Thankyou for your genuine interest in talking about this rather than throwing insults.
It is true that most mutations are harmless/harmful, from what I have been able to understand. This doesn't actually hurt my argument, because from examination of animals that multiply rapidly, it seems like beneficial mutations never/almost never occur (one example 4000 mutations occurred and no beneficial one had been found. Of course, a beetle losing wings on a windy island may be argued as beneficial, but that is a loss of information, and hardly a progression that evolution requires. Give me an example of information changed through mutation, such as hair color, or new information added without loss that produces a benefit).
-
This isn't how evolution works. Keep in mind that every population has a good deal of variety in it. When that population is put under stress (say, there's a flood and all the short people die), individuals whose genetic traits give them an advantage for dealing with that specific stress have a better chance of survival.
-
I agree that this is how natural selection works. My problem with it is that beneficial recessive genes do not express themselves in order for natural selection to play a part. Eg, in this case a recessive gene that made you taller would not have come in to action to allow the possessor to be taller - he still would have been short. If, however, his recessive gene became dominant because both parents had it, then along with that would come all the harmless/harmful genes, making the person tall, stunted, internal bleeding, etc, making it survive here, but adding a whole lot of other disadvantages to the gene pool. This is a regression, not the advancement that macro-evolution requires. The royal family, pedigree animals, etc, are real life data that affirms my argument that recessive genes make a creature more damaged than improved to have natural selection operate well.
So what is a vestigial organ? So far it's been any part of the body that is essential but you seem to think resembles some prehistory that may or may not have happened, that you cannot prove, but might possibly provide you some evidence. By demonstrating that every vestigial organ has a function it can be argued equally convincingly that it was originally designed to be used for just such a purpose, and that resemblance to some unproved hypothetical mythical history is pure chance.
-
hundreds of other examples, to see that that any first year medical student could have done a better of job of designing the human body.
-
Sure a first year student. I have also heard more qualified people claim that the human body is so perfect that it could not be improved. I wish we could test this and see if a first year student really could improve the human body. Would you be willing to place bets if we could?
-
Unfortunately, they are still not very good at it. This writer contends that evolution is "illogical and impossible" if he can refute one part of the theory that has to do with the role of mutation in natural selection.
-
Don't you understand logic and reason? If one can demonstrate a single part of an idea to be impossible/illogical, then the whole idea is then false (presuming, of course, that the area disputed is essential to the idea. In this case it is - beneficial recessive genes exist, yet through evolution it is impossible to explain them).
If I prove this as false, then evolution is false.
Evolution works on the presumption that all genes existing today arose through genetic mutations. The creationist takes the point of view that most genes today are from the original 2 archetypes of each species, and just a few genes are mutations, usually harmless/harmful.
-
Given the size of the thesis, you'd expect more evidence for the existence of God than that.
-
I was not trying to prove the existence of God. I was trying to show evolution as illogical and impossible. If you want proof for God then go find it. I can give you some pointers.
Please don't call evolution science. Like creationist theory, evolution is likewise not science. Please look up and understand what qualifies as science.
You make the presumption that believers in macro-evolution have a full and proper understanding of evolution so that nothing they say is ever refuted? Because I'm sure, that when you say creationists are refuted, you are actually merely inferring a time when a creationist has said something that is not true, but that wasn't a blow to the overall model.
Creation and evolution have had blows to both sides. What I tried to do here was show an example which not only disrupted current theory of evolution, but actually demonstrated it to be impossible and therefore untrue. I'd like to see one such argument against creation that does that.
One further point. Evolution and creation are not scientific - I never claimed that they were. Note again please: creation AND evolution are NOT science. They fit much better in the realm of philosophy. Look up what science is (not just a dictionary but a proper explanation) and you will see that neither fits it. Then try and find out what philosophy is. A discussion of origins falls under philosophy.
Also, if creationism is so illogical, and you are so wise and intelligent that you put your faith in evolution, then perhaps you'd care to refute the argument I made demonstrating evolution as impossible. Half the reason I posted it on slashdot was to test the argument more and see if any obvious flaws could be found. The more people that claim it is rubbish but can't present an argument against it, the more convinced I become. So speak up while you can.
Otherwise, if you don't understand evolution personally, how can you be so bold as to say that creationism is bullshit?
I've heard many arguments against creation, none of them reasonabl - things like "how do the animals fit on the ark?" or "where is the evidence for the flood?", etc. These all demonstrate remarkable lack of understanding of an opponents view.
They say that it talks about all distributions. Distrubution security flaws then would not be related to linux itself but the applications that each distribution includes.
This has a couple of problems then:
1. Wininformant would then include all sendmail, etc, security holes as linux bugs. I don't think that they would include extra Microsoft products that a user may/may not choose to install - they are probably talking about the machine after installation. As such, IIS, Sendmail, Outlook, etc, on a windows installation would not be counted towards the number of bugs.
2. The increased number of security holes reported for linux may actually not be representative of the number of holes present, but instead be a measurement of the amount of exposure that linux receives, therefore eliminating more bugs. Following this logic you could conclude that linux was more secure for that 8 months. Of course, you could probably never measure this, making it pure hypotheses.
Well, you certainly wrote a lot of words and said very little. Your challenge at the end is worthy of checking out - it will indeed help advance or hinder the creationist position. If you could find out too that would be helpful, but it's probably hard to find out until the genome project is more complete?
Anyway, what is science?
http://www.csicop.org/youngskeptics/education/re so urces/sciencedef.html
This gives a good description. Dictionaries have small explanations, so consult something that deals with the issues properly.
Your first point is merely insults.
second point: Indeed, ICR is biased, but so is science by those who support macro-evolution, and I have seen my fair share of it. Faith in God is not blind but based on solid evidence, and you are a fool if you think that there is no God merely because you have seen no convincing evidence for it. The best you can say is that you have not seen evidence to believe in God, just the same as you can say there is no evidence of life on other planets - but you can make guesses about it.
Of course, I believe that the existence of God can be proven.
Third point: see above.
Fourth point: Science is NOT about good explanations, that is philosophy. See webpage above. Also, natural selection fits perfectly with the creationist model - it is logical and verifiable.
Fifth: Like I said, the acid spit was an extreme example. In reality a majority of mutations are harmless/harmful (around 99% I believe), so for something to actually develop some useful mutation would take a long time - and here we talk about dominant genes. You still have failed to adress the problem of recessive genes - I wonder why?
Stop beating around the bush and answer my challenge if you can.
I'd just like to say that I am shocked by the replies that have been given to my messages "Evolution is a Fairy Tale". As I guessed people have misunderstood and misinterpreted what I have said. Later, if it's worth it, I'll come respond to some of what has been said.
Here, however, I would like to say this:
Creation theory and evolutionary theory are BOTH UNVERIFIABLE - They do not fit the requirements for being considered science, and as such are to be considered philosophies - they are to do with logic and reason. Anyone who says that creation is unscientific has not considered the issues properly. Go look up what science means and show me how you can fit the theory of evolution into that category. Then, look up philosophy and see if it's easier.
From a preliminary glance, no one seems to have actually addressed the propblem I presented in my message. I know that acidic spit is a huge jump - I was doing it for simplicity's sake. The fact that jumps like that don't happen makes macro-evolution even harder to argue, since presumably it takes a number of useless mutations that natural selection would play no role with before something useful is created. We all know that in a computer program a small random change is far more likely to cause an error than it is to improve a program.
A creationist argues that all the variety we see today - hair color, length, voice, etc, was coded into the original two of each kind. So Adam & Eve had present in them all the genetic combinations we see alive today. Genetic mutations, under the creationist model, have played no role in the creation of these natural variations.
I've done a lot of reading on the arguments for evolution (macro-evolution) compared with creation, that God has created the world.
I have come to the conclusion that evolution is impossible.
Before people start modding this down or claiming I am an idiot, first hear me out a little.
Natural selection does occur - this cannot be denied because it is observable and verifiable. Genetic mutations occur - this also is observable and verifiable.
The creationist understanding of evolution splits it into two areas:
1. Micro-evolution - variation within species. This is where natural selection plays a role - bears born in icy area, one has brown fur one has white. The one with white hair survives, so eventually the gene pool becomes small and only white furred bears are around
2. Macro-evolution - this is the fairy tale that claims that enough genetic mutations will eventually lead to the creation of a new species (whatever this may mean, since those who have faith in macro-evolution have a blurry line between micro and macro-evolution)
I have considered the method by which evolutionists (by this title I mean those who have placed faith in macro-evolution) claim that life arose, and that variation and new species arrived, and it seems to not only contradict available data - is also logically impossible.
When you read these please keep an open mind. Many people have not heard a reasonable or rational description of creation science, and there are bound to be misinterpretations and misunderstandings. Please try to understand it first.
I have considered the theory of evolution and the reasons it gives for how this process works: variation through genetic mutation, with natural selection eliminating the disadvantages.
Natural selection does work in regards to eliminating disadvantageous mutations. However, it fails when we consider recessive genes.
Fact 1: We have beneficial recessive genes.
Fact 2: Harmful mutations far outnumber beneficial mutations
Fact 3: Natural selection requires a genetic mutation to express itself in order for the selection to work
Some may have already guessed the problem, but I will explain it in more detail. Imagine two elephants have a child, and this child possesses a disadvantageous mutation - this recessive mutation, when dominant, causes the elephant to have no tail. This child with the mutated recessive gene has a tail because the gene is recessive so doesn't express itself - thus natural selection is unable to work. This happens for a few generations until one day two partners have a child with no tail - these partners were distant relatives from the elephant child with the initial mutation. Here is the problem: for the recessive mutation to express itself, the partners must both possess the gene. This is only going to happen among relatives.
Now comes the problem for evolution: Imagine that the elephant has a beneficial mutation of a recessive gene - it can launch acidic spit from it's mouth to render an attacker unconscious (this of course is not realistic, and would require a number of successive extremely lucky mutations - impossible). This elephant though, like the one with the missing tail gene does not express it, and natural selection does not come into play. 5 generations down the track, two close relatives have a child with this super spit power. Unfortunately, because of the second fact I listed above, this child also has a missing tail, one leg that can't move properly, a reduced brain size, and a bad back meaning it has difficulty feeding in hard to reach places. The problem here is that along with the beneficial mutation there came a host of harmful mutations. Such is the nature of recessive genes - it won't express itself until close relatives with the same recessive gene mate with each other.
To summarise:
For a beneficial mutation of a recessive gene to enter the gene pool as a useful component, close relatives must mate with each other to make it dominant and allow natural selection to play it's part. Problem: when this happens a host of harmful mutations carry out their effect on the creature, rendering it cumulatively worse off than the beneficial mutation offsets. Conclusion: evolution is impossible as beneficial recessive mutations could never have arisen.
We have evidence that close relations have cumulatively worse of children than average partners. The data fits perfectly.
Producing GPL software such as MySQL, and GNU/Linux in general, can be profitable. The company that produces the product can provide support and consultation for the product and make a revenue off that. All these tools are a means to an end - you use a MySQL database to make your data accessable to the company. You use gcc to create programs.
Games have no such luxury. They are the end product. There is very little to be made off support, certainly not enough to support the development of games like QuakeIII. Games have to make their revenue off initial sales.
Linux has proven dominant in the server market and it is a brilliant star there. Many have now set their eyes on the desktop, and all
signs seem to indicate that this is a viable dream. I see linux gaming as the target after the desktop - once we have a serious control of the desktop market, Linux games will become a serious issue. Until then, however, the fight for Linux games will be difficult, as many others are pointing out.
Loki did a great job, and many of us love their games, and it's sad to see them go. But the fight's not over yet.
Projects like this are in the spirit of open source, but even more in the spirit of anarchy. It makes people feel that they have the power to live their lives, and be a partner in a great project rather than a pawn of someone else's project (as is seen in the business world).
It also encourages co-operation, sharing (in the positive ways the internet does), and community spirit.
If we could see more projects like this, perhaps internet (or the controls that ISP's and government have over it) will become redundant, and return to the loose connection of computers around the world that it once was.
"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
- Commissioner Pravin Lal,
"U.N. Declaration of Rights"
I believe these words have a glimmer of truth in them. Unfortunately, in the western world I see the signs of an increasing desire to collect and conceal information from the public.
When I first used WinXP for half an hour or so I was really impressed. I though, 'this looks nice, it has more of the stability of win2000, it's really enjoyable to use and well integrated'. Then I actually began to use it properly, and discovered that it makes itself look more powerful than it really is. There are no advanced features behind the pretty GUI. When I'm back in KDE or GNOME I feel like I have a great deal of power - and I do. The options are there to do various different useful functions that just aren't present in windows.
Windows copies other people's innovations and claims it as it's own. Then people like you think that Microsoft came first and claim that linux is copying. I consider KDE more advanced than the windows GUI, not catching up (there are some deficiencies in KDE compared to Windows, but overall it is better).
This is just going to keep on going unless it is decided that someone besides Microsoft is to design and offer a settlement. Otherwise, Microsoft will continue to give us offer after offer of tricky, deceitful settlements until we all get tired and give in.
I have some comments for those who believe in God, and those who do not:
1. If you believe that humans have a spirit (and animals do not), consider the following possibilities:
a) such clones have no spirit, and so behave like animals with the culture, intelligence, etc, of animals
b) the clones have a spirit, and as such struggle to be accepted as humans by those who are born in the normal way. Such hybrids would quickly become outcasts of society, and live miserable lives.
Either alternative would frighten the average person.
For those who would say the experiments are not aimed for creating living, walking, breathing, eating hybrids - we all know that some will escape and such research will be abused at some point.
For those who do not believe in God:
Without knowing how such a hybrid would feel, then perhaps the genetic combination would result in a creature with barely functioning/poorly integrated body structure that results in a constant pain for the creature. If you believe that evolution is fact (which I do not), then the line between human and animal is non-existant - this is a given. Humans try and strive for humane methods in general (but there are many exceptions). For those who believe evolution, what about the suffering that such hybrid may feel? They may even have conflicting desires that they are unable to fulfill, such as intimate human contact. Again, if this was scientifically possible then such hybrids would eventually be created, for better or for worse.
This kind of comment just annoys me, because it reminds me of the misplaced confidence America seems to have in winning this war. Taliban losing controlled areas - think about it for just a minute. If you were the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden, what would you do? Would you try and hold the cities? Or would you retreat to your extensive cave network, and let America/Northern Alliance feed the cities during the winter? It's an excellent strategy for the Taliban to deliberately lose control of all of Afghanistan, because like Vietnam, their advantage is in remaining small and hidden.
America is not pure, and it's hands are much more stained than Osama Bin Laden's.
Slashdot Mirror
Thankyou for your genuine interest in talking about this rather than throwing insults.
It is true that most mutations are harmless/harmful, from what I have been able to understand. This doesn't actually hurt my argument, because from examination of animals that multiply rapidly, it seems like beneficial mutations never/almost never occur (one example 4000 mutations occurred and no beneficial one had been found. Of course, a beetle losing wings on a windy island may be argued as beneficial, but that is a loss of information, and hardly a progression that evolution requires. Give me an example of information changed through mutation, such as hair color, or new information added without loss that produces a benefit).
-
This isn't how evolution works. Keep in mind that every population has a good deal of variety in it. When that population is put under stress (say, there's a flood and all the short people die), individuals whose genetic traits give them an advantage for dealing with that specific stress have a better chance of survival.
-
I agree that this is how natural selection works. My problem with it is that beneficial recessive genes do not express themselves in order for natural selection to play a part. Eg, in this case a recessive gene that made you taller would not have come in to action to allow the possessor to be taller - he still would have been short. If, however, his recessive gene became dominant because both parents had it, then along with that would come all the harmless/harmful genes, making the person tall, stunted, internal bleeding, etc, making it survive here, but adding a whole lot of other disadvantages to the gene pool. This is a regression, not the advancement that macro-evolution requires. The royal family, pedigree animals, etc, are real life data that affirms my argument that recessive genes make a creature more damaged than improved to have natural selection operate well.
Hope I explained that well.
Again, thanks for not being rude.
So what is a vestigial organ? So far it's been any part of the body that is essential but you seem to think resembles some prehistory that may or may not have happened, that you cannot prove, but might possibly provide you some evidence. By demonstrating that every vestigial organ has a function it can be argued equally convincingly that it was originally designed to be used for just such a purpose, and that resemblance to some unproved hypothetical mythical history is pure chance.
-
hundreds of other examples, to see that that any first year medical student could have done a better of job of designing the human body.
-
Sure a first year student. I have also heard more qualified people claim that the human body is so perfect that it could not be improved. I wish we could test this and see if a first year student really could improve the human body. Would you be willing to place bets if we could?
-
Unfortunately, they are still not very good at it. This writer contends that evolution is "illogical and impossible" if he can refute one part of the theory that has to do with the role of mutation in natural selection.
-
Don't you understand logic and reason? If one can demonstrate a single part of an idea to be impossible/illogical, then the whole idea is then false (presuming, of course, that the area disputed is essential to the idea. In this case it is - beneficial recessive genes exist, yet through evolution it is impossible to explain them).
If I prove this as false, then evolution is false.
Evolution works on the presumption that all genes existing today arose through genetic mutations. The creationist takes the point of view that most genes today are from the original 2 archetypes of each species, and just a few genes are mutations, usually harmless/harmful.
-
Given the size of the thesis, you'd expect more evidence for the existence of God than that.
-
I was not trying to prove the existence of God. I was trying to show evolution as illogical and impossible. If you want proof for God then go find it. I can give you some pointers.
Please don't call evolution science. Like creationist theory, evolution is likewise not science. Please look up and understand what qualifies as science.
Thankyou for the vote of confidence.
You make the presumption that believers in macro-evolution have a full and proper understanding of evolution so that nothing they say is ever refuted? Because I'm sure, that when you say creationists are refuted, you are actually merely inferring a time when a creationist has said something that is not true, but that wasn't a blow to the overall model.
Creation and evolution have had blows to both sides. What I tried to do here was show an example which not only disrupted current theory of evolution, but actually demonstrated it to be impossible and therefore untrue. I'd like to see one such argument against creation that does that.
One further point. Evolution and creation are not scientific - I never claimed that they were. Note again please: creation AND evolution are NOT science. They fit much better in the realm of philosophy. Look up what science is (not just a dictionary but a proper explanation) and you will see that neither fits it. Then try and find out what philosophy is. A discussion of origins falls under philosophy.
Also, if creationism is so illogical, and you are so wise and intelligent that you put your faith in evolution, then perhaps you'd care to refute the argument I made demonstrating evolution as impossible. Half the reason I posted it on slashdot was to test the argument more and see if any obvious flaws could be found. The more people that claim it is rubbish but can't present an argument against it, the more convinced I become. So speak up while you can.
Otherwise, if you don't understand evolution personally, how can you be so bold as to say that creationism is bullshit?
I've heard many arguments against creation, none of them reasonabl - things like "how do the animals fit on the ark?" or "where is the evidence for the flood?", etc. These all demonstrate remarkable lack of understanding of an opponents view.
They say that it talks about all distributions. Distrubution security flaws then would not be related to linux itself but the applications that each distribution includes.
This has a couple of problems then:
1. Wininformant would then include all sendmail, etc, security holes as linux bugs. I don't think that they would include extra Microsoft products that a user may/may not choose to install - they are probably talking about the machine after installation. As such, IIS, Sendmail, Outlook, etc, on a windows installation would not be counted towards the number of bugs.
2. The increased number of security holes reported for linux may actually not be representative of the number of holes present, but instead be a measurement of the amount of exposure that linux receives, therefore eliminating more bugs. Following this logic you could conclude that linux was more secure for that 8 months. Of course, you could probably never measure this, making it pure hypotheses.
Well, you certainly wrote a lot of words and said very little. Your challenge at the end is worthy of checking out - it will indeed help advance or hinder the creationist position. If you could find out too that would be helpful, but it's probably hard to find out until the genome project is more complete?
e so urces/sciencedef.html
Anyway, what is science?
http://www.csicop.org/youngskeptics/education/r
This gives a good description. Dictionaries have small explanations, so consult something that deals with the issues properly.
Your first point is merely insults.
second point: Indeed, ICR is biased, but so is science by those who support macro-evolution, and I have seen my fair share of it. Faith in God is not blind but based on solid evidence, and you are a fool if you think that there is no God merely because you have seen no convincing evidence for it. The best you can say is that you have not seen evidence to believe in God, just the same as you can say there is no evidence of life on other planets - but you can make guesses about it.
Of course, I believe that the existence of God can be proven.
Third point: see above.
Fourth point: Science is NOT about good explanations, that is philosophy. See webpage above. Also, natural selection fits perfectly with the creationist model - it is logical and verifiable.
Fifth: Like I said, the acid spit was an extreme example. In reality a majority of mutations are harmless/harmful (around 99% I believe), so for something to actually develop some useful mutation would take a long time - and here we talk about dominant genes. You still have failed to adress the problem of recessive genes - I wonder why?
Stop beating around the bush and answer my challenge if you can.
I'd just like to say that I am shocked by the replies that have been given to my messages "Evolution is a Fairy Tale". As I guessed people have misunderstood and misinterpreted what I have said. Later, if it's worth it, I'll come respond to some of what has been said.
Here, however, I would like to say this:
Creation theory and evolutionary theory are BOTH UNVERIFIABLE - They do not fit the requirements for being considered science, and as such are to be considered philosophies - they are to do with logic and reason. Anyone who says that creation is unscientific has not considered the issues properly. Go look up what science means and show me how you can fit the theory of evolution into that category. Then, look up philosophy and see if it's easier.
From a preliminary glance, no one seems to have actually addressed the propblem I presented in my message. I know that acidic spit is a huge jump - I was doing it for simplicity's sake. The fact that jumps like that don't happen makes macro-evolution even harder to argue, since presumably it takes a number of useless mutations that natural selection would play no role with before something useful is created. We all know that in a computer program a small random change is far more likely to cause an error than it is to improve a program.
A creationist argues that all the variety we see today - hair color, length, voice, etc, was coded into the original two of each kind. So Adam & Eve had present in them all the genetic combinations we see alive today. Genetic mutations, under the creationist model, have played no role in the creation of these natural variations.
I have come to the conclusion that evolution is impossible.
Before people start modding this down or claiming I am an idiot, first hear me out a little.
Natural selection does occur - this cannot be denied because it is observable and verifiable. Genetic mutations occur - this also is observable and verifiable.
The creationist understanding of evolution splits it into two areas:
1. Micro-evolution - variation within species. This is where natural selection plays a role - bears born in icy area, one has brown fur one has white. The one with white hair survives, so eventually the gene pool becomes small and only white furred bears are around
2. Macro-evolution - this is the fairy tale that claims that enough genetic mutations will eventually lead to the creation of a new species (whatever this may mean, since those who have faith in macro-evolution have a blurry line between micro and macro-evolution)
I have considered the method by which evolutionists (by this title I mean those who have placed faith in macro-evolution) claim that life arose, and that variation and new species arrived, and it seems to not only contradict available data - is also logically impossible.
Since this post will get rather long, I will also point to a link that can help explain it more adequately. This is an article by the Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org) http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-089.htm
When you read these please keep an open mind. Many people have not heard a reasonable or rational description of creation science, and there are bound to be misinterpretations and misunderstandings. Please try to understand it first.
I have considered the theory of evolution and the reasons it gives for how this process works: variation through genetic mutation, with natural selection eliminating the disadvantages.
Natural selection does work in regards to eliminating disadvantageous mutations. However, it fails when we consider recessive genes.
Fact 1: We have beneficial recessive genes.
Fact 2: Harmful mutations far outnumber beneficial mutations
Fact 3: Natural selection requires a genetic mutation to express itself in order for the selection to work
Some may have already guessed the problem, but I will explain it in more detail. Imagine two elephants have a child, and this child possesses a disadvantageous mutation - this recessive mutation, when dominant, causes the elephant to have no tail. This child with the mutated recessive gene has a tail because the gene is recessive so doesn't express itself - thus natural selection is unable to work. This happens for a few generations until one day two partners have a child with no tail - these partners were distant relatives from the elephant child with the initial mutation. Here is the problem: for the recessive mutation to express itself, the partners must both possess the gene. This is only going to happen among relatives.
Now comes the problem for evolution: Imagine that the elephant has a beneficial mutation of a recessive gene - it can launch acidic spit from it's mouth to render an attacker unconscious (this of course is not realistic, and would require a number of successive extremely lucky mutations - impossible). This elephant though, like the one with the missing tail gene does not express it, and natural selection does not come into play. 5 generations down the track, two close relatives have a child with this super spit power. Unfortunately, because of the second fact I listed above, this child also has a missing tail, one leg that can't move properly, a reduced brain size, and a bad back meaning it has difficulty feeding in hard to reach places. The problem here is that along with the beneficial mutation there came a host of harmful mutations. Such is the nature of recessive genes - it won't express itself until close relatives with the same recessive gene mate with each other.
To summarise:
For a beneficial mutation of a recessive gene to enter the gene pool as a useful component, close relatives must mate with each other to make it dominant and allow natural selection to play it's part. Problem: when this happens a host of harmful mutations carry out their effect on the creature, rendering it cumulatively worse off than the beneficial mutation offsets. Conclusion: evolution is impossible as beneficial recessive mutations could never have arisen.
We have evidence that close relations have cumulatively worse of children than average partners. The data fits perfectly.
Evolution is illogical and impossible.
- A trendy Enlightenment style boot manager
- Animation of your favourite movie in the background
- A dragon stalking around
Then again, I have no ideas of what the potential or limit of this isGames have no such luxury. They are the end product. There is very little to be made off support, certainly not enough to support the development of games like QuakeIII. Games have to make their revenue off initial sales.
Linux has proven dominant in the server market and it is a brilliant star there. Many have now set their eyes on the desktop, and all signs seem to indicate that this is a viable dream. I see linux gaming as the target after the desktop - once we have a serious control of the desktop market, Linux games will become a serious issue. Until then, however, the fight for Linux games will be difficult, as many others are pointing out. Loki did a great job, and many of us love their games, and it's sad to see them go. But the fight's not over yet.
It also encourages co-operation, sharing (in the positive ways the internet does), and community spirit.
If we could see more projects like this, perhaps internet (or the controls that ISP's and government have over it) will become redundant, and return to the loose connection of computers around the world that it once was.
"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
- Commissioner Pravin Lal,
"U.N. Declaration of Rights"
I believe these words have a glimmer of truth in them. Unfortunately, in the western world I see the signs of an increasing desire to collect and conceal information from the public.
When I first used WinXP for half an hour or so I was really impressed. I though, 'this looks nice, it has more of the stability of win2000, it's really enjoyable to use and well integrated'. Then I actually began to use it properly, and discovered that it makes itself look more powerful than it really is. There are no advanced features behind the pretty GUI. When I'm back in KDE or GNOME I feel like I have a great deal of power - and I do. The options are there to do various different useful functions that just aren't present in windows.
Windows copies other people's innovations and claims it as it's own. Then people like you think that Microsoft came first and claim that linux is copying. I consider KDE more advanced than the windows GUI, not catching up (there are some deficiencies in KDE compared to Windows, but overall it is better).
This is just going to keep on going unless it is decided that someone besides Microsoft is to design and offer a settlement. Otherwise, Microsoft will continue to give us offer after offer of tricky, deceitful settlements until we all get tired and give in.
Following the uniformitarian model of evolution, yes, it may seem implausible.
2000 feet is not implausable considering earthquakes, volcanos, melting ice from the ice age, etc. Any number of explanations.
I have some comments for those who believe in God, and those who do not: 1. If you believe that humans have a spirit (and animals do not), consider the following possibilities: a) such clones have no spirit, and so behave like animals with the culture, intelligence, etc, of animals b) the clones have a spirit, and as such struggle to be accepted as humans by those who are born in the normal way. Such hybrids would quickly become outcasts of society, and live miserable lives. Either alternative would frighten the average person. For those who would say the experiments are not aimed for creating living, walking, breathing, eating hybrids - we all know that some will escape and such research will be abused at some point. For those who do not believe in God: Without knowing how such a hybrid would feel, then perhaps the genetic combination would result in a creature with barely functioning/poorly integrated body structure that results in a constant pain for the creature. If you believe that evolution is fact (which I do not), then the line between human and animal is non-existant - this is a given. Humans try and strive for humane methods in general (but there are many exceptions). For those who believe evolution, what about the suffering that such hybrid may feel? They may even have conflicting desires that they are unable to fulfill, such as intimate human contact. Again, if this was scientifically possible then such hybrids would eventually be created, for better or for worse.
So is there a foo.au?
This kind of comment just annoys me, because it reminds me of the misplaced confidence America seems to have in winning this war. Taliban losing controlled areas - think about it for just a minute. If you were the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden, what would you do? Would you try and hold the cities? Or would you retreat to your extensive cave network, and let America/Northern Alliance feed the cities during the winter? It's an excellent strategy for the Taliban to deliberately lose control of all of Afghanistan, because like Vietnam, their advantage is in remaining small and hidden. America is not pure, and it's hands are much more stained than Osama Bin Laden's.
It only counts as terrorism if it's against the united states.