I'm afraid you're wrong. The claim "Eveolutionary theory general predicts this to not happen, period." is just wrong. As I noted, MEve is not in any way important from the perspective of evolution: she's simply an interesting definitional oddity. Consider A, the set of all human beings alive today. Each human alive today has precisely one mother. Consider B, the set of all mothers of A. B is necessarily smaller than A, because no one has more than one mother, and some mothers have more than one child. Likewise, set C is smaller still, set D is smaller still, and so on, all the way back to MEve. Note that only set A includes a full set of a population alive at any given period. During the time set C lived, for instance, there were many mothers who did not reproduce, or their female linage did not.
That's a nice summary of talk origins interpretation of MEve and how shrinking sets of ancestors will eventually reach a single ancestor. But the most basic set theory course leaves open the possibility that reducing a certain set will reach a minimum size of more than just a single ancester. To say that if you keep reducing a set with a recursive algorithm will neccassarily reduce the set to a single item requires certain conditions on the elements in the set.
Far from being improbable, it is LOGICALLY NECESSARY. That you could think something that is logically necessary would be "improbable" is a good sign that your calculations of probability are heavily suspect: and hence so is your critique of evolution on the grounds of what is or is not probable (not to mention that you seem confused as to what role probability plays in evolution). To re-iterate: MEve is only designated in HINDSIGHT. There is nothing necessarily significant about her, except that such a person must necessarily exist.
MEve is far from logically necassary from an evolutionary stand point. An MEve will only show up when an entire species is reduced to a very small population size and then manages to recover and survive. No evolution does not preclude such occurances, but at the same time neither are they logically necassary. Strictly speaking unless sexual reproduction evolved in a single organism and spread on down to all creatures, an MEve is not logically necassary.
There is no reason at all to think that MEve must have had any sort of "mutation" that made her substantively different from other women of her day. Again, she is distinguished ONLY IN HINDSIGHT. If certain people alive today do no reproduce, then there would be a new MEve crowned in the future.
But for there to be an MEve for mankind there had to at some point be a very small number of woman who where successfully passing on their genes. MEve may only be significant in hindsight, but at the least the small group of women who where successfull at this time would have been very significant.
I think you're a little confused as to what they mean by this. "Mitochondrial Eve" was not, in her lifetime, significant in any way. She's only so in retrospect: in the hindsight that all other lineages from her generation eventually happened to die out.
Which is assuming that all other lineages existed, it's also possible that this supports the genesis account of creation.
As other lines perhaps die out, a new "Mitochondrial Eve" could be, conceptually, crowned. That there must be such an individual at any given time is a mathematical certainty (you can reason it strickly from logic alone), but its not always the same individual, and it isn't the case that this individual's children only bred with each other.
There is no mathematical certainty at all actually, math won't tell you with any certainty that a family tree of 'unrelated' people will eventually reach a universal mother. The probability, all things being equal, is that a you will eventually find a number of different trees, each with their own, unique 'eve'. The only way following up on these 'eve's will eventually converge is if EVERYONE has a single common maternal ancestor. Eveolutionary theory general predicts this to not happen, period. Even tribal migration has one or two seperate mothers. The odds of a 'new' line of mutations being propagated by a single maternal ancestor is very hard to swallow from any evolutionary explanation. The pure fact of the matter is that any significant mutation from a common maternal ancestor would be very improbable to reach the level of dominance that mankind has. That one individual in an entire species would be the only one who's offspring survived is as improbable as those offspring flourishing as mankind has. Could such evidence fit in evolution? Yes, but just how likely is such an occurance? Could it likely have happened in the last million years? It's not exactly crazy to think maybe mitochondrial eve supports the Genesis account.
Re:Questions evolutionists don't want to answer
on
Shapes of Time
·
· Score: 1
The fossil record also shows that at a given time; a certain type of animal existed; and at a later point in time, a similar but different type of animal existed. As an example, look at the evolution of the horse. [talkorigins.org].
Which does not contradict a world where a set of animals was intially created by God, and then evolved over time from that starting point. The difference is only in seeing it as common descent or as descent from a number of common ancestors.
As far as DNA goes, one could argue that two animals that have similar physical characteristics should have similar DNA without having common descent. But their having similar "JUNK" DNA makes it near impossible to refute common descent.
Two ways to go here, first and most important our understanding of DNA is still in it's early stages and it's probably a little premature to declare what parts of "DNA" are insignificant and which simply haven't had their purpose found yet. Secondly, if an intial set of creatures where created and then evolved to create a much larger diversity, insignificant parts of their DNA would remain similar. But again, untill we understand what is significant and what isn't in DNA alot better, it's far too premature to say what needs to be there and what doesn't.
Well, if you take Genesis literally, not only does it contradict biological evolution, but astronomy, geology, physics, and even itself.
If you take the bible literally, it contradicts scientific evidence in many disiplines
Then show me a single example which works when Genesis is assumed true. All the "contradictions" I've seen people claim fall apart unless you already assume Genesis is false. Or in other words, the contradictions are easily explained if Genesis is both interpreted literally AND taken as truth.
Re:sigh .. there is no such thing as "macroevoluti
on
Shapes of Time
·
· Score: 1
You can claim that some gaps were never filled, but until you come up with evidence that it was not filled or an alternate theory that is actually *evidenced*, evolution simply has no competition. To turn that around, until you come up with evidence that it was filled... From a scientific stand point though I agree, evolution has no competition. But that does not mean there aren't other interpretations of scientific evidence that simply don't meet the testability, or simplicity criteria which science demands. Intelligent designers never provide a scintilla of evidence that any creator/guider exists Actually, all evidence proposed for evolution is in keeping with the theory of intelligent design, the difference is how the evidence is interpreted. There are two ways unscientific can be taken, to be contrary to scientific evidence, or to the scientific process. Although ID is contrary to the process, it is in keeping with the evidence. Any arguments against it generally wind down to arguing philosophy with a bit of probability thrown. Oh yeah, and a lot of personal opinion and experience thrown in to make it a tough issue to debate calmly:) I'm simply trying to put forward the idea that maybe not everyone who believes in ID is ignorant of evidence or some sort of fundamentalist. There are, like it or not, logical, rational reasons an informed person could reach such a conclusion.
Re:sigh .. there is no such thing as "macroevoluti
on
Shapes of Time
·
· Score: 1
The fossil record and DNA evidence combined show only that animals have similar structures, and the more similar the animal, the more similar the structures(which is kind of by definition). DNA can be considered evidence for common descent, but that does not mean common descent is the only explanation for DNA. The combined evidence of DNA and the fossil record in NO WAY contradict a belief in a world created as Genesis literally describes. I agree alot of people on talk-origins push this as a scientific belief, which it of course is not. That doesn't mean however that the belief is contrary to scientific evidence. It simply isn't the simplest, testable explanation. And for the record, such a belief does not a fundamentalist make.
Re:sigh .. there is no such thing as "macroevoluti
on
Shapes of Time
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The fossil record is VERY incomplete and is by far the weakest evidence for evolution. The large gaps in it go no where to show that chasms between certain evolutionary paths exist or not. It's in how you interpret the gaps in the record. It is hardly irrational to look at microbiology and the gaps in the fossil record and then think maybe, just maybe those gaps were never filled.
Re:sigh .. there is no such thing as "macroevoluti
on
Shapes of Time
·
· Score: 1
That species can adapt and do so on a large scale is not questioned. Rational people can however still find it improbable that the whole of diversity on Earth came about purely through micro evolution and natural selection, or other purely natural processes. There are still alot of BIG hurdles to get over before we can even prove that it's biologically possible for all species to have evoloved from a common ancestor(s). Yes science always has big hurdles to get over, and goes along the theory that best fits the current evidence and is readily testable. However, if people look at the hurdles in front of proving something and consider a different alternative more probable, that does not immediately mean they are fundamentalists. Just because someone has a non-scientific opinion, does not mean they are ignorant, let alone a fundamentalist.
On an unrelated note I'm really getting tired of the 'fundamentalist' title being thrown around here, it's basically name calling and no better than the good old days of calling your neighbor a commie to get your way.
Re:sigh .. there is no such thing as "macroevoluti
on
Shapes of Time
·
· Score: 1
But your only proof here is circular in nature. Whether such a chasm as the ocean exists or not in biology is only considered proven by the variety of species, IF you assume evolution through microevolution gave rise to this diversity. But for evolution to be able to do so you must assume that no chasms exist.
Attn: Moderators! Abusive moderation of Parent.
on
Shapes of Time
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Though maybe the above post doesn't deserve a mod up, I don't think it deserved to modded down. Though I disagree with the post, opinions ought not be modded down just because the moderator disagrees.
Re:sigh .. there is no such thing as "macroevoluti
on
Shapes of Time
·
· Score: 1
Yes, but macro evolutionary changes need to have a path of micro evolutionary steps that wouldn't kill a transitionary organism. To use the micro/macro stepping analogy, just cause you can take a number of steps and reach New York, does not mean you can use that same process to reach a further location like London, you'd drown on the way. The extra proof required, and that is difficult to provide in biology is that a path exists for micro evolution to give rise to the macro evolutionary differences in today's ecosystem.
Re:sigh .. there is no such thing as "macroevoluti
on
Shapes of Time
·
· Score: 1
Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe evolutionary biologists first defined the concept of macro-evolution as you describe it. It is not a fictional concept, it is a misunderstood concept. To go a step further micro and macro evolution DO require seperate proofs. It's like an inductive proof, proving n for 1 and 2 is not a proof for n+1. Macro evolution is the latter and is quite difficult to prove or disprove in biology. A person could take micro evolution as an obvious fact and still reject macro evolution as improbable without deserving the fundamentalist label.
Does anyone with a better knowledge of radioactive dating than me know what kind of effect these impacts have on radioactive dating methods? Would there be any, and if so on what scale? Furthermore how localized would the effects be, and finally how could/are they compensated for? The part of the article about how few craters have been accurately dated got me wondering about what kind of complications they presented for dating methods in the area around them.
But the judgement precludes ANY apis,communication protocols, etc. that would in any way affect the security of any part of windows. They'll be able to smoke screen pretty much all of their currently un released api's under this provision. Proving an API does not affect security without having access to it is a bit difficult. This last provision turns the entire judgement into a joke. MS is found guilty and that decision is upheld. What punishment is given? A wording to not do it anymore that allows them to continue as they always have.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory - natural selection - to explain the mechanism of evolution.
First off, Darwin did not provide nearly sufficient evidence for his proposed theory of evolution to be elevated to 'fact' status. It wasn't till many years of reasearch by other generations of scientists before the theory of evolution started being taught more as fact than theory.
Secondly it is important to define which parts of evolution are considered 'fact' and which are still considered theory. Micro-evolution,Macro-evolution,Common descent. All of these have rather different strength from supporting evidence. It's tempting to claim them all as fact but to do so prematurely can blind future generations to other possibilities and often set back scientific research for awhile as everyone chases a dead end. For all we know common descent could later be looked back on as our modern day equivalent of the world is flat. Although it appeared the right answer from the evidence we've found thus far, future research could show a very different answer. Genetic research is still a very long ways from having an even nearly complete understanding of how DNA works. With so many unknowns we need to be really careful before calling a theory a law.
I wonder, does this "extraterrestrial" life have DNA in it? If it does shouldn't that raise a few questions? Like perhaps contamination from terrestrial sources? Attention grabbing headlines like this are rather unscientific if they are so premature as to not even do basic tests.
"If you are working on a large code-base, in conjunction with many other people, this is untrue. Over-abstracting or over-generalizing code has the effect of making that code much harder to parse, and much harder to maintain."
I believe that you are missing the point of the original post. If you abstract and generalize your code properly, you wind up with very compact code which is flexible and readable. I believe by shortest program, the poster means the least lines of code per section(function,method,etc) in your program. Making every function/piece of your program consist of a short number of lines ensures that it's function is clear. Also because such pieces will only perform a relatively simple function, their reusability is quite high.
This also leaps over the philisophical issue of whether living organisms are greater than the sum of their parts. Science can break down the components of living organism, but we still can't arrange materials in such a manner as to 'make life' even the 'simple' structure of plant seeds has yet to be emulated. Untill Abiogenesis proceeds a good deal further there is a big assumption in simply saying we can 'copy' consciousness. To copy something we first need to grasp exactly what it is.
The state of computer go is not yet that advanced for either me or anyone to say for certainty that there is no Eval(p) for go. But if, as I suspect (let's just say it's a gambler's gut-feeling reinforced, in fact, by a reading of Burmeister plus the fact that go stones cannot move and thus their present fixed position must contribute to Eval(p)) there is in fact an Eval(p) for go, then go will prove to be easier to program than chess.
I think it's a bit insulting to the grand master level players of go to claim so certainly that there exists an Eval(p) function for the board. Not to mention how many generations of Korean/Chinese mathematicians who have likely attempted to find such an algorithm.
Most people don't consider source code a work of speech, just as they don't consider a music file or other audio source one either. Unless it's spoken (a speech) or written word (book), John Doe isn't going to consider the violation breaking the 1st amendment.
Yes this is a problem with getting people to recognize the extent of the problem. But since source code,music,videos ARE forms of free speech comments stating such are not harming the cause of anti-DRM. Just because not everyone is informed enough to appreciate the truth, does not mean that presenting said truth hurts the cause.
Also, it's not obvious that every component of an individual has to be directly selected for. Witness my big bushy beard: lots of men shave, and some adult men can't grow beards at all. It does not appear that there is any direct selection process maintaining the ability to grow beards. Are "unselected steps" really all the big problem creationists make them out to be?
Then we can take unselected steps to mean any steps that would kill off the organism. The whole idea of systems too complex to break down are then those mutation paths which would kill the creature if introduced individually.
You gave the newer definition; there was an earlier definition that refered to breakage arising from removing components, but apparently Behe gave up on it because he kept getting creamed every time he gave an example using it. But I only follow Behe casually, so ask on talk.origins if you want the straight scoop on all this.
Actually, this new definition is direct from Mr. Behe himself. Basically he calls it a proper re-wording of his original idea. The criticism he was recieving was in alot of ways a misunderstanding of what he was trying to describe so he came up with this definition.
Re:Random Comments on Biology and Slashdot
on
Ready, Steady, Evolve
·
· Score: 2, Informative
That's how I feel about "irreducible complexity". It will be found to be reducible.
Actually the concept of irreducible complexity is described as follows
An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway.
To me this sounds simply to be a quantification of the likelyhood of a mutation to arise. In particular a series of non-beneficial mutations that are at the end beneficial. The mechanism above for "storing" a series of mutations seems a pretty good example of a way to bypass the non-beneficial steps to get to the benefit of the combined mutations. The only barrier then is the probabilty of such mutations being a beneficial combination. Just because the idea for measuring complexity comes from creationist research why does it need to be 'debunked'. If the definition of the term is usefull why not just use it?
Re:Every change does not have to be reproductively
on
Ready, Steady, Evolve
·
· Score: 1
Nitpicking a bit here as in the context described beneficial can include all non-harmfull mutations. The point is there must exist a path of mutations that wouldn't end up killing off the mutants along that path.
Not necessarily. There is nothing about multiple starting points of life that contradict evolutionary theory. Anyway, divergence is accelerated by speciation (when 2 population no longer interbreed, mutations are no longer shared between the 2 gene pools and they evolve independently.)
True, but common descent is the simplest answer for evidence like DNA. Regardless, let my argument be refined then to single celled organisms 'evolving' into humans.
Completely wrong, evolution "assumes" that deleterious mutations reduce the fitness of an organism, which reduces its ability to reproduce and hence the presence of the genotype in the population. It "assumes" that beneficial mutations increase the fitness of an organism, which increase the chance it will reproduce and hence increase the presence of the genotype in the population. It assumes nothing about the relative frequencies of deleterious v. beneficial mutations. It also ignores unexpressed mutations, as they have no impact on the fitness of the organism. (I have quoted "assumes" because these observations are so obvious, that description would mischaracterize them)
I think you misread my statment here. I was making no comment on ratio of good/bad mutations, evolution only requires one good mutation to proceed through chance. My statement was that for a single celled organism to evolve into another creature there must exist an evolutionary path to follow. Such a path requires potential micro-evolutions from the single celled creature to the descendent. Furthermore every one of those changes must be reproductively beneficial so they are propogated in the gene tree. That such a series of mutations exists for all animals leading back to common ancestors is non-trivial. This is something science has yet to prove, and most definetely stands as more theory than fact.
I will assume you mistyped with '5 million years time'... the Earth is provably much older than that, and life has provably existed for much of that time. And your last sentence is just words strung together without content, meaningless.
Yes, 5 billion with a B is a touch more accurate, my apologies;).
Slashdot Mirror
I'm afraid you're wrong. The claim "Eveolutionary theory general predicts this to not happen, period." is just wrong. As I noted, MEve is not in any way important from the perspective of evolution: she's simply an interesting definitional oddity.
Consider A, the set of all human beings alive today. Each human alive today has precisely one mother. Consider B, the set of all mothers of A. B is necessarily smaller than A, because no one has more than one mother, and some mothers have more than one child. Likewise, set C is smaller still, set D is smaller still, and so on, all the way back to MEve. Note that only set A includes a full set of a population alive at any given period. During the time set C lived, for instance, there were many mothers who did not reproduce, or their female linage did not.
That's a nice summary of talk origins interpretation of MEve and how shrinking sets of ancestors will eventually reach a single ancestor. But the most basic set theory course leaves open the possibility that reducing a certain set will reach a minimum size of more than just a single ancester. To say that if you keep reducing a set with a recursive algorithm will neccassarily reduce the set to a single item requires certain conditions on the elements in the set.
Far from being improbable, it is LOGICALLY NECESSARY. That you could think something that is logically necessary would be "improbable" is a good sign that your calculations of probability are heavily suspect: and hence so is your critique of evolution on the grounds of what is or is not probable (not to mention that you seem confused as to what role probability plays in evolution). To re-iterate: MEve is only designated in HINDSIGHT. There is nothing necessarily significant about her, except that such a person must necessarily exist.
MEve is far from logically necassary from an evolutionary stand point. An MEve will only show up when an entire species is reduced to a very small population size and then manages to recover and survive. No evolution does not preclude such occurances, but at the same time neither are they logically necassary. Strictly speaking unless sexual reproduction evolved in a single organism and spread on down to all creatures, an MEve is not logically necassary.
There is no reason at all to think that MEve must have had any sort of "mutation" that made her substantively different from other women of her day. Again, she is distinguished ONLY IN HINDSIGHT. If certain people alive today do no reproduce, then there would be a new MEve crowned in the future.
But for there to be an MEve for mankind there had to at some point be a very small number of woman who where successfully passing on their genes. MEve may only be significant in hindsight, but at the least the small group of women who where successfull at this time would have been very significant.
I think you're a little confused as to what they mean by this. "Mitochondrial Eve" was not, in her lifetime, significant in any way. She's only so in retrospect: in the hindsight that all other lineages from her generation eventually happened to die out.
Which is assuming that all other lineages existed, it's also possible that this supports the genesis account of creation.
As other lines perhaps die out, a new "Mitochondrial Eve" could be, conceptually, crowned. That there must be such an individual at any given time is a mathematical certainty (you can reason it strickly from logic alone), but its not always the same individual, and it isn't the case that this individual's children only bred with each other.
There is no mathematical certainty at all actually, math won't tell you with any certainty that a family tree of 'unrelated' people will eventually reach a universal mother. The probability, all things being equal, is that a you will eventually find a number of different trees, each with their own, unique 'eve'. The only way following up on these 'eve's will eventually converge is if EVERYONE has a single common maternal ancestor. Eveolutionary theory general predicts this to not happen, period. Even tribal migration has one or two seperate mothers. The odds of a 'new' line of mutations being propagated by a single maternal ancestor is very hard to swallow from any evolutionary explanation. The pure fact of the matter is that any significant mutation from a common maternal ancestor would be very improbable to reach the level of dominance that mankind has. That one individual in an entire species would be the only one who's offspring survived is as improbable as those offspring flourishing as mankind has. Could such evidence fit in evolution? Yes, but just how likely is such an occurance? Could it likely have happened in the last million years? It's not exactly crazy to think maybe mitochondrial eve supports the Genesis account.
The fossil record also shows that at a given time; a certain type of animal existed; and at a later point in time, a similar but different type of animal existed. As an example, look at the evolution of the horse. [talkorigins.org].
Which does not contradict a world where a set of animals was intially created by God, and then evolved over time from that starting point. The difference is only in seeing it as common descent or as descent from a number of common ancestors.
As far as DNA goes, one could argue that two animals that have similar physical characteristics should have similar DNA without having common descent. But their having similar "JUNK" DNA makes it near impossible to refute common descent.
Two ways to go here, first and most important our understanding of DNA is still in it's early stages and it's probably a little premature to declare what parts of "DNA" are insignificant and which simply haven't had their purpose found yet. Secondly, if an intial set of creatures where created and then evolved to create a much larger diversity, insignificant parts of their DNA would remain similar. But again, untill we understand what is significant and what isn't in DNA alot better, it's far too premature to say what needs to be there and what doesn't.
Well, if you take Genesis literally, not only does it contradict biological evolution, but astronomy, geology, physics, and even itself.
If you take the bible literally, it contradicts scientific evidence in many disiplines
Then show me a single example which works when Genesis is assumed true. All the "contradictions" I've seen people claim fall apart unless you already assume Genesis is false. Or in other words, the contradictions are easily explained if Genesis is both interpreted literally AND taken as truth.
You can claim that some gaps were never filled, but until you come up with evidence that it was not filled or an alternate theory that is actually *evidenced*, evolution simply has no competition. :) I'm simply trying to put forward the idea that maybe not everyone who believes in ID is ignorant of evidence or some sort of fundamentalist. There are, like it or not, logical, rational reasons an informed person could reach such a conclusion.
To turn that around, until you come up with evidence that it was filled...
From a scientific stand point though I agree, evolution has no competition. But that does not mean there aren't other interpretations of scientific evidence that simply don't meet the testability, or simplicity criteria which science demands.
Intelligent designers never provide a scintilla of evidence that any creator/guider exists
Actually, all evidence proposed for evolution is in keeping with the theory of intelligent design, the difference is how the evidence is interpreted. There are two ways unscientific can be taken, to be contrary to scientific evidence, or to the scientific process. Although ID is contrary to the process, it is in keeping with the evidence. Any arguments against it generally wind down to arguing philosophy with a bit of probability thrown. Oh yeah, and a lot of personal opinion and experience thrown in to make it a tough issue to debate calmly
The fossil record and DNA evidence combined show only that animals have similar structures, and the more similar the animal, the more similar the structures(which is kind of by definition). DNA can be considered evidence for common descent, but that does not mean common descent is the only explanation for DNA. The combined evidence of DNA and the fossil record in NO WAY contradict a belief in a world created as Genesis literally describes. I agree alot of people on talk-origins push this as a scientific belief, which it of course is not. That doesn't mean however that the belief is contrary to scientific evidence. It simply isn't the simplest, testable explanation. And for the record, such a belief does not a fundamentalist make.
The fossil record is VERY incomplete and is by far the weakest evidence for evolution. The large gaps in it go no where to show that chasms between certain evolutionary paths exist or not. It's in how you interpret the gaps in the record. It is hardly irrational to look at microbiology and the gaps in the fossil record and then think maybe, just maybe those gaps were never filled.
That species can adapt and do so on a large scale is not questioned. Rational people can however still find it improbable that the whole of diversity on Earth came about purely through micro evolution and natural selection, or other purely natural processes. There are still alot of BIG hurdles to get over before we can even prove that it's biologically possible for all species to have evoloved from a common ancestor(s). Yes science always has big hurdles to get over, and goes along the theory that best fits the current evidence and is readily testable. However, if people look at the hurdles in front of proving something and consider a different alternative more probable, that does not immediately mean they are fundamentalists. Just because someone has a non-scientific opinion, does not mean they are ignorant, let alone a fundamentalist.
On an unrelated note I'm really getting tired of the 'fundamentalist' title being thrown around here, it's basically name calling and no better than the good old days of calling your neighbor a commie to get your way.
But your only proof here is circular in nature. Whether such a chasm as the ocean exists or not in biology is only considered proven by the variety of species, IF you assume evolution through microevolution gave rise to this diversity. But for evolution to be able to do so you must assume that no chasms exist.
Though maybe the above post doesn't deserve a mod up, I don't think it deserved to modded down. Though I disagree with the post, opinions ought not be modded down just because the moderator disagrees.
Yes, but macro evolutionary changes need to have a path of micro evolutionary steps that wouldn't kill a transitionary organism. To use the micro/macro stepping analogy, just cause you can take a number of steps and reach New York, does not mean you can use that same process to reach a further location like London, you'd drown on the way. The extra proof required, and that is difficult to provide in biology is that a path exists for micro evolution to give rise to the macro evolutionary differences in today's ecosystem.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe evolutionary biologists first defined the concept of macro-evolution as you describe it. It is not a fictional concept, it is a misunderstood concept. To go a step further micro and macro evolution DO require seperate proofs. It's like an inductive proof, proving n for 1 and 2 is not a proof for n+1. Macro evolution is the latter and is quite difficult to prove or disprove in biology. A person could take micro evolution as an obvious fact and still reject macro evolution as improbable without deserving the fundamentalist label.
Does anyone with a better knowledge of radioactive dating than me know what kind of effect these impacts have on radioactive dating methods? Would there be any, and if so on what scale? Furthermore how localized would the effects be, and finally how could/are they compensated for? The part of the article about how few craters have been accurately dated got me wondering about what kind of complications they presented for dating methods in the area around them.
But the judgement precludes ANY apis,communication protocols, etc. that would in any way affect the security of any part of windows. They'll be able to smoke screen pretty much all of their currently un released api's under this provision. Proving an API does not affect security without having access to it is a bit difficult. This last provision turns the entire judgement into a joke. MS is found guilty and that decision is upheld. What punishment is given? A wording to not do it anymore that allows them to continue as they always have.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory - natural selection - to explain the mechanism of evolution.
First off, Darwin did not provide nearly sufficient evidence for his proposed theory of evolution to be elevated to 'fact' status. It wasn't till many years of reasearch by other generations of scientists before the theory of evolution started being taught more as fact than theory.
Secondly it is important to define which parts of evolution are considered 'fact' and which are still considered theory. Micro-evolution,Macro-evolution,Common descent. All of these have rather different strength from supporting evidence. It's tempting to claim them all as fact but to do so prematurely can blind future generations to other possibilities and often set back scientific research for awhile as everyone chases a dead end. For all we know common descent could later be looked back on as our modern day equivalent of the world is flat. Although it appeared the right answer from the evidence we've found thus far, future research could show a very different answer. Genetic research is still a very long ways from having an even nearly complete understanding of how DNA works. With so many unknowns we need to be really careful before calling a theory a law.
I wonder, does this "extraterrestrial" life have DNA in it? If it does shouldn't that raise a few questions? Like perhaps contamination from terrestrial sources? Attention grabbing headlines like this are rather unscientific if they are so premature as to not even do basic tests.
"If you are working on a large code-base, in conjunction with many other people, this is untrue. Over-abstracting or over-generalizing code has the effect of making that code much harder to parse, and much harder to maintain."
I believe that you are missing the point of the original post. If you abstract and generalize your code properly, you wind up with very compact code which is flexible and readable. I believe by shortest program, the poster means the least lines of code per section(function,method,etc) in your program. Making every function/piece of your program consist of a short number of lines ensures that it's function is clear. Also because such pieces will only perform a relatively simple function, their reusability is quite high.
This also leaps over the philisophical issue of whether living organisms are greater than the sum of their parts. Science can break down the components of living organism, but we still can't arrange materials in such a manner as to 'make life' even the 'simple' structure of plant seeds has yet to be emulated. Untill Abiogenesis proceeds a good deal further there is a big assumption in simply saying we can 'copy' consciousness. To copy something we first need to grasp exactly what it is.
We're in the process of beating nature.
Oh, so mother nature needs a favor? Well, maybe she should have thought of that when she was bestting us with droughts and floods and poison monkeys.
The state of computer go is not yet that advanced for either me or anyone to say for certainty that there is no Eval(p) for go. But if, as I suspect (let's just say it's a gambler's gut-feeling reinforced, in fact, by a reading of Burmeister plus the fact that go stones cannot move and thus their present fixed position must contribute to Eval(p)) there is in fact an Eval(p) for go, then go will prove to be easier to program than chess.
I think it's a bit insulting to the grand master level players of go to claim so certainly that there exists an Eval(p) function for the board. Not to mention how many generations of Korean/Chinese mathematicians who have likely attempted to find such an algorithm.
Most people don't consider source code a work of speech, just as they don't consider a music file or other audio source one either. Unless it's spoken (a speech) or written word (book), John Doe isn't going to consider the violation breaking the 1st amendment.
Yes this is a problem with getting people to recognize the extent of the problem. But since source code,music,videos ARE forms of free speech comments stating such are not harming the cause of anti-DRM. Just because not everyone is informed enough to appreciate the truth, does not mean that presenting said truth hurts the cause.
I can't think of three more deserving states. :-)
Washington?
Also, it's not obvious that every component of an individual has to be directly selected for. Witness my big bushy beard: lots of men shave, and some adult men can't grow beards at all. It does not appear that there is any direct selection process maintaining the ability to grow beards. Are "unselected steps" really all the big problem creationists make them out to be?
Then we can take unselected steps to mean any steps that would kill off the organism. The whole idea of systems too complex to break down are then those mutation paths which would kill the creature if introduced individually.
You gave the newer definition; there was an earlier definition that refered to breakage arising from removing components, but apparently Behe gave up on it because he kept getting creamed every time he gave an example using it. But I only follow Behe casually, so ask on talk.origins if you want the straight scoop on all this.
Actually, this new definition is direct from Mr. Behe himself. Basically he calls it a proper re-wording of his original idea. The criticism he was recieving was in alot of ways a misunderstanding of what he was trying to describe so he came up with this definition.
That's how I feel about "irreducible complexity". It will be found to be reducible.
Actually the concept of irreducible complexity is described as follows
An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway.
To me this sounds simply to be a quantification of the likelyhood of a mutation to arise. In particular a series of non-beneficial mutations that are at the end beneficial. The mechanism above for "storing" a series of mutations seems a pretty good example of a way to bypass the non-beneficial steps to get to the benefit of the combined mutations. The only barrier then is the probabilty of such mutations being a beneficial combination. Just because the idea for measuring complexity comes from creationist research why does it need to be 'debunked'. If the definition of the term is usefull why not just use it?
Nitpicking a bit here as in the context described beneficial can include all non-harmfull mutations. The point is there must exist a path of mutations that wouldn't end up killing off the mutants along that path.
Not necessarily. There is nothing about multiple starting points of life that contradict evolutionary theory. Anyway, divergence is accelerated by speciation (when 2 population no longer interbreed, mutations are no longer shared between the 2 gene pools and they evolve independently.)
... the Earth is provably much older than that, and life has provably existed for much of that time. And your last sentence is just words strung together without content, meaningless.
;).
True, but common descent is the simplest answer for evidence like DNA. Regardless, let my argument be refined then to single celled organisms 'evolving' into humans.
Completely wrong, evolution "assumes" that deleterious mutations reduce the fitness of an organism, which reduces its ability to reproduce and hence the presence of the genotype in the population. It "assumes" that beneficial mutations increase the fitness of an organism, which increase the chance it will reproduce and hence increase the presence of the genotype in the population. It assumes nothing about the relative frequencies of deleterious v. beneficial mutations. It also ignores unexpressed mutations, as they have no impact on the fitness of the organism. (I have quoted "assumes" because these observations are so obvious, that description would mischaracterize them)
I think you misread my statment here. I was making no comment on ratio of good/bad mutations, evolution only requires one good mutation to proceed through chance. My statement was that for a single celled organism to evolve into another creature there must exist an evolutionary path to follow. Such a path requires potential micro-evolutions from the single celled creature to the descendent. Furthermore every one of those changes must be reproductively beneficial so they are propogated in the gene tree. That such a series of mutations exists for all animals leading back to common ancestors is non-trivial. This is something science has yet to prove, and most definetely stands as more theory than fact.
I will assume you mistyped with '5 million years time'
Yes, 5 billion with a B is a touch more accurate, my apologies