For the nth time: evolution is -not- about origins. It is about how populations of organisms change over time.
And there is no 'debate'--there is a scientific consensus, and there is a bit of nonsense based on the fallacy of the argument from personal ignorance.
All that will come from this is more and more wasted time and money reiterating what is already known.
Ah, see, but all those lifesaving advances are 'technology' and not 'science'. Technology's good. Technology doesn't go contradicting the Inerrant Word of God. Science, on the other hand, is always meddling in things that are the province of the Almighty, and trying to play God.
It's a rather odd schism in their minds, to be sure. I've still not quite figured out how to deal with that particular break.
How about a research paper published in a respected, peer-reviewed scientific journal? That's the way new scientific ideas are usually presented to the world.
I feel that I ought to warn you, the avenue of attack taken against this particular assertion is to claim that the peer review system is deeply flawed and just as dogmatic as any religion, in that 'controversial' ideas are always rejected.
I recall that Ben Stein's got some kind of movie coming out arguing along those lines.
O'course, trying to explain to these people that this is how science is supposed to *work*--that you're supposed to substantiate your controversial ideas before you put 'em out there--tends to cause 'em to ignore that argument and fall back on the "controversy" schtick.
It's called 'passing the buck'--with some clever wording and a bit of politicking, it's entirely possible for there to be a corporate decision for whom nobody is actually 'responsible'.
I rather doubt that the teachers would see it that way. Keep in mind that no matter what the educational -standards- are, the one doing the teaching is the teacher--and if the teacher feels that the 'standards' need...."adjustment", then they're more than capable of representing things in a less-than-kosher fashion.
Apes, monkeys, and humans all evolved from a common primate ancestor. Due to differing environments and differing pressures and selection criteria for said differing environments, the populations of primate ancestor-species evolved in separate directions.
The 'missing' fossil evidence question is a red herring: every time a transitional fossil is found, the creationists say "OK, what came between that one and the next one?"--moving the goalposts, in other words. Archaeology is not geneology: you will not get a continual record of every generation back to when time began.
In addition, fossils are not the only evidence. There are patterns of genetic structures, there are cases of comparative anatomy, there are multiple other lines of evidence to choose from.
Corporations are legal entities, which are -like- people, but they are not themselves people--when's the last time a corporation could vote for president directly (as opposed to campaign contributions)?
A 'virtual newsreader' might be interesting to develop. It'd involve some decent text to speech combined with a 3d model with various facial expressions and gestures.
It'd be run with a script that would include words and markup for gestures and facial expressions.
All the advantages of a newscast, only a hundredth of the bandwidth required.
Corporations are not people, and corporations have no morals. The individual people working for a corporation usually have very little say as to the actions of the corporation as a whole--so no matter how much they squall, the only change they're likely to make is to their own employment status.
If the hospital isn't already quarantining you for your -own- good due to your suppressed immune system, then there'll be little danger of that, because you'll die of an opportunistic infection rather quickly.
You use about the same procedures for someone who has a severely infectious disease as one who has a suppressed immune system.
Chemotherapy already suppresses normal immune response. Combine chemo and this, and you may have an effective treatment regimen for difficult tumors...
Well, to be fair, Edward Jenner had no sweet clue why cowpox would protect someone from smallpox, but once he figured out how to protect people, it was in his best interests to protect as many people as possible rather than waiting for the full 'why' before doing something.
What are the chances of this virus mutating, do you think? Some of 'em are fragile, yes, but some are fairly resistant to mutation.
Also worth considering is how well this virus is attacked by the immune system, or by antiviral drugs--because, after all, once you've gotten the tumor out, you'd probably want to get rid of the virus as well.
IIRC, in 28 Days, the virus involved was being developed as a bioweapon rather than as a cancer cure.
I don't think that this will lead to a zombie plague, though--I think it's more likely if something goes wrong that the patient would die of encephalitis or something similarly unpleasant.
A 'zombie-like' state would require the virus to target fairly specific areas of the brain--temporal lobes and the like, if I'm remembering my brain geography correctly. Though, of course, this depends on whether you want to produce the 'traditional' shambling-servant type, or the hip new raging maniac type.
Still, if it's a choice between possible death and even more possible death, or between possible zombification and likely death, I'd take the risk. Brain tumors can really mess you up, y'know?
It's still legal action directed against someone who's entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand.
Not that these folks seem to get the concept of logic, what with their statements of "these documents are fake...but they're our private documents" and the like.
Last time I saw logic like that displayed was with the records of the Scientology trial from a while back, the one where they denied the Xenu story but claimed the documents elucidating it were secret church copyrighted stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
No such thing as devolution. Evolution means 'change'--and that means any change.
For the nth time: evolution is -not- about origins. It is about how populations of organisms change over time.
And there is no 'debate'--there is a scientific consensus, and there is a bit of nonsense based on the fallacy of the argument from personal ignorance.
All that will come from this is more and more wasted time and money reiterating what is already known.
Well, it also doesn't work when you've died of natural causes.
O'course, "Speak with Dead" is still relatively cheap...
Ah, see, but all those lifesaving advances are 'technology' and not 'science'. Technology's good. Technology doesn't go contradicting the Inerrant Word of God. Science, on the other hand, is always meddling in things that are the province of the Almighty, and trying to play God.
It's a rather odd schism in their minds, to be sure. I've still not quite figured out how to deal with that particular break.
Not the point, though, with these people--the point is merely to insinuate that "science is bad".
I feel that I ought to warn you, the avenue of attack taken against this particular assertion is to claim that the peer review system is deeply flawed and just as dogmatic as any religion, in that 'controversial' ideas are always rejected.
I recall that Ben Stein's got some kind of movie coming out arguing along those lines.
O'course, trying to explain to these people that this is how science is supposed to *work*--that you're supposed to substantiate your controversial ideas before you put 'em out there--tends to cause 'em to ignore that argument and fall back on the "controversy" schtick.
It's called 'passing the buck'--with some clever wording and a bit of politicking, it's entirely possible for there to be a corporate decision for whom nobody is actually 'responsible'.
I rather doubt that the teachers would see it that way. Keep in mind that no matter what the educational -standards- are, the one doing the teaching is the teacher--and if the teacher feels that the 'standards' need...."adjustment", then they're more than capable of representing things in a less-than-kosher fashion.
The courts have clearly stated that ID is not scientific.
Incorrect.
Apes, monkeys, and humans all evolved from a common primate ancestor. Due to differing environments and differing pressures and selection criteria for said differing environments, the populations of primate ancestor-species evolved in separate directions.
The 'missing' fossil evidence question is a red herring: every time a transitional fossil is found, the creationists say "OK, what came between that one and the next one?"--moving the goalposts, in other words. Archaeology is not geneology: you will not get a continual record of every generation back to when time began.
In addition, fossils are not the only evidence. There are patterns of genetic structures, there are cases of comparative anatomy, there are multiple other lines of evidence to choose from.
Not quite.
Corporations are legal entities, which are -like- people, but they are not themselves people--when's the last time a corporation could vote for president directly (as opposed to campaign contributions)?
OK, now, prove to some fundamentalist teacher or other that it's not scientific, when they 'know' that it is.
Is there some religion or another that insists on reality? So that I can claim religious persecution by these fundies?
A 'virtual newsreader' might be interesting to develop. It'd involve some decent text to speech combined with a 3d model with various facial expressions and gestures.
It'd be run with a script that would include words and markup for gestures and facial expressions.
All the advantages of a newscast, only a hundredth of the bandwidth required.
Corporations are not people, and corporations have no morals. The individual people working for a corporation usually have very little say as to the actions of the corporation as a whole--so no matter how much they squall, the only change they're likely to make is to their own employment status.
Because Iran has money, and these companies are not morally opposed to money.
There are plenty of legal reasons why you would encrypt your traffic.
Or have you never heard of the concepts of 'trade secrets' and 'industrial espionage'?
If the hospital isn't already quarantining you for your -own- good due to your suppressed immune system, then there'll be little danger of that, because you'll die of an opportunistic infection rather quickly.
You use about the same procedures for someone who has a severely infectious disease as one who has a suppressed immune system.
But for -how long- is the question--perhaps just until the 'new version' comes out that'd keep 'em from being caught?
Not quite.
Chemotherapy already suppresses normal immune response. Combine chemo and this, and you may have an effective treatment regimen for difficult tumors...
Well, to be fair, Edward Jenner had no sweet clue why cowpox would protect someone from smallpox, but once he figured out how to protect people, it was in his best interests to protect as many people as possible rather than waiting for the full 'why' before doing something.
What are the chances of this virus mutating, do you think? Some of 'em are fragile, yes, but some are fairly resistant to mutation.
Also worth considering is how well this virus is attacked by the immune system, or by antiviral drugs--because, after all, once you've gotten the tumor out, you'd probably want to get rid of the virus as well.
IIRC, in 28 Days, the virus involved was being developed as a bioweapon rather than as a cancer cure.
I don't think that this will lead to a zombie plague, though--I think it's more likely if something goes wrong that the patient would die of encephalitis or something similarly unpleasant.
A 'zombie-like' state would require the virus to target fairly specific areas of the brain--temporal lobes and the like, if I'm remembering my brain geography correctly. Though, of course, this depends on whether you want to produce the 'traditional' shambling-servant type, or the hip new raging maniac type.
Still, if it's a choice between possible death and even more possible death, or between possible zombification and likely death, I'd take the risk. Brain tumors can really mess you up, y'know?
Not everything has to be cerebral. Sometimes it's nice to take a few drinks of something high proof, sit back, and enjoy a few dumb laughs.
Besides, the concept of the evil genius toddler amuses me.
Chlorine?
Nitrogen and carbon?
Any number of things, really, though I shouldn't care to get near the results...
It's still legal action directed against someone who's entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand.
Not that these folks seem to get the concept of logic, what with their statements of "these documents are fake...but they're our private documents" and the like.
Last time I saw logic like that displayed was with the records of the Scientology trial from a while back, the one where they denied the Xenu story but claimed the documents elucidating it were secret church copyrighted stuff.