Scientific method is always opened up to testing of falsifiable hypothesis. That's how science progresses.
Where those with political/religious motivations have problems is: 1) Overwhelming evidence doesn't get negated simply because it conflicts with your particular belief. 2) Weak evidence doesn't get merit simply because it makes you feel good.
RE: Any moron can produce a graph using the Excel wizards. It takes some education and training to get something meaningful out of the numbers.
Exactly, and that's why Excel is a better charting tool; Because any moron can use it and get a graph. Those moron's dont need in depth staticical analysis. They just want the graph.
not exactly userfriendly when I can fire up excel and produce a nice graph. Just last week, I tried to use openoffice to plot some chemistry data. I was not able to plot a regression line. So I had to go back to Excel. If your saying the OpenOffice solution is to download another tool, well that's not gonna cut it for the general public.
"Insects are exponentially self replicating machines and if they did not have competition that ate them would have covered this world with insect goo."
Every species is like that. Not just insects. Competition and other ecological pressures keep populations down. In an ideal environment without competition, and unlimited resources, any species will show that behavior.
semi-true.
Bike owners who don't wear proper attire. (read: those EasyRider wannabees who are accountants by day, and Harley riding, leather vest wearing, armor/helmet avoiding posers during weekends ).
I believe a trained person on a motercycle, who is properly armored, and alert would stand a good chance against the evil cell-phone-wielding-soccer-mom-in-an-SUV onslaught.
But for those idiot bikers out there that make the rest of us look reckless; thanks for the organs. It's the least you could do.
" So let me get this straight. Smokers are not to blame for smoking but the people who provide them WITH WHAT THEY WANT are???"
correct.
Providers of tobacco products are drug pushers. They're not exactly doing a community service here. They're perpetuating a deadly addiction for financial gain.
Violated? Hardly
Deac had an unflattering NYT article written about him, and he is prolonging the embarassment by constantly posting about it.
In a way, he is supporting the writer's suggestion that his life is unfulfilled and consumed by AO.
Deac should just let it go, and forget about it. We would have by now.
Where on earh were you told that an eye requires those 4 items to confer an advantage? That's just plain wrong.
This whole 'eye' that creationists use is so old and debunked that I didn't even think it was used anymore. Aparently it is because someone rattled it on to you, apparently.
For a really nice summary of evolution, and variations of eye structure take a look at Chapter 5 of "Climbing Mount Improbable". Its a really nice chapter that simply and clearly explains the benifits gained from structures less-advanced than the human eye.
As another replier to your message pointed out, a modified neuron that reacts to light gives a wonderful advantage to species thats (for example) food source is depentand of photosynthesis. When these light seneative cells are collected on a slightly cupped surface, they is some limited directional sense to the light detection. Further gains are had by cell sensitivity to particular wavelengths (color). protective coverings to the cells (eventual lenses), additional cell clusters (3d sensing), etc.
So my anonymous friend, you were told wrong when someone preached to you about what is required for an eye to achieve some advantage. Evolutionary advantages are typically small changes for small gains. The history of the eye is no exception, and evidence supports this.
My goodness, Coward. That's quite the run-on sentence ya got goin' there. Not sure I grasp it in its grand entirety, but I'll try to respond.
Mr BlindFish received no advantage from those eyes; there was no environmental pressure to retain them. They faded away. Same with Mr BlindFish's pigmentation. It didn't do him any good. So the pigmentation faded away.
The success of a species isn't based on the number of tools hanging from his biological toobelt. eg: Eyes, legs, antenna, big brains, etc. Success is driven by the species ability to adapt to to the environment and reproduce; thus perpetuating extending the genetic profile to the next generation.
No High Horse here, but I'd say you are incorrectly equating body parts with success.
There is no 'progress' or 'regress' in evolution. There is adaptation. Your "improved version" belief is based on arrogance.
The blind fish didn't regress. It adapted.
Can't stomach a discussion of Apple's core market? This is the computer industry, SkepTech. And I believe discussion of it is fair game here.
The original author is correct. Apple doesn't target users who will assemble their own computer. If you want something that looks and plays really cool out of the box, you pay for it.
-dh
Slashdot Mirror
I agree.
The spleen stores WBC's. That's nothing new.
Scientific method is always opened up to testing of falsifiable hypothesis. That's how science progresses.
Where those with political/religious motivations have problems is:
1) Overwhelming evidence doesn't get negated simply because it conflicts with your particular belief.
2) Weak evidence doesn't get merit simply because it makes you feel good.
Science evolves. Some people's dogma doesn't.
If you "come with an authority in that I *know* that God exists, Jesus is real."
Then you lack scientific reasoning.
of course then I read the first chapter of your so called book and see that scientific reasoning isn't the only think your lacking.
this is an awesome testimonial, and I agree. If you find that you are driven towards science, the pursue it.
its a pain in the ass to get firefox to tab?????
huh?
right click on a link, and select "open in new tab".
I dont see how it could get easier than that. Maybe Im misunderstanding you
RE: Any moron can produce a graph using the Excel wizards. It takes some education and training to get something meaningful out of the numbers.
Exactly, and that's why Excel is a better charting tool; Because any moron can use it and get a graph. Those moron's dont need in depth staticical analysis. They just want the graph.
not exactly userfriendly when I can fire up excel and produce a nice graph. Just last week, I tried to use openoffice to plot some chemistry data. I was not able to plot a regression line. So I had to go back to Excel. If your saying the OpenOffice solution is to download another tool, well that's not gonna cut it for the general public.
"Insects are exponentially self replicating machines and if they did not have competition that ate them would have covered this world with insect goo."
Every species is like that. Not just insects. Competition and other ecological pressures keep populations down. In an ideal environment without competition, and unlimited resources, any species will show that behavior.
semi-true.
Bike owners who don't wear proper attire.
(read: those EasyRider wannabees who are accountants by day, and Harley riding, leather vest wearing, armor/helmet avoiding posers during weekends ).
I believe a trained person on a motercycle, who is properly armored, and alert would stand a good chance against the evil cell-phone-wielding-soccer-mom-in-an-SUV onslaught.
But for those idiot bikers out there that make the rest of us look reckless; thanks for the organs. It's the least you could do.
You're right. that's exactly what a was going to point out (lucky a did a page search for "tlog" so I wouldnt look like a *total* spaz)
*shrug*
" So let me get this straight. Smokers are not to blame for smoking but the people who provide them WITH WHAT THEY WANT are???"
correct.
Providers of tobacco products are drug pushers. They're not exactly doing a community service here. They're perpetuating a deadly addiction for financial gain.
Violated? Hardly
Deac had an unflattering NYT article written about him, and he is prolonging the embarassment by constantly posting about it.
In a way, he is supporting the writer's suggestion that his life is unfulfilled and consumed by AO.
Deac should just let it go, and forget about it. We would have by now.
"The people flaming me are the ones I used to beat up in high school and the social rejects I shun and reject today."
I guess you are not such a nice guy afterall.
Where on earh were you told that an eye requires those 4 items to confer an advantage? That's just plain wrong.
This whole 'eye' that creationists use is so old and debunked that I didn't even think it was used anymore. Aparently it is because someone rattled it on to you, apparently.
For a really nice summary of evolution, and variations of eye structure take a look at Chapter 5 of "Climbing Mount Improbable". Its a really nice chapter that simply and clearly explains the benifits gained from structures less-advanced than the human eye.
As another replier to your message pointed out, a modified neuron that reacts to light gives a wonderful advantage to species thats (for example) food source is depentand of photosynthesis. When these light seneative cells are collected on a slightly cupped surface, they is some limited directional sense to the light detection. Further gains are had by cell sensitivity to particular wavelengths (color). protective coverings to the cells (eventual lenses), additional cell clusters (3d sensing), etc.
So my anonymous friend, you were told wrong when someone preached to you about what is required for an eye to achieve some advantage. Evolutionary advantages are typically small changes for small gains. The history of the eye is no exception, and evidence supports this.
My goodness, Coward. That's quite the run-on sentence ya got goin' there. Not sure I grasp it in its grand entirety, but I'll try to respond. Mr BlindFish received no advantage from those eyes; there was no environmental pressure to retain them. They faded away. Same with Mr BlindFish's pigmentation. It didn't do him any good. So the pigmentation faded away. The success of a species isn't based on the number of tools hanging from his biological toobelt. eg: Eyes, legs, antenna, big brains, etc. Success is driven by the species ability to adapt to to the environment and reproduce; thus perpetuating extending the genetic profile to the next generation. No High Horse here, but I'd say you are incorrectly equating body parts with success.
There is no 'progress' or 'regress' in evolution. There is adaptation. Your "improved version" belief is based on arrogance. The blind fish didn't regress. It adapted.
Can't stomach a discussion of Apple's core market? This is the computer industry, SkepTech. And I believe discussion of it is fair game here. The original author is correct. Apple doesn't target users who will assemble their own computer. If you want something that looks and plays really cool out of the box, you pay for it. -dh