> Yes, I was being facetious really, but I don't see that your definition for lineage is any less circular than the usual definitions for population, species etc. You did use the term organisms, no?
I used organism AND defined it. Organism:: a molecular autopoietical system, of first (parts are mere molecules) or second order (parts are themselves organisms e.g. you and me).
>Why then can't I say that a species is a set of organisms which interbreed?
No good. No good AT ALL. Sorry, I *am* working on this, sorting species and doing phylogeny, and even more, trying to actually understand what species really are, and how speciation happens. The issue is long to discuss, so I give you a few white crows:
1. Bacteria. Never interbreed.
2. != species DO interbreed with fertile F1 and subsequent gens. YET they are not the same species [this is typical of the fishes I'm woring on]. And what about those that *could* interbreed but don't.
3. What about species of partenogenic metacellulars? Not even sex. Arent' they species?
>The point of my cat experiment was that it can be explained and carried out without reference to or even a need for understanding of populations, species, organisms etc.
Yes, and my point is that you can draw no conclusions from the experiment as concerning populations, species, organisms, &c. GIGO research?
>No biologist will tell you that NS is the only factor in evolution, just that in most cases it's probably the strongest factor.
Agreed. What we are saying is that NS is not the cause of the process of biological evolution. It simple DOES NOT HAPPEN, not as cause or mechanism. You can argue that NS can be def as the *result* of bio evol---and I'd agree---but that turns the argument on its head. If what is called Natural Selection is the selection resulting from evolution, then what are the cause and the mechanism of this evolution?
>I don't think ND says 'it's all random', more like, 'it's a filter for randomness'. It's the difference between roulette and draw poker.
So, where does the criteria for sorting comes from? God? The aliens? Do try to program it! Again, don't cheat. Don't come to me with tautological "higher fitness". Where does this fitness come from? Program this. No fixed values out of the blue, no omniscient agent that could not exist in nature (God, aliens, kernel, whatever). Then try to simulate NS. Won't work. Please let me know if you were to accomplish this! BTW: see how again ND, creationists, and ID are similar deep at the roots?
[evidence for NS]
Oh god! You used a search engine! Try UFO. Or God. Or Santa.
Sure, NDs *claim* they have evidence of NS, lots of it. But go and actually look at it. You will see that it's either evidence of *evolution* alone, or some sophystry. I meant a honest falsation test for H0: this evolution happens with no NS, vs. H1: this evolution must have happened by NS. Then reject H0, and be forced to accept the alternative hypothesis H1: this system could not have evoluved if not by Natural Selection.
One ref. Any system you choose. Any trait. Any species. Any time frame. ONE SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE FOR NATURAL SELECTION AS THE CAUSE OF A SINGLE EVOLUTIONARY EVENT. ONE (1).
And remember, there *are* biologists that are actually trying to undertand evolution. But you won't find them in Science, Inc, any more that you will find Linux developers at M$.
lineage:: two or more molecular autopoietical systems (=organisms) conected by a (non-branching) line of descent (historical connection). Gets really interesting when you include metacellulars which (amost) invariable have gametic fusion, which gives you reticulation of lineages, but still you can follow lineages.
Where is the circle? Everything is defined, no cheating.
About the cats: oh golly, I know you can do that with bacteria, and you won't need kiloyears. Do you think I don't know about that? I had to describe and even invent that kind of experiment, in course after course on 'evolution'. So what? There is no doubt that evolution happens. The point is HOW does it happens, and WHY. By this mythical Natural Selection? *That*'s the point. I think you---as both the Darwinians and the Creationist foster---confuse Evolution with (Neo)Darwinism. (Neo)Darwinism in NOT the Theory of Evolution (which predates Darwin by millenia), but the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. Now, EBNS has *never* been put to the test. Check the refs. (Hint: evidence in support of evolution does not count---we are not testing that, are we?).
About the vageness: in your experiment. First, you are NOT testing for EBNS. And you are cheating: how can you tell that "cats" and "rats" are one population each? How can you even tell that there is a species of each? WHAT is a species and a population?
About the ID whackos. I know all about them, as well as the Creation 'Scientists'. Not that much diff from the Cabal of the Neodarwinian 'Scientists'. They all have the same bases E.g. complexity cannot arise alone. ND says its caused by NS (how?). ID says it's aliens (halfway NS and God). CS says it was God. Biologists say its a system transition, an emergent from lineages of autopoietical systems self-organizing in non-reversible ways. This is *predicted* by theory, it's a consequence of reproducion. Now this last CAN be tested, on a computer for example, and *does* happen.
Same of intelligence in evolution. ND denies it, it's all random. ID says it's the aliens. CS says its God. All 3 agree that control cannot emerge from simple systems, it comes from outside or it's absent. Biologists say simple systems interacting CAN give rise to very complex behaviours (e.g. a brain!) so evolution MAY be intelligent, but if so there is not need for the intelligence to be external, and there is no requirment for the all-random evolution the ND insist on.
The list is long.
About the huge ammount of evidence. Sift throug it. Evidence? Yes, for Evolution. Tons of it. I have some myself. But NONE for the mythical NS. Give me the ref of ONE (1) falsation test for EBNS. That is, evolution by other means (H0) is REJECTED and we must accept the alternative (H1) evolution happened by Natural Selection. Name just ONE.
After you spend a couple of weeks and FAIL, please do think how this can be. No evidence whatsoever? None? For such a big macho branch of science. No evidence? Isn't this fishy? Does it not smell rotten? Is this SCIENCE at all? Or just "ivory-tower witch-doctoring", as Gibson put it?
Population IS a difficult concept. Because you'll have to define species before, see? Or would you call organisms of != species members of the same population? And... what is an organism? Again, no cheating! No circular defs. No pseudo-defs by characteristics. DEFINE those terms!
>Yes, but can you have a lineage without a population?
Actually, yes. Like the Sith Lords, a parent and a child. Or perhaps you could call that a pop of 2? Not a very likely scenario, of course.
But the point is that "population" is a non-term, undefined, used to *hide* ignorance with jargon. Just like "species". Or "natural selection", "selective pressures", "mutation", "genetics", "development", "sex", "reproduccion", "fitness", and many many more. Do try to define them, and you'll see. You go in circles, without truly explaining anything. Is that science? Not by my reckoning, it's sophystry. Of course, sophuystry will get you anywhere in academia if you have the right "godfathers".
No, sorry, it's not me who is vague, but mainstream biology, and it's only this vageness plus some very brutal power abuse in academia what still sustain the Darwinian myth as the dominant view.
Still, some scientists---most of them *outside* Science, Inc. do try to undertand evolution, without falling for the bullshit troika of Darwinism-Intelligent Design-Creationsim, which are not really very different if you actually compare them. And we have left Darwin behind, long ago (it was long before *my* time, in fact).
>but how does the environment not have an effect on the evolution of an organism?
1. There is no such thing as The Environment. Each organism has its own environment (i.e. the rest of the universe that does not take part in the autopoietical process under consideration), all environment are != (by def).
2. The effect of the environment on the organism is never and can never be instructional (what to do). The organism DOES WHATEVER IT PLEASES unless this is incompatible with its [org/env] relationship, in which case the org is not more (dies). So the only feedback is DEATH.
In fact, you can apply the Darwinian model to non-living system, you can---so Darwinism says---BIOlogical evolution *whithout* life! If it does not involve *life*, it's not biology, at best it's some other more general science like chemistry or physiscs. [Darwinism is not really science, since it cannot be put to a test; it's mythology]
Ergo, Darwinism is not even biology, and not even science. [Weird the truth, isn't it, yet the truth:) ] Yes, Darwinism SHOULD be taught side by side with Creationism, but not as part of the science curriculum but under Comparative Mythology or Comparative Theology or some such.
Meanwhile, science, the real search for truth by experimentation, has left Science Inc. for something new, what I call Versio2. See you on the other side!
First: WHAT is a "population"? Do answer this if you can, don't just dodge the question. You must be able to define every term you use, like "species", "organism", &c. No cheating!
Do *you* realize that evolution applies to lineages, not to populations? If evolution is the change in ontogeny along a phylogeny---where does the population enters the picture? And you never mentioned generations, conditio sine qua non for evolution.
Good luck defining population, species, organism, &c.---you'll need it. If you can't, you might be interested in going where true science is going, leaving Science, Inc. for what I call "Versio2".
Oh, the wonderful "Proceso de Reorganizacion Nacional", a US-created genocidal dictatorship, who merely kidnapped and tortured to death 30,000 of our best citizens, made most of the inteligentsia flee the country, utterly destroyed our economy, pushed us into a senseless was (again, this incited by the US, who then betrayed our country at war in violation of self-defence treaties), and basically send our country backwards some half a century, from 100% literacy and 0% malnutrition and Nobel Laureates and bulding nuclear powerplants and jet planes and cars, and led us into illiteracy, bankruptcy, and wage-slavery.
But after 9/11 we had a unique, once in a generation chance to unite the world in the pursuit of freedom and democracy. Now the action we've taken in the name of freedom and democracy have united freedom's opponents as never before and divided its proponents.
Actually, much worse. It served to show the world that the USA is evil. We have decades of evidence of this evil side of the USA---we have surplus of them in my own country, Argentina. Now no one can defend the USA.
USA is evil, and always has. Of course, the USA is not only evil. Name countries with a perfect record. And there is much to thank the USA for, much to admire, much to copy (or is all that a thing of the past?).
And after 2001-09-11, the world was willing to forgive the USA for much of its evil history, and support the USA. You are right, it was a one-in-a-century oportunity for the USA. But Bush al-Shaitan and his Junta not just squandered it, they turned it upside down. The actions of the USA after that date have horrified the whole planet. All good will for the USA vanished under the bombs falling on Afghanistan and Iraq. Never has the world been so united against the USA. Never has people so unanimously, so utterly condemned a country before. It has turned pacifists into strong proponents of nuclear arming of their countries. I'm one example of those, who have learnt the Iraq Lesson: si vis pacem, construe armi nucleari. I want my country out of the Non-Proliferation-Treaty now and my people protected by nukes! Yes, the world is a much safer place now. Thanks, USA!
Where is the good side of the USA now? Hardly anbody sees it any longer. If it's still there, who could see it? I can hardly see it myself, and I try hard. Who would believe if one showed it to them? Not many. Bush won unanimous planetary condemnation for is country. So much that I fear the USA no longer has a future.
Usans have Bush and his Junta to thank for this. And they also themselves to thank for it, since they use their (so-called) Democracy to choose the very worst among themselves to be their leaders. Even Usama can see this!!! How can the rest of the world fail to ask "Is this what you call 'Democracy(TM)'?".
The USA has little time to change course and stop its War of Terror. It has little time to stop sliding into a military dictatorship. If these people are allowed stay in power, the USA will set aflame the Global War. And it will be the end of the USA, for---who will forgive them? I cannot speak for the world, but I can speak for myself, and I can say I won't.
Hussein? Who cares? Just another puppet-tyrannt put in place byt the USA; I mysef hade endured under many of them. The Iraqi Resistance will fight to the victory, for their country, their people, for their religion, their freedom. They were never fighting for Hussein, they fight for the freedom of Iraq.
But perhaps not. "What Taiwan, that Chinese province?" I think Bush just sold US non-involvement in China reunification, for China's help to keep to US dollar from collapsing, at least a little longer. I think the same fate awaits South Korea. After the US' defeat in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and wich the deep crunching noises being heard in the US economic superstructure, I would worry if I were Taiwanese... Taiwanese Chinese, I mean!;-)
Forget Neodarwinism: it's a myth, and dead wrong. Biological evolution does not happen that way. In short: autonomous systems cannot be instructed by the environment, so there can be no such thing as Natural Selection. The reason Neodarwinism (which is not the same as evolution!) is still the dominant paradigm are really very very close to the reason Micro$oft dominates the computer market. FUD included: I'm supposed to be a "cryptocreationist" because I demand this so-called "theory" to be put to the test [it never was, go check it].
Evolutionary biology (the non-Micro$oft-like kind, that is) has long left Darwin behind, decades ago. Sorry this Science Inc. had you fooled.
What we need is a system that rewards the creators as a proportion of the people sharing the stuff freely. And starves the pirates and ramson-racketeers of the RIAA thughs and their likes, who stand blocking the way and steal from both the creators and the public sides. I cannot think of a system like that, but the first to come with such a model will be the hero of the decade, if not of the century.
Not a truly difficult point to make. Anyone should be able to see, from a decade or more to this parts, that we have a system where there can be no defense, only offense. The whole idea behind MAD (mutual assured destruction). It is horribly obvious that there is only one way to be safe: not to have enemies. We cannot affort armed conflict, period.
Now, it seems that the madmen who are ruling the USA, Occupied Palestine, the UK, and to a lesser extent others, just cannot understand this simplest of points. They are putting us all in mortal danger in their attempt to prove their deliria.
I resent this very much. They will be proved wrong, and we will be force to pay the bill for the results of their lunacy, in many cases with our lives.
It's the same thing about limiting access to biological knowledge because of alleged "bioterrorism", a point raised several times even on Slashdot. Preposterous! Anyone can learn anything he needs to effectively use pathogens as a weapon from a good set of microbiology books, and the technology to actually do it is not such a big deal; it's not even expensive.
An effective weapon does not need to be sophisticated: the devastanting effect of the AKM+RPG combo---simple, cheap, and deadly---has over-proven this for anyone who cares to pay attention.
Our real enemy is not some semi-mythical Al-Q'ida, but---in the words of Miller (Catch-22)---those who are trying to get us killed: the pathological Homo demens we foolishly give power to, murderous monsters like Bush and Sharon.
But not anywhere as much surface as a tracked vehicle...
And if you need to move beyond the ability of wheels... I think surface is a big concern: mud, sand, snow, oiled slippery surface, &c. Both for traction and to spread the vehicle's weight and not sink.
Thanks! Sorry, I guess I was not clear in my wording, I was predicting from the design that it would be able to do so, but I found no mention of that anywhere.
220 voltas can give you a fast, fast death! Classify electricity! NO ONE without cleareance should be able to use a power switch!
Please. I mean, please. What, do you trust scientists? Now, get serious. The guys who give us Hiroshima and biowarfare agents? The "ivory tower witch doctors", to quote Gibson?" This is the kind of people who are trustable? I am an ex-scientist myself. I run away, scared. I know better. I much rather have the info out. Yes, it is more dangerous in some ways, but it also is much safer in others. I'll take my chances with opennes---and I'm a biologist by original training, so I should have better understanding of the dangers than the layman.
And if you think science is open, you are misinformed. The web was created at CERN for the only purpose of facilitating scientific communication. It's used by everyone (including pornographers) but scientists. Go out and check. Most scientific 'publications' are not publis al all
. And no self-respecting scientist will read something that has not been censored (i.e. the so-called "peer review", which is neither). I guess they can't turst themselves to check the research by themselves. And they certainly don't want someone coming along and making real progress, they are very confortable in their positions doing very little, thank you very much.
Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. I grew up in one. No thanks, I'll take my chances with freedom.
I don't know wheter this model can or not, and the wheels are toys in this model, but the think should be able to turn the wheels flat and use them as rubber feet and WALK over obstacles. I like the idea. Complicated gizmo, though.
>The communist "People's Republic" of China, or Taiwan?
Two clarifications: 1. Mainland China is NOT communist by any definition of the word, its _fascist_. (Just like Taiwan). 2. Taiwan is a part of China. That's the party line in China, and the Taiwanese will 'develop the wisdom' of agreeing very soon: 3 reasons: 1. historically Taiwan is China, 2. rampant economic integration, 3. balloning Chinese military might plus the USA unable to defend a 'stubborn' Taiwan. Solution: save face and rejoin China as a 'free' choice of Taiwan.
Simple strategy: sell it cheaper! Put EVD drives in dirt cheap machines, charge more for DVD drives. Ten euros in a 100 euros machine---now, how big incentive is that for you, when you make less thatn 300 a month? Amazingly, this strategy almost always works! Go figure. And since China manufactures most electronics nowadays and has a market share growing like fungus, how much of the world market could they infulence? A mere 90% 100%?
No content, may be. But then again, not that you KNOW of. And there is going to be an incredible lot of independent quality, non-hollybooh non-riaa content available, but never on DVD. This could just be the answer to have good entertainment and art at sensible prices with real economic rewards for the creators and not just 'content' monopolies.
In any case, what the Chinese do have is MANUFACTURING. Isn't China the 1st manufacturer of computer & electronics? If not yet, then next year. When the Chinese come up with sub-500-euros notebooks and even sub-100 destop PCs, they CAN impose the format to content providers.
If that wrecks the DVD bullshit and makes the quality content accesible to the public, then I hope they do it!!!
Isn't it a funny coincidence that China gains manned access to space the same year the USA loses it? Looks like one of those 'turning points' historians love to write about. Maybe they will.
>They're anti-competitive and controlling, >certainly. Monopolistic, sure.
>But no, they're not evil. If you think they are, >you've got a seriously screwed up set of values.
Say again??? I'm afraid you don't understand evil.
>Stalin, Hitler - THAT is evil.
Just give M$ some time, man! To seek control over others, that what's the heart of evil. Goals and means are the same. Someone who uses the means M$ uses, has evil goals, and will become another Hitler. It's a natural law.
And I truly belive that M$, if unchecked, represents a greater danger to Humankind than Hitler, Stalin, and Bush together. I *am* serious. Slaughtering people is terrible, but some always survive, and we go on. Don't get me wrong---it's abhorrent, criminal, insane, but *survivable*. M$ attempts to destroy the very thing that kept us alive and made us a succesfull species: culture. We are a cultural species. Culture is our means of survival, the quid of our ecological niche. Oh, btw, the RIAA and MPAA are on the same side, for sure. Kill our culture and you kill us all, with the possible exception of isolated paleolithic tribes.
>You forget that this is Slashdot. If Microsoft does ANYTHING, no matter how good it may be, the people here will accuse them of doing it for some nefarious purpose.
No, it's YOU who forget that we are talking about Micro$oft. Please cite ONE single thing this corporation has ever done that was not outright evil. The hypothesis "All M$ does is evil" has not been falsified (I doubt it ever will), so it's perfectly scientifically valid to assume anything M$ does is evil.
Slashdot Mirror
> Yes, I was being facetious really, but I don't see that your definition for lineage is any less circular than the usual definitions for population, species etc. You did use the term organisms, no?
I used organism AND defined it. Organism:: a molecular autopoietical system, of first (parts are mere molecules) or second order (parts are themselves organisms e.g. you and me).
>Why then can't I say that a species is a set of organisms which interbreed?
No good. No good AT ALL. Sorry, I *am* working on this, sorting species and doing phylogeny, and even more, trying to actually understand what species really are, and how speciation happens. The issue is long to discuss, so I give you a few white crows:
1. Bacteria. Never interbreed.
2. != species DO interbreed with fertile F1 and subsequent gens. YET they are not the same species [this is typical of the fishes I'm woring on]. And what about those that *could* interbreed but don't.
3. What about species of partenogenic metacellulars? Not even sex. Arent' they species?
>The point of my cat experiment was that it can be explained and carried out without reference to or even a need for understanding of populations, species, organisms etc.
Yes, and my point is that you can draw no conclusions from the experiment as concerning populations, species, organisms, &c. GIGO research?
>No biologist will tell you that NS is the only factor in evolution, just that in most cases it's probably the strongest factor.
Agreed. What we are saying is that NS is not the cause of the process of biological evolution. It simple DOES NOT HAPPEN, not as cause or mechanism. You can argue that NS can be def as the *result* of bio evol---and I'd agree---but that turns the argument on its head. If what is called Natural Selection is the selection resulting from evolution, then what are the cause and the mechanism of this evolution?
>I don't think ND says 'it's all random', more like, 'it's a filter for randomness'. It's the difference between roulette and draw poker.
So, where does the criteria for sorting comes from? God? The aliens? Do try to program it! Again, don't cheat. Don't come to me with tautological "higher fitness". Where does this fitness come from? Program this. No fixed values out of the blue, no omniscient agent that could not exist in nature (God, aliens, kernel, whatever). Then try to simulate NS. Won't work. Please let me know if you were to accomplish this! BTW: see how again ND, creationists, and ID are similar deep at the roots?
[evidence for NS]
Oh god! You used a search engine! Try UFO. Or God. Or Santa.
Sure, NDs *claim* they have evidence of NS, lots of it. But go and actually look at it. You will see that it's either evidence of *evolution* alone, or some sophystry. I meant a honest falsation test for H0: this evolution happens with no NS, vs. H1: this evolution must have happened by NS. Then reject H0, and be forced to accept the alternative hypothesis H1: this system could not have evoluved if not by Natural Selection.
One ref. Any system you choose. Any trait. Any species. Any time frame. ONE SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE FOR NATURAL SELECTION AS THE CAUSE OF A SINGLE EVOLUTIONARY EVENT. ONE (1).
And remember, there *are* biologists that are actually trying to undertand evolution. But you won't find them in Science, Inc, any more that you will find Linux developers at M$.
lineage:: two or more molecular autopoietical systems (=organisms) conected by a (non-branching) line of descent (historical connection). Gets really interesting when you include metacellulars which (amost) invariable have gametic fusion, which gives you reticulation of lineages, but still you can follow lineages.
Where is the circle? Everything is defined, no cheating.
About the cats: oh golly, I know you can do that with bacteria, and you won't need kiloyears. Do you think I don't know about that? I had to describe and even invent that kind of experiment, in course after course on 'evolution'. So what? There is no doubt that evolution happens. The point is HOW does it happens, and WHY. By this mythical Natural Selection? *That*'s the point. I think you---as both the Darwinians and the Creationist foster---confuse Evolution with (Neo)Darwinism. (Neo)Darwinism in NOT the Theory of Evolution (which predates Darwin by millenia), but the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. Now, EBNS has *never* been put to the test. Check the refs. (Hint: evidence in support of evolution does not count---we are not testing that, are we?).
About the vageness: in your experiment. First, you are NOT testing for EBNS. And you are cheating: how can you tell that "cats" and "rats" are one population each? How can you even tell that there is a species of each? WHAT is a species and a population?
About the ID whackos. I know all about them, as well as the Creation 'Scientists'. Not that much diff from the Cabal of the Neodarwinian 'Scientists'. They all have the same bases E.g. complexity cannot arise alone. ND says its caused by NS (how?). ID says it's aliens (halfway NS and God). CS says it was God. Biologists say its a system transition, an emergent from lineages of autopoietical systems self-organizing in non-reversible ways. This is *predicted* by theory, it's a consequence of reproducion. Now this last CAN be tested, on a computer for example, and *does* happen.
Same of intelligence in evolution. ND denies it, it's all random. ID says it's the aliens. CS says its God. All 3 agree that control cannot emerge from simple systems, it comes from outside or it's absent. Biologists say simple systems interacting CAN give rise to very complex behaviours (e.g. a brain!) so evolution MAY be intelligent, but if so there is not need for the intelligence to be external, and there is no requirment for the all-random evolution the ND insist on.
The list is long.
About the huge ammount of evidence. Sift throug it. Evidence? Yes, for Evolution. Tons of it. I have some myself. But NONE for the mythical NS. Give me the ref of ONE (1) falsation test for EBNS. That is, evolution by other means (H0) is REJECTED and we must accept the alternative (H1) evolution happened by Natural Selection. Name just ONE.
After you spend a couple of weeks and FAIL, please do think how this can be. No evidence whatsoever? None? For such a big macho branch of science. No evidence? Isn't this fishy? Does it not smell rotten? Is this SCIENCE at all? Or just "ivory-tower witch-doctoring", as Gibson put it?
After that, start reading some real biology.
Population IS a difficult concept. Because you'll have to define species before, see? Or would you call organisms of != species members of the same population? And... what is an organism? Again, no cheating! No circular defs. No pseudo-defs by characteristics. DEFINE those terms!
>Yes, but can you have a lineage without a population?
Actually, yes. Like the Sith Lords, a parent and a child. Or perhaps you could call that a pop of 2? Not a very likely scenario, of course.
But the point is that "population" is a non-term, undefined, used to *hide* ignorance with jargon. Just like "species". Or "natural selection", "selective pressures", "mutation", "genetics", "development", "sex", "reproduccion", "fitness", and many many more. Do try to define them, and you'll see. You go in circles, without truly explaining anything. Is that science? Not by my reckoning, it's sophystry. Of course, sophuystry will get you anywhere in academia if you have the right "godfathers".
No, sorry, it's not me who is vague, but mainstream biology, and it's only this vageness plus some very brutal power abuse in academia what still sustain the Darwinian myth as the dominant view.
Still, some scientists---most of them *outside* Science, Inc. do try to undertand evolution, without falling for the bullshit troika of Darwinism-Intelligent Design-Creationsim, which are not really very different if you actually compare them. And we have left Darwin behind, long ago (it was long before *my* time, in fact).
I have only a couple of min:
:) ] Yes, Darwinism SHOULD be taught side by side with Creationism, but not as part of the science curriculum but under Comparative Mythology or Comparative Theology or some such.
>so how does Biology explain evolution?
molecular autopoiesis (=life) + reproduction = evolution
>but how does the environment not have an effect on the evolution of an organism?
1. There is no such thing as The Environment. Each organism has its own environment (i.e. the rest of the universe that does not take part in the autopoietical process under consideration), all environment are != (by def).
2. The effect of the environment on the organism is never and can never be instructional (what to do). The organism DOES WHATEVER IT PLEASES unless this is incompatible with its [org/env] relationship, in which case the org is not more (dies). So the only feedback is DEATH.
In fact, you can apply the Darwinian model to non-living system, you can---so Darwinism says---BIOlogical evolution *whithout* life! If it does not involve *life*, it's not biology, at best it's some other more general science like chemistry or physiscs. [Darwinism is not really science, since it cannot be put to a test; it's mythology]
Ergo, Darwinism is not even biology, and not even science. [Weird the truth, isn't it, yet the truth
Meanwhile, science, the real search for truth by experimentation, has left Science Inc. for something new, what I call Versio2. See you on the other side!
First: WHAT is a "population"? Do answer this if you can, don't just dodge the question. You must be able to define every term you use, like "species", "organism", &c. No cheating!
Do *you* realize that evolution applies to lineages, not to populations? If evolution is the change in ontogeny along a phylogeny---where does the population enters the picture? And you never mentioned generations, conditio sine qua non for evolution.
Good luck defining population, species, organism, &c.---you'll need it. If you can't, you might be interested in going where true science is going, leaving Science, Inc. for what I call "Versio2".
Lets see, some big examples of the US aiding us:
Oh, the wonderful "Proceso de Reorganizacion Nacional", a US-created genocidal dictatorship, who merely kidnapped and tortured to death 30,000 of our best citizens, made most of the inteligentsia flee the country, utterly destroyed our economy, pushed us into a senseless was (again, this incited by the US, who then betrayed our country at war in violation of self-defence treaties), and basically send our country backwards some half a century, from 100% literacy and 0% malnutrition and Nobel Laureates and bulding nuclear powerplants and jet planes and cars, and led us into illiteracy, bankruptcy, and wage-slavery.
Please, don't help us any more!
But after 9/11 we had a unique, once in a generation chance to unite the world in the pursuit of freedom and democracy. Now the action we've taken in the name of freedom and democracy have united freedom's opponents as never before and divided its proponents.
Actually, much worse. It served to show the world that the USA is evil. We have decades of evidence of this evil side of the USA---we have surplus of them in my own country, Argentina. Now no one can defend the USA.
USA is evil, and always has. Of course, the USA is not only evil. Name countries with a perfect record. And there is much to thank the USA for, much to admire, much to copy (or is all that a thing of the past?).
And after 2001-09-11, the world was willing to forgive the USA for much of its evil history, and support the USA. You are right, it was a one-in-a-century oportunity for the USA. But Bush al-Shaitan and his Junta not just squandered it, they turned it upside down. The actions of the USA after that date have horrified the whole planet. All good will for the USA vanished under the bombs falling on Afghanistan and Iraq. Never has the world been so united against the USA. Never has people so unanimously, so utterly condemned a country before. It has turned pacifists into strong proponents of nuclear arming of their countries. I'm one example of those, who have learnt the Iraq Lesson: si vis pacem, construe armi nucleari. I want my country out of the Non-Proliferation-Treaty now and my people protected by nukes! Yes, the world is a much safer place now. Thanks, USA!
Where is the good side of the USA now? Hardly anbody sees it any longer. If it's still there, who could see it? I can hardly see it myself, and I try hard. Who would believe if one showed it to them? Not many. Bush won unanimous planetary condemnation for is country. So much that I fear the USA no longer has a future.
Usans have Bush and his Junta to thank for this. And they also themselves to thank for it, since they use their (so-called) Democracy to choose the very worst among themselves to be their leaders. Even Usama can see this!!! How can the rest of the world fail to ask "Is this what you call 'Democracy(TM)'?".
The USA has little time to change course and stop its War of Terror. It has little time to stop sliding into a military dictatorship. If these people are allowed stay in power, the USA will set aflame the Global War. And it will be the end of the USA, for---who will forgive them? I cannot speak for the world, but I can speak for myself, and I can say I won't.
Hussein? Who cares? Just another puppet-tyrannt put in place byt the USA; I mysef hade endured under many of them. The Iraqi Resistance will fight to the victory, for their country, their people, for their religion, their freedom. They were never fighting for Hussein, they fight for the freedom of Iraq.
US is going to back Taiwan. Perhaps.
;-)
But perhaps not. "What Taiwan, that Chinese province?" I think Bush just sold US non-involvement in China reunification, for China's help to keep to US dollar from collapsing, at least a little longer. I think the same fate awaits South Korea. After the US' defeat in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and wich the deep crunching noises being heard in the US economic superstructure, I would worry if I were Taiwanese... Taiwanese Chinese, I mean!
Forget Neodarwinism: it's a myth, and dead wrong. Biological evolution does not happen that way. In short: autonomous systems cannot be instructed by the environment, so there can be no such thing as Natural Selection. The reason Neodarwinism (which is not the same as evolution!) is still the dominant paradigm are really very very close to the reason Micro$oft dominates the computer market. FUD included: I'm supposed to be a "cryptocreationist" because I demand this so-called "theory" to be put to the test [it never was, go check it].
Evolutionary biology (the non-Micro$oft-like kind, that is) has long left Darwin behind, decades ago.
Sorry this Science Inc. had you fooled.
How amazing! And how irrelevant.
What we need is a system that rewards the creators as a proportion of the people sharing the stuff freely. And starves the pirates and ramson-racketeers of the RIAA thughs and their likes, who stand blocking the way and steal from both the creators and the public sides. I cannot think of a system like that, but the first to come with such a model will be the hero of the decade, if not of the century.
That will be news. This is noise.
Has he! Indeed!
Not a truly difficult point to make. Anyone should be able to see, from a decade or more to this parts, that we have a system where there can be no defense, only offense. The whole idea behind MAD (mutual assured destruction). It is horribly obvious that there is only one way to be safe: not to have enemies. We cannot affort armed conflict, period.
Now, it seems that the madmen who are ruling the USA, Occupied Palestine, the UK, and to a lesser extent others, just cannot understand this simplest of points. They are putting us all in mortal danger in their attempt to prove their deliria.
I resent this very much. They will be proved wrong, and we will be force to pay the bill for the results of their lunacy, in many cases with our lives.It's the same thing about limiting access to biological knowledge because of alleged "bioterrorism", a point raised several times even on Slashdot. Preposterous! Anyone can learn anything he needs to effectively use pathogens as a weapon from a good set of microbiology books, and the technology to actually do it is not such a big deal; it's not even expensive.
An effective weapon does not need to be sophisticated: the devastanting effect of the AKM+RPG combo---simple, cheap, and deadly---has over-proven this for anyone who cares to pay attention.
Our real enemy is not some semi-mythical Al-Q'ida, but---in the words of Miller (Catch-22)---those who are trying to get us killed: the pathological Homo demens we foolishly give power to, murderous monsters like Bush and Sharon.
But not anywhere as much surface as a tracked vehicle...
And if you need to move beyond the ability of wheels... I think surface is a big concern: mud, sand, snow, oiled slippery surface, &c. Both for traction and to spread the vehicle's weight and not sink.
Yes, one less thing to break, but FAR less surface in contact with the ground. I don't know...
Thanks for the correction. I hate French, but I love the quote and always try to keep the original forms.
Thanks! Sorry, I guess I was not clear in my wording, I was predicting from the design that it would be able to do so, but I found no mention of that anywhere.
220 voltas can give you a fast, fast death! Classify electricity! NO ONE without cleareance should be able to use a power switch!
Please. I mean, please. What, do you trust scientists? Now, get serious. The guys who give us Hiroshima and biowarfare agents? The "ivory tower witch doctors", to quote Gibson?" This is the kind of people who are trustable? I am an ex-scientist myself. I run away, scared. I know better. I much rather have the info out. Yes, it is more dangerous in some ways, but it also is much safer in others. I'll take my chances with opennes---and I'm a biologist by original training, so I should have better understanding of the dangers than the layman.
And if you think science is open, you are misinformed. The web was created at CERN for the only purpose of facilitating scientific communication. It's used by everyone (including pornographers) but scientists. Go out and check. Most scientific 'publications' are not publis al all
. And no self-respecting scientist will read something that has not been censored (i.e. the so-called "peer review", which is neither). I guess they can't turst themselves to check the research by themselves. And they certainly don't want someone coming along and making real progress, they are very confortable in their positions doing very little, thank you very much.Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. I grew up in one. No thanks, I'll take my chances with freedom.
I don't know wheter this model can or not, and the wheels are toys in this model, but the think should be able to turn the wheels flat and use them as rubber feet and WALK over obstacles. I like the idea. Complicated gizmo, though.
>The communist "People's Republic" of China, or Taiwan?
Two clarifications: 1. Mainland China is NOT communist by any definition of the word, its _fascist_. (Just like Taiwan). 2. Taiwan is a part of China. That's the party line in China, and the Taiwanese will 'develop the wisdom' of agreeing very soon: 3 reasons: 1. historically Taiwan is China, 2. rampant economic integration, 3. balloning Chinese military might plus the USA unable to defend a 'stubborn' Taiwan. Solution: save face and rejoin China as a 'free' choice of Taiwan.
Simple strategy: sell it cheaper! Put EVD drives in dirt cheap machines, charge more for DVD drives. Ten euros in a 100 euros machine---now, how big incentive is that for you, when you make less thatn 300 a month? Amazingly, this strategy almost always works! Go figure. And since China manufactures most electronics nowadays and has a market share growing like fungus, how much of the world market could they infulence? A mere 90% 100%?
No content, may be. But then again, not that you KNOW of. And there is going to be an incredible lot of independent quality, non-hollybooh non-riaa content available, but never on DVD. This could just be the answer to have good entertainment and art at sensible prices with real economic rewards for the creators and not just 'content' monopolies.
In any case, what the Chinese do have is MANUFACTURING. Isn't China the 1st manufacturer of computer & electronics? If not yet, then next year. When the Chinese come up with sub-500-euros notebooks and even sub-100 destop PCs, they CAN impose the format to content providers.
If that wrecks the DVD bullshit and makes the quality content accesible to the public, then I hope they do it!!!
>what is the point of engineering something like this?
Answer: invade and/or destroy other countries.
Isn't it a funny coincidence that China gains manned access to space the same year the USA loses it? Looks like one of those 'turning points' historians love to write about. Maybe they will.
>They're anti-competitive and controlling, >certainly. Monopolistic, sure.
>But no, they're not evil. If you think they are, >you've got a seriously screwed up set of values.
Say again??? I'm afraid you don't understand evil.
>Stalin, Hitler - THAT is evil.
Just give M$ some time, man! To seek control over others, that what's the heart of evil. Goals and means are the same. Someone who uses the means M$ uses, has evil goals, and will become another Hitler. It's a natural law.
And I truly belive that M$, if unchecked, represents a greater danger to Humankind than Hitler, Stalin, and Bush together. I *am* serious. Slaughtering people is terrible, but some always survive, and we go on. Don't get me wrong---it's abhorrent, criminal, insane, but *survivable*. M$ attempts to destroy the very thing that kept us alive and made us a succesfull species: culture. We are a cultural species. Culture is our means of survival, the quid of our ecological niche. Oh, btw, the RIAA and MPAA are on the same side, for sure. Kill our culture and you kill us all, with the possible exception of isolated paleolithic tribes.
If that's not evil to you...
>You forget that this is Slashdot. If Microsoft does ANYTHING, no matter how good it may be, the people here will accuse them of doing it for some nefarious purpose.
No, it's YOU who forget that we are talking about Micro$oft. Please cite ONE single thing this corporation has ever done that was not outright evil. The hypothesis "All M$ does is evil" has not been falsified (I doubt it ever will), so it's perfectly scientifically valid to assume anything M$ does is evil.
Me neither. I wonder when the NYT is going to dig this.
The Matrix is the summation in a networked computer system of all human knowledge. The rest is legacy.