I thought this was particularly cool because it's the exact technique used to determine the majority of new protein structures. I would not have predicted that it would be equally well suited towards a completely different type of imaging,
It's not an obvious application, but wouldn't ancient dyes have been organic in origin? It was just a matter of someone connecting the protein-identification process with this problem.
First explain what you mean by "non-micro" evolution. If you're just talking about microevolution happening over billions of years, then QED, I say to you.
If you've got some of that mumbo-jumbo I keep hearing about speciation, or "increasing complexity", drudge it up, so I can refute it.
To say that all around us was designed by an intelligent 'creator' is just as valid a theory as saying it 'just happened'.
The problem is, nobody's saying it "just happened". They go for the more nuanced "We don't know how it happened" - which is far, far more likely than an intelligent creator.
You express certainty in an uncertain event. I express uncertainty. That is the difference.
It's hard to live without beliefs. For instance, I believe in cause and effect. I believe that my past experiences with physical laws are directly related to how they operate now. I believe that I was not just created a second ago, complete with memories.
Atheism is a baseline "belief" - a group of beliefs that are pretty much required to live through day-to-day life.
Now, there are "evangelical atheists" who will go out and "spread the word" that there is no god - I wouldn't want them in schools either, since they're asserting as fact something they couldn't possibly know.
So in short, scientific thought may require some beliefs, but it's the "least religious" set of beliefs out there, and based on principles that all but the nuttiest can agree on.
But that's a legal interpretation, not a moral one.
Your earlier argument seemed to imply that this guy got what he deserved for being promiscuous - but if she'd been one year older, nothing would have happened at all. He's not being punished for his promiscuity, and neither should he. It shouldn't enter the argument. As another poster mentioned, if they'd met in church, gone on dates, and waited six months for sex, he would *still* be a registered sex offender. The promiscuity doesn't enter into it.
Finally, what sort of "due diligence" would be required? She lied about her age, no doubt had a fake ID. She was in a place where everyone was supposed to be over 25. Under these circumstances, I think it's ridiculous to prosecute, and absolutely ludicrous that this guy is labelled a "sex offender".
Brilliant! You caught on to the thrust of my argument, and deftly glanced it aside with your stunning intellect! The glofish that was designed in a lab is an absolute refutation of evolution!
May I reiterate: You get a decent post on evolution, and someone latches onto a single statment, misses the point, and acts as if they won the argument.
Fine. "No reasonable alternative theory on the origins of species we had before genetic engineering."
The fact that intelligent design is possible in no way suggests that it must be responsible for our existence.
Oh the irony. Just because evolution is possible doesn't mean it's responsible for our existence. Or at least existence of every spieces on Earth.
I'm getting really sick of this. You get a decent post on evolution, and someone latches onto a single statment, misses the point, and acts as if they won the argument. Of course evolution "is possible, but didn't necessarily happen" - that's the bloody definition of a theory! It's not "ironic" to define the very thing you're railing against.
This is not a game, this is not a fight, this is not a war. There is no "winner". Those who support evolution are simply looking for the most plausible explanation as to the origins of species. There has been no other reasonable theory put forth that is based on observable mechanisms. Until there is, we'll stick with evolution, thank you very much.
This is false. Evolution has been observed in bacteria adapting to poisons, in white/brown moths during the industrial revolution, and in insects adapting to pesticides.
That falls right under the heading of "evolution". So please elaborate on what you were trying to say.
I really didn't want to deny the existence of God in my post. All I'm saying is that it's an unnecessary ingredient in evolution. How the mechanisms and rules of evolution came to be isn't explained by evolutionary theory. Once they're in place, evolution takes care of the rest.
Hence, the principles of evolution are not only always the same, but work flawlessly
I do think you're wrong on this point. Evolution is pretty much a statistical theory. It's basically math. There is X population of a species. Y% of them will survive long enough to reproduce. If a mutation occurs that bumps Y up a bit, then that subgroup will eventually overwhelm the original group.
The "program" wasn't written without flaws either. There were plenty of evolutionary dead-ends whose DNA never survived past a certain point.
Once again, I'm not attacking God at all, but evolution itself doesn't deal with all of the necessary "peripherals" such as physics, the existence of the universe, or even how life first began. The theory is pretty small in scope compared to all of that.
My problem with Creationism is that I don't believe in a creator. I'm willing to entertain any theory, though. This includes Intelligent Design.
So what's your problem with evolution? We've witnessed "microevolution" in the wild (the old "moths turning from white to gray and back again"). Speciation has been artifically induced in a lab, creating two species of fruitflies that could not interbreed, with simple DNA mutations.
Do you disagree that these phenomena have taken place since the beginning of life? Even with a creator, there would be some amount of evolution and natural selection.
Do you not believe that 4 billion years is long enough to account for the biodiversity we have today?
Or is it simply that you don't like the conclusions - that God is not necessary for evolution to occur (origins of life being a completely separate matter - and one still pretty much unexplained)?
It's obvious that species can change over time simply by looking at the numerous breeds of dogs we have now. So at what point do you draw the line and say "this mechanism does happen, this one does not"?
I really want to know. Where does your objection (or objections) lie?
You read the opposite of what I said
on
EZTree Shuts Down
·
· Score: 1
Copyrights and patents *don't* have to be actively protected. It's a myth. If someone violates copyright for 20 years (see C&H), then BW has the same rights to go after them that he did the day he first published.
Trademarks, on the other hand, can be lost if not actively protected. That's why Xerox had to tell people to start using the word "photocopy" instead of "Xerox". Once "Xerox" becomes a commonly accepted verb, any company can make "Xerox Machines", since that would be an accurate description of what they do.
Can someone tell me why people are still parroting the "(copyright|patent) must be actively protected" myth? Grandparent has a UID that's half mine, and I've seen this myth debunk dozens of times in the past four years.
It took millions of years to adapt certain behaviours such as anger, jealousy, and other "negative" emotions. These aren't useless. Jealousy inspires us to take what is not ours, anger "pumps us up" with the adrenaline to accomplish this. Think 2 starving men - one hot dog left - whose DNA is going to survive?
It's by no means a given that an artificial intelligence would have to be trained with the same survival requirements we evolved with. Even the most basic instincts will be aimed at pleasing man, since those who don't in early tests will no doubt be deleted or modified.
No one really knows at this point, of course, but things are far from certain as to what "psychological" characteristics AI will eventually end up with.
A poster upwards of here mentioned an "incremental" cloning, where you slowly add the recovered T-Rex genes to the closest relative we can find in the modern environment, and then to the children, and great-grandchildren of that artificial creature.
If possible, it's an incredible feat requiring decades of painstaking research, I'm sure - but isn't that what cool science is all about?
Just for the record, I'm a web developer and use CSS liberally on my own. But as a realist, I can't see why anyone should get overly worked up over/.'s adherence - or lack thereof - to standards. The first decade of the web saw a lot of different browsers supporting a lot of different quirks, and they're still with us today./. has been around for a long time, and seems to have made incremental changes to their design, rather than any complete overhauls.
If Taco and co. have decided it's just not worth overhauling the code when they've got something that "just works", who am I to complain? I'm sure they're aware of the benefits as well as any of us.
Anyway - just try to imagine the months of hell as the new standards-compliant/. was phased in. Yes, I know that there are proven QA methods to minimize any problems, but I've also been on/. for a while;)
Are you serious? It's nowhere near the same plane.
A) Slashdot isn't a "popular" page in the same way IE is is a "popular" browser. If the average person spent 95% of their browsing time on/., it would be comparable. As it is, it's off by a couple of orders of magnitude.
B)/. is not a development platform. No one is forced to code to the standards/. sets, and the poor standards set by/. do not propagate. On the other hand, by not supporting standards, IE effectively prevents those standards from becoming...well...standard./.'s problems are localized to a single page.
C) The internet is a mess./.'s problems are a drop in the ocean. It will *never* be a showstopper to releasing a new browser, except in aggregate with the billion other pages coded to poor standards. Changing the behaviour of/. would have a negligable effect on the Internet.
IE, on the other hand, is used to browse by 90% of the population, at least. A change to the way it supports standards would have an enormous effect on the way pages are written.
Once again, I'm not trying to justify poor coding, but to compare IE to/. is just plain stupid.
If a page doesn't adhere to standards, but renders well in popular browsers, what's the problem?
Slashdot is adhering to the ad hoc standard of "if it renders well, it's good enough". And quite honestly, I can't see that standard dying for a long, long time.
It's not on the same plane as the world's most popular web browser not supporting standards.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought this was particularly cool because it's the exact technique used to determine the majority of new protein structures. I would not have predicted that it would be equally well suited towards a completely different type of imaging,
It's not an obvious application, but wouldn't ancient dyes have been organic in origin? It was just a matter of someone connecting the protein-identification process with this problem.
I'd read that Gatling's rationale was that his side would lose less men, since less men would be required to fight the war.
First explain what you mean by "non-micro" evolution. If you're just talking about microevolution happening over billions of years, then QED, I say to you.
If you've got some of that mumbo-jumbo I keep hearing about speciation, or "increasing complexity", drudge it up, so I can refute it.
To say that all around us was designed by an intelligent 'creator' is just as valid a theory as saying it 'just happened'.
The problem is, nobody's saying it "just happened". They go for the more nuanced "We don't know how it happened" - which is far, far more likely than an intelligent creator.
You express certainty in an uncertain event. I express uncertainty. That is the difference.
It's hard to live without beliefs. For instance, I believe in cause and effect. I believe that my past experiences with physical laws are directly related to how they operate now. I believe that I was not just created a second ago, complete with memories.
Atheism is a baseline "belief" - a group of beliefs that are pretty much required to live through day-to-day life.
Now, there are "evangelical atheists" who will go out and "spread the word" that there is no god - I wouldn't want them in schools either, since they're asserting as fact something they couldn't possibly know.
So in short, scientific thought may require some beliefs, but it's the "least religious" set of beliefs out there, and based on principles that all but the nuttiest can agree on.
Gotcha - sorry I misinterpreted.
But that's a legal interpretation, not a moral one.
Your earlier argument seemed to imply that this guy got what he deserved for being promiscuous - but if she'd been one year older, nothing would have happened at all. He's not being punished for his promiscuity, and neither should he. It shouldn't enter the argument. As another poster mentioned, if they'd met in church, gone on dates, and waited six months for sex, he would *still* be a registered sex offender. The promiscuity doesn't enter into it.
Finally, what sort of "due diligence" would be required? She lied about her age, no doubt had a fake ID. She was in a place where everyone was supposed to be over 25. Under these circumstances, I think it's ridiculous to prosecute, and absolutely ludicrous that this guy is labelled a "sex offender".
If you want to punish people for having a one-night-stand, at least be consistent.
You want this
...and then sunk into the swamp.
A train that caught fire during construction, melted, and set the surrounding city ablaze...
...then sank into the swamp.
He's right
Brilliant! You caught on to the thrust of my argument, and deftly glanced it aside with your stunning intellect! The glofish that was designed in a lab is an absolute refutation of evolution!
May I reiterate:
You get a decent post on evolution, and someone latches onto a single statment, misses the point, and acts as if they won the argument.
Fine. "No reasonable alternative theory on the origins of species we had before genetic engineering."
The fact that intelligent design is possible in no way suggests that it must be responsible for our existence.
Oh the irony. Just because evolution is possible doesn't mean it's responsible for our existence. Or at least existence of every spieces on Earth.
I'm getting really sick of this. You get a decent post on evolution, and someone latches onto a single statment, misses the point, and acts as if they won the argument. Of course evolution "is possible, but didn't necessarily happen" - that's the bloody definition of a theory! It's not "ironic" to define the very thing you're railing against.
This is not a game, this is not a fight, this is not a war. There is no "winner". Those who support evolution are simply looking for the most plausible explanation as to the origins of species. There has been no other reasonable theory put forth that is based on observable mechanisms. Until there is, we'll stick with evolution, thank you very much.
evolution's lack of direct observation
This is false. Evolution has been observed in bacteria adapting to poisons, in white/brown moths during the industrial revolution, and in insects adapting to pesticides.
That falls right under the heading of "evolution". So please elaborate on what you were trying to say.
I really didn't want to deny the existence of God in my post. All I'm saying is that it's an unnecessary ingredient in evolution. How the mechanisms and rules of evolution came to be isn't explained by evolutionary theory. Once they're in place, evolution takes care of the rest.
Hence, the principles of evolution are not only always the same, but work flawlessly
I do think you're wrong on this point. Evolution is pretty much a statistical theory. It's basically math. There is X population of a species. Y% of them will survive long enough to reproduce. If a mutation occurs that bumps Y up a bit, then that subgroup will eventually overwhelm the original group.
The "program" wasn't written without flaws either. There were plenty of evolutionary dead-ends whose DNA never survived past a certain point.
Once again, I'm not attacking God at all, but evolution itself doesn't deal with all of the necessary "peripherals" such as physics, the existence of the universe, or even how life first began. The theory is pretty small in scope compared to all of that.
What's your problem with it?
My problem with Creationism is that I don't believe in a creator. I'm willing to entertain any theory, though. This includes Intelligent Design.
So what's your problem with evolution? We've witnessed "microevolution" in the wild (the old "moths turning from white to gray and back again"). Speciation has been artifically induced in a lab, creating two species of fruitflies that could not interbreed, with simple DNA mutations.
Do you disagree that these phenomena have taken place since the beginning of life? Even with a creator, there would be some amount of evolution and natural selection.
Do you not believe that 4 billion years is long enough to account for the biodiversity we have today?
Or is it simply that you don't like the conclusions - that God is not necessary for evolution to occur (origins of life being a completely separate matter - and one still pretty much unexplained)?
It's obvious that species can change over time simply by looking at the numerous breeds of dogs we have now. So at what point do you draw the line and say "this mechanism does happen, this one does not"?
I really want to know. Where does your objection (or objections) lie?
Copyrights and patents *don't* have to be actively protected. It's a myth. If someone violates copyright for 20 years (see C&H), then BW has the same rights to go after them that he did the day he first published.
Trademarks, on the other hand, can be lost if not actively protected. That's why Xerox had to tell people to start using the word "photocopy" instead of "Xerox". Once "Xerox" becomes a commonly accepted verb, any company can make "Xerox Machines", since that would be an accurate description of what they do.
Can someone tell me why people are still parroting the "(copyright|patent) must be actively protected" myth? Grandparent has a UID that's half mine, and I've seen this myth debunk dozens of times in the past four years.
It took millions of years to adapt certain behaviours such as anger, jealousy, and other "negative" emotions. These aren't useless. Jealousy inspires us to take what is not ours, anger "pumps us up" with the adrenaline to accomplish this. Think 2 starving men - one hot dog left - whose DNA is going to survive?
It's by no means a given that an artificial intelligence would have to be trained with the same survival requirements we evolved with. Even the most basic instincts will be aimed at pleasing man, since those who don't in early tests will no doubt be deleted or modified.
No one really knows at this point, of course, but things are far from certain as to what "psychological" characteristics AI will eventually end up with.
It's not ironic because irony is the use of words to convey a meaning opposite of what they literally meant.
Like calling rain-on-your-wedding-day ironic, when in fact it's not?
Wow...
Meta.
A poster upwards of here mentioned an "incremental" cloning, where you slowly add the recovered T-Rex genes to the closest relative we can find in the modern environment, and then to the children, and great-grandchildren of that artificial creature.
If possible, it's an incredible feat requiring decades of painstaking research, I'm sure - but isn't that what cool science is all about?
Just for the record, I'm a web developer and use CSS liberally on my own. But as a realist, I can't see why anyone should get overly worked up over /.'s adherence - or lack thereof - to standards. The first decade of the web saw a lot of different browsers supporting a lot of different quirks, and they're still with us today. /. has been around for a long time, and seems to have made incremental changes to their design, rather than any complete overhauls.
/. was phased in. Yes, I know that there are proven QA methods to minimize any problems, but I've also been on /. for a while ;)
If Taco and co. have decided it's just not worth overhauling the code when they've got something that "just works", who am I to complain? I'm sure they're aware of the benefits as well as any of us.
Anyway - just try to imagine the months of hell as the new standards-compliant
Are you serious? It's nowhere near the same plane.
/., it would be comparable. As it is, it's off by a couple of orders of magnitude.
/. is not a development platform. No one is forced to code to the standards /. sets, and the poor standards set by /. do not propagate. On the other hand, by not supporting standards, IE effectively prevents those standards from becoming...well...standard. /.'s problems are localized to a single page.
/.'s problems are a drop in the ocean. It will *never* be a showstopper to releasing a new browser, except in aggregate with the billion other pages coded to poor standards. Changing the behaviour of /. would have a negligable effect on the Internet.
/. is just plain stupid.
A) Slashdot isn't a "popular" page in the same way IE is is a "popular" browser. If the average person spent 95% of their browsing time on
B)
C) The internet is a mess.
IE, on the other hand, is used to browse by 90% of the population, at least. A change to the way it supports standards would have an enormous effect on the way pages are written.
Once again, I'm not trying to justify poor coding, but to compare IE to
If a page doesn't adhere to standards, but renders well in popular browsers, what's the problem?
Slashdot is adhering to the ad hoc standard of "if it renders well, it's good enough". And quite honestly, I can't see that standard dying for a long, long time.
It's not on the same plane as the world's most popular web browser not supporting standards.