You didn't even read my comment. Evolutionary theory as it currently stands requires some form of abiogenesis to get started. It would NOT have good explanatory power for the life getting STARTED.
If you do the math on the chances of the right precursor molecules spontaneously forming without selection pressures, the odds are ridiculously low. I'd have to look it up, but it's on the order of 10^26 against, and that's with ridiculously optimistic concentrations of the right chemicals in the soup. In that time frame, a trillion years is nothing, thus Dawkins' comments.
To be fair, Dawkins does try to get around the limitation by assuming that the precursor molecues got a kick start from a non-organic matrix that could undergo selection (clays), but he fails to explain how the molecules would be embedded in the right amounts in the clay (a random process). A critical analysis shows the argument to be basically flawed, and we're back to the abiogenesis requirement again. Even Dawkins' doesn't give the clay idea much more than a "just-so" story treatment.
You know, the first step in evaluating the contents of a book are to examine the purpose of the book. I'd hardly expect to find an in-depth analysis of physics in a history text.
The purpose of Genesis is to give a brief overview of the events leading up to the creation of the people of Israel. There's a lot of stuff it leaves out because Moses wasn't interested in putting it down; it wasn't necessary to his purpose.
It continually amazes me how critics of fundamentalist Christianity demand a more complete, scientifically accurate and univeral repository of all knowledge in the universe Bible than the fundamentalist Christians themselves do.
It's a classic fallacy. Because A does not mention B and B is true, A is false.
Considering the difficulty evolution has in explaining the origins of life, finding life on Mars would not boost evolution as much you'd like to think.
Even Dawkins admits that selection can't work until the right proteins are in place and can replicate. In his book the Blind Watchmaker, he basically admits that abiognesis is required involving some VERY unlikely chemical combinations, before evolution can get started and then, in my opinion, offers a huge copout by basically saying: Well, with so many planets in the universe, the odds of it happening at least once may not be so improbable.
The odds of it happening twice in the same solar system strain credibility.
I suspect the explanation will be that life on Earth actually started on Mars.
The common knowledge is that the ice caps were predominantly water. Esp. the permanent cap that would remain in the summer when the dry ice component boiled off.
We're not anywhere near a resource crash. And saying we went to war in Iraq over oil just underlines your lack of thinking. It would have been a lot easier to get cheap oil from Iraq by just lifting the sanctions. No need to fight about it at all.
Yep, because there will be absolutely no incentive for anyone to offer a service to convert those millions of DRM songs into the current supported format, and because ALL the computers will suddenly stop working the day company X goes out of business.
Why don't you buy some classical pieces from the iTunes music store and judge for yourself. I've found the quality to be excellent. The subtle ranges in Scheherezade are extremely well preserved, including the very soft, very high violin sequences.
The alternative explanation, of course, is that the bacteria are only a few hundred/thousand years old, and the geologic dating is off. Then it wouldn't be surprising at all that they survived this long as frozen spores.
I've always wondered why the geologic dating is given the priority of being accurate and the improbability of bacteria surviving that long is NOT taken as a check on the geologic dating.
-We rant about USA's human rights records because US instead of China's or North Viet Nam because critisizing China their records is futile.-
This has GOT to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard, but very telling.
Translation: I'm too afraid to try and change real suffering and abuse because I might get killed. So, instead, I'll get all rabid over a friendly fire incident in Iraq and then tell myself I'm better than all of you because I'm making a difference.
Another reason to not sign the treaty. Third world countries, and China and India were exempt as "developing" nations.
The treaty was nothing more than an attempt to drag down US industrial power and economic wealth by people who don't like us.
No one in the world can beat us militarily, but they sure are trying psychologically, with a fair amount of success considering all the self-loathing and guilt too many of us allow other countries to dump on us.
We have the cleanest air and water in the world. Go tell the environmentalists to go clean up China and India and leave the US the hell alone.
Of course, you probably thought that the report by the Union of Concerned Scientists was all great and noble despite the fact it's a liberal political action group and you don't even have to be a scientist to be a member.
Look at the substance of the report and forget who authored it. Facts are facts.
What UN Inspection thing? You mean a dozen guys driving a jeep on a spot surprise insepction and suddenly getting caught in a roadblock until they told the Iraqi thug where their surprise inspection was going to be? Then another 45 minutes while they waited for the roadblock to "clear?"
You mean those inspections.
It's fools like you who think with about three brain cells that get fooled by meaningless, symbolic gestures. It's a damn shame you can vote, too because then some intelligent, thinking person has to waste their ballot to counter your idiot vote.
The contract INCLUDED the provision for exiting the contract, idiot.
If the Russians had announced, it would have gotten a whole hell of a lot LESS coverage. Look over the news stories, moron, of when Bush made the announcement. The screaming, ranting, and rabid frothing that Bush was initiating WWIII was plastered across every headline and top news story in the country.
Never let the facts get in the way of a little agenda, eh?
The ABM treaty contains a clause for exiting the treaty. We followed that clause by officially notifying Russia 6 months in advance that we were formally withdrawing from the treaty, even though, technically, we didn't have to because the national entity with which we originally signed the treaty (The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) no longer existed.
So, we didn't break the treaty at all. In fact, we honored it far beyond the letter of the treaty required.
But, of course, you love hating Bush so much, that you really don't care what the facts are.
OK. Read my post again. The Nobel Committee themselves publicly stated they gave the prize to Carter specifically to send a political message to Bush.
The Union of Concerned Scientists is a political action group. The scientists in this group are there because they share a political ideology. They are most certainly politically active.
Slashdot Mirror
You didn't even read my comment. Evolutionary theory as it currently stands requires some form of abiogenesis to get started. It would NOT have good explanatory power for the life getting STARTED.
If you do the math on the chances of the right precursor molecules spontaneously forming without selection pressures, the odds are ridiculously low. I'd have to look it up, but it's on the order of 10^26 against, and that's with ridiculously optimistic concentrations of the right chemicals in the soup. In that time frame, a trillion years is nothing, thus Dawkins' comments.
To be fair, Dawkins does try to get around the limitation by assuming that the precursor molecues got a kick start from a non-organic matrix that could undergo selection (clays), but he fails to explain how the molecules would be embedded in the right amounts in the clay (a random process). A critical analysis shows the argument to be basically flawed, and we're back to the abiogenesis requirement again. Even Dawkins' doesn't give the clay idea much more than a "just-so" story treatment.
You know, the first step in evaluating the contents of a book are to examine the purpose of the book. I'd hardly expect to find an in-depth analysis of physics in a history text.
The purpose of Genesis is to give a brief overview of the events leading up to the creation of the people of Israel. There's a lot of stuff it leaves out because Moses wasn't interested in putting it down; it wasn't necessary to his purpose.
It continually amazes me how critics of fundamentalist Christianity demand a more complete, scientifically accurate and univeral repository of all knowledge in the universe Bible than the fundamentalist Christians themselves do.
It's a classic fallacy. Because A does not mention B and B is true, A is false.
Considering the difficulty evolution has in explaining the origins of life, finding life on Mars would not boost evolution as much you'd like to think.
Even Dawkins admits that selection can't work until the right proteins are in place and can replicate. In his book the Blind Watchmaker, he basically admits that abiognesis is required involving some VERY unlikely chemical combinations, before evolution can get started and then, in my opinion, offers a huge copout by basically saying: Well, with so many planets in the universe, the odds of it happening at least once may not be so improbable.
The odds of it happening twice in the same solar system strain credibility.
I suspect the explanation will be that life on Earth actually started on Mars.
The common knowledge is that the ice caps were predominantly water. Esp. the permanent cap that would remain in the summer when the dry ice component boiled off.
And then, patting yourself on the back for being so smart, you quickly went on to prove that black is white and got killed at the next zebra crossing.
Which, of course, is the logically consistent position for the creationist to take, your scorn not withstanding.
We're not anywhere near a resource crash. And saying we went to war in Iraq over oil just underlines your lack of thinking. It would have been a lot easier to get cheap oil from Iraq by just lifting the sanctions. No need to fight about it at all.
And the combined federal social spending: Medicaid, Social Security, HHS, etc. is well over a trillion dollars a year.
Were you trying to make some kind of point?
You guys are all making this way too hard.
The simple answer is: Water is a superb solvent.
You mean empirical evidence other than the predictions not coming true?
People predicting global ecologic disasters have about the same accuracy rate as people predicting the second coming.
Yep, because there will be absolutely no incentive for anyone to offer a service to convert those millions of DRM songs into the current supported format, and because ALL the computers will suddenly stop working the day company X goes out of business.
A distinction without a difference except to lawyers and rationalizers.
Why don't you buy some classical pieces from the iTunes music store and judge for yourself. I've found the quality to be excellent. The subtle ranges in Scheherezade are extremely well preserved, including the very soft, very high violin sequences.
All iTunes songs are from the original masters when available.
Excuse me? HP picked Apple BECAUSE of competition. Apple competed with Napster and Apple won.
Twenty percent is a dominant market presence? Good grief.
The alternative explanation, of course, is that the bacteria are only a few hundred/thousand years old, and the geologic dating is off. Then it wouldn't be surprising at all that they survived this long as frozen spores.
I've always wondered why the geologic dating is given the priority of being accurate and the improbability of bacteria surviving that long is NOT taken as a check on the geologic dating.
-We rant about USA's human rights records because US instead of China's or North Viet Nam because critisizing China their records is futile.-
This has GOT to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard, but very telling.
Translation: I'm too afraid to try and change real suffering and abuse because I might get killed. So, instead, I'll get all rabid over a friendly fire incident in Iraq and then tell myself I'm better than all of you because I'm making a difference.
Another reason to not sign the treaty. Third world countries, and China and India were exempt as "developing" nations.
The treaty was nothing more than an attempt to drag down US industrial power and economic wealth by people who don't like us.
No one in the world can beat us militarily, but they sure are trying psychologically, with a fair amount of success considering all the self-loathing and guilt too many of us allow other countries to dump on us.
We have the cleanest air and water in the world. Go tell the environmentalists to go clean up China and India and leave the US the hell alone.
logical fallacy of shoot the messenger.
Of course, you probably thought that the report by the Union of Concerned Scientists was all great and noble despite the fact it's a liberal political action group and you don't even have to be a scientist to be a member.
Look at the substance of the report and forget who authored it. Facts are facts.
What UN Inspection thing? You mean a dozen guys driving a jeep on a spot surprise insepction and suddenly getting caught in a roadblock until they told the Iraqi thug where their surprise inspection was going to be? Then another 45 minutes while they waited for the roadblock to "clear?"
You mean those inspections.
It's fools like you who think with about three brain cells that get fooled by meaningless, symbolic gestures. It's a damn shame you can vote, too because then some intelligent, thinking person has to waste their ballot to counter your idiot vote.
We won the race? Really? The last time I looked, China hadn't stopped running to shake our hand and declare us the winner.
We're AHEAD in the race. We haven't won because the race isn't over.
Save us from ignoramuses.
The contract INCLUDED the provision for exiting the contract, idiot.
If the Russians had announced, it would have gotten a whole hell of a lot LESS coverage. Look over the news stories, moron, of when Bush made the announcement. The screaming, ranting, and rabid frothing that Bush was initiating WWIII was plastered across every headline and top news story in the country.
Never let the facts get in the way of a little agenda, eh?
The ABM treaty contains a clause for exiting the treaty. We followed that clause by officially notifying Russia 6 months in advance that we were formally withdrawing from the treaty, even though, technically, we didn't have to because the national entity with which we originally signed the treaty (The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) no longer existed.
So, we didn't break the treaty at all. In fact, we honored it far beyond the letter of the treaty required.
But, of course, you love hating Bush so much, that you really don't care what the facts are.
OK. Read my post again. The Nobel Committee themselves publicly stated they gave the prize to Carter specifically to send a political message to Bush.
The Union of Concerned Scientists is a political action group. The scientists in this group are there because they share a political ideology. They are most certainly politically active.