People advertise on TV because people watch the ads. If people find clever ways of removing ads and never watch them, the advertisers would soon realise. TV would see less/no ads, and we would no longer have "free" tv.
We signed no contracts, as was said. Let the advertisers advertise on TV. If they think it doesn't reach an audience, let them stop paying the tv stations. This issue will sort itself out if left to run it's own natural course.
You obviously don't know what you are talking about.
This is bloat beyond belief and slows down the system to a crawl.
and
Performance wise, Linux rocks Windows.
I'd love to see you install Win98SE in under 80 megs with no cumbersome graphics interface for text based tasks.
Maybe you are forgetting that the reason why Linux takes 500mb to install is because it is packed full of programs? With Linux, gone are the days when you had to search for an ftp client, office suite (koffice, abiword), programming IDE/compilers, IRC client, ssh client, Instant Messenger applications, and much more. They come pre-installed all for the ease of the user. And they are free, in the best sense (In case you hadn't noticed, I'm comparing it to your explanations of the virtues of windows because of it's elimination of proprietry disk formatting applications, apps to look at pictures, etc).
With Windows it is in there and I can rel;iebly know that the all systesm are the same, not similiar, but exactly the same.
And from now on, all houses will be built from the same blueprint. This way plumbers, electricians, gas companies, etc, will know exactly where everything is and how to fix it. And you can forget needing to ask your host where the toilet is, you already know because it's the same as your house.
But wait, there is Linux. Yes and when all the required apps and utiltities ever come out of beta, I might consider it
Perhaps you don't understand the nature of open source, or the Linux community in general. Applications rarely reach 1.0, because we consider them always in development. A beta version of a linux application can often be equal to, or superior to it's windows counterpart. Why does Mozilla want to release a version 1.0? Because of a mindset like yours that looks at numbers rather than features and stability. So that people like you will be willing to use it. All that changes is the version number, and if it was called Mozilla 0.4.25 it wouldn't change a thing.
Performance wise, Linux rocks Windows. and it damn well better considering that the native Linux interface is the command line and the native Windows interface is a GUI
You say you use Win98? Did you know that it's native interface is Dos? What has this got to do with anything? Linux has a GUI. You say you like IceWM, but at the same time you call for a unified interface like windows, which means looking at KDE/GNOME, the only two viable options for fresh converts who feel a need for a windows-like interface. We are bound to this only because of Windows.
As for the programming limitations, I'm not knowleadgable enough to argue about them, but I do know that that is an issue that won't affect 90% of people.
If Linux wants a place on the corporate desktop, then Linux must have it's own consistent libraries, componants and GUI. Just like all the suits look the same, all their computers must look the same.
Offices can choose Gnome or KDE for their standard interface. One decision and they have a standard desktop. What's the big issue?
I could argue that Linux's diversity is good. While everything is consistent users become comfortable. They don't learn to understand the computer in any way, or learn the concepts behind it. It's like your view of the world - you don't fully appreciate or understand it until you are exposed to other people's worldview. If people were given different ways of doing things (like Gnome vs KDE vs Enlightenment vs IceWM) then users will begin to understand the concepts behind the computer, seeing what is essential and what is optional. Eg, is a Start button an essential component of using a computer or optional? How would I load applications without it? Users won't take any extra time learning the computer, but they will certainly understand it better for the time they spend on it. I am a creationist, and diversity is one of the greatest gifts from our God. For those who believe evolution - diversity is absolutely essential for something to advance.
I'm not sure where you got your information from. Check out the official faq:
"8.04 Will there be a Mac/Linux/BeOs version?
The BeOS version of Neverwinter Nights will not be completed. However, we are planning a simultaneous PC/Macintosh/Linux release for Neverwinter Nights, with all three versions to be included in a single box. On the PC, Neverwinter Nights will run under Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows 2000 Service Pack 2, and Windows XP."
They also say that there is a server for each supported platform. That would make no sense if by supported platform they mean platforms that run the server. That would be saying "each platform that has a server will have a server".
So we can safely conclude from the Bioware FAQ, and the fact that they haven't tried to correct everyone asking about Linux and Mac clients, and the interviews that say they are going to have one, that there will indeed be a Linux client. You are correct about making maps. The editor for the game is windows only for the moment. The tools that they used to create it were not initially available in Linux, but I have heard they are now, so there is a potential for the toolkit to be later ported to Linux.
Yes, but if all the linux users fill it out, and most windows users don't, then we will appear to be 10% of the userbase. But if we don't, then we might appear to be.3%:)
I e-mailed them about why Linux wasn't listed as an operating system on the beta test site. They are not doing a Linux beta test.
Still, I don't think this will affect the Linux client. They have committed to the Linux and Mac one ages ago, and I think it's probably part of their intention to make this game a sort of cornerstone of computer roleplaying games. The beginning of a new era, blah blah. Just my guess.
On a similar note, I am so glad they are releasing a Linux client for this game that looks like it is going to be really great! Unfortunately, no swimming, climbing or riding is in it...but there is the possibility of these being released in a patch, or an update or something. I think their intention is to continue adding and improving the game beyond the release date.
Without pressure in the form of competition for food, environment or predation you wouldn't expect a species to evolve any faster than what drift would take them (a very slow process).
There is always competition in one form or another. Give me an example situation where competition for food, environment and predation are all absent.
I really don't know much about Duane Gish. I'm willing to accept that the things claimed by Joyce Arthur are true, but I also like to give people the benefit of the doubt. Because of this I'm going to ask the ICR on their comments about Joyce Arthur's analysis of Gish's innacuracies. I don't see this as important though compared to facts. Evolution scientists have had their fair share of zealots and blatant misapplication of the truth. This is human failing, which we are not addressing (except in a natural selection sense:).
Your responses are starting to annoy me. First of all, forget the changing speed of light theory. It was proposed, analysed and rejected because it had too many problems. It's history. Forget it. Stop talking as if we still propose it.
Second of all, you are just presenting the reason why the dating must work, and laughing at creationist excuses for why it doesn't. This is just stupid. It's like that play of Galileo I read in school. The Catholic Church basically said "Let's work out what we would expect to see in the telescope before we look through it." And then, when they decided they said "There's no need for us to look in your telescope because we already know what we will see". Congratulations on replicating that behaviour. I say to you "There have been many times when samples that the date is known for have given wildly innacurate results. Go find out for yourself." And then you say "This is why the dating works, so I don't need to see your examples".
Fact: The dating method gives false dates for samples where their date is known Therefore there is something wrong with the method. Whether the current creationist proposals of what it is that is wrong are correct doesn't matter, because somewhere there is a false assumption.
So when I said "I suggest you grab some Creation magazines and read these examples for yourself" and you said "I have", you weren't actually talking about the same thing as me.
Your post just irritates me. I get tired repeating myself to five people.
>Testable? Of course. There are literally dozens of different tracks of evidence >that show an old earth: radioactive dating, sedimentation rates, magnetic field >reversals, glaciation evidence, etc.
Ack! Again, I say, that many or all of these dating methods have been demonstrated to be inaccurate for known dates, so how can we trust them for unknown dates? And as far as I recal, magnetic field reversals supported the 6000 year old earth, not the 4.5 billion year old earth. Here we go: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-242.htm Erosion rates also show that the earth should have been flat a very long time ago. As for glaciers - I visited New Zealand where they have some glaciers left. As we were driving to one, I saw a post that said the glacier was up to this point 150 years ago. We kept driving for a few kilometers and eventually arrived at the walk to the glacier. The glacier was incredibly small compared to what it was only 150 years ago. Not only that, but the forest had grown back in that short time. I'm sure this is not what you meant by glaciation evidence - you are probably talking about pockets of oxygen in them? That reminds me of another story of a buried aircraft from WW2 in ice. Showed that ice built up a lot quicker than was previously thought, here it is: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-226.htm Radiocarb on dating has been demonstrated repeatedly in the Creation magazine to be wildly inaccurate. They don't date the strata themselves, but send them off to recognised and respected laboratories. I suggest you grab some Creation magazines and read these examples for yourself.
>Creation science has it at 6k years. Testable? Yes. All evidence shows that >this is not the case. Every bit of it. Not a *single* piece of evidence shows >otherwise. You are welcome to troll the creationist web sites looking for >something, but what they claim as evidence is laughable.
I don't just use the creationist websites. Do you get all your information from the internet? As for the age of the earth, yes there is evidence. cultural evidence - I mentioned this in another post somewhere on this thread. Language has come from a beginning of complexity and completion, and since then been changed, had vocabulary and inflections reduced, and words simplified There are other examples I have seen, but as I said I don't have that information in front of me, I have loaned it to someone else.
>Ergo, creation theory is *wrong*. You can dance around the issue as much as you >want, but you simply can't ignore the facts. (Well, it appears that you and >other creationists can, but people living in the real world can't.)
What facts? The dubious dates from methods that have repeatedly demonstrated to be false and wildly innacurate for known dates? I'm not sure why I should accept that. Or perhaps the overwhelming evidence of missing links, that should be there but simply aren't. Or maybe the fact that humans are radically different from every other living creature, with art, music, religion, clothing, etc. Perhaps the experience of many people worldwide who have had supernatural experiences - miraculous healings, out of body experiences where they have seen things going on while unconscious, and then explained them in detail afterwards.
What about people who have control of the Djinn (or think they do) that kill animals in rituals without going near them? I'm sure you though reject this because it's simply not possible in your worldview. If you were/are honest though, you will examine it. There are people everywhere with stories to tell (many just misinterpretation of the experience), but likewise some who'se experiences are genuine. Again, I'm probably a crackpot in your eyes because of this statement - if that is your response then there is no point me talking with you. It shows your unwillingness to consider opposing views. However, if you are not so ignorant as to reject without knowledge, then I encourage you to examine the supernatural (beyond the X-Files) and you will find a world that has largely been hidden from the west through our culture. A flowering plant in a Cambrian strata? I'm sure I have seen an example or five somewhere of creatures/plants in the wrong strata. Again, I don't have my material here, but I'll certainly try to find it soon when I get my hands on it.
>Again, there are so many misconceptions in here that it's clear you do not >understand science. Dating methods are *not* flawed. You are quite welcome to >present any evidence you think proves this. Unlike some of the tricky bio that >I have to rely on experts in that field for info, as a physical chemist I can >blow them out of the water by myself.
I certainly shall once I get my books back. I have many examples. What makes you so sure it's accurate? Have you seen or heard of it tested with strata where the date is absolutely known (would have to be recent for the date to be known) and the tests have proven correct around 99% of the time? From what I have seen, a lot of these dating methods require strata of at least a certain minimum age. These ages are usually beyond anything we have that we know 100% is from that time. So then we can't ever test these dating methods. That makes them flawed from the beginning. Unless I'm missing something here...
>Second, a flowering plant in Cambrian strata would certainly prove evolution >wrong. *Land* plants hadn't evolved by the Cambrian, much less flowering ones. >They're a quite recent invention. Finding a fossil 300MY before any precursors >appeared would be a disproof of evolution. You're quite welcome to look for >one.
I'll see what I can do
>You're babbling here. Nylon is not an antibiotic. You clearly don't understand >the premise here. Nylon did not exist before 1940. Why would an organism be >able to eat the waste products before nylon existed? Hint: they couldn't: a >*new* enzyme was created by a favorable mutation to do this.
My germ example was completely relevant. You have a string of genes, eg "FfEGjj". When creating nylon was it the equivalent of changing the genes to "FfEGJj", or of adding new information, like "FfEGjjII"? I suspect it was the former. The change in the enzyme would have at least been a modification, like in the germ example, rather than an addition of information.
>>Give me an example of added information that is the beginning of the process >>to evolution.
>I've given you several: nylon eating, antibiotic resistance, tetrachromaticity. >You choose to simply ignore them.
Yes, but was it changing information or the addition? This is an important point.
>>What more do you want from Creationists?
>I want them to present a scientific, testable, non-falsified theory of >creationism or get the fuck out of science classrooms . Teach your fairy tales >in Sunday school.
That's stupid. I fully acknowledge Creation as a philosophy, not a science. To me that doesn't make it invalid, just a different method of arguing. Science is probably a means to providing evidence for philosophical arguments. This is why creation and evolution theory can often be confused for science. Now as for the classroom...your comments are based on the assumption that I will somehow agree with you that my beliefs are fairy tales. That is absurd, of course. I believe that they are a close reflection of the truth, and if anything they should be solely presented in the classroom, and only fact at that. That would include presenting to students the process of natural selection, since that has been observed. The theory that all life came from a single celled organism and multiplied and dapted through genetic mutations - that is not observable, and is merely an interpretation of the available scientific data. Don't mix science with philosophy.
>It does indeed. It shows that a species may be able to >fill it's ecological niche so well as to prevent >competition significant enough to make it change.
This is absurd, there is always room for improvement, be it physical or mental. No other creature has come even close to the capabilities of the human mind, so to say that a creature has filled it's niche leading to no improvement is absurd. There will always be competition of many types - environmental, social, etc. If other species don't cause problems then it's own relatives will.
>It does indeed. It shows that a species may be able to >fill it's ecological niche so well as to prevent >competition significant enough to make it change.
I gave an example of Australian Aboriginees supposedly living in isolation for 40,000 years. That has to be enough time to see some beginnings of speciation. After all, neanderthal man was only around 100,000 years ago. Aboriginees have had 40% of that time to develop some difference, yet we consider them barely different. Certainly nothing that pre-existing genetic diversity couldn't explain.
>It does indeed. It shows that a species may be able to >fill it's ecological niche so well as to prevent >competition significant enough to make it change.
This is a followup of the initial argument I presented - the point when a recessive gene becomes dominant is when both parents possess the same recessive gene. Problem is that the two parents will also contain a great deal more harmful recessive genes in common, creating a genetic load that outweighs the advantage. Recessive genes can become deeply embedded in a species before natural selection plays a part, since it doesn't express itself unless it is present at both sides in the locus.
>It does indeed. It shows that a species may be able to >fill it's ecological niche so well as to prevent >competition significant enough to make it change.
Wish I could actually, I lent my material to someone else. An example I read recently though was on some recent lava flows from a volcano in New Zealand. The exact dates of the flows were known (from around 50 years ago up until a few years ago I think), yet the laboratory tests reported wildly innacurate and conflicting dates.
>Those were just a few of many and not all creationists >have given up the changing speed of light argument. >Many Young-Earth Creationists still cling to it in >some form or fashion.
Well, I know that the ICR at least has given up the changing speed of light argument. I can't be held responsible for all creationists, but here is something from their website so you can see the current theory (after all, science is all about rejecting a lie and considering a new possibility): http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-338 .htm
I also know that in the Answers In Genesis magazine they advertise their technical journal, with the caption "Don't get caught using outdated arguments!", so it seems to me that it is a priority of theirs to reject whatever is shown false.
Hmm, I wonder about your true knowledge of the integrity of ICR members. You say ICR founder is Duane Gish. According to the ICR, their founder is Henry M. Morris: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-346.htm
Still seems to only fit philosophy. Science must have a falsafiable statement clearly showing how it may be tested, eg:
"My right hand thumb will reduce in length by 5 millimeters if I do 20 star jumps a day for one week". The way to test this is very clear, and so are the ways in which it can be disproven.
The examples you gave are different - the ways to test it are very unclear, and the ways to disprove it had to be listed, they weren't immediately known.
Besides, some of the ways to disprove it have been done with people ignoring it. Many different animals and plants have been discovered alive that were thought extinct for millions of years, virtually unchanged. If you would like, I could try to find the list. In fact, the famous trilobite has been found alive in parts of the world - although if this is a very elaborate hoax I would be happy for someone to point it out. Doesn't matter though, since there are many more living "fossils".
As for ordering strata, that is very subjective. A strata is given it's age by the presence of certain fossils in it. Fossils are given their age based on the strata they were in. Very circular. In the end, these dates are based on the very subjective dating methods which have been repeatedly demonstrated to give wildly inaccurate data for samples where the date is known. For older samples where the date is not known, how can we be sure the reading is correct when it is incorrect for dates we do know?
As for vestigial structures, there used to be a list of over 100 in the human body. That list has been almost eliminated as the function of these previosuly "useless" structures became known.
And again on the topic of strata - around the world different ages are shown to be in the wrong order. Older ages sitting on top of younger ages when it should be the other way around. Excuses like shifting ground are insufficient since the surface area is sometimes quite large, making shifts almost impossible, and shows no evidence of shifts.
On the topic of a young earth, around 6,000 years old, history and culture at least seem to vindicate our view. Language, for example, seems to have first existed in a very advanced, complex form at the beginning, and from there degenerated into a simplified, less complex version. As for dating methods, there are some which support us, some which contradict. They are a lot based on assumptions that are not always fair. The dating methods that support millions of years have been shown to be especially flawed over and over.
I'm not sure exactly how many examples of evidence contradicting the expectations of the evolutionary model, but I doubt it will help to mention them. If you are interested in some more in-depth information on any of this stuff I wrote, then let me know. I'll dig up the information for you so you can reference and examine it yourself.
So now that I understand you a bit better here, what were you saying about the difference between black and white communities regarding some harmful genetic mutations?
I don't know everything about evolution. I had a suspicion that beneficial mutations had existed. Just because there is one thing I don't know doesn't mean I don't understand it overall.
As for the creation theory, as I said elsewhere look to the Bible, it contains the creation of the universe and the history of man from the beginning up to a few years after Jesus' ascension. Creation is a philosophy not a science. As such, it can still be disproven, but it's not the same process as science. Could you tell me the falsifiable hypotheses of evolutionary theory please? Give me an example of what observations or experiments would demonstrate it to be false.
>And how exactly does that help or hinder evolutionary >theory in the slightest?
You do the maths. A creature presumed extinct for millions of years is discovered alive today with virtually no change. The nearest ancestor of humans, the Neanderthal, was supposed to have been around 100,000 years ago. That short time is enough for significant change, apparently. The fact that living "fossils" have pretty much no change says something important.
Let's take Australian Aboriginees as another example. They have supposedly been isolated in Australia for 40,000 years. That's a bit under half the time it took us to progress from Neanderthals. Surely we'd expect the Aboriginees to be at least a bit different from us...certainly not the same. But no-one today would argue that they are genetically superior or inferior. They are pretty much the same as us.
And this question remains worldwide for humans. We are the same the whole world over. Where is the evolution in progress? Where is the last remaining neanderthal, or the next pocket of humans up the evolutionary ladder?
>Again explained by another poster. Negative traits are >weeded out via natural selection.
How is that possible if recessive traits don't express themselves until the point when a host of harmful mutations have the chance to express themselves?
>And how exactly does that help or hinder evolutionary >theory in the slightest?
I'm sorry, have you looked at all the date samples done by creation scientists (sent off to official, well respected laboratories for testing) and the samples show wildly innacurate dates? How do you explain this inconsistent dating? I have read many examples of this.
As for using outdated arguments, from what I can see creationists have rejected the idea of the speed of light slowing. I don't know what the moon dust argument is, could you please tell me? I think I can guess.
Creationists are nowhere near as bad as evolutionary textbooks publishing information long ago demonstrated to be false or a hoax. The peppermoths is a great example.
Evolutionary theory: The earth was created around 4 billion years ago.
Is this scientific? Is it testable?
"There must be a way to prove the theory wrong. If we can't prove it wrong, it is not a scientific theory. This idea of a theory being falsifiable is one of the most important aspects of science. The theory, "beyond Earth there is intelligent life in the universe," may be true, but it is not a scientific theory since there is no way to prove it false."
Creation theory: The earth is around 6,000 years old
Is this testable? Which of the two statements, the evolutionary or creationist one, is easier to affirm or deny? Can any of us give an experiment that's results will demonstrate whether the statement is true or false?
Evolutionary statement: Genetic mutations were the creator of all genetic diversity, leading to everything that exists today.
Have you an experiment to prove this? Heck, even different groups of humans at previous, or further stages of evolution would help. How is this statement scientific?
http://www.csicop.org/youngskeptics/education/re so urces/sciencedef.html
>Finding a fossil of a flowering plant in a Cambrian >strata would instantly disprove evolution. That's what >makes evolution science.
That's not enough. You need to be able to show a set of experiments whereby we can know if evolutionary theory is true or false. Otherwise this is just a philosophical argument.
Besides, that's a pretty weak requirement for destroying evolution. Why? There are mountain ranges across the earth with a later period buried underneath a new period. The explanation that shifting ground caused them to overturn is insufficient, since in one case it is an area around 50 miles wide!
Besides, dating method is flawed and impossible to argue with since it is so unscientific. What would happen if a flower was found blooming in a cambrian strata? The "scientists" would simply say, evolution of flowering plants began earlier than we thought!
As for the nylon example - there was a stream of germs that was found in a hospital completely immune to all antibiotics. Presumably, one, or some of this germ stream had developed an immunity and then become the sole surviving creature since everything else was destroyed by the anti-biotics. What happened then was that the carrier of this germ went outside for a walk. After a few days or whatever, the germ was wiped out. Despite being immune to anti-biotics, it had lost information that made it able to defend itself against other germs - in the hospital this wasn't an issue.
Give me an example of added information that is the beginning of the process to evolution.
What are you looking for in an explanation of Creation theory? I can point you to the Bible, that is where we get our authority from. You will find an account of the beginnings of the universe, and the course of human history from then until a short time after the death of Jesus. What more do you want from Creationists?
I'm not understanding what you are saying. A homozygote is when both genes in the locus are identical (DD, or dd)...so the recessive gene is dominant. Then you say it's beneficial in a heterozygote (Dd), so the recessive one (d) remains recessive - and therefore does not express itself. So wouldn't this mean it's beneficial because the dominant gene for that locus is beneficial and that the harmful recessive gene is playing no part? Could you explain this a bit more for me please?
As you probably have guessed I have not heard of Genetic Algorithms up until now. As such, I don't think I'll research it in a day and talk to you. It's definately a topic I'll want to learn more about sometime, but not yet.
So thanks for introducing it to me. I won't reject your challenges, but will hopefully examine them sometime in the near future.
>Here's the real crux of your problem. What is >"Creation Theory"? Is it scientific? Is it testable? >Is it falsifiable? "God did it" is none of these.
"Chance did it". Given billions of years I can argue that anything is possible. If I don't understand, or if I can't explain why there are no missing links, it's because we haven't found it yet or worked it out.
What's the difference? Just for the record though, I don't consider "God did it" a good enough example, when trying to explain something that seems unexplainable. It is acceptable when asked what caused the flood to say "God did it" because that is what the Bible says - and that is what we base our creation theory on. However, when asked, "why are there millions of years old dinosaur fossils if the earth is only 6,000 years old" I don't consider "God did it to test us" an adequate answer.
>Please explain the testable, scientific creation >theory. The folks on talk.origins have been asking for >*years* and have never gotten one.
This does not sound like a very fair request, given two facts: 1. Science by necessity must reject theories previously thought to be true and later discovered false - the theory of evolution has undergone corrections, and so while the underlying idea remains a constant, the specifics change 2. Both macro-evolution (the process by which all life began from a small organism to the complex lifeforms we see today) and creation are areas of philosophy. As such, neither fit the requirements for being science. Please, look up science and see what it means. Also, I have taken the time to understand evolution. I have also read up on creation theory, and have come to understand it. If you (or the guys at talk.origins) can't put in the effort to do the same for creation theory, why should I have to type it up for you? The information is out there, go find it.
Philosophy is no less important than science, it is just examined in a different way. While science seems to deal with specifics - facts and laws - philosophy deals more with how these fit together, the essence of existence.
As for beneficial mutations it seems I was wrong. I had heard that there were some, but I do know that they are a small amount compared to harmful/harmless ones.
On the second point, I'm not sure what you are saying. Nylon didn't exist? Here is the summary of a plant which I can't reference, since I lent my books to someone else, but I could find out at a later date if you would like to read it: A certain plant was being selectively bread. The farmers picked the best ones from the crop and bred from them, doing this process for 100 years or so. Eventually they reached a stage where the crop would not produce any more increased yield. They had reached a stage where the ultimate potential had been reached, and the plant could improve no further through selective breeding.
This is how creation natural selection works - an existing set of genetic variety present in the parent. Eventually diversity runs out (which is why people from the same race look similar). In some parts of the world the races are mixing again and their children are showing the full spectrum of skin colors. In the macro-evolution model, you would not presume that the plant over a lifespan of 100 years could possibly improve so much and then reach it's maximum potential. Creationists argue that there were original "kinds" (whatever they were) that contained the genetic diversity for all life we see today - skin color, eyes, hair length, etc. macro-evolution theory says that all this diversity came from mutations.
Now that Loki has gone out of business, I've heard that Tribes 2 will no longer get patches.
Is there any way that with the release of this engine, that: a) the community can make it's own patches for tribes 2 b) make a game close/identical to tribes 2 for the linux community
I think I already know the answer (no) but thought I'd ask anyway.
Thanks for your misunderstanding and reaction to my last paragraph. I can only guess as to the reasons why you thought it was nonsense. Every person is different.
I found this website on genetic algorithms. I have no idea how accurate it is, since i have never studied it before. Let me know if you think it contains a poor introduction to the topic or not.
It seems to me though that genetic algorithms ignore a few facts of life that would seem to make a huge impact. Most importantly of all, the more complex a system, the greater impact that small changes have. Eg, the change in genes in a human are much more likely to cause a major change, and a harmful one at that, than a genetic mutation in a very simple organism. Secondly, it ignores a lot of environmental factors. Under evolutionary atheistic theory, humans are just animals, and in that regard no different. For that reason, we can guess that, just like humans, upgringing, philosophy in the animals mind, desire, culture, and much more, would affect the upbringing of an animal. Result? An animal with a superior feature (such as the shortening of the arm and locking of the elbow, in the example on that page) may in fact be weaker than an inferior counterpart merely because it was lazier, didn't enjoy a particular activity that the other did, or a myriad of other possibilities. Under genetic algorithms and real evolution, changes are gradual and minor (the theory, anyway). There are a number of factors that make such changes have an almost non-existent effect on the chances of the creature's survival above everyone else's.
Do genetic algorithms deal with the problem I presented? Namely that a multitude of harmful mutations will lie dormant together with one beneficial mutation - and the beneficial one only expressing itself at the same time as the many harmful mutations also will?
Also do genetic algorithms represent changes in information rather than addition of information? When a genetic mutation occurs, it changes some already existing information, rather than being added. This is a serious question and not a criticism of genetic algorithms, because I don't know anything about this topic.
Of course, I like others enjoy pointing out that animals do not do any of the things of humans like art, music, etc.
If you have any good web references for me to learn more about this issue, then please reply to this post with a link to them. I'll see if I can learn about it.
Thanks for your reply. Regarding millions of years, there are creatures and plants which are being found often that have been presumed extinct for millions of years. I could quote some examples, but I've given my books to someone else to read. You have probably heard about at least one, the coelacanth. This one's a common example.
A lot of the abuse of creationists from evolutionists (and most definately the other way around too) is a lack of understanding of the arguments of the other side. Creationists ackonwledge that creatures will adapt to the environment through natural selection. The main difference between C&E is very important: Creationists teach that the adaptation is done by already present genetic information. Eg, a bear has the genetic code for white fur and black fur. It has children, one with white fur, two with black fur. Since they are living in the snow, the one with the white fur survives, so the two with black die out quicker. The white one's genes get passed on more, and eventually only the genetic information for white fur remains among bears in that part of the world. Evolution teaches that the genetic variety came through mutations, and that the code for white and black fur came through this process. Therefore, an isolated group could theoretically develop new, previously unexistant genetic code, such as purple hair, making them more or less likely to survive. Creationists reject this view for a few reaons, some of which are: 1. Genetic mutations are almost always harmful/harmless, never beneficial (in the sense of different fur). The ratio of harmful mutations is much, much higher than neutral ones. I'm not sure if any beneficial mutations have been observed, but I could be wrong. 2. We find the genetic code for the variety of species is present in the parent. With current data we are quite clearly dealing with genetic code that already existed, not through fresh mutations.
Creationists also have problems with dating methods that show the earth to be millions of years old. This is not just religious dogma. Eg, samples taken from rocks formed from a volcano in New Zealand were said to be millions of years old in some cases, when it was known the exact day and year that the flows were created. This is not an isolated example. The Creationists believe there was a worldwide flood. Many dating methods are based on assumptions that would be destroyed if the worldwide flood was true. Anyway, this is just a brief introduction to show you some of the issues that Creationists have with macro-evolution and geological dating. There is much more depth and many more examples.
As for my unanswerable arguments - I'm not certain there is no answer, I just haven't got one. It deals with inheritance, recessive genes. I have presented it once before on slashdot. Received a lot of replies, and no substance. Just briefly (since I don't have much time now): Fact: there are beneficial recessive genes Fact: harmful mutations occur at a much higher rate than neutral/beneficial mutations Fact: marriage between relatives causes much more complications in offspring than benefits. Royal family is a good example Fact: both parents must possess a recessive gene in order for it to become dominant
Given the above facts, evolution has to explain how recessive genes were created. For natural selection to work, a gene must be dominant. Dormant abilities are not subject to natural selection (for very obvious reasons). Here is the problem: two people who possess the same beneficial recessive gene will also posess in common a much greater number of recessive harmful genes which will have opportunity to express themselves. A term for this is genetic load - the cumulitive negative genetic traits outweigh the beneficial. This is what happens in real life, and as far as I can see can't be explained in a macro-evolution framework. I could be wrong though. This problem is perfectly consistent with Creation theory though, that in the beginning each kind was created perfect with all genetic diversity for everyone alive today, but since then (or since the great flood), genetic mutations have become common, and all races are in decline from our former glory.
One thing I have tried to explain before is that both evolution and creation theory are not science. They are philosophy. This does not make them any less worth discussing, but it changes the way in which we should present them, and discuss them.
A message to all who might read this, not to the author I reply to: For thousands of years most men have presumed that God/gods exist. Atheists have been and always will be a minority. People should not reject belief in God as a fairy tale - many of us dedicate our time to understand the deeper mysteries, and many of us try to be critical, able to give reason for the hope we have. The men of ancient times, and today, don't believe in the unseen without evidence. For a great challenge, I ask any that believe the Bible to be a fairy tale to explain it's accuracy in prophecies concerning the Messiah Jesus Christ, our God and Savior. It predicted the exact year He would be born, where, the feelings He would have at the time of His death, His purpose, and much more. Any who say that it was written after the event are ignorant - the prophecies were written in the Septuagint also, a translation of the Scriptures from Hebrew and Aramaic into Greek, before Jesus was born - this translation we know existed before the Messiah's birth.
I know that most Christians object to evolution without understanding the issues. I am one who likes to understand and know the truth. For important issues, I'm often not happy to take someone else's word for it.
This article, if true, is a real embarrasment. Natural selection is a fact, there is no doubt about it. It has been observed and documented. What is a fiction is the macro-evolution of one species changing enough to become a new one, and through this progression all variety of plants and animals today have come to be. I have presented arguments before that no-one has been able to answer.
What annoys me about this article (if true) is the rejection of terms. True Christianity is about redemption, not exclusion. Example: today in English we call the Creator, God. God is supposed to be the name for a tribal German deity. This is the equivalent of taking the name of Zeus for the Creator, and then explaining to the people about His true character. For those with a Bible you will find another story in Acts 17:22-34.
People without understanding reject all parts of an opposing view, without realising that some is true (such as natural selection). Christian's should take the time to study the issues they pretend to have knowledge about, rather than just repeating stuff they have been told. One day macro-evolution, like many other things we believe, will be rejected as wrong. This is the best progression of science - a natural evolution - that we hold a theory (and science is only ever theory) and apply it until one case contradicts the theory. Then at this point a new theory is to be made which more closely reflects the truth. Scientists, and people in general, must be willing to accept that everything they know could be, and probably is, wrong. Only this way will science progress. The Catholic Church stood in the way of Galileo's (and those before him) model of the universe. Eventually it broke through. Someday evolution will undergo the same death. In years to come it will be something else.
Piracy actually helps proprietry software. For that reason I wish it wasn't possible.
When people pirate software they help that product establish a monopoly. More people install it, the firmer entrenched it becomes. Imagine the next version of windows being impossible to pirate through some subscription service. How many people around the world would there be who would: a) continue to use the older versions indefinately b) convert to an open source alternative because they can't afford the new product
If people always paid for new versions of Microsoft products (or any other company) I think the product would eventually fail, or certainly never hold a monopoly - or make computers available to the elite few.
Most people I know that run servers either run linux(or BSD) servers, or would run linux servers if they had the hardware. Windows isn't even considered a serious option - sort of a last resort.
As for servers in the workplace, from the experience I have had - at least of small organisations - is that linux is quite a common and popular choice, even for just a print and filesharing server.
Could be though that I live in Australia - Australian's were the quickest to move from black and white to color tv, the most number of mobile phones per person, and one of the most online countries in the world. We love new technology.
Slashdot Mirror
People advertise on TV because people watch the ads. If people find clever ways of removing ads and never watch them, the advertisers would soon realise. TV would see less/no ads, and we would no longer have "free" tv.
We signed no contracts, as was said. Let the advertisers advertise on TV. If they think it doesn't reach an audience, let them stop paying the tv stations. This issue will sort itself out if left to run it's own natural course.
This is bloat beyond belief and slows down the system to a crawl.
and
Performance wise, Linux rocks Windows.
I'd love to see you install Win98SE in under 80 megs with no cumbersome graphics interface for text based tasks.
Maybe you are forgetting that the reason why Linux takes 500mb to install is because it is packed full of programs? With Linux, gone are the days when you had to search for an ftp client, office suite (koffice, abiword), programming IDE/compilers, IRC client, ssh client, Instant Messenger applications, and much more. They come pre-installed all for the ease of the user. And they are free, in the best sense (In case you hadn't noticed, I'm comparing it to your explanations of the virtues of windows because of it's elimination of proprietry disk formatting applications, apps to look at pictures, etc).
With Windows it is in there and I can rel;iebly know that the all systesm are the same, not similiar, but exactly the same.
And from now on, all houses will be built from the same blueprint. This way plumbers, electricians, gas companies, etc, will know exactly where everything is and how to fix it. And you can forget needing to ask your host where the toilet is, you already know because it's the same as your house.
But wait, there is Linux. Yes and when all the required apps and utiltities ever come out of beta, I might consider it
Perhaps you don't understand the nature of open source, or the Linux community in general. Applications rarely reach 1.0, because we consider them always in development. A beta version of a linux application can often be equal to, or superior to it's windows counterpart. Why does Mozilla want to release a version 1.0? Because of a mindset like yours that looks at numbers rather than features and stability. So that people like you will be willing to use it. All that changes is the version number, and if it was called Mozilla 0.4.25 it wouldn't change a thing.
Performance wise, Linux rocks Windows. and it damn well better considering that the native Linux interface is the command line and the native Windows interface is a GUI
You say you use Win98? Did you know that it's native interface is Dos? What has this got to do with anything? Linux has a GUI. You say you like IceWM, but at the same time you call for a unified interface like windows, which means looking at KDE/GNOME, the only two viable options for fresh converts who feel a need for a windows-like interface. We are bound to this only because of Windows.
As for the programming limitations, I'm not knowleadgable enough to argue about them, but I do know that that is an issue that won't affect 90% of people.
If Linux wants a place on the corporate desktop, then Linux must have it's own consistent libraries, componants and GUI. Just like all the suits look the same, all their computers must look the same.
Offices can choose Gnome or KDE for their standard interface. One decision and they have a standard desktop. What's the big issue?
I could argue that Linux's diversity is good. While everything is consistent users become comfortable. They don't learn to understand the computer in any way, or learn the concepts behind it. It's like your view of the world - you don't fully appreciate or understand it until you are exposed to other people's worldview. If people were given different ways of doing things (like Gnome vs KDE vs Enlightenment vs IceWM) then users will begin to understand the concepts behind the computer, seeing what is essential and what is optional. Eg, is a Start button an essential component of using a computer or optional? How would I load applications without it? Users won't take any extra time learning the computer, but they will certainly understand it better for the time they spend on it. I am a creationist, and diversity is one of the greatest gifts from our God. For those who believe evolution - diversity is absolutely essential for something to advance.
"8.04 Will there be a Mac/Linux/BeOs version?
The BeOS version of Neverwinter Nights will not be completed. However, we are planning a simultaneous PC/Macintosh/Linux release for Neverwinter Nights, with all three versions to be included in a single box. On the PC, Neverwinter Nights will run under Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows 2000 Service Pack 2, and Windows XP."
They also say that there is a server for each supported platform. That would make no sense if by supported platform they mean platforms that run the server. That would be saying "each platform that has a server will have a server".
So we can safely conclude from the Bioware FAQ, and the fact that they haven't tried to correct everyone asking about Linux and Mac clients, and the interviews that say they are going to have one, that there will indeed be a Linux client. You are correct about making maps. The editor for the game is windows only for the moment. The tools that they used to create it were not initially available in Linux, but I have heard they are now, so there is a potential for the toolkit to be later ported to Linux.
Yes, but if all the linux users fill it out, and most windows users don't, then we will appear to be 10% of the userbase. But if we don't, then we might appear to be .3% :)
I e-mailed them about why Linux wasn't listed as an operating system on the beta test site. They are not doing a Linux beta test.
Still, I don't think this will affect the Linux client. They have committed to the Linux and Mac one ages ago, and I think it's probably part of their intention to make this game a sort of cornerstone of computer roleplaying games. The beginning of a new era, blah blah. Just my guess.
On a similar note, I am so glad they are releasing a Linux client for this game that looks like it is going to be really great! Unfortunately, no swimming, climbing or riding is in it...but there is the possibility of these being released in a patch, or an update or something. I think their intention is to continue adding and improving the game beyond the release date.
There is always competition in one form or another. Give me an example situation where competition for food, environment and predation are all absent.
I really don't know much about Duane Gish. I'm willing to accept that the things claimed by Joyce Arthur are true, but I also like to give people the benefit of the doubt. Because of this I'm going to ask the ICR on their comments about Joyce Arthur's analysis of Gish's innacuracies. I don't see this as important though compared to facts. Evolution scientists have had their fair share of zealots and blatant misapplication of the truth. This is human failing, which we are not addressing (except in a natural selection sense :).
Your responses are starting to annoy me. First of all, forget the changing speed of light theory. It was proposed, analysed and rejected because it had too many problems. It's history. Forget it. Stop talking as if we still propose it.
Second of all, you are just presenting the reason why the dating must work, and laughing at creationist excuses for why it doesn't. This is just stupid. It's like that play of Galileo I read in school. The Catholic Church basically said "Let's work out what we would expect to see in the telescope before we look through it." And then, when they decided they said "There's no need for us to look in your telescope because we already know what we will see". Congratulations on replicating that behaviour. I say to you "There have been many times when samples that the date is known for have given wildly innacurate results. Go find out for yourself." And then you say "This is why the dating works, so I don't need to see your examples".
Fact: The dating method gives false dates for samples where their date is known
Therefore there is something wrong with the method. Whether the current creationist proposals of what it is that is wrong are correct doesn't matter, because somewhere there is a false assumption.
So when I said "I suggest you grab some Creation magazines and read these examples for yourself" and you said "I have", you weren't actually talking about the same thing as me.
Your post just irritates me. I get tired repeating myself to five people.
b on dating has been demonstrated repeatedly in the Creation magazine to
>Testable? Of course. There are literally dozens of different tracks of evidence
>that show an old earth: radioactive dating, sedimentation rates, magnetic field
>reversals, glaciation evidence, etc.
Ack! Again, I say, that many or all of these dating methods have been
demonstrated to be inaccurate for known dates, so how can we trust them for
unknown dates?
And as far as I recal, magnetic field reversals supported the 6000 year old
earth, not the 4.5 billion year old earth.
Here we go: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-242.htm
Erosion rates also show that the earth should have been flat a very long time
ago.
As for glaciers - I visited New Zealand where they have some glaciers left. As
we were driving to one, I saw a post that said the glacier was up to this point
150 years ago. We kept driving for a few kilometers and eventually arrived at
the walk to the glacier. The glacier was incredibly small compared to what it
was only 150 years ago. Not only that, but the forest had grown back in that
short time. I'm sure this is not what you meant by glaciation evidence - you
are probably talking about pockets of oxygen in them? That reminds me of
another story of a buried aircraft from WW2 in ice. Showed that ice built up a
lot quicker than was previously thought, here it is: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-226.htm
Radiocar
be wildly inaccurate. They don't date the strata themselves, but send them off
to recognised and respected laboratories. I suggest you grab some Creation
magazines and read these examples for yourself.
>Creation science has it at 6k years. Testable? Yes. All evidence shows that
>this is not the case. Every bit of it. Not a *single* piece of evidence shows
>otherwise. You are welcome to troll the creationist web sites looking for
>something, but what they claim as evidence is laughable.
I don't just use the creationist websites. Do you get all your information from
the internet? As for the age of the earth, yes there is evidence.
cultural evidence - I mentioned this in another post somewhere on this
thread. Language has come from a beginning of complexity and completion, and
since then been changed, had vocabulary and inflections reduced, and words
simplified
There are other examples I have seen, but as I said I don't have that
information in front of me, I have loaned it to someone else.
>Ergo, creation theory is *wrong*. You can dance around the issue as much as you
>want, but you simply can't ignore the facts. (Well, it appears that you and
>other creationists can, but people living in the real world can't.)
What facts? The dubious dates from methods that have repeatedly demonstrated to
be false and wildly innacurate for known dates? I'm not sure why I should
accept that. Or perhaps the overwhelming evidence of missing links, that should
be there but simply aren't. Or maybe the fact that humans are radically
different from every other living creature, with art, music, religion, clothing,
etc. Perhaps the experience of many people worldwide who have had supernatural
experiences - miraculous healings, out of body experiences where they have seen
things going on while unconscious, and then explained them in detail afterwards.
What about people who have control of the Djinn (or think they do) that kill
animals in rituals without going near them? I'm sure you though reject this
because it's simply not possible in your worldview. If you were/are honest
though, you will examine it. There are people everywhere with stories to tell
(many just misinterpretation of the experience), but likewise some who'se
experiences are genuine. Again, I'm probably a crackpot in your eyes because of
this statement - if that is your response then there is no point me talking with
you. It shows your unwillingness to consider opposing views. However, if you
are not so ignorant as to reject without knowledge, then I encourage you to
examine the supernatural (beyond the X-Files) and you will find a world that has
largely been hidden from the west through our culture.
A flowering plant in a Cambrian strata? I'm sure I have seen an example
or five somewhere of creatures/plants in the wrong strata. Again, I don't have
my material here, but I'll certainly try to find it soon when I get my hands on
it.
>Again, there are so many misconceptions in here that it's clear you do not
>understand science. Dating methods are *not* flawed. You are quite welcome to
>present any evidence you think proves this. Unlike some of the tricky bio that
>I have to rely on experts in that field for info, as a physical chemist I can
>blow them out of the water by myself.
I certainly shall once I get my books back. I have many examples. What makes
you so sure it's accurate? Have you seen or heard of it tested with strata
where the date is absolutely known (would have to be recent for the date to be
known) and the tests have proven correct around 99% of the time? From what I
have seen, a lot of these dating methods require strata of at least a certain
minimum age. These ages are usually beyond anything we have that we know 100%
is from that time. So then we can't ever test these dating methods. That makes
them flawed from the beginning. Unless I'm missing something here...
>Second, a flowering plant in Cambrian strata would certainly prove evolution
>wrong. *Land* plants hadn't evolved by the Cambrian, much less flowering ones.
>They're a quite recent invention. Finding a fossil 300MY before any precursors
>appeared would be a disproof of evolution. You're quite welcome to look for
>one.
I'll see what I can do
>You're babbling here. Nylon is not an antibiotic. You clearly don't understand
>the premise here. Nylon did not exist before 1940. Why would an organism be
>able to eat the waste products before nylon existed? Hint: they couldn't: a
>*new* enzyme was created by a favorable mutation to do this.
My germ example was completely relevant. You have a string of genes, eg
"FfEGjj". When creating nylon was it the equivalent of changing the genes to
"FfEGJj", or of adding new information, like "FfEGjjII"? I suspect it was the
former. The change in the enzyme would have at least been a modification, like
in the germ example, rather than an addition of information.
>>Give me an example of added information that is the beginning of the process
>>to evolution.
>I've given you several: nylon eating, antibiotic resistance, tetrachromaticity.
>You choose to simply ignore them.
Yes, but was it changing information or the addition? This is an important
point.
>>What more do you want from Creationists?
>I want them to present a scientific, testable, non-falsified theory of
>creationism or get the fuck out of science classrooms . Teach your fairy tales
>in Sunday school.
That's stupid. I fully acknowledge Creation as a philosophy, not a science. To
me that doesn't make it invalid, just a different method of arguing. Science is
probably a means to providing evidence for philosophical arguments. This is why
creation and evolution theory can often be confused for science. Now as for the
classroom...your comments are based on the assumption that I will somehow agree
with you that my beliefs are fairy tales. That is absurd, of course. I believe
that they are a close reflection of the truth, and if anything they should be
solely presented in the classroom, and only fact at that. That would include
presenting to students the process of natural selection, since that has been
observed. The theory that all life came from a single celled organism and
multiplied and dapted through genetic mutations - that is not observable, and
is merely an interpretation of the available scientific data. Don't mix science
with philosophy.
>It does indeed. It shows that a species may be able to
8 .htm
>fill it's ecological niche so well as to prevent
>competition significant enough to make it change.
This is absurd, there is always room for improvement, be it physical or mental. No other creature has come even close to the capabilities of the human mind, so to say that a creature has filled it's niche leading to no improvement is absurd. There will always be competition of many types - environmental, social, etc. If other species don't cause problems then it's own relatives will.
>It does indeed. It shows that a species may be able to
>fill it's ecological niche so well as to prevent
>competition significant enough to make it change.
I gave an example of Australian Aboriginees supposedly living in isolation for 40,000 years. That has to be enough time to see some beginnings of speciation. After all, neanderthal man was only around 100,000 years ago. Aboriginees have had 40% of that time to develop some difference, yet we consider them barely different. Certainly nothing that pre-existing genetic diversity couldn't explain.
>It does indeed. It shows that a species may be able to
>fill it's ecological niche so well as to prevent
>competition significant enough to make it change.
This is a followup of the initial argument I presented - the point when a recessive gene becomes dominant is when both parents possess the same recessive gene. Problem is that the two parents will also contain a great deal more harmful recessive genes in common, creating a genetic load that outweighs the advantage. Recessive genes can become deeply embedded in a species before natural selection plays a part, since it doesn't express itself unless it is present at both sides in the locus.
>It does indeed. It shows that a species may be able to
>fill it's ecological niche so well as to prevent
>competition significant enough to make it change.
Wish I could actually, I lent my material to someone else. An example I read recently though was on some recent lava flows from a volcano in New Zealand. The exact dates of the flows were known (from around 50 years ago up until a few years ago I think), yet the laboratory tests reported wildly innacurate and conflicting dates.
>Those were just a few of many and not all creationists
>have given up the changing speed of light argument.
>Many Young-Earth Creationists still cling to it in
>some form or fashion.
Well, I know that the ICR at least has given up the changing speed of light argument. I can't be held responsible for all creationists, but here is something from their website so you can see the current theory (after all, science is all about rejecting a lie and considering a new possibility):
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-33
I also know that in the Answers In Genesis magazine they advertise their technical journal, with the caption "Don't get caught using outdated arguments!", so it seems to me that it is a priority of theirs to reject whatever is shown false.
Hmm, I wonder about your true knowledge of the integrity of ICR members. You say ICR founder is Duane Gish. According to the ICR, their founder is Henry M. Morris:
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-346.htm
Still seems to only fit philosophy. Science must have a falsafiable statement clearly showing how it may be tested, eg:
"My right hand thumb will reduce in length by 5 millimeters if I do 20 star jumps a day for one week". The way to test this is very clear, and so are the ways in which it can be disproven.
The examples you gave are different - the ways to test it are very unclear, and the ways to disprove it had to be listed, they weren't immediately known.
Besides, some of the ways to disprove it have been done with people ignoring it. Many different animals and plants have been discovered alive that were thought extinct for millions of years, virtually unchanged. If you would like, I could try to find the list. In fact, the famous trilobite has been found alive in parts of the world - although if this is a very elaborate hoax I would be happy for someone to point it out. Doesn't matter though, since there are many more living "fossils".
As for ordering strata, that is very subjective. A strata is given it's age by the presence of certain fossils in it. Fossils are given their age based on the strata they were in. Very circular. In the end, these dates are based on the very subjective dating methods which have been repeatedly demonstrated to give wildly inaccurate data for samples where the date is known. For older samples where the date is not known, how can we be sure the reading is correct when it is incorrect for dates we do know?
As for vestigial structures, there used to be a list of over 100 in the human body. That list has been almost eliminated as the function of these previosuly "useless" structures became known.
And again on the topic of strata - around the world different ages are shown to be in the wrong order. Older ages sitting on top of younger ages when it should be the other way around. Excuses like shifting ground are insufficient since the surface area is sometimes quite large, making shifts almost impossible, and shows no evidence of shifts.
On the topic of a young earth, around 6,000 years old, history and culture at least seem to vindicate our view. Language, for example, seems to have first existed in a very advanced, complex form at the beginning, and from there degenerated into a simplified, less complex version. As for dating methods, there are some which support us, some which contradict. They are a lot based on assumptions that are not always fair. The dating methods that support millions of years have been shown to be especially flawed over and over.
I'm not sure exactly how many examples of evidence contradicting the expectations of the evolutionary model, but I doubt it will help to mention them. If you are interested in some more in-depth information on any of this stuff I wrote, then let me know. I'll dig up the information for you so you can reference and examine it yourself.
Sure thing, I put your address in my addressbook, hopefully I'll see it there sometime and remember.
So now that I understand you a bit better here, what were you saying about the difference between black and white communities regarding some harmful genetic mutations?
I don't know everything about evolution. I had a suspicion that beneficial mutations had existed. Just because there is one thing I don't know doesn't mean I don't understand it overall.
As for the creation theory, as I said elsewhere look to the Bible, it contains the creation of the universe and the history of man from the beginning up to a few years after Jesus' ascension. Creation is a philosophy not a science. As such, it can still be disproven, but it's not the same process as science. Could you tell me the falsifiable hypotheses of evolutionary theory please? Give me an example of what observations or experiments would demonstrate it to be false.
>And how exactly does that help or hinder evolutionary
>theory in the slightest?
You do the maths. A creature presumed extinct for millions of years is discovered alive today with virtually no change. The nearest ancestor of humans, the Neanderthal, was supposed to have been around 100,000 years ago. That short time is enough for significant change, apparently. The fact that living "fossils" have pretty much no change says something important.
Let's take Australian Aboriginees as another example. They have supposedly been isolated in Australia for 40,000 years. That's a bit under half the time it took us to progress from Neanderthals. Surely we'd expect the Aboriginees to be at least a bit different from us...certainly not the same. But no-one today would argue that they are genetically superior or inferior. They are pretty much the same as us.
And this question remains worldwide for humans. We are the same the whole world over. Where is the evolution in progress? Where is the last remaining neanderthal, or the next pocket of humans up the evolutionary ladder?
>Again explained by another poster. Negative traits are
>weeded out via natural selection.
How is that possible if recessive traits don't express themselves until the point when a host of harmful mutations have the chance to express themselves?
>And how exactly does that help or hinder evolutionary
>theory in the slightest?
I'm sorry, have you looked at all the date samples done by creation scientists (sent off to official, well respected laboratories for testing) and the samples show wildly innacurate dates? How do you explain this inconsistent dating? I have read many examples of this.
As for using outdated arguments, from what I can see creationists have rejected the idea of the speed of light slowing. I don't know what the moon dust argument is, could you please tell me? I think I can guess.
Creationists are nowhere near as bad as evolutionary textbooks publishing information long ago demonstrated to be false or a hoax. The peppermoths is a great example.
Evolutionary theory:
e so urces/sciencedef.html
The earth was created around 4 billion years ago.
Is this scientific? Is it testable?
"There must be a way to prove the theory wrong. If we can't prove it wrong, it is not a scientific theory. This idea of a theory being falsifiable is one of the most important aspects of science. The theory, "beyond Earth there is intelligent life in the universe," may be true, but it is not a scientific theory since there is no way to prove it false."
Creation theory:
The earth is around 6,000 years old
Is this testable? Which of the two statements, the evolutionary or creationist one, is easier to affirm or deny? Can any of us give an experiment that's results will demonstrate whether the statement is true or false?
Evolutionary statement:
Genetic mutations were the creator of all genetic diversity, leading to everything that exists today.
Have you an experiment to prove this? Heck, even different groups of humans at previous, or further stages of evolution would help. How is this statement scientific?
http://www.csicop.org/youngskeptics/education/r
>Finding a fossil of a flowering plant in a Cambrian
>strata would instantly disprove evolution. That's what
>makes evolution science.
That's not enough. You need to be able to show a set of experiments whereby we can know if evolutionary theory is true or false. Otherwise this is just a philosophical argument.
Besides, that's a pretty weak requirement for destroying evolution. Why? There are mountain ranges across the earth with a later period buried underneath a new period. The explanation that shifting ground caused them to overturn is insufficient, since in one case it is an area around 50 miles wide!
Besides, dating method is flawed and impossible to argue with since it is so unscientific. What would happen if a flower was found blooming in a cambrian strata? The "scientists" would simply say, evolution of flowering plants began earlier than we thought!
As for the nylon example - there was a stream of germs that was found in a hospital completely immune to all antibiotics. Presumably, one, or some of this germ stream had developed an immunity and then become the sole surviving creature since everything else was destroyed by the anti-biotics. What happened then was that the carrier of this germ went outside for a walk. After a few days or whatever, the germ was wiped out. Despite being immune to anti-biotics, it had lost information that made it able to defend itself against other germs - in the hospital this wasn't an issue.
Give me an example of added information that is the beginning of the process to evolution.
What are you looking for in an explanation of Creation theory? I can point you to the Bible, that is where we get our authority from. You will find an account of the beginnings of the universe, and the course of human history from then until a short time after the death of Jesus. What more do you want from Creationists?
I'm not understanding what you are saying. A homozygote is when both genes in the locus are identical (DD, or dd)...so the recessive gene is dominant. Then you say it's beneficial in a heterozygote (Dd), so the recessive one (d) remains recessive - and therefore does not express itself. So wouldn't this mean it's beneficial because the dominant gene for that locus is beneficial and that the harmful recessive gene is playing no part? Could you explain this a bit more for me please?
As you probably have guessed I have not heard of Genetic Algorithms up until now. As such, I don't think I'll research it in a day and talk to you. It's definately a topic I'll want to learn more about sometime, but not yet.
So thanks for introducing it to me. I won't reject your challenges, but will hopefully examine them sometime in the near future.
>Here's the real crux of your problem. What is
>"Creation Theory"? Is it scientific? Is it testable?
>Is it falsifiable? "God did it" is none of these.
"Chance did it". Given billions of years I can argue that anything is possible. If I don't understand, or if I can't explain why there are no missing links, it's because we haven't found it yet or worked it out.
What's the difference? Just for the record though, I don't consider "God did it" a good enough example, when trying to explain something that seems unexplainable. It is acceptable when asked what caused the flood to say "God did it" because that is what the Bible says - and that is what we base our creation theory on. However, when asked, "why are there millions of years old dinosaur fossils if the earth is only 6,000 years old" I don't consider "God did it to test us" an adequate answer.
>Please explain the testable, scientific creation
>theory. The folks on talk.origins have been asking for
>*years* and have never gotten one.
This does not sound like a very fair request, given two facts:
1. Science by necessity must reject theories previously thought to be true and later discovered false - the theory of evolution has undergone corrections, and so while the underlying idea remains a constant, the specifics change
2. Both macro-evolution (the process by which all life began from a small organism to the complex lifeforms we see today) and creation are areas of philosophy. As such, neither fit the requirements for being science. Please, look up science and see what it means.
Also, I have taken the time to understand evolution. I have also read up on creation theory, and have come to understand it. If you (or the guys at talk.origins) can't put in the effort to do the same for creation theory, why should I have to type it up for you? The information is out there, go find it.
Philosophy is no less important than science, it is just examined in a different way. While science seems to deal with specifics - facts and laws - philosophy deals more with how these fit together, the essence of existence.
As for beneficial mutations it seems I was wrong. I had heard that there were some, but I do know that they are a small amount compared to harmful/harmless ones.
On the second point, I'm not sure what you are saying. Nylon didn't exist? Here is the summary of a plant which I can't reference, since I lent my books to someone else, but I could find out at a later date if you would like to read it:
A certain plant was being selectively bread. The farmers picked the best ones from the crop and bred from them, doing this process for 100 years or so. Eventually they reached a stage where the crop would not produce any more increased yield. They had reached a stage where the ultimate potential had been reached, and the plant could improve no further through selective breeding.
This is how creation natural selection works - an existing set of genetic variety present in the parent. Eventually diversity runs out (which is why people from the same race look similar). In some parts of the world the races are mixing again and their children are showing the full spectrum of skin colors. In the macro-evolution model, you would not presume that the plant over a lifespan of 100 years could possibly improve so much and then reach it's maximum potential. Creationists argue that there were original "kinds" (whatever they were) that contained the genetic diversity for all life we see today - skin color, eyes, hair length, etc. macro-evolution theory says that all this diversity came from mutations.
Now that Loki has gone out of business, I've heard that Tribes 2 will no longer get patches.
Is there any way that with the release of this engine, that:
a) the community can make it's own patches for tribes 2
b) make a game close/identical to tribes 2 for the linux community
I think I already know the answer (no) but thought I'd ask anyway.
Thanks for your misunderstanding and reaction to my last paragraph. I can only guess as to the reasons why you thought it was nonsense. Every person is different.
I found this website
on genetic algorithms. I have no idea how accurate it is, since i have never studied it before. Let me know if you think it contains a poor introduction to the topic or not.
It seems to me though that genetic algorithms ignore a few facts of life that would seem to make a huge impact.
Most importantly of all, the more complex a system, the greater impact that small changes have. Eg, the change in genes in a human are much more likely to cause a major change, and a harmful one at that, than a genetic mutation in a very simple organism.
Secondly, it ignores a lot of environmental factors. Under evolutionary atheistic theory, humans are just animals, and in that regard no different. For that reason, we can guess that, just like humans, upgringing, philosophy in the animals mind, desire, culture, and much more, would affect the upbringing of an animal. Result? An animal with a superior feature (such as the shortening of the arm and locking of the elbow, in the example on that page) may in fact be weaker than an inferior counterpart merely because it was lazier, didn't enjoy a particular activity that the other did, or a myriad of other possibilities.
Under genetic algorithms and real evolution, changes are gradual and minor (the theory, anyway). There are a number of factors that make such changes have an almost non-existent effect on the chances of the creature's survival above everyone else's.
Do genetic algorithms deal with the problem I presented? Namely that a multitude of harmful mutations will lie dormant together with one beneficial mutation - and the beneficial one only expressing itself at the same time as the many harmful mutations also will?
Also do genetic algorithms represent changes in information rather than addition of information? When a genetic mutation occurs, it changes some already existing information, rather than being added. This is a serious question and not a criticism of genetic algorithms, because I don't know anything about this topic.
Of course, I like others enjoy pointing out that animals do not do any of the things of humans like art, music, etc.
If you have any good web references for me to learn more about this issue, then please reply to this post with a link to them. I'll see if I can learn about it.
You sound awfully sure of both yourself and me. Fact is, you don't know me at all.
Thanks for your reply. Regarding millions of years, there are creatures and plants which are being found often that have been presumed extinct for millions of years. I could quote some examples, but I've given my books to someone else to read. You have probably heard about at least one, the coelacanth. This one's a common example.
A lot of the abuse of creationists from evolutionists (and most definately the other way around too) is a lack of understanding of the arguments of the other side. Creationists ackonwledge that creatures will adapt to the environment through natural selection. The main difference between C&E is very important:
Creationists teach that the adaptation is done by already present genetic information. Eg, a bear has the genetic code for white fur and black fur. It has children, one with white fur, two with black fur. Since they are living in the snow, the one with the white fur survives, so the two with black die out quicker. The white one's genes get passed on more, and eventually only the genetic information for white fur remains among bears in that part of the world.
Evolution teaches that the genetic variety came through mutations, and that the code for white and black fur came through this process. Therefore, an isolated group could theoretically develop new, previously unexistant genetic code, such as purple hair, making them more or less likely to survive.
Creationists reject this view for a few reaons, some of which are:
1. Genetic mutations are almost always harmful/harmless, never beneficial (in the sense of different fur). The ratio of harmful mutations is much, much higher than neutral ones. I'm not sure if any beneficial mutations have been observed, but I could be wrong.
2. We find the genetic code for the variety of species is present in the parent. With current data we are quite clearly dealing with genetic code that already existed, not through fresh mutations.
Creationists also have problems with dating methods that show the earth to be millions of years old. This is not just religious dogma. Eg, samples taken from rocks formed from a volcano in New Zealand were said to be millions of years old in some cases, when it was known the exact day and year that the flows were created. This is not an isolated example. The Creationists believe there was a worldwide flood. Many dating methods are based on assumptions that would be destroyed if the worldwide flood was true. Anyway, this is just a brief introduction to show you some of the issues that Creationists have with macro-evolution and geological dating. There is much more depth and many more examples.
As for my unanswerable arguments - I'm not certain there is no answer, I just haven't got one. It deals with inheritance, recessive genes. I have presented it once before on slashdot. Received a lot of replies, and no substance.
Just briefly (since I don't have much time now):
Fact: there are beneficial recessive genes
Fact: harmful mutations occur at a much higher rate than neutral/beneficial mutations
Fact: marriage between relatives causes much more complications in offspring than benefits. Royal family is a good example
Fact: both parents must possess a recessive gene in order for it to become dominant
Given the above facts, evolution has to explain how recessive genes were created. For natural selection to work, a gene must be dominant. Dormant abilities are not subject to natural selection (for very obvious reasons). Here is the problem: two people who possess the same beneficial recessive gene will also posess in common a much greater number of recessive harmful genes which will have opportunity to express themselves. A term for this is genetic load - the cumulitive negative genetic traits outweigh the beneficial. This is what happens in real life, and as far as I can see can't be explained in a macro-evolution framework. I could be wrong though. This problem is perfectly consistent with Creation theory though, that in the beginning each kind was created perfect with all genetic diversity for everyone alive today, but since then (or since the great flood), genetic mutations have become common, and all races are in decline from our former glory.
There is an excellent article about this by the Institute for Creation Research.
One thing I have tried to explain before is that both evolution and creation theory are not science. They are philosophy. This does not make them any less worth discussing, but it changes the way in which we should present them, and discuss them.
A message to all who might read this, not to the author I reply to:
For thousands of years most men have presumed that God/gods exist. Atheists have been and always will be a minority. People should not reject belief in God as a fairy tale - many of us dedicate our time to understand the deeper mysteries, and many of us try to be critical, able to give reason for the hope we have. The men of ancient times, and today, don't believe in the unseen without evidence. For a great challenge, I ask any that believe the Bible to be a fairy tale to explain it's accuracy in prophecies concerning the Messiah Jesus Christ, our God and Savior. It predicted the exact year He would be born, where, the feelings He would have at the time of His death, His purpose, and much more. Any who say that it was written after the event are ignorant - the prophecies were written in the Septuagint also, a translation of the Scriptures from Hebrew and Aramaic into Greek, before Jesus was born - this translation we know existed before the Messiah's birth.
I know that most Christians object to evolution without understanding the issues. I am one who likes to understand and know the truth. For important issues, I'm often not happy to take someone else's word for it.
This article, if true, is a real embarrasment. Natural selection is a fact, there is no doubt about it. It has been observed and documented. What is a fiction is the macro-evolution of one species changing enough to become a new one, and through this progression all variety of plants and animals today have come to be. I have presented arguments before that no-one has been able to answer.
What annoys me about this article (if true) is the rejection of terms. True Christianity is about redemption, not exclusion. Example: today in English we call the Creator, God. God is supposed to be the name for a tribal German deity. This is the equivalent of taking the name of Zeus for the Creator, and then explaining to the people about His true character. For those with a Bible you will find another story in Acts 17:22-34.
People without understanding reject all parts of an opposing view, without realising that some is true (such as natural selection). Christian's should take the time to study the issues they pretend to have knowledge about, rather than just repeating stuff they have been told. One day macro-evolution, like many other things we believe, will be rejected as wrong. This is the best progression of science - a natural evolution - that we hold a theory (and science is only ever theory) and apply it until one case contradicts the theory. Then at this point a new theory is to be made which more closely reflects the truth. Scientists, and people in general, must be willing to accept that everything they know could be, and probably is, wrong. Only this way will science progress. The Catholic Church stood in the way of Galileo's (and those before him) model of the universe. Eventually it broke through. Someday evolution will undergo the same death. In years to come it will be something else.
Piracy actually helps proprietry software. For that reason I wish it wasn't possible.
When people pirate software they help that product establish a monopoly. More people install it, the firmer entrenched it becomes. Imagine the next version of windows being impossible to pirate through some subscription service. How many people around the world would there be who would:
a) continue to use the older versions indefinately
b) convert to an open source alternative because they can't afford the new product
If people always paid for new versions of Microsoft products (or any other company) I think the product would eventually fail, or certainly never hold a monopoly - or make computers available to the elite few.
Most people I know that run servers either run linux(or BSD) servers, or would run linux servers if they had the hardware. Windows isn't even considered a serious option - sort of a last resort.
As for servers in the workplace, from the experience I have had - at least of small organisations - is that linux is quite a common and popular choice, even for just a print and filesharing server.
Could be though that I live in Australia - Australian's were the quickest to move from black and white to color tv, the most number of mobile phones per person, and one of the most online countries in the world. We love new technology.