Clearly I made a slight error in wording that one:) The dna evolves as a group, so organisms evolve as a group. An organism can't possibly evolve. An individual organism's dna clearly can't change over time. The way to see DNA changing over time is to take a set of examples of DNA and view the general trend... view the descendent organisms of the original organism, as soon as you have an organism and its descendents you have a group of organisms, loosely a species, and we're back to the original point of species evolving, not individuals. You cannot, afterall, take an organism and watch it evolve... it'll die, and you're left with no organism.
Well... maybe, but while clearly the DNA is evolving, the organism evolves as a result of that. You could say a balloon doesn't grow, it is just more air filling the inside, but the result is that the balloon grows anyway, surely the same applies?
It worked very well for DVD players that ignore region codes, but it only takes a fiddling of the law to disallow it and you have to rely on illegal imports...
No, it really isn't. One organism cannot evolve. It is about groups of organisms, loosely termed "species". That doesn't mean "species" has a strict definition though, you can look at a group and say "that's a species" and study how they change over time without being able to define when they become two distinct species effectively.
On the other hand the people who are like you who would make the effort to buy the non-Messenger copy of windows would be the same people who would install something else, or simply not use it anyway. For those people who use it because it's what's there, they'd likely but the standard version of windows anyway.
Where did it say that everyone is lazy, and hence give the conclusion that everyone in the past must have bene lazy too to account for this? Populations have variation.
Historically in the UK *most* water heaters are gas with a hot water tank (and often a backup immersion electric heating element in the tank for when there are problems with the gas supply - though I've only ever seen them used as boosters). Somewhat more modern heaters are on-demand gas, although these are being phased out due to inefficiency to return to gas-with-tank systems. Electric on demand isn't common in main water heating systems as far as I'm aware, but certainly is very common as a built in heating element in a shower unit, providing quite adequate pressure, more so than most on-demaind central water heaters (and without drops in temperature due to other people taking the supply elsewhere in the house) but less than showers running pumped from a central tank.
The very first stage in that would be to define species. As soon as agree on a solid definition of species, then one could try arguing that. As things go speciation has been observed (in so much as animals have been bred in such a way that people would consider it a new species) but ID people will complain that it isn't really speciation, it's just microevolution (or that it was managd by scientists so it could be observed within a few years), thus shifting the goalposts. Biologists define species somewhat vaguely because there is no solid strict definition that works in all cases, and yet ID people want there to be one to challenge the biologists to break. There is no strict dividing line between one species and another, so how on earth you would expect to observe it in the wild in the way you suggest I don't know.
> If you're going to be honest, you have to admit that there are huge gaps in evolution going all the way back to the Big Bang.
That kind of honesty is strange. Indeed there are huge gaps in evolution going all the way to the big bang... not least because evolution has nothing to do with the big bang and so the theory only starts dealing with anything billions of years later.
> Until you have incontrovertable proof of evolution from start to finish, you have to allow for alternate theories, even if you personally believe them to be unreliable
A *better* solution? I think not. A *different* solution, certainly, but what you can do with authoring you can't necessarily do from automatic detection. Now, whether developers are likely to put the effort in is a different question as you mention, but simply detecting colour from the monitor (as the AmbiLight TV does) is not giving them the option.
The UK's been part of the EU for many years. Presumably you're talking about the EMU, and indeed the UK is not a member. Germany's GDP is higher than the UK's anyway, so my minor factual correction still stands.
The figures I've managed to find put California's GDP at 1.54 trillion USD and the UK's at 1.78 trillion. Now I admit that per capita California wins hands down... but then, that's like comparing the GDP per capita of the home counties to the UK as a whole, the population distributions are not comparable.
Equally, since when is flashing the common use of torches? Usually they are used to see in the dark, which is what flaming torches tend to be used for too.
Just think how long it takes for a limb to grow back. A lizard's tail works because the lizard is perfectly viable without the tail. If you lost a leg, and lived in a pre-civilisation era, how would you survive with one leg until the other grew back some months (years?) later? Hence no actual survival benefit is provided by limb regrowth, so it wouldn't necessarily be expected to evolve.
Of course, using that definition of macroevolution (a descriptive term like "big" not one describing a different process) it has been observed because speciation has been observed. The problem is then that most creationists move the goalposts and say that the speciation that has been observed is still microevolution because microevolution is change within a kind, giving us the species we see today but only within strict limits.
Unfortunately noone seems able to tell us what these limits are or why they exist. Certainly this reduces the creationist definition of macroevolution to one that is meaningless.
hmm, makes sense. My grandmother always used to use oil totally and they were horrible... too low a temp for too long, my approach just means you cook the potato through, and just fry it hot for taste and texture. I may give that a go though.
You prefer them blanched in oil? Too greasy that way. Better to boil them until really soft and then fry at a very high temp. Or would they not count as fries to you then, being mostly boiled?:)
Most ID proponents define it as change within a KIND, why? We have observed speciation, so as a result limiting it to species becomes simply incorrect.
Not that anyone seems to have been able to define kind, or state what the limiting factor on evolution is that creates this mythical micro/macro split as if they are two different processes.
You can find the agent that created life? By testing? How?
We certainly could "observe" macro-evolution (speciation has been observed and is discounted as evolution within a kind to move the goalposts, of course) but the millions of years it usually takes makes it difficult. As a result by your definition as we could observe macro-evolution, but can't find the person who designed life... evolution is the science and ID isn't? So by your own completely incorrect definition, you've defined yourself to be wrong... I fail to see your point?
Slashdot Mirror
Clearly I made a slight error in wording that one :) The dna evolves as a group, so organisms evolve as a group. An organism can't possibly evolve. An individual organism's dna clearly can't change over time. The way to see DNA changing over time is to take a set of examples of DNA and view the general trend... view the descendent organisms of the original organism, as soon as you have an organism and its descendents you have a group of organisms, loosely a species, and we're back to the original point of species evolving, not individuals. You cannot, afterall, take an organism and watch it evolve... it'll die, and you're left with no organism.
Well... maybe, but while clearly the DNA is evolving, the organism evolves as a result of that. You could say a balloon doesn't grow, it is just more air filling the inside, but the result is that the balloon grows anyway, surely the same applies?
It worked very well for DVD players that ignore region codes, but it only takes a fiddling of the law to disallow it and you have to rely on illegal imports...
No, it really isn't. One organism cannot evolve. It is about groups of organisms, loosely termed "species". That doesn't mean "species" has a strict definition though, you can look at a group and say "that's a species" and study how they change over time without being able to define when they become two distinct species effectively.
Or googling for things related to scunthorpe
On the other hand the people who are like you who would make the effort to buy the non-Messenger copy of windows would be the same people who would install something else, or simply not use it anyway. For those people who use it because it's what's there, they'd likely but the standard version of windows anyway.
Largely because that market drives away other markets, one would assume.
Where did it say that everyone is lazy, and hence give the conclusion that everyone in the past must have bene lazy too to account for this? Populations have variation.
Historically in the UK *most* water heaters are gas with a hot water tank (and often a backup immersion electric heating element in the tank for when there are problems with the gas supply - though I've only ever seen them used as boosters). Somewhat more modern heaters are on-demand gas, although these are being phased out due to inefficiency to return to gas-with-tank systems. Electric on demand isn't common in main water heating systems as far as I'm aware, but certainly is very common as a built in heating element in a shower unit, providing quite adequate pressure, more so than most on-demaind central water heaters (and without drops in temperature due to other people taking the supply elsewhere in the house) but less than showers running pumped from a central tank.
The very first stage in that would be to define species. As soon as agree on a solid definition of species, then one could try arguing that. As things go speciation has been observed (in so much as animals have been bred in such a way that people would consider it a new species) but ID people will complain that it isn't really speciation, it's just microevolution (or that it was managd by scientists so it could be observed within a few years), thus shifting the goalposts. Biologists define species somewhat vaguely because there is no solid strict definition that works in all cases, and yet ID people want there to be one to challenge the biologists to break. There is no strict dividing line between one species and another, so how on earth you would expect to observe it in the wild in the way you suggest I don't know.
> If you're going to be honest, you have to admit that there are huge gaps in evolution going all the way back to the Big Bang.
That kind of honesty is strange. Indeed there are huge gaps in evolution going all the way to the big bang... not least because evolution has nothing to do with the big bang and so the theory only starts dealing with anything billions of years later.
> Until you have incontrovertable proof of evolution from start to finish, you have to allow for alternate theories, even if you personally believe them to be unreliable
Correct. The key word there is theories.
A *better* solution? I think not. A *different* solution, certainly, but what you can do with authoring you can't necessarily do from automatic detection. Now, whether developers are likely to put the effort in is a different question as you mention, but simply detecting colour from the monitor (as the AmbiLight TV does) is not giving them the option.
The UK's been part of the EU for many years. Presumably you're talking about the EMU, and indeed the UK is not a member. Germany's GDP is higher than the UK's anyway, so my minor factual correction still stands.
The figures I've managed to find put California's GDP at 1.54 trillion USD and the UK's at 1.78 trillion. Now I admit that per capita California wins hands down... but then, that's like comparing the GDP per capita of the home counties to the UK as a whole, the population distributions are not comparable.
Equally, since when is flashing the common use of torches? Usually they are used to see in the dark, which is what flaming torches tend to be used for too.
Just think how long it takes for a limb to grow back. A lizard's tail works because the lizard is perfectly viable without the tail. If you lost a leg, and lived in a pre-civilisation era, how would you survive with one leg until the other grew back some months (years?) later? Hence no actual survival benefit is provided by limb regrowth, so it wouldn't necessarily be expected to evolve.
Well, there is if you spell it out
Most brits call it a smart car, too. Maybe just because "a Smart" sounds clunky *shrug*
Of course, using that definition of macroevolution (a descriptive term like "big" not one describing a different process) it has been observed because speciation has been observed. The problem is then that most creationists move the goalposts and say that the speciation that has been observed is still microevolution because microevolution is change within a kind, giving us the species we see today but only within strict limits.
Unfortunately noone seems able to tell us what these limits are or why they exist. Certainly this reduces the creationist definition of macroevolution to one that is meaningless.
hmm, makes sense. My grandmother always used to use oil totally and they were horrible... too low a temp for too long, my approach just means you cook the potato through, and just fry it hot for taste and texture. I may give that a go though.
Pardon? That made no sense to me at all...
You prefer them blanched in oil? Too greasy that way. Better to boil them until really soft and then fry at a very high temp. Or would they not count as fries to you then, being mostly boiled? :)
Ah,but if you asked for Potato Wedges in the UK you'd get something even bigger than chips, usually with the skin still on.
So the micro/macro split is over species then?
Define species.
Most ID proponents define it as change within a KIND, why? We have observed speciation, so as a result limiting it to species becomes simply incorrect.
Not that anyone seems to have been able to define kind, or state what the limiting factor on evolution is that creates this mythical micro/macro split as if they are two different processes.
You can find the agent that created life? By testing? How?
We certainly could "observe" macro-evolution (speciation has been observed and is discounted as evolution within a kind to move the goalposts, of course) but the millions of years it usually takes makes it difficult. As a result by your definition as we could observe macro-evolution, but can't find the person who designed life... evolution is the science and ID isn't? So by your own completely incorrect definition, you've defined yourself to be wrong... I fail to see your point?