I'm not really sure how FIVE FUCKING DECADES OF DATA equates to the fable of the sky falling in, but there you go. takes all sorts, eh?
Anyway, it's generally a good idea to take heed of predictions in this area. Australia is currently getting it, ahem, 'in the ass' drought-wise at a degree never seen in recorded history.
the evidence has built to the point where cynicism about global warming is a fringe viewpoint. So get the fuck out of your SUV and walk the 500 yards to work, fat ass.
I concur. they'd get some impact on the bottom line for sure - though whether you count brand synergy as advertising (i.e. 'bundling' with happy meals) would of course need to be defined
Anyway, as for the HFCS thing, Greg Critser's 'Fatland' and Eric Schlosser's 'Fast Food Nation' are recommended reading, as is Felicity Lawrence's 'Not on the label', a more UK-focussed diatribe against the food industry.
For geeks, I particularly recommend checking out the sections on how chickens and potatoes are mechanically processed into nuggets and fries. Neat tech that'll put you off your lunch for sure.
While a lot of people would agree that yes, you may have a point, it's sometimes best to keep on the subject or run the risk of being called a yammering troll.
myself, I'm holding judgement on CAN-SPAM until the verdicts are actually in. there's a lot of debate on how effective it may or may not be.
As far as I know, organisms have never been observed to evolve in complexity, just to adapt better to their environment
well, that depends on the operative definition of complexity. There are numerous organisms which you'd immediately consider less complex than humans which actually have more base pairs in their genome (and vice versa, of course). so if you measure purely by base pairs, they're potentially more complex. Clearly we're more complex, you'd say, from an anthrocentric point of view.
Arguably, any single mutation could be said to add complexity, so again consider the vast scale of time and population numbers and purely mathematically, there is a path from simple to complex. So it also depends on your scale.
I see no obstacle at all in moving from simple to complex, however the timescale involved is so large that we just can't see it in action and have to infer it from secondary evidence, as we're doing now with genetic/genomic studies, and as we have done in the past with less sophisticated techniques.
An example: There are 1,000 bacteria. 100 of them are resistant to a certain type of pollution. Their environment becomes polluted. 900 die, the 100 live, breed, and in the end, we get a population that is now mostly resilient to that polution. The bacteria have adapted. But they have not evolved - there has been no genetic change in their makeup. Just the genes that represent pollution resistance have become more widespread.
I'd just like to extend that sentence a little
start with a population of ordinary bacteria, fast-forward a bit, let them reproduce a bunch and observe.
With a large enough population, and enough generational cycles, you'll eventually get some mutations, some of which may be beneficial, some of which will just kill the organism, and some of which will have no discernable effect. The organism has now evolved. OK? It's changed.
The less spectacular mutations are more likely to establish, since they are less likely to have a catastrophic effect, so the population will vary, but not by a lot, as the generations go by.
The mutations have appeared and they've become established. They're currently doing nothing to help or hinder the population.
Now, for argument's sake, we'll say the mutation we're looking for has the side effect of imbuing resistance to poison x. This may not even be the primary effect of the mutation. it may just be a tiny alteration in the structure of a membrane that inhibits molecules of a certain structure from permeating, or it may be a variation in enzyme production which can help break down the poison once it's in. This is outside the scope of the discussion so we'll just leave it.
Now let the level of poison x in the system increase. Slowly. Even if it's only a very slight increase, the resistant bacteria will start to become more common as the non-resistant forms are killed off. The natural cycle of reproduction will ensure the population is topped up, and each time round, more resistant bacteria survive. that's natural selection.
I add this clarification just to make 100% clear the fact that selection and evolution are not the same - they are two different processes which happen to interact within a given environment. TOo many people seem to have misconceptions about this which somehow stop them grasping the simplicity of the whole thing.
1. evolution happens 2. natural selection happens 3. evolution is just random 4. natural selection is non-random 5. both processes generally take place in tiny increments 6. both processes take place over very large timescales
That is what is the real motive force in so-called evolution. Not preditor/prey, but a growth in quality and greatness and magnificence and that which is good and spiritual and best.
The problem is that the definition of 'theory' is comonly misunderstood.
Lots of people somehow conflate the word 'theory' with 'guess', which is just not the case. A theory, in this case, is an explanation which fits the facts. it can be disproved, but can usually never be absolutely proven - it just fits the facts.
So 'closest we have to fact' is probably a better way to think of it.
Evolution fits observable fact to an incredible degree, whereas creation is just pulled out of thin air.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not really sure how FIVE FUCKING DECADES OF DATA equates to the fable of the sky falling in, but there you go. takes all sorts, eh?
Anyway, it's generally a good idea to take heed of predictions in this area. Australia is currently getting it, ahem, 'in the ass' drought-wise at a degree never seen in recorded history.
the evidence has built to the point where cynicism about global warming is a fringe viewpoint. So get the fuck out of your SUV and walk the 500 yards to work, fat ass.
The last two major ad campaigns they've run have been targeted at each other.
Bud says: Miller skipped his National Guard service because his dad, Miller Senior, pulled strings to get him out of it
Miller says: Hah! Budweiser claims to have been a hero in vietnam but in fact was some sort of anti-war left-wing pinko commie pussy!
Bud responds: Miller can't even carry a debate without having a suspicious square package under his suit!
From Miller: Well Bud hung out with Jane Fonda! clearly he's some kind of communist!
that sort of thing?
(One day hardware will be free and people will pay for software)
:
ummm... I came out with something very similar recently without consciously knowing about that quote. My correspondent replied
Steve? Steve Ballmer? Is that you? What did you do with Atrax?
I only said hardware was a commodity item and software is a more flexible market.... sort of...
I concur. they'd get some impact on the bottom line for sure - though whether you count brand synergy as advertising (i.e. 'bundling' with happy meals) would of course need to be defined
Anyway, as for the HFCS thing, Greg Critser's 'Fatland' and Eric Schlosser's 'Fast Food Nation' are recommended reading, as is Felicity Lawrence's 'Not on the label', a more UK-focussed diatribe against the food industry.
For geeks, I particularly recommend checking out the sections on how chickens and potatoes are mechanically processed into nuggets and fries. Neat tech that'll put you off your lunch for sure.
I'd give you the goats.com link for chicken nuggets but the site's down. how about a google Cache or possibly wrong link?
Coca-Cola decided instead to use a substitute
Are you talking about High Fructose Corn Syrup, by any chance?
or for a more balanced view than Coca-Cola's, there's always Cecil, plus a bunchload of other links
you'll be modded OT for that, you know.
While a lot of people would agree that yes, you may have a point, it's sometimes best to keep on the subject or run the risk of being called a yammering troll.
myself, I'm holding judgement on CAN-SPAM until the verdicts are actually in. there's a lot of debate on how effective it may or may not be.
we get a grand total of - not one, not two - but THREE color schemes for Windows XP
Yeah, but wait till you see Longhorn!
As far as I know, organisms have never been observed to evolve in complexity, just to adapt better to their environment
well, that depends on the operative definition of complexity. There are numerous organisms which you'd immediately consider less complex than humans which actually have more base pairs in their genome (and vice versa, of course). so if you measure purely by base pairs, they're potentially more complex. Clearly we're more complex, you'd say, from an anthrocentric point of view.
Arguably, any single mutation could be said to add complexity, so again consider the vast scale of time and population numbers and purely mathematically, there is a path from simple to complex. So it also depends on your scale.
I see no obstacle at all in moving from simple to complex, however the timescale involved is so large that we just can't see it in action and have to infer it from secondary evidence, as we're doing now with genetic/genomic studies, and as we have done in the past with less sophisticated techniques.
An example: There are 1,000 bacteria. 100 of them are resistant to a certain type of pollution. Their environment becomes polluted. 900 die, the 100 live, breed, and in the end, we get a population that is now mostly resilient to that polution. The bacteria have adapted. But they have not evolved - there has been no genetic change in their makeup. Just the genes that represent pollution resistance have become more widespread.
I'd just like to extend that sentence a little
start with a population of ordinary bacteria, fast-forward a bit, let them reproduce a bunch and observe.
With a large enough population, and enough generational cycles, you'll eventually get some mutations, some of which may be beneficial, some of which will just kill the organism, and some of which will have no discernable effect. The organism has now evolved. OK? It's changed.
The less spectacular mutations are more likely to establish, since they are less likely to have a catastrophic effect, so the population will vary, but not by a lot, as the generations go by.
The mutations have appeared and they've become established. They're currently doing nothing to help or hinder the population.
Now, for argument's sake, we'll say the mutation we're looking for has the side effect of imbuing resistance to poison x. This may not even be the primary effect of the mutation. it may just be a tiny alteration in the structure of a membrane that inhibits molecules of a certain structure from permeating, or it may be a variation in enzyme production which can help break down the poison once it's in. This is outside the scope of the discussion so we'll just leave it.
Now let the level of poison x in the system increase. Slowly. Even if it's only a very slight increase, the resistant bacteria will start to become more common as the non-resistant forms are killed off. The natural cycle of reproduction will ensure the population is topped up, and each time round, more resistant bacteria survive. that's natural selection.
I add this clarification just to make 100% clear the fact that selection and evolution are not the same - they are two different processes which happen to interact within a given environment. TOo many people seem to have misconceptions about this which somehow stop them grasping the simplicity of the whole thing.
1. evolution happens
2. natural selection happens
3. evolution is just random
4. natural selection is non-random
5. both processes generally take place in tiny increments
6. both processes take place over very large timescales
just so we're all clear.
Famous Atheist Now Believes in God? At age 81?
anybody tested this guy for Alzheimer's?
Hmmm... OK. maybe you're right.
It's just painful to look at for too long.
If you speak well of Christ, you'll get a -1 for flamebait.
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
You only get modded flamebait because there's no option for "-1 Completely fucking batshit insane"
When Taco adds that option, no problem, we'll stop modding you -1 flamebait for espousing loony theories.
errr.. no. It's legit. look again.
Common misconception
yes, it looks like the truth, but really it's just a weasely scheme to undermine science in schools.
Look behind the curtain
(yeah, I know you know this. can't let it stay unanswered though)
Luckily, that's not how most educated Christians think.
OK, so speak up then. Go to school board meetings and help counter the nutters.
Where are these 'moderate' christians when the district meets to formulate their whackjob policy?
One more
a really intelligent designer would build an eye without a blind spot.
wouldn't be that hard.
... It's good to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out
hmmm... that petroglyph is a little TOO conveniently close a fit to the artist's impression.
can anyone say 'Piltdown'?
I see no problem with these stickers. As long as there is a similar sticker inside every Bible claiming "Creationism is a theory, NOT a fact."
Except it's not even a theory.
That is what is the real motive force in so-called evolution. Not preditor/prey, but a growth in quality and greatness and magnificence and that which is good and spiritual and best.
Mumbo
fucking
Jumbo
was it still intact when he stopped to rest at the 7th day?
Nah. On the seventh day, God went Commando!
What about string theory? Is _that_ provable?
Not really, but it can bve demonstarted to fit observable facts, or at least, not violate them.
The problem is that the definition of 'theory' is comonly misunderstood.
Lots of people somehow conflate the word 'theory' with 'guess', which is just not the case. A theory, in this case, is an explanation which fits the facts. it can be disproved, but can usually never be absolutely proven - it just fits the facts.
So 'closest we have to fact' is probably a better way to think of it.
Evolution fits observable fact to an incredible degree, whereas creation is just pulled out of thin air.
ID stipulates that the human race was designed by someone else
You mean like what the Raelians think? That Aliens did it?
fucking nutjobs.
MS is just nowending support for WINNT4.0
NT 4.0 server, yes. Workstation went some time ago.
by this I mean that consumer/desktop OSes generally have a shorter lifecycle than server gear.