Interesting find, but I'll want more then this evidence alone.
Also the arguments agains macro-evolution like they are made in this article where never really considered or even noted as serious, and now they have some minor evidence that they think can break the argument it's taken seriously?
As it stands right now, macro-evolution is still a dogma.You're free to believe it, but is't not science! The scientific answer is: We don't know!
I wasn't serious. Geee! But do you have the choice to reject the windows? Would you install FreeBSD for me? For a small fee, or would it then somehow be more expensive then the windows option? I don't know many computer destributers that do offer anything else but the with windowsoption In most cases I will not have a choice but to buy a windows licence I'll never use.
Yes, I was sarcastic. But let's face it: as long as we *do not* have the choice to say no to windows, MS will stay a monopoly. We (the public) voted them to be this monopoly, I strongly belief that more then 40% of all Windows licences are never in use but just lay around... The real problem is that we have here a very dangerous piece of software (just look at the virus and worm count) and we are addicted to it. This is a very bad position to be in. Are we able to loose microsoft? Not really. We are addicted and can no longer say No, and now everything goes to hell because if this weakness. We really need to support open standards and open formats. Who cares about the tool? Use the tool (OS, application, whatever) you want to use and store all the data in some open standards.
Why don't they (OEM) sell the pc without any OS, and then let people install it them selfs? That would really level the playing field for everyone. People would not have to buy a Windows licence which they don't use, MS has no real legal problems anymore because the illegal deals with the OEMs are not there any more, and AOL can offer you a free cd with every PC (just like they do today with magazines). Wouldn't that make everybody happy?
I have a little question to all the people who believe in macro evolution. If on one bad day we discover proof that macro-evolution is not posible, how hard would it be for science to accept this? What if macro-evolution theory goes the way the flat earth theory went?
All the evidence shown until now only points out that micro-evolution is happening as a directionless variation within the specie. But do we truely know what a specie is? What are the bounds and limits of micro-evolution? Can we really use the proof of micro-evolution as proof of macro-evolution?
How difficult will it be to change the standard paradigma? What if the DNA research gives proof that it is not posible that humans and chimps have a common ancestor? How would such evidence be seen and interpreted? Are we really so much more scientific that the generations before us? Would we accept the failure of a theory most hold so dear? I don't know, but I hope we are honest enough to accept the evidence no mater on which side it falls.
And I'm not even talking about the facts that we still don't know how life came to be in the first place (theory is not fact).
The key to real science is not to go looking for the things we want to be true, no doubt we will bend unknowningly the facts to fit the believe. Real science it about finding the real facts, as they are. Why must science be with out a God? What if there is one? Shouldn't real science then reflect this? Just think about this even if you don't believe in a God, consider it for a moment. What if there was a God and you would refuse any scientific report that claims this, would you then be scientific?
Micro-evolution is the proces by which a specie adapts to its enviorment (but keeps to be the same specie): adaption. Macro-evolution is the theory that trough micro-evolution new species develop: 'ceation' of new species.
Disclaimer: I hold true that there is a God who created everything in the begining (which is at least 10^12 years ago), and also created life (between 10^6-10^5 years ago give or take a little (I wasn't there)). I also hold true that species evolve (micro evolution) but that this is without direction and reverseable. I am not convinced about macro-evolution.
As far as I can remember I always found it strange that people use words without knowing what they mean, in this case it's the word specie.
God/Mozes/Bible
Whenever 2 individuals share a common ancestor,
then they are of the same specie.
Macro-evolutionists:
Whenever 2 individuals can breed together and produce fertile offspring,
then they are of the same specie.
The problem then boils down to a choice: Which definition do you choose? What is it that you want to believe?
Micro-evolution, the evolution of a specie as it adapts to its enviorment, is proven beyond any doubt. We also know that this process is directionless: when the enviorment changes back, so the specie will adopt the old distrubution of features.
But macro-evolution is not the same, it assumes a direction from simple to the complex. There is not much proof that this is the case, and micro-evolution even seems to tell us that when a specie is forced over a breakpoint in it development it just dies out because it misses diversity.
Any group displays only a subset of the full feature set posible for a specie. When the enviorment changes, this subset moves trough the feature space. isolated groups can move in different directions until they can no longer interbreed, but if put in the same enviorment these group will move closer together, until they become one group again.
The BIG question is: can they move outside their feature set? or do they go extinct when they are pushed to the extremes of there posibilities?
On the mac I can select a block of text, that is hilight it (just like unix), and then move my mouse cursor above it and 'pick it up' (mouseclick-hold), and move it like any icon. I know not many people use this feature but, hell, I miss it on every other OS I use. It's logical: everything on the screen is moveable and copyable by mouse, why should text be any different from icons? If by default you al ready have 3 mouse buttons you will find a way to use them, even if you don't really have to. But if you only have one button you need to *think* about how you are going to handle these things.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting find, but I'll want more then this evidence alone.
Also the arguments agains macro-evolution like they are made in this article where never really considered or even noted as serious, and now they have some minor evidence that they think can break the argument it's taken seriously?
As it stands right now, macro-evolution is still a dogma.You're free to believe it, but is't not science! The scientific answer is: We don't know!
If the constution was writen with the knowledge of encryption, would the writers have included an article like "The right to
use strong encryption"?
Well, that would be cool. Care to clue me in on how you did that? (Just say RTFM if I could have read it in the fine manual...)
Yes, I agree the install procedure should be a no-brainer... Why isn't it?
I wasn't serious. Geee! But do you have the choice to reject the windows? Would you install FreeBSD for me? For a small fee, or would it then somehow be more expensive then the windows option? I don't know many computer destributers that do offer anything else but the with windows option In most cases I will not have a choice but to buy a windows licence I'll never use.
Yes, I was sarcastic. But let's face it: as long as we *do not* have the choice to say no to windows, MS will stay a monopoly. We (the public) voted them to be this monopoly, I strongly belief that more then 40% of all Windows licences are never in use but just lay around... The real problem is that we have here a very dangerous piece of software (just look at the virus and worm count) and we are addicted to it. This is a very bad position to be in. Are we able to loose microsoft? Not really. We are addicted and can no longer say No, and now everything goes to hell because if this weakness. We really need to support open standards and open formats. Who cares about the tool? Use the tool (OS, application, whatever) you want to use and store all the data in some open standards.
Why don't they (OEM) sell the pc without any OS, and then let people install it them selfs? That would really level the playing field for everyone. People would not have to buy a Windows licence which they don't use, MS has no real legal problems anymore because the illegal deals with the OEMs are not there any more, and AOL can offer you a free cd with every PC (just like they do today with magazines). Wouldn't that make everybody happy?
I have a little question to all the people who believe in macro evolution. If on one bad day we discover proof that macro-evolution is not posible, how hard would it be for science to accept this? What if macro-evolution theory goes the way the flat earth theory went?
All the evidence shown until now only points out that micro-evolution is happening as a directionless variation within the specie. But do we truely know what a specie is? What are the bounds and limits of micro-evolution? Can we really use the proof of micro-evolution as proof of macro-evolution?
How difficult will it be to change the standard paradigma? What if the DNA research gives proof that it is not posible that humans and chimps have a common ancestor? How would such evidence be seen and interpreted? Are we really so much more scientific that the generations before us? Would we accept the failure of a theory most hold so dear? I don't know, but I hope we are honest enough to accept the evidence no mater on which side it falls.
And I'm not even talking about the facts that we still don't know how life came to be in the first place (theory is not fact).
The key to real science is not to go looking for the things we want to be true, no doubt we will bend unknowningly the facts to fit the believe. Real science it about finding the real facts, as they are. Why must science be with out a God? What if there is one? Shouldn't real science then reflect this? Just think about this even if you don't believe in a God, consider it for a moment. What if there was a God and you would refuse any scientific report that claims this, would you then be scientific?
Micro-evolution is the proces by which a specie adapts to its enviorment (but keeps to be the same specie): adaption. Macro-evolution is the theory that trough micro-evolution new species develop: 'ceation' of new species.
Disclaimer: I hold true that there is a God who created everything in the begining (which is at least 10^12 years ago), and also created life (between 10^6-10^5 years ago give or take a little (I wasn't there)). I also hold true that species evolve (micro evolution) but that this is without direction and reverseable. I am not convinced about macro-evolution.
As far as I can remember I always found it strange that people use words without knowing what they mean, in this case it's the word specie.
The problem then boils down to a choice: Which definition do you choose? What is it that you want to believe?
Micro-evolution, the evolution of a specie as it adapts to its enviorment, is proven beyond any doubt. We also know that this process is directionless: when the enviorment changes back, so the specie will adopt the old distrubution of features.
But macro-evolution is not the same, it assumes a direction from simple to the complex. There is not much proof that this is the case, and micro-evolution even seems to tell us that when a specie is forced over a breakpoint in it development it just dies out because it misses diversity.
Any group displays only a subset of the full feature set posible for a specie. When the enviorment changes, this subset moves trough the feature space. isolated groups can move in different directions until they can no longer interbreed, but if put in the same enviorment these group will move closer together, until they become one group again.
The BIG question is: can they move outside their feature set? or do they go extinct when they are pushed to the extremes of there posibilities?
On the mac I can select a block of text, that is hilight it (just like unix), and then move my mouse cursor above it and 'pick it up' (mouseclick-hold), and move it like any icon. I know not many people use this feature but, hell, I miss it on every other OS I use. It's logical: everything on the screen is moveable and copyable by mouse, why should text be any different from icons? If by default you al ready have 3 mouse buttons you will find a way to use them, even if you don't really have to. But if you only have one button you need to *think* about how you are going to handle these things.