As if evolution was invented to make it possible for people to avoid responsibilities. No, that's not the case.
That must indeed be a weak god who's so easily put aside by a little science. Besides, it's not like there isn't a multitude of supposed deities we should pander to to make sure we secure our place in a supposed afterlife. Evolution doesn't make any comments whatsoever regarding deities, and most religious people in the western world don't see evolution killing their God.
Evolution doesn't deal with the origins of the universe. Strictly speaking it doesn't even touch the subject of the beginning of life. It's only purpose is to explain the natural phenomenon of evolution of organisms over life's history on Earth. That doesn't mean, however, that we couldn't or shouldn't make an attempt to scientifically explain how life came to be. Still, that's something the evolutionary theory does not and doesn't even try to explain.
Mammalian teeth (that includes the teeth of us, humans) are the most complex teeth of the vertebrate world. The fact that we have only two sets of teeth (milk teeth and permanent teeth) isn't probably an adaptation to wearing, but to the complexity. Unlike the teeth of other vertebrates (fish, reptiles etc.), the teeth of mammals occlude, that is they fit together like a jigsaw (well, some of us need a little help to make that work...). This makes them very effective masticators. Simple pointed teeth are replaced easily when they break or wear out, whereas complex teeth like ours would be a huge energy sink were they to be replaced many times during our lives. Also, the quality of the occlusion would probably deteriorate if we had lots of replacement teeth growing at different times - look at all those problems we have with the fitting of our teeth in our mouths even with only two sets of teeth! Thus, having only two sets of teeth is the best or least bad solution to mammals.
Oh, and how come our teeth survived when we didn't brush them? Well, we didn't drink Coke and eat all kinds of over-sugared stuff back then.;)
"All the small, intermediate steps do nothing for the organism, so evolution has a problem."
Yes, it is known that most of the genetic changes that happen during the lifetime of an organism are indeed neutral, i.e. they do nothing. However, these changes have the potential to act as the basis to significant changes later in the evolutionary history of a population. (This, however, doesn't mean the changes were planned to be useful later on.)
Remember that evolution always builds upon something that is already a functional part in a functional entity - it does not plan ahead. This means that the predecessor of a bird's wing was not a uselesss half-wing. Instead it was a useful limb, well used for something else than flying, but at one certain point of its evolution its owner could also start using it for flying/gliding. Also, steady gradual change (so-called gradualism) has been dismissed as a evolutionary model. Populations respond to changes in their environment and sometimes evolve faster, sometimes slower. During steady times natural selection actually favors the genetic stability of a population by weeding off extreme deviations from the general 'model'.
Good post. BTW, there's an interesting aspect to the being/not being able to breed debate. Apparently, there are many species (or what are considered as separate species) which could, from a genetic point of view, interbreed, but they won't, because their mating behavior is different, i.e. they don't 'understand' each other, or they inhabit different ecological niches and thus don't meet. As Yoda would say, "genes alone do not a species make".
Obviously this guy feels he's Hungarian more than American, period. And being a person born to Hungarian parents living in Hungary isn't one of the smallest reasons.
Haven't heard those news, but it's probably true. China is a dinosaur treasure trove, and illegal fossil trade is a big biz here. The Chinese goverment is cracking hard on the smugglers, and if smuggled Chinese fossils are found abroad, they are usually returned to China (fossils are by default the property of the country they are found in). And in case you didn't know, dinosaur eggs are quite common as fossils. Of course they're rock now, no actual soft tissues there.
No, everyone does not agree. In an ironic twist, many so-called pro-lifers enthusiastically support capital punishment. Otherwise, a rare display of calm and rational thinking in this debate. Thank you, lbrandy.
"I thought Neanderthal was classified as a large modern human that had arthritis."
Welcome to the 21st century. That classification was made initially after the first described Neandertal (spelled nowadays without the H) Man fossil from the Neander valley ('Tal' is German for valley) near Düsseldorf, Germany, and dumped quickly after that. Neandertals were not larger than Homo sapiens, but shorter and more heavily built. Also, according to latest DNA studies, they were probably their own species rather than a subspecies of H. sapiens.
Yeah, I had previously read that Wikipedia article, and I still can't see the (possible) difference between the 90s angry angsty kids and the 2000s angry angsty kids. Oh well. But that Something Awful article was a good and funny read though.
This is completely offtopic, but could someone explain me what the heck defines 'emo'? Having been teen in the 90's, what makes emo different from grunge? Or goth? Would those people who were into alternative bands like the Smashing Pumpkins (you know, gloomy darksy music) back then be called 'emo' now? Or is 'emo' just a subcategory or a new wave of punk? Please enlighten me.
The only trend I have noticed is people switching to Mac from Windows in droves since the introduction of Intel Macs, especially the MacBook. I'm one of those guys, too.
If I was Weird Al Yankowich, I'd skip the record label stage and distribute my music straight via iTunes and likes and get my fair share of the revenue. Music is and will be increasingly sold thru the Net, CD's are an outdated business model. (However, I don't want CD's to go the way of the dodo; I still want the booklets with their artwork and uncompressed, high-quality sound for my hifi systems.)
Slashdot Mirror
Guess I should have. Burn karma burn...
Samuel L. Jackson's favorite dish: Snakes in Oil! Probably virgin oil at that.
As if evolution was invented to make it possible for people to avoid responsibilities. No, that's not the case.
That must indeed be a weak god who's so easily put aside by a little science. Besides, it's not like there isn't a multitude of supposed deities we should pander to to make sure we secure our place in a supposed afterlife. Evolution doesn't make any comments whatsoever regarding deities, and most religious people in the western world don't see evolution killing their God.
Evolution doesn't deal with the origins of the universe. Strictly speaking it doesn't even touch the subject of the beginning of life. It's only purpose is to explain the natural phenomenon of evolution of organisms over life's history on Earth. That doesn't mean, however, that we couldn't or shouldn't make an attempt to scientifically explain how life came to be. Still, that's something the evolutionary theory does not and doesn't even try to explain.
A couple of words about the teeth.
;)
Mammalian teeth (that includes the teeth of us, humans) are the most complex teeth of the vertebrate world. The fact that we have only two sets of teeth (milk teeth and permanent teeth) isn't probably an adaptation to wearing, but to the complexity. Unlike the teeth of other vertebrates (fish, reptiles etc.), the teeth of mammals occlude, that is they fit together like a jigsaw (well, some of us need a little help to make that work...). This makes them very effective masticators. Simple pointed teeth are replaced easily when they break or wear out, whereas complex teeth like ours would be a huge energy sink were they to be replaced many times during our lives. Also, the quality of the occlusion would probably deteriorate if we had lots of replacement teeth growing at different times - look at all those problems we have with the fitting of our teeth in our mouths even with only two sets of teeth! Thus, having only two sets of teeth is the best or least bad solution to mammals.
Oh, and how come our teeth survived when we didn't brush them? Well, we didn't drink Coke and eat all kinds of over-sugared stuff back then.
"All the small, intermediate steps do nothing for the organism, so evolution has a problem."
Yes, it is known that most of the genetic changes that happen during the lifetime of an organism are indeed neutral, i.e. they do nothing. However, these changes have the potential to act as the basis to significant changes later in the evolutionary history of a population. (This, however, doesn't mean the changes were planned to be useful later on.)
Remember that evolution always builds upon something that is already a functional part in a functional entity - it does not plan ahead. This means that the predecessor of a bird's wing was not a uselesss half-wing. Instead it was a useful limb, well used for something else than flying, but at one certain point of its evolution its owner could also start using it for flying/gliding. Also, steady gradual change (so-called gradualism) has been dismissed as a evolutionary model. Populations respond to changes in their environment and sometimes evolve faster, sometimes slower. During steady times natural selection actually favors the genetic stability of a population by weeding off extreme deviations from the general 'model'.
"Code reuse is sure what I'd call an Intelligent Design."
Oh my, you aren't calling MS Windows an intelligently designed OS, are you?
Good post. BTW, there's an interesting aspect to the being/not being able to breed debate. Apparently, there are many species (or what are considered as separate species) which could, from a genetic point of view, interbreed, but they won't, because their mating behavior is different, i.e. they don't 'understand' each other, or they inhabit different ecological niches and thus don't meet. As Yoda would say, "genes alone do not a species make".
That's exactly what I meant.
Just a guess, but could it be 'Mahdi' is a diminutive/nickname form of Mahmud/Mahmood?
;)
Amusing tho how easily one can find the Gmail address of the President of Iran. The obvious question now is, does this make Google evil?
You missed the point. You CAN find HungarY, but you definitely CANNOT fing HungarIA on any map. Make that "modern map" for safety...
Obviously this guy feels he's Hungarian more than American, period. And being a person born to Hungarian parents living in Hungary isn't one of the smallest reasons.
"My new iMac is flawed because it contains a TPM..."
Yeah, I'd consider my iMac flawed, too, if The Phantom Menace was included.
You actually included some R.E.M. lyrics:
"We've gotta catapult our precious bodily fluids to the moon."
Well, you had 'moon' too, but I'm not going to be too anal about it.
Haven't heard those news, but it's probably true. China is a dinosaur treasure trove, and illegal fossil trade is a big biz here. The Chinese goverment is cracking hard on the smugglers, and if smuggled Chinese fossils are found abroad, they are usually returned to China (fossils are by default the property of the country they are found in). And in case you didn't know, dinosaur eggs are quite common as fossils. Of course they're rock now, no actual soft tissues there.
Whoa, my first Troll modding. I'm honored, O right-wing mods.
Everyone agrees that killing a person is wrong.
No, everyone does not agree. In an ironic twist, many so-called pro-lifers enthusiastically support capital punishment. Otherwise, a rare display of calm and rational thinking in this debate. Thank you, lbrandy.
"I thought Neanderthal was classified as a large modern human that had arthritis."
Welcome to the 21st century. That classification was made initially after the first described Neandertal (spelled nowadays without the H) Man fossil from the Neander valley ('Tal' is German for valley) near Düsseldorf, Germany, and dumped quickly after that. Neandertals were not larger than Homo sapiens, but shorter and more heavily built. Also, according to latest DNA studies, they were probably their own species rather than a subspecies of H. sapiens.
Yeah, I had previously read that Wikipedia article, and I still can't see the (possible) difference between the 90s angry angsty kids and the 2000s angry angsty kids. Oh well. But that Something Awful article was a good and funny read though.
This is completely offtopic, but could someone explain me what the heck defines 'emo'? Having been teen in the 90's, what makes emo different from grunge? Or goth? Would those people who were into alternative bands like the Smashing Pumpkins (you know, gloomy darksy music) back then be called 'emo' now? Or is 'emo' just a subcategory or a new wave of punk? Please enlighten me.
Heh. Good one.
The only trend I have noticed is people switching to Mac from Windows in droves since the introduction of Intel Macs, especially the MacBook. I'm one of those guys, too.
If I was Weird Al Yankowich, I'd skip the record label stage and distribute my music straight via iTunes and likes and get my fair share of the revenue. Music is and will be increasingly sold thru the Net, CD's are an outdated business model. (However, I don't want CD's to go the way of the dodo; I still want the booklets with their artwork and uncompressed, high-quality sound for my hifi systems.)
What they didn't tell you was that RMS was actually chased away by a representant of the Dark Side of the Source, DRMS!
In Corporate West, the MP3 own YOU (DRM). But in ex-Soviet Russia, YOU own the MP3. The laws of Slashdot running gags have been turned upside down!
Spyware beaten by Ballmer's chair.