"Why is it that a field of science can go to the artic and drill four mile deep ice cores, but they can't go to trees in the back yard and drill a 12" tree core to bring our proxies up to date?"
God you are so right! I bet those stupid heads never thought of that! I think you should be put in charge of them straight away, so that you can clear up this entire mess created by those woolly-headed thinkers.
Boy will they ever be embarrassed when they realise how simple it was! I can imagine what they'll be saying...
"...and so I thought the only way to find out the historical data on global climate change, based on my PhD, and years of work, was to apply for an grant which I might not achieve and could stuff up my career if I didn't get evidence, when all I had to do was walk out the back yard! Thank god they appointed "jnaujok" head of this department so he could get things straightened out!"
he jammed his thumb in its butthole!
on
Steve Irwin Dead
·
· Score: 0, Troll
you know, you have to be careful when you do that.
I don't know what a "John 21:25" is, although I presume it's a quote from your religious text, which I don't see as any proof at all. Presumably you think it's correct, although I've never understood that point of view.
I can not believe though that humans evolved from apes.
Bummer for you then, because that's what happened, and all* of the worlds biologists agree on it.
Like a it is impossible to measure certain dynamic properties of a quantum mechanics object in a experiment without changing them, in a similar way morality loses its very important qualities when you start scientifically analysing it.
You claim morality has nothing to do with science, but no doubt your claim is on the same basis as the middle age's church's "ownership" of the heavens.
It's an area you think is the exclusive domain of religion, yet you don't explain why. We can think about morality in terms of the evolving social dynamics of earlier groups in human evolution, or the evolution of any social animal. I think science can get involved at this point.
You also claim that "we don't know to the rest" (do you mean the end of the world in religious terms?). I see no evidence for the truthfullness of this claim.
Another idea is to make election day a national holiday, like it is in *every* country except the US.
Crap alert. Many countries don't have national holidays for elections. Australia has all of it's elections on Saturdays.
They can also be called at any time with very little notice.
The ONLY solution the industry has right now is "bury it" (Yucca), "make it someone else's problem" (Arizona's) and "hope we're not around if it is a problem"(whoever is on the planet when Yucca breaks open, or is attacked, or a society 1,000 years from now, which can't read English, trundles into the mysterious cave and comes out with Magical Glowing Glass.)
I have heard that throwing it into the oceans at the subduction point (where tectonic plates meet) is an effective way to get rid of it. Anyone know the pros/cons of this?
Apple only came out with their PCI-Express in their G5 towers & iMacs in October 2005, which was fairly late compared to the availability of x86 motherboards.
We don't, that's why you won't find the term "missing link" used scientifically. It could have been one of many species that subsequently became extinct. However it's an example of a fish that developed features that we find in land based animals so it's at least an existance proof.
Apple had better watch this one. User boots windows, gets special Mac OS X targetted virus. Virus searches for OS X partition, and infects OS - keystroke logger, bot etc.
Just as unlikely to infect other Macs as today, but a real worry as the owner sees their bank account drained away.
You are right. It's happened before. For decades the thinking about Neanderthal was distorted because the first major find turned out to me a severely arthritic and deformed individual. It will take more finds before we can more confidently draw conclusions.
You also say that "it will take more finds...".
There are plenty of Neanderthal finds, so archeologists know pretty well what they look like. New finds are always great, but they are unlikely to cause any great reassessment of Neanderthal physiology.
Basically what he's saying is that darwinian evolution cannot account for the kind of irreducable complexity that scientist are currently observing in the field of biology.
Says he. Almost every other biologist accepts evolution, because they don't see irreducable complexity in the world. IC is a moving target for these people, and that ought to worry anyone who proposes this hypothesis. The blood clotting cascade was promoted as such an example, and you couldn't get it in a simpler form than that which humans have it. However a simpler blood clotting cascade was found in dolphins, minus the latest evolutionary kick that we got.
So scratch that one off the list. We could say that anything we don't understand/can't explain right now is IC, but that's not a very powerful model of the world, and doesn't really help us at all. If something is classified as IC do we no longer investigate it? ("oh that's too tricky, it must be IC therefore god did it"). But we've already seen it fail on the blood clotting system.
Do we deny research money for things someone deems to be IC? IC stagnates research for no benefit. Its origin is clearly from the creationist realms - notice that there are just a handful of biologists (such as Behe (anyone other biologist?)) who are promoting it.
Steven Meyer (who you wrote the article you referenced) says...
This creates a problem for the Darwinian mechanism. Natural selection preserves or "selects" functional advantages as they arise by random mutation. Yet the flagellar motor does not function unless all its 30 parts are present. Thus, natural selection can "select" the motor once it has arisen as a functioning whole, but it cannot produce the motor in a step-by-step Darwinian fashion.
Biologists have found uses for the stripped down components that form the flagellum (i.e. a mousetrap with one less part that does something). Even a cursory search from me (a non biologist) found a link at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html.
Meyers knows this yet presumably pretends not to.
Who knows, perhaps it's the mating of different species that is responsible to macro evolution. Clearly it is possible for two similar but different species (in chromosome count) to produce offspring. Maybe this breeding selection is responsible for drastic mutation that leads to macro evolution.
Circular argument I'm afraid. If interbreeding between different species leads to macro evolution, where did the different species come from in the first place?
The painting requires something quite complex - a painter. Evolution however relies on much simpler premises. Conway's game of life shows that you can have interesting behaviours from a very simple set of rules.
SImilarly the world has a number of simple rules about how atoms can compose themselves. These are the rules of the game for evolution, and they are much simpler than assuming a creator who can do anything.
I'll give you this link, but I really doubt you'll read it. I've found in debates with creationists that they constantly demand evidince ("where's the proof?!?!?!") , yet follow up posts clearly show they haven't read the referred to info.
I lecture in a computer science department and there are students who see my mac and are confused. They think it's windows, but can't figure out why it looks different!
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. Yesssss... that's it exactly.
God you are so right! I bet those stupid heads never thought of that! I think you should be put in charge of them straight away, so that you can clear up this entire mess created by those woolly-headed thinkers.
Boy will they ever be embarrassed when they realise how simple it was! I can imagine what they'll be saying...
"...and so I thought the only way to find out the historical data on global climate change, based on my PhD, and years of work, was to apply for an grant which I might not achieve and could stuff up my career if I didn't get evidence, when all I had to do was walk out the back yard! Thank god they appointed "jnaujok" head of this department so he could get things straightened out!"
you know, you have to be careful when you do that.
I can not believe though that humans evolved from apes.
Bummer for you then, because that's what happened, and all* of the worlds biologists agree on it.
*where "all" means > 99.9%
How do you know this to be true?
Show me anywhere that God has has ever been readily observable.
You claim morality has nothing to do with science, but no doubt your claim is on the same basis as the middle age's church's "ownership" of the heavens.
It's an area you think is the exclusive domain of religion, yet you don't explain why. We can think about morality in terms of the evolving social dynamics of earlier groups in human evolution, or the evolution of any social animal. I think science can get involved at this point.
You also claim that "we don't know to the rest" (do you mean the end of the world in religious terms?). I see no evidence for the truthfullness of this claim.
Crap alert. Many countries don't have national holidays for elections. Australia has all of it's elections on Saturdays. They can also be called at any time with very little notice.
If Perl is the glue that holds the Internet together, what does a Perl necklace hold together?
Was that a Canon camera, or perhaps a Canon scanner. Pity Canon don't make cannons hey ? :-)
...try www.shopthestates.com. You get sent to them, they forward it on to you. I've used them and am very happy with their service.
I have heard that throwing it into the oceans at the subduction point (where tectonic plates meet) is an effective way to get rid of it. Anyone know the pros/cons of this?
Apple only came out with their PCI-Express in their G5 towers & iMacs in October 2005, which was fairly late compared to the availability of x86 motherboards.
We don't, that's why you won't find the term "missing link" used scientifically. It could have been one of many species that subsequently became extinct. However it's an example of a fish that developed features that we find in land based animals so it's at least an existance proof.
Apple had better watch this one. User boots windows, gets special Mac OS X targetted virus. Virus searches for OS X partition, and infects OS - keystroke logger, bot etc.
Just as unlikely to infect other Macs as today, but a real worry as the owner sees their bank account drained away.
Was it Steve "I'm going to kill you" Ballmer? :-)
If you look at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_neands.html you'll see that arthritis did not cause distortions on our view of what Neanderthals looked like.
You also say that "it will take more finds...". There are plenty of Neanderthal finds, so archeologists know pretty well what they look like. New finds are always great, but they are unlikely to cause any great reassessment of Neanderthal physiology.
Here's an example where it matters (and it's a quote from somewhere, I think the Apple docs).
"Apple is working to improve the rest of the Mac OS code to allow for less busy loops from their side."
Does this mean that there will be fewer busy loops, or the loops that do exist will be less busy?
We can parse it as
less (busy loops)
or
(less busy) loops
If we could trust them to use "fewer" it would be obvious which they meant.
Says he. Almost every other biologist accepts evolution, because they don't see irreducable complexity in the world. IC is a moving target for these people, and that ought to worry anyone who proposes this hypothesis. The blood clotting cascade was promoted as such an example, and you couldn't get it in a simpler form than that which humans have it. However a simpler blood clotting cascade was found in dolphins, minus the latest evolutionary kick that we got.
So scratch that one off the list. We could say that anything we don't understand/can't explain right now is IC, but that's not a very powerful model of the world, and doesn't really help us at all. If something is classified as IC do we no longer investigate it? ("oh that's too tricky, it must be IC therefore god did it"). But we've already seen it fail on the blood clotting system.
Do we deny research money for things someone deems to be IC? IC stagnates research for no benefit. Its origin is clearly from the creationist realms - notice that there are just a handful of biologists (such as Behe (anyone other biologist?)) who are promoting it.
Steven Meyer (who you wrote the article you referenced) says...
Biologists have found uses for the stripped down components that form the flagellum (i.e. a mousetrap with one less part that does something). Even a cursory search from me (a non biologist) found a link at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html .
Meyers knows this yet presumably pretends not to.
Circular argument I'm afraid. If interbreeding between different species leads to macro evolution, where did the different species come from in the first place?
The painting requires something quite complex - a painter. Evolution however relies on much simpler premises. Conway's game of life shows that you can have interesting behaviours from a very simple set of rules.
SImilarly the world has a number of simple rules about how atoms can compose themselves. These are the rules of the game for evolution, and they are much simpler than assuming a creator who can do anything.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info .html shows why Archaeopteryx isn't a modern bird, yet shares many common features.
function Ada.Text_IO.Get_Immediate
Er, Java is not very portable at all. It generally only runs on the JVM "hardware". The JVM is the portable bit of software here.
I lecture in a computer science department and there are students who see my mac and are confused. They think it's windows, but can't figure out why it looks different!