Regarding the radical right religious regime's belief that a Day 5 blastocyst is a person, complete with a soul, etc... Is there any scientific evidence that a Day 5 blastocyst is NOT a live human being?
Apparently, many people (including a bunch of folks here on/.) believe that stem-cell research is a crime because babies get killed in the process I'm probably not in full agreement with anyone on this point; I may be wrong, but I think the embroyo's cells aren't killed, but transformed, so I'm not comfortable with saying that the embroyo is killed. however, I am comfortable with saying that the fact that embroyonic stem cells come from human embroyos bothers me, whether or not they could have possibly survived.
So, shouldn't the radical right religious regime be even more adamantly against IVF How can pro-life groups be against IVF, if it results in birth?
About the bacteria, that is evolution in action. Some people try to split evolution into "microevolution" and "macroevolution" to get around that, so my post focused on the "macro" part. About religion, yes, religions do "evolve" over time; that's easily observed. However, what you said about Jesus and the Bible sounds like contrarian stuff to me.
The only thing stated in the comments on this article that could push evolution into fact is observation of the change over time of bacteria and yet nothing has shown that this microevolution leads to evolution on a larger scale sufficient to differentiate species Evolution is a very slow process; we don't need to observe it to determine that its a fact. That's like sending a rocket to a star to determine whether they are really like the sun and not just tiny points of light.
To me, the fossil record is quite enough to tell me that some sort of evolution actually occurred.
Is there some dark secret that they don't want us to know? Scientists (and other academics, for that matter) have come up with some seemingly ridiculous ideas in other areas and have been allowed to pursue them to the point that they became mainstream.
The scientific community is not trying to lead the world astray with wild theories. Instead, they want to teach the world a little bit of what they know. There really is nothing to hide.
Have you ever honestly looked at the evidence for a global flood of immense proportions? It's scary. What you saw was a example of the persuasive power of pseudoscience. An impressive case is built for creationism, but its really flimsy, like movie props. Its basically like the UFO stuff. In this case, it exists because of the belief that literal creationism must be true if the Bible is inerrant. I know, I was a creationist too.
The sticker is completely correct in stating that theory is not fact by all of the above definitions
In the sense of whether life somehow evolved over the years to become what is now, evolution is definitely a fact. Way too many fossils have been dug up to demonstrate this. The question of how they evolved can be considered theory, but whether they evolved in indisputable.
an event known to have happened or something known to have existed;
Unless different species happened to spawn from thin air, they are all decended from earlier species. The evolution of one species to another is known to have occurred, so evolution is fact.
If the books contents are written so as to imply that evolution is fact then such a sticker is probably appropriate.... Any science book however should teach that theories are there to be challenged by scientific means.
Look at it this way; wouldn't such a sticker would seem pretty silly on a math or chemistry book? It basically tells students that the material may or may not be true. That only gives students less incentive to learn the material, and hinders them from relying on it to understand the natural world. That can even hinder those who decide to pursue careers in biology or paleontology. Chemistry and physics consist of a lot of theories, and yet those theories are considered factual and reliable. The same is true with evolution.
Pollack says "Imagine the pollution levels if we add hundreds of millions of robots powered by internal combustion engines."
This is so silly it numbs my mind. If future roboticists use internal combustion engines on their robots, they are morons. Fuel cells, solar cells, rechargable batteries... etc
Why would it be so silly if internal combustion engines were used in robots when they're powerful and fairly cheap?
that while Bill Gate's use of the work "Communist" was extreme, he's right in that without IP laws, there wouldn't be much incentive for people to create music, movies and software. However, as with any sort of property, "zoning" is an issue here, and free and open source software needs its space.
I don't think its the same. Let me illustrate: When we say "our father," we don't mean father in the sense of God being our immediate ancestor. However Intelligent Design implies that God is our designer in a literal sense. "Our father" is not a literal statement, but "Intelligent Design" is meant to be literal. They're not the same.
I don't see the usage being the same. The Bible uses metaphors like "father", "hands" and "feet" to describes God's actions and his relationship to us. "Intelligent Design" implies that God just designs stuff.
I'm a Christian, and for some reason, "Intelligent Design" makes as much sense to me as "Inteligent Analysis," "Intelligent Creation," or "Intelligent Testing." Isn't that assigning a human metaphor to the divine?
To file a patent you need a lawyer, which costs money, then you need more money to defend your patent. A patent in North America costs about 20K USD, and in Europe 40K Euro's. The only "little" people who can do this are lawyers themselves.
That's quite wrong! Where did you get those figures from? I had a teacher who filed patents for himself every few years, and made money from them. You can file one yourself; a lawyer or even a patent agent is not required. In the US it costs $75 for a small entity to file for an utility patent with three claims, $250 for the pantent search, $100 for the examination fee, and $700 to issue the patent. See the fee schedule.
Since we're discussing asteroids, here's a link to a 3d asteroid blasting game that my project partner and I made recently for class, using OpenGL. Its not feature complete, and it doesn't show anything for the ending, but its playable.
Since we're discussing asteroids today, here's a link to a 3d asteroid blasting game that my project partner and I made recently for class, using OpenGL. Its not feature complete, and it doesn't show anything for the ending, but its playable.
I'd think that most parents wouldn't care if their children saw such notes, but I'd think that many children would care if their parents read such notes of theirs.
you're learning what you like, and that you're in the right field. Don't worry about employment after college now; if you like what you're doing, you'll work hard at it, and your enthusiasm will show; you'll get hired in a minute.
One side job that doesn't have the problem of clashing with office hours is writing... Of course, there's the question of whether you want to spend even more time sitting in front of a computer in your off hours...
Slashdot Mirror
Is there any scientific evidence that a Day 5 blastocyst is NOT a live human being?
Apparently, many people (including a bunch of folks here on /.) believe that stem-cell research is a crime because babies get killed in the process
I'm probably not in full agreement with anyone on this point; I may be wrong, but I think the embroyo's cells aren't killed, but transformed, so I'm not comfortable with saying that the embroyo is killed. however, I am comfortable with saying that the fact that embroyonic stem cells come from human embroyos bothers me, whether or not they could have possibly survived.
So, shouldn't the radical right religious regime be even more adamantly against IVF
How can pro-life groups be against IVF, if it results in birth?
About the bacteria, that is evolution in action. Some people try to split evolution into "microevolution" and "macroevolution" to get around that, so my post focused on the "macro" part.
About religion, yes, religions do "evolve" over time; that's easily observed. However, what you said about Jesus and the Bible sounds like contrarian stuff to me.
The only thing stated in the comments on this article that could push evolution into fact is observation of the change over time of bacteria and yet nothing has shown that this microevolution leads to evolution on a larger scale sufficient to differentiate species
Evolution is a very slow process; we don't need to observe it to determine that its a fact. That's like sending a rocket to a star to determine whether they are really like the sun and not just tiny points of light.
To me, the fossil record is quite enough to tell me that some sort of evolution actually occurred.
The scientific community is not trying to lead the world astray with wild theories. Instead, they want to teach the world a little bit of what they know. There really is nothing to hide.
Have you ever honestly looked at the evidence for a global flood of immense proportions? It's scary.
What you saw was a example of the persuasive power of pseudoscience. An impressive case is built for creationism, but its really flimsy, like movie props. Its basically like the UFO stuff. In this case, it exists because of the belief that literal creationism must be true if the Bible is inerrant. I know, I was a creationist too.
In the sense of whether life somehow evolved over the years to become what is now, evolution is definitely a fact. Way too many fossils have been dug up to demonstrate this. The question of how they evolved can be considered theory, but whether they evolved in indisputable.
an event known to have happened or something known to have existed;
Unless different species happened to spawn from thin air, they are all decended from earlier species. The evolution of one species to another is known to have occurred, so evolution is fact.
Look at it this way; wouldn't such a sticker would seem pretty silly on a math or chemistry book? It basically tells students that the material may or may not be true. That only gives students less incentive to learn the material, and hinders them from relying on it to understand the natural world. That can even hinder those who decide to pursue careers in biology or paleontology.
Chemistry and physics consist of a lot of theories, and yet those theories are considered factual and reliable. The same is true with evolution.
This is so silly it numbs my mind. If future roboticists use internal combustion engines on their robots, they are morons. Fuel cells, solar cells, rechargable batteries
Why would it be so silly if internal combustion engines were used in robots when they're powerful and fairly cheap?
that while Bill Gate's use of the work "Communist" was extreme, he's right in that without IP laws, there wouldn't be much incentive for people to create music, movies and software. However, as with any sort of property, "zoning" is an issue here, and free and open source software needs its space.
I don't think its the same. Let me illustrate: When we say "our father," we don't mean father in the sense of God being our immediate ancestor. However Intelligent Design implies that God is our designer in a literal sense. "Our father" is not a literal statement, but "Intelligent Design" is meant to be literal. They're not the same.
I don't see the usage being the same. The Bible uses metaphors like "father", "hands" and "feet" to describes God's actions and his relationship to us. "Intelligent Design" implies that God just designs stuff.
I'm a Christian, and for some reason, "Intelligent Design" makes as much sense to me as "Inteligent Analysis," "Intelligent Creation," or "Intelligent Testing." Isn't that assigning a human metaphor to the divine?
Don't you know to use Google?
The company that makes the missle is located in Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine, which is situated on the Dnepr river; hence, the name DNEPR.
That's quite wrong! Where did you get those figures from? I had a teacher who filed patents for himself every few years, and made money from them. You can file one yourself; a lawyer or even a patent agent is not required. In the US it costs $75 for a small entity to file for an utility patent with three claims, $250 for the pantent search, $100 for the examination fee, and $700 to issue the patent. See the fee schedule.
Since we're discussing asteroids, here's a link to a 3d asteroid blasting game that my project partner and I made recently for class, using OpenGL. Its not feature complete, and it doesn't show anything for the ending, but its playable.
Since we're discussing asteroids today, here's a link to a 3d asteroid blasting game that my project partner and I made recently for class, using OpenGL. Its not feature complete, and it doesn't show anything for the ending, but its playable.
Download away!
I'd think that most parents wouldn't care if their children saw such notes, but I'd think that many children would care if their parents read such notes of theirs.
the 11th commandment would read "Thou shalt not make copies of the previous 10 commandments."
you're learning what you like, and that you're in the right field. Don't worry about employment after college now; if you like what you're doing, you'll work hard at it, and your enthusiasm will show; you'll get hired in a minute.
Just use a manual typewriter. ... Problem solved!
I second that, especially with M.U.L.E. ... it has gameplay that's yet to be surpassed.
This isn't on the C64, but there is a remake called Space Taxi 2 that's out now.
Are you guys spending that time coding stuff and making content, or trying to fix bugs / troubleshoot problems in time to meet a schedule?
IsNot basically the same asAin't? I guess it was inevitable.
Anyone who can build one would already have a money-making machine in their hands. The incentive is already there.
did computation begin at conception, or at birth?