IIRC, the last new century was celebrated in 1901, not 1900. I think the president even said something about it (don't remember which pres. it was, though). Somebody might want to check on this, though.
IIRC, in the Larry Niven et al book Fallen Angels, I think someone had mentioned using velcro... (or, rather, not needing to use velcro if having sex in a gravitational field)
In one of the Oddessy books (either 2010 or 2061, I don't remember which) by Arthur C. Clarke, didn't he put life on Europa? Some kind of plant things that lived under the frozen surface of the oceans, I think. I just thought I would point that out...
"When will we realize that these very trees are what supply us with oxygen?" I just thought I would point out that the majority of the oxygen that we breathe comes from the ocean, and not from trees.
Christopher Walken only played the headless horseman during the relatively few scenes the headless horseman had a face. The rest of the time, the headless horseman was played by Ray Park (you might remember him as Darth Maul). His use of the axe and sword was brilliant, though I was also impressed by Casper van Dien's use of the two sickles...
I heard about this, and I think it was decided that this happened because of tunneling (the extremely small but non-zero probability that a particle will randomly cease to exist in one point in space and reappear in another-- though this is usually used to describe electrons that jump across energy barriers that they shouldn't be able to).
Actually, I think that his name was Maw. Also, Maw and Darth Maul looked absolutely nothing alike. Maw didn't have horns and had yellowish skin tones. Maul did have horns and his skin tones were not exactly yellow.
You don't know what you're talking about
on
Gene Leakage
·
· Score: 1
The examples you have given which you claim "prove" evolution are examples of microevolution (variations within a species). Pine and fir trees are members of the same subset of trees (they just have slightly different characteristics) and are not completely different species, and dachsunds and great danes are members of the same branch of the canis family. Saying that these offer proof of macroevolution is just plain ignorant. That this occurs is undisputed. However, macroevolution, the "theory" as proposed by Darwin, has zero proof in its favor. There is much more evidence for intelligent design than there ever has been for macroevolution. Proof that one species has changed into another, completely different species has never been found. Another thing -- it is impossible to test macroevolution, as in Darwin's theory, becuase it would not occur in a lab. There would be no outside forces acting on the test subjects, and so they would have no reason to change. Even if they were to have a reason to evolve, they would remain the same species, but with slightly improved aspects. Accepting macroevolution as the only possible way that life could have arisen and become what it is today seems to me to be stupid. Calling macroevolution a theory (and a well-proven one at that) just reveals how little you have looked into all of the empirical evidence.
This entire argument makes one large assumption...
on
Gene Leakage
·
· Score: 1
You seem to think that I believe that all current species developed from a common ancestor. You seem to have misunderstood me. There is ZERO proof for any transition between species, and this would lead one to believe that it does not and has not happened. If it had happened, it would have happened so many times that al least one piece of evidence could have become part of the fossil record. Is there any? No. This can be stated in a simple argument: Premise 1: If evolution between species occurred and resulted in the incredible diversity of species that exitsts today, some evidence of in-between forms would be evident in the fossil record. Premise 2: There is no evidence of any type of in-between form (between ANY two species) in the fossil record. Conclusion: Evolution between species did not occur.
GM is NOT safe... yet.
on
Gene Leakage
·
· Score: 0
Who says life has existed for 4 billion years? Got proof?
This entire argument makes one large assumption...
on
Gene Leakage
·
· Score: 1
The whole argument about whether genes can cross from one species to another by evolution without man's help depends on one thing: that macroevolution is aa fact. However, macroevolution does not even qualify as a theory; it is instead a philosophy of science (it can't be tested, observed, repeated, etc.). It may be possible, but then again it may not. There has never been any proof found to support macroevolution or (as far as I know) the natural migration of genes across species. Even the instances cited in the article and some of the posts confuse macro and microevolution. For example, the bacteria becoming resistant to penicillin occurred not becuase the bacteria changed their genes to become resistant to the penicillin, but instead occurred becuase some bacteria already had the genes required for resistance to penicillin. The penicillin didn't do anything but kill off the non-resistant bacteria, and thus increase the food supply for the resistant bacteria. Personally, I don't think that there is anything to worry about.
let's see if we can do this math: 2MB/sec * 3600sec/hr = 7200MB/hr 7200MB/hr * 1GB/1024MB = 7.03 GB/hr so, 2MB/sec isn't equal to 3GB/hr, but 1MB/sec is pretty close to it.
Slashdot Mirror
not to be picky or anything (about your .sig), but amendment actually has 2 m's. count 'em.
IIRC, the last new century was celebrated in 1901, not 1900. I think the president even said something about it (don't remember which pres. it was, though).
Somebody might want to check on this, though.
Let's see...
I resolve to:
1)Figure out how to keep a girlfriend now that I've got one...
2)Make a 4.0 on 22 hours (yeah, right...), and then however many I take in the fall...
3)Try to get back into shape...
I'm taking bets on how long any of these last.
IIRC, in the Larry Niven et al book Fallen Angels, I think someone had mentioned using velcro... (or, rather, not needing to use velcro if having sex in a gravitational field)
In one of the Oddessy books (either 2010 or 2061, I don't remember which) by Arthur C. Clarke, didn't he put life on Europa? Some kind of plant things that lived under the frozen surface of the oceans, I think. I just thought I would point that out...
"When will we realize that these very trees are what supply us with oxygen?" I just thought I would point out that the majority of the oxygen that we breathe comes from the ocean, and not from trees.
Christopher Walken only played the headless horseman during the relatively few scenes the headless horseman had a face. The rest of the time, the headless horseman was played by Ray Park (you might remember him as Darth Maul). His use of the axe and sword was brilliant, though I was also impressed by Casper van Dien's use of the two sickles...
I heard about this, and I think it was decided that this happened because of tunneling (the extremely small but non-zero probability that a particle will randomly cease to exist in one point in space and reappear in another-- though this is usually used to describe electrons that jump across energy barriers that they shouldn't be able to).
Am I the only person who thinks the name of this post sounds like a B-movie title?
Actually, I think that his name was Maw. Also, Maw and Darth Maul looked absolutely nothing alike. Maw didn't have horns and had yellowish skin tones. Maul did have horns and his skin tones were not exactly yellow.
The examples you have given which you claim "prove" evolution are examples of microevolution (variations within a species). Pine and fir trees are members of the same subset of trees (they just have slightly different characteristics) and are not completely different species, and dachsunds and great danes are members of the same branch of the canis family. Saying that these offer proof of macroevolution is just plain ignorant. That this occurs is undisputed. However, macroevolution, the "theory" as proposed by Darwin, has zero proof in its favor. There is much more evidence for intelligent design than there ever has been for macroevolution. Proof that one species has changed into another, completely different species has never been found. Another thing -- it is impossible to test macroevolution, as in Darwin's theory, becuase it would not occur in a lab. There would be no outside forces acting on the test subjects, and so they would have no reason to change. Even if they were to have a reason to evolve, they would remain the same species, but with slightly improved aspects. Accepting macroevolution as the only possible way that life could have arisen and become what it is today seems to me to be stupid. Calling macroevolution a theory (and a well-proven one at that) just reveals how little you have looked into all of the empirical evidence.
You seem to think that I believe that all current species developed from a common ancestor. You seem to have misunderstood me. There is ZERO proof for any transition between species, and this would lead one to believe that it does not and has not happened. If it had happened, it would have happened so many times that al least one piece of evidence could have become part of the fossil record. Is there any? No. This can be stated in a simple argument: Premise 1: If evolution between species occurred and resulted in the incredible diversity of species that exitsts today, some evidence of in-between forms would be evident in the fossil record. Premise 2: There is no evidence of any type of in-between form (between ANY two species) in the fossil record. Conclusion: Evolution between species did not occur.
Who says life has existed for 4 billion years? Got proof?
The whole argument about whether genes can cross from one species to another by evolution without man's help depends on one thing: that macroevolution is aa fact. However, macroevolution does not even qualify as a theory; it is instead a philosophy of science (it can't be tested, observed, repeated, etc.). It may be possible, but then again it may not. There has never been any proof found to support macroevolution or (as far as I know) the natural migration of genes across species. Even the instances cited in the article and some of the posts confuse macro and microevolution. For example, the bacteria becoming resistant to penicillin occurred not becuase the bacteria changed their genes to become resistant to the penicillin, but instead occurred becuase some bacteria already had the genes required for resistance to penicillin. The penicillin didn't do anything but kill off the non-resistant bacteria, and thus increase the food supply for the resistant bacteria. Personally, I don't think that there is anything to worry about.
let's see if we can do this math: 2MB/sec * 3600sec/hr = 7200MB/hr 7200MB/hr * 1GB/1024MB = 7.03 GB/hr so, 2MB/sec isn't equal to 3GB/hr, but 1MB/sec is pretty close to it.