that fills the whole screen..."
> There is something wrong when many of the consumers of the television feel strongly about *not* seeing bare breasts and are watching a show in which they feel that they will not see particularly risque content
I thought we were talking about the Superbowl half-time show.