Yes, contact was fiction but it does bring up the point that 90+% of the world's population belive in god and that aside from Atheisim being unscientific, it is also pointless (and often dangerous) to be evangelical about it.
Regardless of where Gould's politics or Dawkin's Atheisim have lead them from time to time, Dawkins and Gould IMHO are both brilliant people who have adavnced my layman understanding of evolution in a constructive manner. The fact that they have both had scientific mis-adventures does not detract from their writings on PE anymore than Newton's obsession with the "number of the beast" detracts from the "Principa Mathematica". In fact the situation is also reminicent of Eienstien's attitude toward QM made famous by his quip "god doesn't play dice".
In other words: If you have dismissed Gould's writings on PE beacuse of his political views on a different theory then ultimately I think it's your loss, but as always YMMV.
Yes Gould uspet some big names and he has been attacked politically, but AFAIK what your are talking about has nothing to do with PE. I will also point out that I stated I have no idea who first thought of PE (particularly the maths behind it).
FWIW If it is true he was ardently against evolutionary phycology then I think Gould was wrong (as I understand it EP is no longer contraversial but I thought that was true of PE so who knows?). I also find Dawkins' religious fervour for atheisim highly ironic and slightly emabarrasing (perhaps Dawkins should read "Contact" by Sagan). I also understand that Newton stuck pins in his eye to experiment with light and wrote roughly a millions words on the numerology he found in the number 666.
In other words I prefer to test models by attacking the content not the source.
Yes but they are on a bookshelf. I really doubt that either of them argued that evolution always proceedes in "jerks", what (I belive) they did was put a mathematical basis behind the existing observation that evolution often proceeds in jerks when new opportunities arise, such as after a mass extinction event or after some particularly important mutation such as the advent of multi-cellular life.
I'd say you've likely misread both in that case."
Then I'm not sure how I could hold the same "multi-speed" views as you since that is where I got them from. I think you may have missed/forgotten what these people had to say because of the "evolution by jerks" joke, (which by the way was funny enough to make me spray coffee through my nose). If you are non-american I suggest you have a look at Dawkins (again?), if you like baseball analogies then go for Gould.
"The bottom line is that those who advocated punctuated equilibrium hold the view that evolution either happens very fast or not at all.
That ISN'T how I read Gould and/or Dawkins.
"I hold the view (and as far as I recall from my time at University so do most evolutionary biologists) that there are many speeds to evolution, not just stop and go."
Yes "megawatts per hour" literally means megajoules per hour per hour, or more simply Mj/Hr^2, which would seem to indicate some sort of acceleration...
I'm surprised it's contraversial since Dawkins and Gould have both been showered with honours for their work. I have to admit the baseball thing was confusing to this particular Aussie and if you haven't read "Climbing Mt. Improbable" by Dawkins then it's worth a look. I am not a biologist or a basball fan - I'm a computer scientist with a major in OR, the maths behind PE makes a great deal of sense to me and would seem to fit the fossil record better than the alternative, eg: the Cambrian explosion, the various mass extinctions (including the current one).
"I'm continually amazed at the apparent opinion of many that what science knows now is all there is to know, or that it is not possible that it is not quite right."
I'm continually amazed how often people claim this, I cannot think of one person I have met in my 50yrs that has held this idea but there are countless people who claim it is common.
What's more the assertion itself implies that somewhere "out there" is a correct answer that we can all accept with 100% unchanging certainty. That concept is the contrary to science both in philosophy and implementation, science simply provides the best answer (as demonstrated by centuries of usefull spin-off's). IMHO the pace of knowledge acquisition over the last 50yrs has exploded due mainly to more accessible education and a massive reduction of influence from religion. On the longer term mankinds colective body of knowledge goes up and down, but it does have a fairly consistent upward trend and is definitely related to events in society.
"Alluding to an earlier post, massive drastic evolutionary changes just don't make sense to me."
Then I suggest you argue with Dawkins or Gould.
"Anyway, I hope that further study/excavation shows us something more meaningful than what has been found."
I am glad to see you support the work even though you personally think it's meaningless, it implies a trust in science on your part that I admire. Having said that, it's only meaningless to those who don't understand what those "guesses" about the relationship between agriculture/religion/buildings are based on. Turkey (via many lines of evidence) is where both agriculture and buildings originated ~10,000yrs ago, an 11,000yo temple (anywhere in the world) is therefore meaningfull to people who are intrested in the origins and spread of civilization (not that nomadic tribes are uncivilised, just that they have an alterantive definition-re: modern day Mongolia). But yes, there is still a lot we don't know outside of Europe - perhaps Turkey wasn't the birthplace of civilization but right now at this point in time that idea is far more speculative than any of the ideas in TFA.
"We are still arguing about how the great pyramids at Giza were built. (they made them of concrete)."
Again simply because we don't know everything does not mean we know nothing. Some people actually know quite a bit about the various methods (note the plural) used to build pyramids. Normally they were made from limestone and/or granite blocks, some were given a coating of lime to make the sides smooth and white. Over the millenia most (if not all) the lime coating has been scavanged to cover the walls of nearby towns/cities.
As for "concrete blocks", it's an interesting idea backed up by a couple of material analysists and (to me anyway) the limestone covering demonstrates they knew about "concrete" but these guys are still very far from providing the evidence needed to ADD it to accepted idea's, let alone the "extrodinary evidence" that would be needed to show ALL pyramids were built with the concrete method.
Agreed, and what's this in the summary about evolution progressing "smoothly". I belive that the late S.J. Gould demonstrated that it actually proceeds in spurts or maybe it was Dawkins. Regardless of who's idea it was it has been known for quite a while that evolution is not a nice smmoth curve.
Besides that, the concept of "species" is just an abitrary way of cataloging life that took off when the English started cataloging everything they could find, live or dead. Today there is far more interest in figuring out how cells self-oraginse over time. Oddly enough the disipline of 'network analysis' can be used to track how various cells/molecules interact. One such analysis conducted at Harvard produced this awsome animation showing the goings on inside an immune cell as it homes in on it's target (motion slowed down 2-3 orders of magnitute).
"Shared sacarfice won't happen -- China and India aren't likely to abandon their development because some Westerners are whining about the ice caps."
I read this sort of comment over and over again, however since Australia changed government late last year the only member of the UN who is still objecting to a global cap and trade regime is the US. China and India's stated policy is to get the same deal as the US plus the previously agreed compensation from kyoto (ie: the developing world is not responsible for the existing warming and everyone except the US recognises this by counting total emmisions since 1950 as part of "kyoto #2" (the emmision trading deal due to be completed in 2012).
The problem is the same as it was 10yrs ago, the US has been unwilling to make any deal at all, it refuses to even contemplate a target. Thankfully your new president has stated that this "head in the sand" position will change.
I was joking, personally I think he's a genius (with or without acid). Seriously though now you mention it I saw a doco quite a while ago that showed Kubric experimenting with the liquids. IIRC there were very few bloopers in the special-effects (the liquid travelling down the straw is the only one I know of). I think the way I see the phycadelics then as opposed to now is that the first time was at a theater (TV was B&W only) and the effects were modern, nowaday's it looks as outdated as my mum's kitchen.
As I understand it the 1918 virus is what's known as the H5N1 virus, slightly different strains have re-emerged naturally in the 60's (infected a lot of human's including me) and again with "Bird flu" (very few humans but lots of birds). If the current Bird Flu virus were to mutate into the Spanish flu then it could be devastating because few people who are alive today have been directly exposed to it.
If you think those executive orders are bad contemplate the Lord Mayor of London who's response to the plague was to lock himself in a glass cage until it passed. He had a slot where servants would slide food under the door, I'm not sure if he actually left his cage for official duties but one of those duties involved approving the demolition of buildings around a burning bakery (a standard fire-fighting technique of the day). He refused permission in case the people who owned the buildings "got upset" (not sure who owned the buildings but it's quite likely he knew them). On the upside he only spent a year in office and the great fire of London was credited with driving the plague out of London.
"the opposition can sink any legislation with either Family First or Xenephon."
Exactly, KRuddy is just placating the FF senator (Feilding) in order to buy his vote on more serious legislation. The great Aussie firewall was also promoted by the previous government for similarly cynical reasoning, it will never actually be implemented and everyone except Feilding seems to be aware this.
Think about it - why would KRuddy risk upset Fielding, better to appear to be on his side and let the ISP's tear him apart.
Relax, it was a joke, admittedly at your expense. The point(s) I was trying to make in a gentle manner are...
1. Avoid the logical fallacy of assuming that one random opinion represents the thoughts and opinions of one billion people.
2. Look up some definitions, some of the words you are using do not mean what you think they do (eg: socialisim).
3. The USA is a nation, the EU is largely a trading bloc.
4. Your troll mod could easily have come from anyone, anywhere. In fact given the mood in the US it could quite easily have come from someone down the street.
5. Get over yourself, ideology is the problem not the answer.
The story is full of these kinds of references, another famous one is to move the letters H.A.L up one in the alphabet and you get I.B.M (although Clarke claims it was a coincidence). I as in high school when the movie came out, it was required reading and we went to the theater to watch it (Kubrick hadn't done "Clockwork Orange" so nobody was freaked out by his name). Most of the philosophical stuff went straight over our heads but the special effects left an impression. Fourty years later and I get the philosophical stuff but the special effects would seem to indicate Kubrick was on acid.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, contact was fiction but it does bring up the point that 90+% of the world's population belive in god and that aside from Atheisim being unscientific, it is also pointless (and often dangerous) to be evangelical about it.
Regardless of where Gould's politics or Dawkin's Atheisim have lead them from time to time, Dawkins and Gould IMHO are both brilliant people who have adavnced my layman understanding of evolution in a constructive manner. The fact that they have both had scientific mis-adventures does not detract from their writings on PE anymore than Newton's obsession with the "number of the beast" detracts from the "Principa Mathematica". In fact the situation is also reminicent of Eienstien's attitude toward QM made famous by his quip "god doesn't play dice".
In other words: If you have dismissed Gould's writings on PE beacuse of his political views on a different theory then ultimately I think it's your loss, but as always YMMV.
Hah! Now that would be a win-win scenario.
Yes Gould uspet some big names and he has been attacked politically, but AFAIK what your are talking about has nothing to do with PE. I will also point out that I stated I have no idea who first thought of PE (particularly the maths behind it).
FWIW If it is true he was ardently against evolutionary phycology then I think Gould was wrong (as I understand it EP is no longer contraversial but I thought that was true of PE so who knows?). I also find Dawkins' religious fervour for atheisim highly ironic and slightly emabarrasing (perhaps Dawkins should read "Contact" by Sagan). I also understand that Newton stuck pins in his eye to experiment with light and wrote roughly a millions words on the numerology he found in the number 666.
In other words I prefer to test models by attacking the content not the source.
Read the book and find out.
...and chop a couple of digits of his uid for that reference.
"Do you have any references to hand?"
Yes but they are on a bookshelf. I really doubt that either of them argued that evolution always proceedes in "jerks", what (I belive) they did was put a mathematical basis behind the existing observation that evolution often proceeds in jerks when new opportunities arise, such as after a mass extinction event or after some particularly important mutation such as the advent of multi-cellular life.
I'd say you've likely misread both in that case."
Then I'm not sure how I could hold the same "multi-speed" views as you since that is where I got them from. I think you may have missed/forgotten what these people had to say because of the "evolution by jerks" joke, (which by the way was funny enough to make me spray coffee through my nose). If you are non-american I suggest you have a look at Dawkins (again?), if you like baseball analogies then go for Gould.
"The bottom line is that those who advocated punctuated equilibrium hold the view that evolution either happens very fast or not at all.
That ISN'T how I read Gould and/or Dawkins.
"I hold the view (and as far as I recall from my time at University so do most evolutionary biologists) that there are many speeds to evolution, not just stop and go."
That IS how I read Gould and/or Dawkins.
Yes "megawatts per hour" literally means megajoules per hour per hour, or more simply Mj/Hr^2, which would seem to indicate some sort of acceleration...
I'm surprised it's contraversial since Dawkins and Gould have both been showered with honours for their work. I have to admit the baseball thing was confusing to this particular Aussie and if you haven't read "Climbing Mt. Improbable" by Dawkins then it's worth a look. I am not a biologist or a basball fan - I'm a computer scientist with a major in OR, the maths behind PE makes a great deal of sense to me and would seem to fit the fossil record better than the alternative, eg: the Cambrian explosion, the various mass extinctions (including the current one).
"I'm continually amazed at the apparent opinion of many that what science knows now is all there is to know, or that it is not possible that it is not quite right."
I'm continually amazed how often people claim this, I cannot think of one person I have met in my 50yrs that has held this idea but there are countless people who claim it is common.
What's more the assertion itself implies that somewhere "out there" is a correct answer that we can all accept with 100% unchanging certainty. That concept is the contrary to science both in philosophy and implementation, science simply provides the best answer (as demonstrated by centuries of usefull spin-off's). IMHO the pace of knowledge acquisition over the last 50yrs has exploded due mainly to more accessible education and a massive reduction of influence from religion. On the longer term mankinds colective body of knowledge goes up and down, but it does have a fairly consistent upward trend and is definitely related to events in society.
"Alluding to an earlier post, massive drastic evolutionary changes just don't make sense to me."
Then I suggest you argue with Dawkins or Gould.
"Anyway, I hope that further study/excavation shows us something more meaningful than what has been found."
I am glad to see you support the work even though you personally think it's meaningless, it implies a trust in science on your part that I admire. Having said that, it's only meaningless to those who don't understand what those "guesses" about the relationship between agriculture/religion/buildings are based on. Turkey (via many lines of evidence) is where both agriculture and buildings originated ~10,000yrs ago, an 11,000yo temple (anywhere in the world) is therefore meaningfull to people who are intrested in the origins and spread of civilization (not that nomadic tribes are uncivilised, just that they have an alterantive definition-re: modern day Mongolia). But yes, there is still a lot we don't know outside of Europe - perhaps Turkey wasn't the birthplace of civilization but right now at this point in time that idea is far more speculative than any of the ideas in TFA.
"We are still arguing about how the great pyramids at Giza were built. (they made them of concrete)."
Again simply because we don't know everything does not mean we know nothing. Some people actually know quite a bit about the various methods (note the plural) used to build pyramids. Normally they were made from limestone and/or granite blocks, some were given a coating of lime to make the sides smooth and white. Over the millenia most (if not all) the lime coating has been scavanged to cover the walls of nearby towns/cities.
As for "concrete blocks", it's an interesting idea backed up by a couple of material analysists and (to me anyway) the limestone covering demonstrates they knew about "concrete" but these guys are still very far from providing the evidence needed to ADD it to accepted idea's, let alone the "extrodinary evidence" that would be needed to show ALL pyramids were built with the concrete method.
Agreed, and what's this in the summary about evolution progressing "smoothly". I belive that the late S.J. Gould demonstrated that it actually proceeds in spurts or maybe it was Dawkins. Regardless of who's idea it was it has been known for quite a while that evolution is not a nice smmoth curve.
Besides that, the concept of "species" is just an abitrary way of cataloging life that took off when the English started cataloging everything they could find, live or dead. Today there is far more interest in figuring out how cells self-oraginse over time. Oddly enough the disipline of 'network analysis' can be used to track how various cells/molecules interact. One such analysis conducted at Harvard produced this awsome animation showing the goings on inside an immune cell as it homes in on it's target (motion slowed down 2-3 orders of magnitute).
"Shared sacarfice won't happen -- China and India aren't likely to abandon their development because some Westerners are whining about the ice caps."
I read this sort of comment over and over again, however since Australia changed government late last year the only member of the UN who is still objecting to a global cap and trade regime is the US. China and India's stated policy is to get the same deal as the US plus the previously agreed compensation from kyoto (ie: the developing world is not responsible for the existing warming and everyone except the US recognises this by counting total emmisions since 1950 as part of "kyoto #2" (the emmision trading deal due to be completed in 2012).
The problem is the same as it was 10yrs ago, the US has been unwilling to make any deal at all, it refuses to even contemplate a target. Thankfully your new president has stated that this "head in the sand" position will change.
I was joking, personally I think he's a genius (with or without acid). Seriously though now you mention it I saw a doco quite a while ago that showed Kubric experimenting with the liquids. IIRC there were very few bloopers in the special-effects (the liquid travelling down the straw is the only one I know of). I think the way I see the phycadelics then as opposed to now is that the first time was at a theater (TV was B&W only) and the effects were modern, nowaday's it looks as outdated as my mum's kitchen.
As I understand it the 1918 virus is what's known as the H5N1 virus, slightly different strains have re-emerged naturally in the 60's (infected a lot of human's including me) and again with "Bird flu" (very few humans but lots of birds). If the current Bird Flu virus were to mutate into the Spanish flu then it could be devastating because few people who are alive today have been directly exposed to it.
If you think those executive orders are bad contemplate the Lord Mayor of London who's response to the plague was to lock himself in a glass cage until it passed. He had a slot where servants would slide food under the door, I'm not sure if he actually left his cage for official duties but one of those duties involved approving the demolition of buildings around a burning bakery (a standard fire-fighting technique of the day). He refused permission in case the people who owned the buildings "got upset" (not sure who owned the buildings but it's quite likely he knew them). On the upside he only spent a year in office and the great fire of London was credited with driving the plague out of London.
Love your work!
Your sig: "If each mistake being made is a new one, then progress is being made."
/sarcasm
Therefore you need to RTFA before you can progress to your next batch of mistakes.
"And what defines outbreak anyway?"
A dictonary?
"the opposition can sink any legislation with either Family First or Xenephon."
Exactly, KRuddy is just placating the FF senator (Feilding) in order to buy his vote on more serious legislation. The great Aussie firewall was also promoted by the previous government for similarly cynical reasoning, it will never actually be implemented and everyone except Feilding seems to be aware this.
Think about it - why would KRuddy risk upset Fielding, better to appear to be on his side and let the ISP's tear him apart.
I think the GP is refering to what looks suspisiously like the nationialsation of the finance and insurance sectors of the US (global?) economy.
Don't worry they only feed on zombie-republicans....
This is the first time I have been able to read idle comments using IE.
Relax, it was a joke, admittedly at your expense. The point(s) I was trying to make in a gentle manner are...
1. Avoid the logical fallacy of assuming that one random opinion represents the thoughts and opinions of one billion people.
2. Look up some definitions, some of the words you are using do not mean what you think they do (eg: socialisim).
3. The USA is a nation, the EU is largely a trading bloc.
4. Your troll mod could easily have come from anyone, anywhere. In fact given the mood in the US it could quite easily have come from someone down the street.
5. Get over yourself, ideology is the problem not the answer.
Disclaimer: I'm an Aussie.
The story is full of these kinds of references, another famous one is to move the letters H.A.L up one in the alphabet and you get I.B.M (although Clarke claims it was a coincidence). I as in high school when the movie came out, it was required reading and we went to the theater to watch it (Kubrick hadn't done "Clockwork Orange" so nobody was freaked out by his name). Most of the philosophical stuff went straight over our heads but the special effects left an impression. Fourty years later and I get the philosophical stuff but the special effects would seem to indicate Kubrick was on acid.
You were modded troll by a continent?
"We can see in Malaysia what can happen if you accuse your political opponent of a sex crime and there is no effective rule of law."
I belive they are attempting to do the same thing again.
"IT'S OVER THERE! LOOK AT WHERE I'M SHINING!"
If you hear that in the bush and the lights on you, best hit the deck quick smart.