"At that point, the hosting provider became duty bound to without fail take steps to preserve evidence of the criminal activity, for inspection by authorities. "
Duty bound? What duty is that? The victims have no contract with the provider. Sure, it would be nice if the provider happened to recognize this as a ransomware control server, and saved the data. But duty bound? That's a fantasy.
The victims are victims of the perpetrator, nobody else.
This pedantic argument has been brought up for years with a proper answer proposed a long time ago; That when a "real" AI is created, we refer to it as Machine Intelligence...since there will be nothing artificial about it.
Really? I find no such terminology in the extant AI literature. The eponymous Machine Intelligence Reaearch Institute, major proponents of the AI super intelligence religion, appear to make no distinction.
The first step to an intelligent debate on autonomous cars is to eliminate the phrase "artificial intelligence" from the discussion. Autonomous cars are just that: cars that navigate roads without human intervention. They are not intelligent, artificially or otherwise, anymore then a 1940s autopilot in a Beechcraft D-18 is.
"Autonomous" is the perfect adjective, because these cars are automatons, not conscious, thinking beings. Because we have only the foggiest definition of "intelligence", we are in no position to create an artificial one. If someday we do have that knowledge, what will we call artificial intelligence when we actually make one? That'll be a problem if we sully the term today with myth and superstition.
For several years in the late 1990s and early 2000's I had an office in the former Pickett slide-rule factory building in Santa Barbara California, on Gutirrez Street. The building was originally a giant aircraft Quonset hut made out of sheet metal, and was located on the site of the former Santa Barbara airport before the airport moved north of town. While rummaging through some old materials in the attic area, we came across a giant 10 foot long slide rule, apparently used by Pickett for marketing or training purposes. In the 1960s and 70s,
Santa Barbara was a hotbed for DARPA projects, and sliderules were an important everyday engineering tool.
Ironically, another tenant of the building while I was there was Larry Green, who helped build the first node on the original ARPAnet, which ultimately became the Internet. Larry had an actual Internet message processor (IMP) front panel in his office, and all the associated documentation. It was fascinating listening to him tell about the early development of Internet communications technologies.
This is an interesting paper, but is addressing the question of new species creation by changing the definition of what a species is.They say as much in their introduction:
Although approximately 150 years have passed since the publication of On the origin of species by means of natural selection, the definition of what species are and the ways in which species originate remain contentious issues in evolutionary biology. The biological species concept, which defines species as groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups, continues to draw support. However, there is a growing realization that many animal and plant species can hybridize with their close relatives and exchange genes without losing their identity.
I'm asking for evidence of speciation where genuinely new species have evolved, based on the classical definition of species as inter-breeding populations.
The Stebbins theory you cite is not an example of speciation. It's an example of a hypothesis that has very little evidence supporting it. Certainly no direct scientific observation. The absence of data is not data.
I asked rahvin112 to "Name one of your dozen proofs of speciation, and one instance where modern medicine depends upon evolution being a fact." I'm still waiting for him/her, or anyone, to put up.
Apparently, the evolutionist have chosen "shut up".
I said "ultimately" evolution seeks to explain the origin of life. It hasn't a clue yet, but it's run down many blind alleys (Miller/Urey, for example). no evolutionist thinks that there is any other explanation for life than random chance. They just can't come up with a workable hypothesis. However, ask any evolutionary scientist if he thinks devine creation is a reasonable explanation for the origin of life, and you'll hear a resounding "No. Evolution will, though."
Another name-caller! This behavior just weakens your argument. I suggest you stick to facts in evidence.
Science has closely studied two genera of bacteria to gain an understanding of antibiotic resistance: Escherichia and Salmonella. While driven by expediency -- many people become ill from these organisms, so antibiotic resistance can be easily observed -- researchers have looked for, but not found, the smoking gun of evolution in antibiotic resistance. In speaking about Escherichia in an evolutionary context, France’s renowned zoologist, Pierre-Paul Grassé, observed (and here's your citation):
...bacteria, despite their great production of intraspecific varieties, exhibit a great fidelity to their species. The bacillus Escherichia coli, whose mutants have been studied very carefully, is the best example. The reader will agree that it is surprising, to say the least, to want to prove evolution and to discover its mechanisms and then to choose as a material for this study a being which practically stabilized a billion years ago (Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press,1977, p. 87).
Although E. coli allegedly has undergone a billion years’ worth of mutations, it still has remained “stabilized” in its “nested pattern.” While mutations and DNA transposition have caused change within the bacterial population, those changes have occurred within narrow limits. No long-term, large-scale evolution has occurred.
He goes on to say:
"Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what preexists, but they do so in disorder, no matter how... As soon as some disorder, even slight, appears in an organized being, sickness, then death follow. There is no possible compromise between the phenomenon of life and anarchy." (1977, pp. 97-98 )
James F. Crow, head of the Genetics Department at the University of Wisconsin and an expert on genetic mutations, states it even more emphatically:
"Almost every mutation is harmful, and it is the individual who pays the price. Any human activity that tends to increase the mutation rate must therefore raise serious health and moral problems for man." (James F. Crow, "Ionizing Radiation and Evolution," Scientific American, vol. 201, September 1959, p. 138).
and elsewhere...
"A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is almost certain to impair it-just as a random interchange of connections in a television set is not likely to improve the picture." James F. Crow (Professor of Genetics, University of Wisconsin), "Genetic Effects of Radiation," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, no. 14, 1958, pp. 19-20
I can provide many, many more citations of biologists and biochemists not finding evolution in antibiotic resistance. Can you provide any citations where evolution has been proven?
When Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species he avoided discussing the origin of life. However, reading other texts by Darwin, and correspondence he exchanged with friends and colleagues, reveals that he took for granted the possibility of a natural emergence of the first life forms. As shown by notes from pages he pulled from his private notebooks, Darwin was convinced that âoethe intimate relation of Life with laws of chemical combination, & the universality of latter render spontaneous generation not improbableâ.
Wrong. What the authors describe is precisely Darwinian evolution, which is defined (by Wikipedia) as "A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Robert Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms [e.g., chickens] arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce."
Read the paper. That's what they're talking about with their chickens. It's Darwin, all the way down.
Evolution requires adding information content. There is no evidence that viruses (or any actually living things) increase information content between generations. Mutations have only been observed to reduce complexity, and thus information content.
I'm not the one asserting that evolution is a fact. The person making the positive assertion has the burden of proof. The challenger is not obligated to prove the negative (e.g. evolution is not a fact).
I always get to this point with evolutionists. They claim proof, but never deliver. That means they lose.
Also from Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology):
"Contemporary philosophers and scientists are still actively discussing whether teleological talk is useful or accurate in doing modern philosophy and science."
If they're still discussing whether teleology is "useful or accurate", it seems doubtful that it actually is essential to biology.
Not Darwinian evolution, which purports to explain the origin of species, not the continuation. Darwin's entire point was that evolution is a mindless process that creates order our of disorder, structure from amorphism, and ultimately life from the unlife. It must be random, because there was, according to Darwin, no need for any intellectual input to the evolutionary process. There can be no doubt, either, that Darwinian evolution is what the authors of this paper are talking about, since they mention the process occurring over millions of years (during which time there is no conscious control by any other organism).
HIV is a virus. It's not alive, and hence can't "survive". Viruses are DNA clockwork mechanisms that can't reproduce without hijacking a host cell, and thus can't enter the realm of biological evolution, which aims to explain the origin of life, not clocks.
Name one of your dozen proofs of speciation, and one instance where modern medicine depends upon evolution being a fact. Evolution is a theory, and a poorly, supported theory with tons of failed predictions. It's not, in fact, empirical science. Evolution is a religion.
"We" is science. It's true that the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection aid bacteria populations in becoming resistant to antibiotics. However, mutation and natural selection have only been seen to result in bacteria with defective proteins that have lost their normal functions.
Evolution, on the other hand, requires a gain of functional systems for bacteria to evolve into new bacterial kind, and ultimately, higher organisms.
Because mutation and natural selection have only been observed to lead to a loss of functional systems, antibiotic resistance of bacteria is not an example of evolution, but rather variation within a bacterial kind.
Slashdot Mirror
"At that point, the hosting provider became duty bound to without fail take steps to preserve evidence of the criminal activity, for inspection by authorities. "
Duty bound? What duty is that? The victims have no contract with the provider. Sure, it would be nice if the provider happened to recognize this as a ransomware control server, and saved the data. But duty bound? That's a fantasy. The victims are victims of the perpetrator, nobody else.
This pedantic argument has been brought up for years with a proper answer proposed a long time ago; That when a "real" AI is created, we refer to it as Machine Intelligence...since there will be nothing artificial about it.
Really? I find no such terminology in the extant AI literature. The eponymous Machine Intelligence Reaearch Institute, major proponents of the AI super intelligence religion, appear to make no distinction.
Citation or retraction, please.
The first step to an intelligent debate on autonomous cars is to eliminate the phrase "artificial intelligence" from the discussion. Autonomous cars are just that: cars that navigate roads without human intervention. They are not intelligent, artificially or otherwise, anymore then a 1940s autopilot in a Beechcraft D-18 is.
"Autonomous" is the perfect adjective, because these cars are automatons, not conscious, thinking beings. Because we have only the foggiest definition of "intelligence", we are in no position to create an artificial one. If someday we do have that knowledge, what will we call artificial intelligence when we actually make one? That'll be a problem if we sully the term today with myth and superstition.
For several years in the late 1990s and early 2000's I had an office in the former Pickett slide-rule factory building in Santa Barbara California, on Gutirrez Street. The building was originally a giant aircraft Quonset hut made out of sheet metal, and was located on the site of the former Santa Barbara airport before the airport moved north of town. While rummaging through some old materials in the attic area, we came across a giant 10 foot long slide rule, apparently used by Pickett for marketing or training purposes. In the 1960s and 70s,
Santa Barbara was a hotbed for DARPA projects, and sliderules were an important everyday engineering tool.
Ironically, another tenant of the building while I was there was Larry Green, who helped build the first node on the original ARPAnet, which ultimately became the Internet. Larry had an actual Internet message processor (IMP) front panel in his office, and all the associated documentation. It was fascinating listening to him tell about the early development of Internet communications technologies.
I just came across a blog entry of Larry Green's IMP work in Archive.org: http://web.archive.org/web/200...
Two revolutionary cusp technologies in the same obscure, non-description building. A fascinating coincidence.
This is an interesting paper, but is addressing the question of new species creation by changing the definition of what a species is.They say as much in their introduction:
Although approximately 150 years have passed since the publication of On the origin of species by means of natural selection, the definition of what species are and the ways in which species originate remain contentious issues in evolutionary biology. The biological species concept, which defines species as groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups, continues to draw support. However, there is a growing realization that many animal and plant species can hybridize with their close relatives and exchange genes without losing their identity.
I'm asking for evidence of speciation where genuinely new species have evolved, based on the classical definition of species as inter-breeding populations.
The Slashdot editors have unlimited mod points. Usually they are not so obvious :)
Precisely.
Evidence? Experiments? Data? Anything concrete? I don't think so.
The Stebbins theory you cite is not an example of speciation. It's an example of a hypothesis that has very little evidence supporting it. Certainly no direct scientific observation. The absence of data is not data.
I asked rahvin112 to "Name one of your dozen proofs of speciation, and one instance where modern medicine depends upon evolution being a fact." I'm still waiting for him/her, or anyone, to put up.
Apparently, the evolutionist have chosen "shut up".
I said "ultimately" evolution seeks to explain the origin of life. It hasn't a clue yet, but it's run down many blind alleys (Miller/Urey, for example). no evolutionist thinks that there is any other explanation for life than random chance. They just can't come up with a workable hypothesis. However, ask any evolutionary scientist if he thinks devine creation is a reasonable explanation for the origin of life, and you'll hear a resounding "No. Evolution will, though."
Another name-caller! This behavior just weakens your argument. I suggest you stick to facts in evidence.
...bacteria, despite their great production of intraspecific varieties, exhibit a great fidelity to their species. The bacillus Escherichia coli, whose mutants have been studied very carefully, is the best example. The reader will agree that it is surprising, to say the least, to want to prove evolution and to discover its mechanisms and then to choose as a material for this study a being which practically stabilized a billion years ago (Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press,1977, p. 87).
Science has closely studied two genera of bacteria to gain an understanding of antibiotic resistance: Escherichia and Salmonella. While driven by expediency -- many people become ill from these organisms, so antibiotic resistance can be easily observed -- researchers have looked for, but not found, the smoking gun of evolution in antibiotic resistance. In speaking about Escherichia in an evolutionary context, France’s renowned zoologist, Pierre-Paul Grassé, observed (and here's your citation):
Although E. coli allegedly has undergone a billion years’ worth of mutations, it still has remained “stabilized” in its “nested pattern.” While mutations and DNA transposition have caused change within the bacterial population, those changes have occurred within narrow limits. No long-term, large-scale evolution has occurred.
He goes on to say:
"Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what preexists, but they do so in disorder, no matter how... As soon as some disorder, even slight, appears in an organized being, sickness, then death follow. There is no possible compromise between the phenomenon of life and anarchy." (1977, pp. 97-98 )
James F. Crow, head of the Genetics Department at the University of Wisconsin and an expert on genetic mutations, states it even more emphatically:
"Almost every mutation is harmful, and it is the individual who pays the price. Any human activity that tends to increase the mutation rate must therefore raise serious health and moral problems for man." (James F. Crow, "Ionizing Radiation and Evolution," Scientific American, vol. 201, September 1959, p. 138).
and elsewhere...
"A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is almost certain to impair it-just as a random interchange of connections in a television set is not likely to improve the picture." James F. Crow (Professor of Genetics, University of Wisconsin), "Genetic Effects of Radiation," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, no. 14, 1958, pp. 19-20
I can provide many, many more citations of biologists and biochemists not finding evolution in antibiotic resistance. Can you provide any citations where evolution has been proven?
When Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species he avoided discussing the origin of life. However, reading other texts by Darwin, and correspondence he exchanged with friends and colleagues, reveals that he took for granted the possibility of a natural emergence of the first life forms. As shown by notes from pages he pulled from his private notebooks, Darwin was convinced that âoethe intimate relation of Life with laws of chemical combination, & the universality of latter render spontaneous generation not improbableâ.
Wrong. What the authors describe is precisely Darwinian evolution, which is defined (by Wikipedia) as "A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Robert Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms [e.g., chickens] arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce."
Read the paper. That's what they're talking about with their chickens. It's Darwin, all the way down.
By that definition, a quartz crystal evolves.
Evolution requires adding information content. There is no evidence that viruses (or any actually living things) increase information content between generations. Mutations have only been observed to reduce complexity, and thus information content.
Name-calling is the last bastion of the man without an argument.
I'm not the one asserting that evolution is a fact. The person making the positive assertion has the burden of proof. The challenger is not obligated to prove the negative (e.g. evolution is not a fact).
I always get to this point with evolutionists. They claim proof, but never deliver. That means they lose.
Also from Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology):
"Contemporary philosophers and scientists are still actively discussing whether teleological talk is useful or accurate in doing modern philosophy and science."
If they're still discussing whether teleology is "useful or accurate", it seems doubtful that it actually is essential to biology.
Not Darwinian evolution, which purports to explain the origin of species, not the continuation. Darwin's entire point was that evolution is a mindless process that creates order our of disorder, structure from amorphism, and ultimately life from the unlife. It must be random, because there was, according to Darwin, no need for any intellectual input to the evolutionary process. There can be no doubt, either, that Darwinian evolution is what the authors of this paper are talking about, since they mention the process occurring over millions of years (during which time there is no conscious control by any other organism).
HIV is a virus. It's not alive, and hence can't "survive". Viruses are DNA clockwork mechanisms that can't reproduce without hijacking a host cell, and thus can't enter the realm of biological evolution, which aims to explain the origin of life, not clocks.
Name one of your dozen proofs of speciation, and one instance where modern medicine depends upon evolution being a fact. Evolution is a theory, and a poorly, supported theory with tons of failed predictions. It's not, in fact, empirical science. Evolution is a religion.
But teleology is just a wishful philosophy, like the selfish gene. It's not causation and adds nothing to cause-and-effect empirical science. .
That's a great analogy!
But they will still be people.
"We" is science. It's true that the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection aid bacteria populations in becoming resistant to antibiotics. However, mutation and natural selection have only been seen to result in bacteria with defective proteins that have lost their normal functions.
Evolution, on the other hand, requires a gain of functional systems for bacteria to evolve into new bacterial kind, and ultimately, higher organisms.
Because mutation and natural selection have only been observed to lead to a loss of functional systems, antibiotic resistance of bacteria is not an example of evolution, but rather variation within a bacterial kind.