Theism has been around a long time, so it's up to you to dethrone it.
Hold on there just a minute. You can't generalise. There have been thousands of mutually contradictory types of theism around for a long time, and even 'religions' which aren't even theist (such as some forms of Buddhism). You can't take combine Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam and many, many others and try and call them one thing that needs to be 'dethroned' - they try and dethrone each other! All you might be left with is some vague feeling that 'there is something out there'. Is that what you want to defend? If not, what is your 'model' of theism you do want to defend? Monotheism? Polytheism?
As Dawkins so eloquently puts it, almost all theists are atheists about everyone else's religions. Do you believe in the Norse Gods? Those of Olympus? If you don't, what is stopping you from taking that one step further?
Also, if your faith in global climate modeling is so strong, why such a weaksauce defense of it? Can't you be bothered to argue in favor of trusting the modeling, rather than simply arguing against extending distrust of the modeling to other fields?
Because arguing in favour of modelling is hard, because modelling is hard. It involves detailed knowledge of physics, mathematics, chemistry and statistics. What am I supposed to do - go into those in detail in a Slashdot post? At some point people just have to learn to trust the experts.
So the extrapolation from global climate modeling to other fields was unwarranted? Fair enough, but hardly a compelling endorsement of the current global climate modeling technology.
Actually, it is. Because if this is all that those wanting to dismiss climate modelling can come up with....
My area of "expertise" and my chosen career for the last 27 years is Meteorology...just your average "weather man" on radion and TV in the Northeastern US and now in Texas. For the last 10 years, I have spent a large portion of my time, both personaly and professionally, studying Climatology and the politics that surround the topic of Global Warming.
Then why are you attempting to criticise physicists, or science in general? Are you broadly qualified? If not, how on Earth do you consider yourself in a position to judge anything outside of local weather? Why are you even posting on a thread about relativity?
Please go pick up a book or two...speak to those "in the know". Learn basic climatology principles and them come back and see me.
Oh don't worry, I have. I have years of experience (including published papers) in modelling techniques of exactly the kind used in climate modelling. So I don't need the basics, thank you.
The thing about climate modelling is that it needs a broad, yet deep understanding of a range of fields - physics, chemistry, biology, modelling theory, mathematics.
I am not your average weather man - I have degrees (to Doctorate level) in biochemistry, physical chemistry, modelling and statistics, and have published research in these areas, so I don't think I need to come back to you.
lmao, you're funny. All black holes have an ergosphere unless they're literally not moving at all.
Hence the phrase 'open up' an ergosphere, not 'create' one.
It's clear you have no idea what you're talking about so I won't even bother to type a whole big thing about what scientists who know what they're talking about think about how large singularities are regardless of how far out the event horizon is. It's either a simple physics statement that it's infinitely small but large enough to exist because if it was 0, it wouldn't exist or it's barel;y larger than a quark because two quarks can occupy the same spot in space if they're traveling at different speeds and if they weren't moving, they would be in the same spot so they're kinda vibrating a tiny bit so that they are technically covering area and thus moving at a certain speed.
Firstly, the singularity is infinitely small. But, most likely, it doesn't even exist - it is an artifact of relativity that disappears when you take into account quantum theory. If quarks have any size at all, it is the plank length (the typical size of strings in string theory). This is the same size at which general relativity breaks down.
It doesn't matter how you transfer angular momentum to a black hole; what happens is that as rotation increases, the ergosphere enlarges. You don't reduce the gravity of the black hole, or destroy it in any way.
I did not say, "literally all of it...". I used the term "practically" as a semi catch-all to include those theories that require some sort of response from those of us who are responsible for the financing of the research. In other words...if the solution requires massive funding to prevent the negative outcome of whichever theory, you can almost bet that the modeling is extremely flawed.
Sorry, but things don't work like that. The topic of this discussion was general relativity. You can't now work backwards and claim that you meant general relativity was fine, but you mean other areas....
You should SEE the amount of funding being put into relativity research - satellites, gravity wave detectors. Funding is huge. That modelling sure must be flawed, mustn't it? But hold on, it isn't, as that modelling is part of the theory used for GPS!
You think you can pick which bits of research should be funded - those which work? Or just those which won't disagree with your politics?
I do not believe, however, that we humans are the cause and I am confident that we can't change it nor should we. It is akin, in my opinion, to believing that we are the cause of rain and then deciding that we need to stop it and that with more funding and research and education, we can stop it.
It would appear that you are the desparate one. You are choosing (yes choosing) to believe that a natural event can be stopped by us. That is sad in my opinion.
That is sad, understandable and very selfish. I can realise that the effects of global warming are likely to be so disruptive that it is comforting to believe it is all one big conspiracy, isn't it? It is also selfish, because chances are that you are somewhere in a rich country and the effects won't get to you first, so that is all OK then.
Of course, humanity has always worked against natural events. We dam rivers and build levees to prevent floods. We irrigate crops when there is drought. It is what we have always done. There is nothing intrinsically good about natural cycles, even if you are dumb enough to think that the current global warming is almost entirely natural.
And, I suppose, if there is ever a big old meteor heading our way, you will be ranting against any spending to stop it: "It is a natural event, let it come."
But, in future, try not to post anti-science things on thread like this with a specific subject where people know far more than you - it does not help your case.
Best think of a subject where you do have expertise and then claim that practically all well-funded science is practically useless.
Unless this argument happens to be much more applicable to global climate modeling than it is to General Relativity.
But that was not the way the argument worked:
The modeling (practically all of it...pick your discipline) is flawed to the point that the data is literally unusable in an honest way.
The original poster was so desperate to not believe global climate change (I understand why - the consequences could be nasty) that they felt they had to rubbish ALL science.
They didn't mention it in the article but thankfully I'm a black hole expert:-D There's a theory that says since the singularity is infinitely small then technically no matter is actually moving when it's rotating so it doesn't have to obey the speed of light speed limit and may be able to rotate faster than the speed of light. No idea how they can measure the speed if there's no radius but anyway, if it gets up to that speed they theorize that it will completely stop emitting gravity and either just sit there or explode, but most likely just sit there.
This is just so wrong. A black hole does have a radius (hard to measure directly, but if it has a circumference, it has a radius). When you spin up a black hole it does not stop emitting gravity, instead you open up an ergosphere.
I believe that if the people on the street actually knew how and what we use (we..as in humankind)to collect the data that describes our physical universe and existence, they wouldn't believe a single thing the "scientific" community tells them. The modeling (practically all of it...pick your discipline) is flawed to the point that the data is literally unusable in an honest way.
If you believe that, you had better not fly. GPS systems only work because of General Relativity - Newton's work isn't accurate enough. GPS is proof of Einstein's work. Instead of being 'literally unusable', the information we collect is vital for so much of current technology.
So your attempt to disprove global warming by this argument just won't work. Sorry.
And that, my friend, is the part that is controversial! It is a theory that you and I may strongly believe it, but there are lots of people who do NOT believe it since it isn't word for word in the Bible.
Yes, you are right. My point, though, was that in reality the division between adaptation and speciation is false, even though some may wish it were not.
You can quote wikipedia all you like, but it does not contradict a single thing I said. Let me say again: there is huge evidence for 'evolution by creeps' even in the fossil record - just take a look at the evolution of whales, or birds, or the progression in size and shapes of dinosaurs, shellfish etc.
To contrast Darwin with Punctuated Equilibrium is plain wrong. No-one, not even Darwin, seriously claimed that all evolution was gradual and at the same rate.
Let me quote from wikipedia, as you are doing it:
"It is often incorrectly assumed that he insisted that the rate of change must be constant, or nearly so. In The Origin of Species Darwin wrote that "the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form."
Also, any idea that evolution is not gradual is nonsense. You could get a gradual change in a fraction of a percentage of size between generations in a mouse that was too small to be noted in human records, yet get an animal the size of an elephant in a time too short to show up in the fossil record!
The fossil record can give the illusion of punctuated equilibrium, but all evolution is gradual; just at different rates.
That wikipedia article finishes:
"Thus punctuated equilibrium contradicts some of Darwin's ideas regarding the specific mechanisms of evolution, but generally accords with Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection."
The weird thing is that both punctuated equilibrium and phyletic gradualism are right - it is nothing more than a matter of degree, and depends on the species.
Evolution can be divided into two parts, adaption and speciation. Adaption is merely the process of physical changes to adjust to the environment. It isn't a theory as it has been observed many times (note the original article), and it should only be controversial to people who believe OJ is innocent. Speciation is when a new species arises from a different one. This is a theory, and I suppose it is highly controversial to some (many). *shrugs* But, the mere concept of adaption can't possibly be controversial.
This is a false division, as can be easily demonstrated. Enough adaptation == speciation. Suppose the short legged lizards grew so short legged that they could not physically mate with the longer legged lizards. Then you have two groups unable to interbreed - two species.
Again, case in point: punctuated equilibrium. Darwin's original theory claimed gradual change over time, and this was accepted up until the emergence of punctuated equilibrium. But when you look at the fossil record, there *isn't* gradual change over time. For most of the time, millions of years at a stretch, the morphology of species remain relatively *unchanged* -- until there is a periodic big explosion, for whatever reasons, of new morphologies.
This isn't true. Some species change very gradually, some don't. Well actually, all species change gradually, just some faster than others. The fossil record is sparse, so many gradual changes can appear like explosions, on the other hand, there is very clear evidence for gradual evolution in many, many species, such as ammonites, fish, dinosaurs. There is also the issue of geographical distributions; gradual evolution can look like an explosion if it happens in one place, and the the new species move out. In the areas they move out to, their appearance looks explosive!
The reasons for the supposed explosions of new species is now well understood - punctuated equilibrium never was contrary to Darwin's views, and was never contrary to gradual evolution - on human timescales *all* evolution is gradual, even that that supposedly looks like 'explosions' in the fossil record.
He's not talking about Christian fundamentalists, he's talking about scientists, biologists, geneticists, etc. If you think that they are in lock-step agreement about evolution, and they never disagree or argue or have controversies, you've never been to an academic conference. Case in point: punctuated equilibrium.
That is a relatively minor debate. There is no question that evolution happens or that it is due to natural selection.
Maybe you can argue that it was only natural for them to seek safety in the trees but I think that this study addresses something we must face.
No, because it IS only natural for them to seek safety in the trees. Or rather, all that needed to happen was for SOME to seek safety in the trees. There will be natural variability in the behaviour. What you are seeing is not behaviour influencing evolution, but the precise opposite - behaviour being selected by evolution. Without predators, tree-climbing would have been somewhat disadvantageous; with predators, it has an advantage - more than the initial disadvantage of having long legs in trees.
A lot of evolutionary theory revolves around evolution not by choice (example of the brown moths becoming dominant over white moths during the industrial revolution when smoke and carbon on trees and buildings hid them).
This isn't evolution by choice either. There would be some lizards who would tend to climb trees to escape predators, and some who would not. The lizards can't choose this.
Controversial because it implies that species may be able to subconsciously choose which feature is 'evolved' to be the dominant factor.
It implies nothing of the sort. All it implies is that some lizards choose climbing trees as a way to escape predator.
If you believe in evolution, you have to acknowledge that it's not only random genetics but also influenced by the behaviors of the animals granted those random mutations.
But that has always been accepted by anyone with even the most basic understanding of evolution - the principles of interaction between predators and prey, kin selection, sexual selection and so on.
Also, no-one with any knowledge of evolution believes it happens by random genetics. Random genetics is the material of evolution, but evolution happens through selection, which is not random. In this case, lizards with a tendency to climb trees are being selected for by the introduction of predators.
In terms of evolutionary theiry, this is about as controversial as considering the Earth round!
This discovery seems to me more "dangerous" for current science theories than current religions. It implies that will could have a different meaning than the mere transition of electrons in some areas of the brain. Down with Darwin, go Lamarck:D
So what are you suggesting? That "will" is somehow changing the DNA? Of course it isn't. This in no threat to Darwinism. All that is happening is that the lizards are moving into a situation where shorter legs are more favoured, so those with shorter legs are more likely to survive and reproduce. It would be crazy if this did not happen. Behaviour has always been influential in evolution.
If the current matter density estimates are accurate, then at the current value of around the equivalent of 6 hydrogen atoms per cubic meter, then there should be a schwarzchild radius of around 14 billion light yrs - a mere coincidence with the current notion of our universe's size?
But that isn't our universe's size. The oldest light we can see is close to 14 billion years old, but the universe has been expanding while that light has been travelling, and the light gets carried along with it - the 14 billion-year old light has travelled more than 14 billion light years to get to us! The diameter of the universe is much greater: over 150 billion light years.
Perhaps the universe is doing BOTH which is exapanding and collapsing - at the same time.
This is meaningless.
Ps: I believe it was Einstein who suggested that "Imagination is more important than knowledge".. So, please, let others expand their imaginaition and stop pretending like you know everything - you limit your own potential through your inability to consider the implications of what is being offered.
Einstein was entitled to say that. Others are entitled to expand their imaginations as much as they like, but if they then claim that the results of their imaginations is scientific, then they should expect to be judged scientifically. If they want to use terms like 'black holes' they have know what that term actually means. You can't use such terms freely, and to do is itself to pretend to know more than you do, and to not consider the implications. Black holes have known properties. That includes accelerated expansion to the centre (at least to the Plank length); no amount of wild imagination can change that without breaking special or general relativity. You are quoting Einstein - are you claiming to know more than him about those?
Sun has absolute veto power over the JCP, which is nothing more than a glorified suggestion box.
This is total nonsense. Sun has veto (and why not - the invented the language?) but rarely use it. There are major debates in the JCP, and real innovation. It is not just a 'suggestion box' - respected industry experts help write specifications.
If you honestly believe that Sun wouldn't have used that power at opportunity to bludgeon Microsoft, you're deluded.
Defending Java against Microsoft's attempt to wreck it is not 'bludgeoning' Microsoft. In other areas Sun has worked in strong collaboration with Microsoft, as in the Java 6 + Vista integration.
But I don't suspect you even considered that possible counterargument in your zeal to go after Microsoft?
There is no counterargument here - you simply stated your belief.
I could go on about actual useful features in C# that don't have a snowball's chance to make it into Java, JCP or no, but I don't think it needs any cheerleading from me. Why is Java so "special" that it can't brook any real competition?
Anyone is open to compete with Java..NET could well have been that competition, but Microsoft decided to keep it largely confined to Windows. Instead, a more open, free, Microsoft-supported cross-platform.NET could easily have competed. Microsoft chose not to do that.
If our universe is a black hole in some other universe, who says that the natural laws of that uber-universe are anything like ours?
If it doesn't act like a black hole, it isn't a black hole. Black holes accelerate matter towards their centres. We have models of condensed states where that does not happen, but we don't call them black holes. An example is the gravastar.
The universe is in a state of accelerating collapse. The timeline is reversed. That's why you see it expanding.
In our timeline we see the universe in a state of accelerating expansion. If you reverse that, you get decelerating collapse.
No amount of timeline flipping will produce a state of accelerating collapse.
The reverse of accelerating collapse is decelerating expansion. But we don't see that - supernova data at the end of the last decade revealed we see accelerating expansion.
Slashdot Mirror
demanding detailed argument for the existence of God from the theists.
Oh I don't demand that. I'll simply try and get you to say which god you are defending, and why. There are so many possibilities.... Zeus? Thor?
Theism has been around a long time, so it's up to you to dethrone it.
Hold on there just a minute. You can't generalise. There have been thousands of mutually contradictory types of theism around for a long time, and even 'religions' which aren't even theist (such as some forms of Buddhism). You can't take combine Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam and many, many others and try and call them one thing that needs to be 'dethroned' - they try and dethrone each other! All you might be left with is some vague feeling that 'there is something out there'. Is that what you want to defend? If not, what is your 'model' of theism you do want to defend? Monotheism? Polytheism?
As Dawkins so eloquently puts it, almost all theists are atheists about everyone else's religions. Do you believe in the Norse Gods? Those of Olympus? If you don't, what is stopping you from taking that one step further?
Also, if your faith in global climate modeling is so strong, why such a weaksauce defense of it? Can't you be bothered to argue in favor of trusting the modeling, rather than simply arguing against extending distrust of the modeling to other fields?
Because arguing in favour of modelling is hard, because modelling is hard. It involves detailed knowledge of physics, mathematics, chemistry and statistics. What am I supposed to do - go into those in detail in a Slashdot post? At some point people just have to learn to trust the experts.
So the extrapolation from global climate modeling to other fields was unwarranted? Fair enough, but hardly a compelling endorsement of the current global climate modeling technology.
Actually, it is. Because if this is all that those wanting to dismiss climate modelling can come up with....
No no no, speciation happens when two populations are GEOGRAPHICALLY seperated, until a point when they can not produce offspring able to reproduce.
Speciation can happen when to populations are separated in any way. It does not have to be geographical.
My area of "expertise" and my chosen career for the last 27 years is Meteorology...just your average "weather man" on radion and TV in the Northeastern US and now in Texas. For the last 10 years, I have spent a large portion of my time, both personaly and professionally, studying Climatology and the politics that surround the topic of Global Warming.
Then why are you attempting to criticise physicists, or science in general? Are you broadly qualified? If not, how on Earth do you consider yourself in a position to judge anything outside of local weather? Why are you even posting on a thread about relativity?
Please go pick up a book or two...speak to those "in the know". Learn basic climatology principles and them come back and see me.
Oh don't worry, I have. I have years of experience (including published papers) in modelling techniques of exactly the kind used in climate modelling. So I don't need the basics, thank you.
The thing about climate modelling is that it needs a broad, yet deep understanding of a range of fields - physics, chemistry, biology, modelling theory, mathematics.
I am not your average weather man - I have degrees (to Doctorate level) in biochemistry, physical chemistry, modelling and statistics, and have published research in these areas, so I don't think I need to come back to you.
lmao, you're funny. All black holes have an ergosphere unless they're literally not moving at all.
Hence the phrase 'open up' an ergosphere, not 'create' one.
It's clear you have no idea what you're talking about so I won't even bother to type a whole big thing about what scientists who know what they're talking about think about how large singularities are regardless of how far out the event horizon is. It's either a simple physics statement that it's infinitely small but large enough to exist because if it was 0, it wouldn't exist or it's barel;y larger than a quark because two quarks can occupy the same spot in space if they're traveling at different speeds and if they weren't moving, they would be in the same spot so they're kinda vibrating a tiny bit so that they are technically covering area and thus moving at a certain speed.
Firstly, the singularity is infinitely small. But, most likely, it doesn't even exist - it is an artifact of relativity that disappears when you take into account quantum theory. If quarks have any size at all, it is the plank length (the typical size of strings in string theory). This is the same size at which general relativity breaks down.
It doesn't matter how you transfer angular momentum to a black hole; what happens is that as rotation increases, the ergosphere enlarges. You don't reduce the gravity of the black hole, or destroy it in any way.
I did not say, "literally all of it...". I used the term "practically" as a semi catch-all to include those theories that require some sort of response from those of us who are responsible for the financing of the research. In other words...if the solution requires massive funding to prevent the negative outcome of whichever theory, you can almost bet that the modeling is extremely flawed.
Sorry, but things don't work like that. The topic of this discussion was general relativity. You can't now work backwards and claim that you meant general relativity was fine, but you mean other areas....
You should SEE the amount of funding being put into relativity research - satellites, gravity wave detectors. Funding is huge. That modelling sure must be flawed, mustn't it? But hold on, it isn't, as that modelling is part of the theory used for GPS!
You think you can pick which bits of research should be funded - those which work? Or just those which won't disagree with your politics?
I do not believe, however, that we humans are the cause and I am confident that we can't change it nor should we. It is akin, in my opinion, to believing that we are the cause of rain and then deciding that we need to stop it and that with more funding and research and education, we can stop it.
It would appear that you are the desparate one. You are choosing (yes choosing) to believe that a natural event can be stopped by us. That is sad in my opinion.
That is sad, understandable and very selfish. I can realise that the effects of global warming are likely to be so disruptive that it is comforting to believe it is all one big conspiracy, isn't it? It is also selfish, because chances are that you are somewhere in a rich country and the effects won't get to you first, so that is all OK then.
Of course, humanity has always worked against natural events. We dam rivers and build levees to prevent floods. We irrigate crops when there is drought. It is what we have always done. There is nothing intrinsically good about natural cycles, even if you are dumb enough to think that the current global warming is almost entirely natural.
And, I suppose, if there is ever a big old meteor heading our way, you will be ranting against any spending to stop it: "It is a natural event, let it come."
But, in future, try not to post anti-science things on thread like this with a specific subject where people know far more than you - it does not help your case.
Best think of a subject where you do have expertise and then claim that practically all well-funded science is practically useless.
Care to tell us what such a subject might be?
Unless this argument happens to be much more applicable to global climate modeling than it is to General Relativity.
But that was not the way the argument worked:
The modeling (practically all of it...pick your discipline) is flawed to the point that the data is literally unusable in an honest way.
The original poster was so desperate to not believe global climate change (I understand why - the consequences could be nasty) that they felt they had to rubbish ALL science.
They didn't mention it in the article but thankfully I'm a black hole expert :-D There's a theory that says since the singularity is infinitely small then technically no matter is actually moving when it's rotating so it doesn't have to obey the speed of light speed limit and may be able to rotate faster than the speed of light. No idea how they can measure the speed if there's no radius but anyway, if it gets up to that speed they theorize that it will completely stop emitting gravity and either just sit there or explode, but most likely just sit there.
This is just so wrong. A black hole does have a radius (hard to measure directly, but if it has a circumference, it has a radius). When you spin up a black hole it does not stop emitting gravity, instead you open up an ergosphere.
I believe that if the people on the street actually knew how and what we use (we..as in humankind)to collect the data that describes our physical universe and existence, they wouldn't believe a single thing the "scientific" community tells them. The modeling (practically all of it...pick your discipline) is flawed to the point that the data is literally unusable in an honest way.
If you believe that, you had better not fly. GPS systems only work because of General Relativity - Newton's work isn't accurate enough. GPS is proof of Einstein's work. Instead of being 'literally unusable', the information we collect is vital for so much of current technology.
So your attempt to disprove global warming by this argument just won't work. Sorry.
And that, my friend, is the part that is controversial! It is a theory that you and I may strongly believe it, but there are lots of people who do NOT believe it since it isn't word for word in the Bible.
Yes, you are right. My point, though, was that in reality the division between adaptation and speciation is false, even though some may wish it were not.
Still the same species if they are genetically capable of producing viable offspring.
Not necessarily. The best definition of a species is a group which does not interbreed with other, not which cannot in any way ever interbreed.
But this is to miss the point. When you get two groups that don't interbreed then they can genetically drift apart to the point where they can't.
You can quote wikipedia all you like, but it does not contradict a single thing I said. Let me say again: there is huge evidence for 'evolution by creeps' even in the fossil record - just take a look at the evolution of whales, or birds, or the progression in size and shapes of dinosaurs, shellfish etc.
To contrast Darwin with Punctuated Equilibrium is plain wrong. No-one, not even Darwin, seriously claimed that all evolution was gradual and at the same rate.
Let me quote from wikipedia, as you are doing it:
"It is often incorrectly assumed that he insisted that the rate of change must be constant, or nearly so. In The Origin of Species Darwin wrote that "the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form."
Also, any idea that evolution is not gradual is nonsense. You could get a gradual change in a fraction of a percentage of size between generations in a mouse that was too small to be noted in human records, yet get an animal the size of an elephant in a time too short to show up in the fossil record!
The fossil record can give the illusion of punctuated equilibrium, but all evolution is gradual; just at different rates.
That wikipedia article finishes:
"Thus punctuated equilibrium contradicts some of Darwin's ideas regarding the specific mechanisms of evolution, but generally accords with Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection."
The weird thing is that both punctuated equilibrium and phyletic gradualism are right - it is nothing more than a matter of degree, and depends on the species.
Evolution can be divided into two parts, adaption and speciation. Adaption is merely the process of physical changes to adjust to the environment. It isn't a theory as it has been observed many times (note the original article), and it should only be controversial to people who believe OJ is innocent. Speciation is when a new species arises from a different one. This is a theory, and I suppose it is highly controversial to some (many). *shrugs* But, the mere concept of adaption can't possibly be controversial.
This is a false division, as can be easily demonstrated. Enough adaptation == speciation. Suppose the short legged lizards grew so short legged that they could not physically mate with the longer legged lizards. Then you have two groups unable to interbreed - two species.
Again, case in point: punctuated equilibrium. Darwin's original theory claimed gradual change over time, and this was accepted up until the emergence of punctuated equilibrium. But when you look at the fossil record, there *isn't* gradual change over time. For most of the time, millions of years at a stretch, the morphology of species remain relatively *unchanged* -- until there is a periodic big explosion, for whatever reasons, of new morphologies.
This isn't true. Some species change very gradually, some don't. Well actually, all species change gradually, just some faster than others. The fossil record is sparse, so many gradual changes can appear like explosions, on the other hand, there is very clear evidence for gradual evolution in many, many species, such as ammonites, fish, dinosaurs. There is also the issue of geographical distributions; gradual evolution can look like an explosion if it happens in one place, and the the new species move out. In the areas they move out to, their appearance looks explosive!
The reasons for the supposed explosions of new species is now well understood - punctuated equilibrium never was contrary to Darwin's views, and was never contrary to gradual evolution - on human timescales *all* evolution is gradual, even that that supposedly looks like 'explosions' in the fossil record.
He's not talking about Christian fundamentalists, he's talking about scientists, biologists, geneticists, etc. If you think that they are in lock-step agreement about evolution, and they never disagree or argue or have controversies, you've never been to an academic conference. Case in point: punctuated equilibrium.
That is a relatively minor debate. There is no question that evolution happens or that it is due to natural selection.
Maybe you can argue that it was only natural for them to seek safety in the trees but I think that this study addresses something we must face.
No, because it IS only natural for them to seek safety in the trees. Or rather, all that needed to happen was for SOME to seek safety in the trees. There will be natural variability in the behaviour. What you are seeing is not behaviour influencing evolution, but the precise opposite - behaviour being selected by evolution. Without predators, tree-climbing would have been somewhat disadvantageous; with predators, it has an advantage - more than the initial disadvantage of having long legs in trees.
A lot of evolutionary theory revolves around evolution not by choice (example of the brown moths becoming dominant over white moths during the industrial revolution when smoke and carbon on trees and buildings hid them).
This isn't evolution by choice either. There would be some lizards who would tend to climb trees to escape predators, and some who would not. The lizards can't choose this.
Controversial because it implies that species may be able to subconsciously choose which feature is 'evolved' to be the dominant factor.
It implies nothing of the sort. All it implies is that some lizards choose climbing trees as a way to escape predator.
If you believe in evolution, you have to acknowledge that it's not only random genetics but also influenced by the behaviors of the animals granted those random mutations.
But that has always been accepted by anyone with even the most basic understanding of evolution - the principles of interaction between predators and prey, kin selection, sexual selection and so on.
Also, no-one with any knowledge of evolution believes it happens by random genetics. Random genetics is the material of evolution, but evolution happens through selection, which is not random. In this case, lizards with a tendency to climb trees are being selected for by the introduction of predators.
In terms of evolutionary theiry, this is about as controversial as considering the Earth round!
This discovery seems to me more "dangerous" for current science theories than current religions. It implies that will could have a different meaning than the mere transition of electrons in some areas of the brain. Down with Darwin, go Lamarck :D
So what are you suggesting? That "will" is somehow changing the DNA? Of course it isn't. This in no threat to Darwinism. All that is happening is that the lizards are moving into a situation where shorter legs are more favoured, so those with shorter legs are more likely to survive and reproduce. It would be crazy if this did not happen. Behaviour has always been influential in evolution.
It only makes sense. If the "animal" is intelligent to overcome its primal instincts it can avoid "evolutionary" dangers.
Of course it isn't really controversial at all, but labelling something 'controversial' gets publicity.
If the current matter density estimates are accurate, then at the current value of around the equivalent of 6 hydrogen atoms per cubic meter, then there should be a schwarzchild radius of around 14 billion light yrs - a mere coincidence with the current notion of our universe's size?
But that isn't our universe's size. The oldest light we can see is close to 14 billion years old, but the universe has been expanding while that light has been travelling, and the light gets carried along with it - the 14 billion-year old light has travelled more than 14 billion light years to get to us! The diameter of the universe is much greater: over 150 billion light years.
Perhaps the universe is doing BOTH which is exapanding and collapsing - at the same time.
This is meaningless.
Ps: I believe it was Einstein who suggested that "Imagination is more important than knowledge".. So, please, let others expand their imaginaition and stop pretending like you know everything - you limit your own potential through your inability to consider the implications of what is being offered.
Einstein was entitled to say that. Others are entitled to expand their imaginations as much as they like, but if they then claim that the results of their imaginations is scientific, then they should expect to be judged scientifically. If they want to use terms like 'black holes' they have know what that term actually means. You can't use such terms freely, and to do is itself to pretend to know more than you do, and to not consider the implications. Black holes have known properties. That includes accelerated expansion to the centre (at least to the Plank length); no amount of wild imagination can change that without breaking special or general relativity. You are quoting Einstein - are you claiming to know more than him about those?
Just a thought, cheers.
All I am asking for is some thought....
Sun has absolute veto power over the JCP, which is nothing more than a glorified suggestion box.
.NET could well have been that competition, but Microsoft decided to keep it largely confined to Windows. Instead, a more open, free, Microsoft-supported cross-platform .NET could easily have competed. Microsoft chose not to do that.
This is total nonsense. Sun has veto (and why not - the invented the language?) but rarely use it. There are major debates in the JCP, and real innovation. It is not just a 'suggestion box' - respected industry experts help write specifications.
If you honestly believe that Sun wouldn't have used that power at opportunity to bludgeon Microsoft, you're deluded.
Defending Java against Microsoft's attempt to wreck it is not 'bludgeoning' Microsoft. In other areas Sun has worked in strong collaboration with Microsoft, as in the Java 6 + Vista integration.
But I don't suspect you even considered that possible counterargument in your zeal to go after Microsoft?
There is no counterargument here - you simply stated your belief.
I could go on about actual useful features in C# that don't have a snowball's chance to make it into Java, JCP or no, but I don't think it needs any cheerleading from me. Why is Java so "special" that it can't brook any real competition?
Anyone is open to compete with Java.
If our universe is a black hole in some other universe, who says that the natural laws of that uber-universe are anything like ours?
If it doesn't act like a black hole, it isn't a black hole. Black holes accelerate matter towards their centres. We have models of condensed states where that does not happen, but we don't call them black holes. An example is the gravastar.
The universe is in a state of accelerating collapse. The timeline is reversed. That's why you see it expanding.
In our timeline we see the universe in a state of accelerating expansion. If you reverse that, you get decelerating collapse.
No amount of timeline flipping will produce a state of accelerating collapse.
The reverse of accelerating collapse is decelerating expansion. But we don't see that - supernova data at the end of the last decade revealed we see accelerating expansion.