SCO succeeded in delaying even more by requesting more code. The judge granted some, but not all, of what SCO wanted -- e.g. they wanted every revision from IBM's AIX and Dynix source revision control system along with all programmers notes, but instead just got more code and some notes. While this is in part a "victory" for SCO as their request was partially granted, the judge noted that she was doing this so as to prevent any further complaints that IBM has not supplied enough code. In other words, this is the end of the line as far as code discovery goes.
Um, you don't think there was competition to get those exclusive rights?
Exactly. First they competed to sell more copies of their sports games, then they competed to get exclusive rights, and now the rights are aquired and there is no more competition. That is the death of competition. Vying for the exclusive rights was just the final struggle.
If we admitted that this could "hurt" EA, in the same way EA's deals could hurt Take Two (et al), we're admitting that competition in the video game market is alive and well, and that exclusive rights are par for the course in the industry.
How are exclusive rights that prevent others from making games based on real sports teams indicative of competition being "alive and well"? EA has locked up football, and Take Two has locked up baseball. That sounds like a pair of monopolies in (slightly) different markets, not competition.
Exclusive rights are going to be par for the industry, but "par for the course" and "healthy competition" aren't the same by a long shot.
So basically, just think of EA as Microsoft, and Take Two as Apple.
Fuck Microsoft and fuck Apple. However, fuck Apple slightly less, after you're tired and shagged out from fucking Microsoft. That's my "double standard".
I find this to be funny. I mean it is funny that now the money is going from the poor to the rich... because it never happened before and all...
Heh, yeah, that is pretty funny in a Kurt Vonnegut "so it goes" kind of way. But remember, the reason it can keep happening (rather than them having completely sucked all the money out) is because every so often the poor decide to push back.
The preferences you suggest are that an affirmative (or at least neutral) environment is more important to these female scientists than advancing science. I'm going to need to see some data to back that up.
It's more important to everyone; especially in those years where we're deciding what we want to do.
If a young male entered the math class and everyone there was female and the professor offered here opinion -- purely in the name of scientific honesty, of course -- that men were inferior at math... Well, a lot of boys would balk. Some would step up. Same with girls.
I liken it to running. Running as an organized womens' sport is very young compared to mens'. Womens' times are well above mens'. Yet women are catching up. Why? Well, probably because just like for men having strong role models, records to beat, competitions to win, drives them to do better. Just like men keep setting new records, women do to.
I like this example because it is in a physical field where there is the simplest and strongest argument for an innate difference, yet a clear example of how positive role models and a supportive environment can have a hugely positive effect. Which isn't surprising at all when you stop pretending that men haven't had such an environment.
Look, all my life I've been listening to people say that women are inherently inferior at [math, engineering, science, sports, whatever]. Are you telling me we've had solid scientific proof of a lack of female capability in these fields dating back thirty years? A hundred years? No, we haven't; those statements were said based on sexism, but that hasn't stopped them from saying it to young, impressionable girls' faces. Is it actually true? I don't know; I've met more than enough bad-ass women engineers and scientists to know that the capability is there, but I'll concede the possibility that maybe they were special. What I do know is that for the longest time we've had an environment that actively discouraged female achievment.
Any study that purports to measure "innate" male/female differences must find a way to account for the massive and well-known social bias against women. Any study must realize that the social effect may be larger than the innate effect.
Whatever natural differences between men and women exist, we all share one thing in common: we are learning animals, the greatest learners on earth, and there is no "nature" argument that can ignore the massive effect of "nurture". Claiming "capability to learn math" as an innate difference has already pointed out that math is learned. Have any of these people "showing good studies" (I'd like to see them) studied what happens when you give women additional support and schooling in math, maybe tailored to whatever their needs are? Is this supposed difference insurmountable, or can it be overcome with nurture? Funny, nobody ever seems to want to find that out.
All of which is just a prelude to my real point, regarding "You can't say that." Which is that nobody ever just says "women have less mathematical aptitude". Nobody ever says "women have less innate ability at math, so let's give them additional tutoring to help and maybe we can cover the disparity". No. It's always "women suck at [X] so it's okay that we don't admit/hire/promote/assist as many, and let's not try to give them a boost because it would be a waste of time". In other words, the statement is always used as a way to justify discrimination against women -- discrimination that existed long before any possible proof of the statement itself.
So when people just assume that "women suck at math" is a sexist statement, it's because every single time I've ever heard it uttered it has been.
Speaking of flowers, this topic reminds me of this.
There's really not much more to say about the idea of flesh-eating robots.
And we wonder why Africa doesn't want them...
on
Plant a Seed, Get Sued?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Bunch of luddites, not seeing that the future is genetically modified grains, wholly owned and controlled by a foreign company who will bury anyone who tries to grow food without permission...
Haven't we at least learned anything from Microsoft about single-source monopolistic controls? And this is food! I'm starting to think we deserve our new fascist state.
When it comes to corn and cotton, all he plants is genetically engineered seed. It just so happens that pest resistant seed is a lot cheaper in the final analysis than "natural" seed + chemical pesticide application. Yes, even taking into consideration the fact that he has to buy the seed every year.
Gee, I sure hope they don't jack up the price when all the non-Monsanto farmers are gone...
Re:how are the past predictions?
on
In the Year 2020
·
· Score: 1
What, if any of their past "predictions" have come true? And is that statistically significantly different from a monkey throwing darts at random predictions...
My money is on "no".
Hmm... I'm not sure, so I asked my dart-throwing monkey. He didn't hit yes or no with any darts, but did get a fair amount of poo on "yes". I'm not sure what that means; he can be a fairly satyrical monkey sometimes.
They read lots of Foundation novels. Their original report was for the year 20200, and it was the Alpha Centauris whose technology and economy are going to rise.
No, I didn't read it.
on
In the Year 2020
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
Oh, Asia is rising technically and economically? I hadn't noticed. Man, that CIA, they're so clever the identify trends only twenty years too late!
Um... just to be thorough, Section 117 of the Copyright Act does in fact specify non-infringing uses of copyrighted works which encompass much of what is considered "Fair Use". There has been some court interpretation of these exemptions (e.g. reverse engineer is not specifically exempted, but by case law is fair use), but they do in fact exist as law.
Maybe this is just me, but I never could figure out why people think the number "thirty cubits" was supposed to have infinite precision (which we know would be required to give the 'exact' value of Pi). Looks to me like it has one significant digit.
Honestly, it's when people take Biblical literalism to such retarded extremes -- and I'm talking about the people who really think the Bible says Pi = 3.00 repeating -- that I get pissed off at my fellow Christian.
That's why I love science -- I believe completely in this basic postulate of Creationism: God did it. What he did is what I see science as discovering -- and the more we learn, the more complex, beautiful, and amazing God's creation becomes. Belief in God is a motivation toward scientific curiosity for me, not a discouragement as many atheists (and Christians!) believe.
That's why dogma is to be feared and rejected: It is always about the hubris of humans who want to set up themselves as authorities. Those who follow dogma blind themselves to the truth and thus disservice God.
If secular humanism only attacked fundamentalist Christianity, I might be inclined to think you are correct.
No, I'm entirely correct that the evolution-based attack only exists because of the fundamentalist creationism viewpoint. If the fundies had gotten on board with scientific reality like most other branches of Christianity, we would almost certainly not be having this conversation today.
However, I am well aware of the fact that Christianity in general is attacked, whether by extension of our connection to the fundies, or for other reasons. It's human nature to generalize that way, and I'm not claiming the attackers are better in any way. But I'm not going to pretend that I'm unaware that a lot of the attacks are brought on by ourselves.
The anti-Christians proceed by removing reference to God in all aspects of public life, not just in the classroom or in discussions of biology. Hence, God is not to be mentioned in government; the Ten Commandments are not to be allowed in courthouses (despite the fact that it is one of the foundational documents of our civilization); presidents are not to be given an oath of office that references God or uses a Bible; the Pledge of Allegiance is not to mention God; and so forth.
You're confusing public life with government. Sorry, but all of those examples are not just reasonable but necessary. Religion and politics should not mix. Separation of Church and State is necessary for a free society in which religion can flourish -- or do you not understand that a the crossing of religion and government for so many years is part of why there have been general backlashes against Christianity since the Renaissance? Fleeing from government-specified religion was part of how our nation was born! The Pledge is a great example. It did not contain the words "under God" when it was originally written by a Baptist minister. The words were added in the 50s by a Congress that wanted to make some gesture against the atheist Soviet state. Religion and cold war politics crossing is not in any way a good thing. Giving the people the right to choose whether they pay homage to (a particular) God is.
School Board puts sticker on THEIR books. It's just labeling their property.
You mean OUR books. It's a public school, it is government run, and therefore it is ultimately responsible to the people and must abide by the restrictions the people have placed on their government, specifically the Bill of Rights.
The statement on the sticker is true... so what's all the fuss about? Even the most rabid proponents of evolution still call it a theory. (As all good scientists should)
Because it says evolution, and not Relativity, or Quantum Mechanics, or Boyle's Law, or the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It doesn't say "science is based on the principle of falsifiability; a theory is accepted so long as it matches observation and discarded when experimentation shows it wrong". No, they made a point of saying that evolution is just a theory without any statement about the evidence behind it, and this was clearly politically motivated.
This quote is just silly:
By denigrating evolution, the school board appears to be endorsing the well-known prevailing alternative theory, creationism or variations thereof, even though the sticker does not specifically reference any alternative theories," U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper said.
Yeah, real silly. Except that you, me, the Judge, the School Board, and the 2000 parents who complained all know that it is true.
There is no theory of common descent that does not include humans.
So? That wasn't my point. My point is that you say we can't have observed the evolution from human-precursor to human, and I say no but we can observe something very similar happening with other species. Pre-human -> human is theory, but some species -> some new species is not it is observed fact. It is possible that humans came about through some other mechanism, but the mechanism we know and have observed explains it just fine.
In other words, change in species over time isn't a theory, whether it specifically resulted in humans from a common ancestor is.
Most of these events are actually the formation of sub-species. At this point, this argument becomes one of semantics; what is a species?
Generally considered to be separate populations which cannot interbreed and produce fertile young. Horses and donkeys are different species because their offspring, the mule, is sterile. Things are tougher in the world of asexual reproduction.
Rather than argue along that line, I will point out that my original statement has not been negated by your statement, because you are not addressing common descent, but only subsequent speciation. It remains unknown whether all forms of life evolved from a common ancestor, though that is the claim of the theory of common descent.
That's rather confusing... You're saying we know that species can diversify into different species now, we're just not sure if that actually happened in the past? Again I'm willing to accept common ancestry as a theory, but it sounds like you're suggesting that while speciation exists now it might not have in the past even though that would explain where all the species came from.
It is a fact that one type of bird has been observed to give rise to another, slightly different type of bird. This is not the same thing as common descent, and it remains unproven whether common descent is even possible, much less whether it actually occurred.
Fine. You accept, then, that the fundamental mechanism by which evolution is theorized to occur -- random mutation and environmental pressure -- can give rise to new adaptations and new species, correct? You understand that the fossil record includes many middle grounds between species, including between homo sapiens and apes. Okay, we don't know that they are middle grounds, but it is consistent with observed speciation. Our bodies have traits very similar to apes, very similar to all mammals, very similar to reptiles. Our eyes have a crazily inefficient design that is shared by huge swaths of creatures from mammals to birds to amphibians, while cephalopods have a different design. Birds have many common traits in common with dinosaurs -- are you telling me you don't think it's possible one could have evolved into the other, despite the existence of archeopteryx? Is our vestigal appendix not a clue?
Actually, now you have me interested. What is your theory for how all of these species from wildly different phylums and classes of animals have such similar featurs -- livers, pancreas, appendix, thyroid gland, the ordering of layers of blood vessels, ganglia, neurons, and photo receptors in the eye -- without common ancestry? If there is no common ancestor between humans, apes, and monitor lizards then why do our brains, apes' brains, and monitor lizards' brains share common features?
That would be a sloppy way of thinking in other branches of science; it is not sufficient to claim that a theory must be accepted as an historical fact simply because no one has produced an alternative theory. Claiming that observed examples of speciation (or sub-speciation) demonstrates the process that led to humans is an argument by a hyper-extended analogy.
I didn't say you had to accept it as historical fact; I am saying it is a theory. The only thing I'm saying is fact is speciation, which we have obser
No, that is not the only reason. Another reason--the one that I spoke of in my post--is that people who hate Christianity are using evolution and the scientific community as tools in their attack against Christianity.
If fundamentalist Christians would not insist on a foolish dogmatic literal interpretation of a translation of Genesis then that attack would be toothless.
It is exactly like Galileo -- the only reason his observation of the world could be used against the Church is because the Church refused to drop their dogma. If they had accepted the truth Galileo presented, what then could anyone have said?
In the same way the Creationists are their own worst enemy. The "attack" is to say: look, the Creationists deny facts that we observe every day because a religious text says different (according to them)! It'd be rather hard to say that if Creationists weren't denying facts, wouldn't it? So, might I humbly suggest trying that?
Too, I'll have to ask you why if evolution is the exact science, why are there still monkies around?
Shouldn't they have evolved as well?
They did.
Why don't dolphins have thumbs by now?
Why would a dolphin need thumbs? They are perfectly well adapted to their environment. They are the top of their food chain.
Why can't rats talk yet?
Why should rats be able to talk? Rats are superbly adapted, and will probably outlast us. We couldn't wipe out the rats if we tried, so what evolutionary pressure is there to drive them to talk?
These are all questions based on a naive understanding of evolution based on the simple phrase "survival of the fittest". The seems to imply to people that if some adaptation (e.g. thumbs, speech, being able to fly, mutant super-powers) is or would be helpful, then that adaptation will necessarily arise and dominate. This is simply untrue.
A more accurate and revealing phrase might be "survival of the sufficiently fit". If a species is able to find food and procreate successfully then there is little pressure to change. Most mutations and new features are detrimental, not beneficial. Even if a "good" feature arises it will not necessarily spread and dominate if the rest of the species is able to do fine as they are. Even flaws -- sickle cell anemia, our vestigal appendix -- can survive if they aren't sufficiently damaging that they prevent survival (or in the case of sickle cell, can have benefits such as increased resistance to malaria).
You might as well ask why humans can't fly. We do just fine on the ground, thank you very much.
On the other hand, environmental pressure can quickly result in adaptation. Here is a fascinating example: poisonous toads imported to Australia were multiplying like crazy and killing the local predators that tried to eat them. Since their arrival in the 30's, a couple species of snakes have adapted to be able to more saftely eat these frogs. You see, snakes without the correct trait were not sufficiently fit and the pressure to change was huge.
Evolution is not an exact science -- the main theory for new features arising is random mutation of DNA! Questioning evolution because rats can't talk or because monkies can't fly and don't have laser eye beams is misunderstanding the point.
The theory of common descent has not been observed, at least by humans, as that would have required (at the least) humans to pre-exist themselves.
Only as it applies to humans. We have observed speciation in other species. It happens, it is fact. Did it happen with humans? Well, that's just a theory, but the only objection to the idea that humans evolved similarly to other animals including those we have obsereved is dogmatic.
Slashdot Mirror
SCO succeeded in delaying even more by requesting more code. The judge granted some, but not all, of what SCO wanted -- e.g. they wanted every revision from IBM's AIX and Dynix source revision control system along with all programmers notes, but instead just got more code and some notes. While this is in part a "victory" for SCO as their request was partially granted, the judge noted that she was doing this so as to prevent any further complaints that IBM has not supplied enough code. In other words, this is the end of the line as far as code discovery goes.
Groklaw of course has more.
Um, you don't think there was competition to get those exclusive rights?
Exactly. First they competed to sell more copies of their sports games, then they competed to get exclusive rights, and now the rights are aquired and there is no more competition. That is the death of competition. Vying for the exclusive rights was just the final struggle.
If we admitted that this could "hurt" EA, in the same way EA's deals could hurt Take Two (et al), we're admitting that competition in the video game market is alive and well, and that exclusive rights are par for the course in the industry.
How are exclusive rights that prevent others from making games based on real sports teams indicative of competition being "alive and well"? EA has locked up football, and Take Two has locked up baseball. That sounds like a pair of monopolies in (slightly) different markets, not competition.
Exclusive rights are going to be par for the industry, but "par for the course" and "healthy competition" aren't the same by a long shot.
So basically, just think of EA as Microsoft, and Take Two as Apple.
Fuck Microsoft and fuck Apple. However, fuck Apple slightly less, after you're tired and shagged out from fucking Microsoft. That's my "double standard".
The company doesn't actually DO anything other than sue other companies right?
I'm sure they'd be happy to accept license fees in exchange for not being sued. But basically, yeah, they do nothing but bludgeon people with patents.
I find this to be funny. I mean it is funny that now the money is going from the poor to the rich ... because it never happened before and all...
Heh, yeah, that is pretty funny in a Kurt Vonnegut "so it goes" kind of way. But remember, the reason it can keep happening (rather than them having completely sucked all the money out) is because every so often the poor decide to push back.
Says you. My friend and physician, Dr. Jack Daniels, says differently. What's that, Doctor? It's time for another dose?
The preferences you suggest are that an affirmative (or at least neutral) environment is more important to these female scientists than advancing science. I'm going to need to see some data to back that up.
It's more important to everyone; especially in those years where we're deciding what we want to do.
If a young male entered the math class and everyone there was female and the professor offered here opinion -- purely in the name of scientific honesty, of course -- that men were inferior at math... Well, a lot of boys would balk. Some would step up. Same with girls.
I liken it to running. Running as an organized womens' sport is very young compared to mens'. Womens' times are well above mens'. Yet women are catching up. Why? Well, probably because just like for men having strong role models, records to beat, competitions to win, drives them to do better. Just like men keep setting new records, women do to.
I like this example because it is in a physical field where there is the simplest and strongest argument for an innate difference, yet a clear example of how positive role models and a supportive environment can have a hugely positive effect. Which isn't surprising at all when you stop pretending that men haven't had such an environment.
Look, all my life I've been listening to people say that women are inherently inferior at [math, engineering, science, sports, whatever]. Are you telling me we've had solid scientific proof of a lack of female capability in these fields dating back thirty years? A hundred years? No, we haven't; those statements were said based on sexism, but that hasn't stopped them from saying it to young, impressionable girls' faces. Is it actually true? I don't know; I've met more than enough bad-ass women engineers and scientists to know that the capability is there, but I'll concede the possibility that maybe they were special. What I do know is that for the longest time we've had an environment that actively discouraged female achievment.
Any study that purports to measure "innate" male/female differences must find a way to account for the massive and well-known social bias against women. Any study must realize that the social effect may be larger than the innate effect.
Whatever natural differences between men and women exist, we all share one thing in common: we are learning animals, the greatest learners on earth, and there is no "nature" argument that can ignore the massive effect of "nurture". Claiming "capability to learn math" as an innate difference has already pointed out that math is learned. Have any of these people "showing good studies" (I'd like to see them) studied what happens when you give women additional support and schooling in math, maybe tailored to whatever their needs are? Is this supposed difference insurmountable, or can it be overcome with nurture? Funny, nobody ever seems to want to find that out.
All of which is just a prelude to my real point, regarding "You can't say that." Which is that nobody ever just says "women have less mathematical aptitude". Nobody ever says "women have less innate ability at math, so let's give them additional tutoring to help and maybe we can cover the disparity". No. It's always "women suck at [X] so it's okay that we don't admit/hire/promote/assist as many, and let's not try to give them a boost because it would be a waste of time". In other words, the statement is always used as a way to justify discrimination against women -- discrimination that existed long before any possible proof of the statement itself.
So when people just assume that "women suck at math" is a sexist statement, it's because every single time I've ever heard it uttered it has been.
Speaking of flowers, this topic reminds me of this.
There's really not much more to say about the idea of flesh-eating robots.
Bunch of luddites, not seeing that the future is genetically modified grains, wholly owned and controlled by a foreign company who will bury anyone who tries to grow food without permission...
Haven't we at least learned anything from Microsoft about single-source monopolistic controls? And this is food! I'm starting to think we deserve our new fascist state.
When it comes to corn and cotton, all he plants is genetically engineered seed. It just so happens that pest resistant seed is a lot cheaper in the final analysis than "natural" seed + chemical pesticide application. Yes, even taking into consideration the fact that he has to buy the seed every year.
Gee, I sure hope they don't jack up the price when all the non-Monsanto farmers are gone...
"Put Down This Book And Get To Work, Slacker"
There is no Chapter Two.
What, if any of their past "predictions" have come true? And is that statistically significantly different from a monkey throwing darts at random predictions...
My money is on "no".
Hmm... I'm not sure, so I asked my dart-throwing monkey. He didn't hit yes or no with any darts, but did get a fair amount of poo on "yes". I'm not sure what that means; he can be a fairly satyrical monkey sometimes.
They read lots of Foundation novels. Their original report was for the year 20200, and it was the Alpha Centauris whose technology and economy are going to rise.
Oh, Asia is rising technically and economically? I hadn't noticed. Man, that CIA, they're so clever the identify trends only twenty years too late!
Um... just to be thorough, Section 117 of the Copyright Act does in fact specify non-infringing uses of copyrighted works which encompass much of what is considered "Fair Use". There has been some court interpretation of these exemptions (e.g. reverse engineer is not specifically exempted, but by case law is fair use), but they do in fact exist as law.
So the grandparent was wrong.
Maybe this is just me, but I never could figure out why people think the number "thirty cubits" was supposed to have infinite precision (which we know would be required to give the 'exact' value of Pi). Looks to me like it has one significant digit.
Honestly, it's when people take Biblical literalism to such retarded extremes -- and I'm talking about the people who really think the Bible says Pi = 3.00 repeating -- that I get pissed off at my fellow Christian.
Fuck yeah, man. Way to be.
That's why I love science -- I believe completely in this basic postulate of Creationism: God did it. What he did is what I see science as discovering -- and the more we learn, the more complex, beautiful, and amazing God's creation becomes. Belief in God is a motivation toward scientific curiosity for me, not a discouragement as many atheists (and Christians!) believe.
That's why dogma is to be feared and rejected: It is always about the hubris of humans who want to set up themselves as authorities. Those who follow dogma blind themselves to the truth and thus disservice God.
Get a sense of humor and stop projecting your homosexual fantasies.
If secular humanism only attacked fundamentalist Christianity, I might be inclined to think you are correct.
No, I'm entirely correct that the evolution-based attack only exists because of the fundamentalist creationism viewpoint. If the fundies had gotten on board with scientific reality like most other branches of Christianity, we would almost certainly not be having this conversation today.
However, I am well aware of the fact that Christianity in general is attacked, whether by extension of our connection to the fundies, or for other reasons. It's human nature to generalize that way, and I'm not claiming the attackers are better in any way. But I'm not going to pretend that I'm unaware that a lot of the attacks are brought on by ourselves.
The anti-Christians proceed by removing reference to God in all aspects of public life, not just in the classroom or in discussions of biology. Hence, God is not to be mentioned in government; the Ten Commandments are not to be allowed in courthouses (despite the fact that it is one of the foundational documents of our civilization); presidents are not to be given an oath of office that references God or uses a Bible; the Pledge of Allegiance is not to mention God; and so forth.
You're confusing public life with government. Sorry, but all of those examples are not just reasonable but necessary. Religion and politics should not mix. Separation of Church and State is necessary for a free society in which religion can flourish -- or do you not understand that a the crossing of religion and government for so many years is part of why there have been general backlashes against Christianity since the Renaissance? Fleeing from government-specified religion was part of how our nation was born! The Pledge is a great example. It did not contain the words "under God" when it was originally written by a Baptist minister. The words were added in the 50s by a Congress that wanted to make some gesture against the atheist Soviet state. Religion and cold war politics crossing is not in any way a good thing. Giving the people the right to choose whether they pay homage to (a particular) God is.
School Board puts sticker on THEIR books. It's just labeling their property.
You mean OUR books. It's a public school, it is government run, and therefore it is ultimately responsible to the people and must abide by the restrictions the people have placed on their government, specifically the Bill of Rights.
The statement on the sticker is true... so what's all the fuss about? Even the most rabid proponents of evolution still call it a theory. (As all good scientists should)
Because it says evolution, and not Relativity, or Quantum Mechanics, or Boyle's Law, or the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It doesn't say "science is based on the principle of falsifiability; a theory is accepted so long as it matches observation and discarded when experimentation shows it wrong". No, they made a point of saying that evolution is just a theory without any statement about the evidence behind it, and this was clearly politically motivated.
This quote is just silly:
By denigrating evolution, the school board appears to be endorsing the well-known prevailing alternative theory, creationism or variations thereof, even though the sticker does not specifically reference any alternative theories," U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper said.
Yeah, real silly. Except that you, me, the Judge, the School Board, and the 2000 parents who complained all know that it is true.
There is no theory of common descent that does not include humans.
So? That wasn't my point. My point is that you say we can't have observed the evolution from human-precursor to human, and I say no but we can observe something very similar happening with other species. Pre-human -> human is theory, but some species -> some new species is not it is observed fact. It is possible that humans came about through some other mechanism, but the mechanism we know and have observed explains it just fine.
In other words, change in species over time isn't a theory, whether it specifically resulted in humans from a common ancestor is.
Most of these events are actually the formation of sub-species. At this point, this argument becomes one of semantics; what is a species?
Generally considered to be separate populations which cannot interbreed and produce fertile young. Horses and donkeys are different species because their offspring, the mule, is sterile. Things are tougher in the world of asexual reproduction.
Rather than argue along that line, I will point out that my original statement has not been negated by your statement, because you are not addressing common descent, but only subsequent speciation. It remains unknown whether all forms of life evolved from a common ancestor, though that is the claim of the theory of common descent.
That's rather confusing... You're saying we know that species can diversify into different species now, we're just not sure if that actually happened in the past? Again I'm willing to accept common ancestry as a theory, but it sounds like you're suggesting that while speciation exists now it might not have in the past even though that would explain where all the species came from.
It is a fact that one type of bird has been observed to give rise to another, slightly different type of bird. This is not the same thing as common descent, and it remains unproven whether common descent is even possible, much less whether it actually occurred.
Fine. You accept, then, that the fundamental mechanism by which evolution is theorized to occur -- random mutation and environmental pressure -- can give rise to new adaptations and new species, correct? You understand that the fossil record includes many middle grounds between species, including between homo sapiens and apes. Okay, we don't know that they are middle grounds, but it is consistent with observed speciation. Our bodies have traits very similar to apes, very similar to all mammals, very similar to reptiles. Our eyes have a crazily inefficient design that is shared by huge swaths of creatures from mammals to birds to amphibians, while cephalopods have a different design. Birds have many common traits in common with dinosaurs -- are you telling me you don't think it's possible one could have evolved into the other, despite the existence of archeopteryx? Is our vestigal appendix not a clue?
Actually, now you have me interested. What is your theory for how all of these species from wildly different phylums and classes of animals have such similar featurs -- livers, pancreas, appendix, thyroid gland, the ordering of layers of blood vessels, ganglia, neurons, and photo receptors in the eye -- without common ancestry? If there is no common ancestor between humans, apes, and monitor lizards then why do our brains, apes' brains, and monitor lizards' brains share common features?
That would be a sloppy way of thinking in other branches of science; it is not sufficient to claim that a theory must be accepted as an historical fact simply because no one has produced an alternative theory. Claiming that observed examples of speciation (or sub-speciation) demonstrates the process that led to humans is an argument by a hyper-extended analogy.
I didn't say you had to accept it as historical fact; I am saying it is a theory. The only thing I'm saying is fact is speciation, which we have obser
No, that is not the only reason. Another reason--the one that I spoke of in my post--is that people who hate Christianity are using evolution and the scientific community as tools in their attack against Christianity.
If fundamentalist Christians would not insist on a foolish dogmatic literal interpretation of a translation of Genesis then that attack would be toothless.
It is exactly like Galileo -- the only reason his observation of the world could be used against the Church is because the Church refused to drop their dogma. If they had accepted the truth Galileo presented, what then could anyone have said?
In the same way the Creationists are their own worst enemy. The "attack" is to say: look, the Creationists deny facts that we observe every day because a religious text says different (according to them)! It'd be rather hard to say that if Creationists weren't denying facts, wouldn't it? So, might I humbly suggest trying that?
Too, I'll have to ask you why if evolution is the exact science, why are there still monkies around?
Shouldn't they have evolved as well?
They did.
Why don't dolphins have thumbs by now?
Why would a dolphin need thumbs? They are perfectly well adapted to their environment. They are the top of their food chain.
Why can't rats talk yet?
Why should rats be able to talk? Rats are superbly adapted, and will probably outlast us. We couldn't wipe out the rats if we tried, so what evolutionary pressure is there to drive them to talk?
These are all questions based on a naive understanding of evolution based on the simple phrase "survival of the fittest". The seems to imply to people that if some adaptation (e.g. thumbs, speech, being able to fly, mutant super-powers) is or would be helpful, then that adaptation will necessarily arise and dominate. This is simply untrue.
A more accurate and revealing phrase might be "survival of the sufficiently fit". If a species is able to find food and procreate successfully then there is little pressure to change. Most mutations and new features are detrimental, not beneficial. Even if a "good" feature arises it will not necessarily spread and dominate if the rest of the species is able to do fine as they are. Even flaws -- sickle cell anemia, our vestigal appendix -- can survive if they aren't sufficiently damaging that they prevent survival (or in the case of sickle cell, can have benefits such as increased resistance to malaria).
You might as well ask why humans can't fly. We do just fine on the ground, thank you very much.
On the other hand, environmental pressure can quickly result in adaptation. Here is a fascinating example: poisonous toads imported to Australia were multiplying like crazy and killing the local predators that tried to eat them. Since their arrival in the 30's, a couple species of snakes have adapted to be able to more saftely eat these frogs. You see, snakes without the correct trait were not sufficiently fit and the pressure to change was huge.
Evolution is not an exact science -- the main theory for new features arising is random mutation of DNA! Questioning evolution because rats can't talk or because monkies can't fly and don't have laser eye beams is misunderstanding the point.
The theory of common descent has not been observed, at least by humans, as that would have required (at the least) humans to pre-exist themselves.
Only as it applies to humans. We have observed speciation in other species. It happens, it is fact. Did it happen with humans? Well, that's just a theory, but the only objection to the idea that humans evolved similarly to other animals including those we have obsereved is dogmatic.