Firefox is in accordance with most of the standards (as are Opera & Safari & Konquerer - basically everybody except IE). Acid2 was designed to demonstrate things that have been overlooked.
The problem is that if the standard changes before it's released then you've got a lot of nonstandard implementations out there with no easy way to distinguish between them. (incidentally, AFAIK -moz-border-radius isn't entirely in line with the proposed recommendation. i still use it, because it's nice)
What if car manufacturers build cars that would blow up if you pressed the wrong button??? I.e. the `rm -rf *` versus the `rm -rf/*`.Cars don't easily blow up. Computers shouldn't either.
How do you propose we go about fixing this "problem" without making the command line useless?
The only "point" is whatever you want it to be. I won't support wholesale murder (ie. launching nukes) because I respect other people's right to life.
I mean seriously if what were doing is just a waste then it's pointless to continue which i don't happen to agree with.
If you don't enjoy your life, then of course it's pointless to continue. If you do, then it's pointless not to. Why do you care whether the species survives? What good does it serve? It seems a pretty hollow "meaning" to base your life upon.
Word. I mean, I want to survive, but who cares whether some hypothetical future generation comes to exist or not?
I have to think that a lot of the drive is based on a misapplication of evolutionary theory. What's the point in making a goal of survival of the species?
All 6 billion people in existence dying is no more of a tragedy than all 6 billion people on Earth dying and however many surviving elsewhere. People are going to die one way or another, I really don't care in the slightest whether the species as a whole survives.
Oh, I'm quite familiar with the concept of irreducible complexity. My point was that only reason to think one component is useless without the rest is because you and Behe say so. There are several proposed models for the evolution of the eye and I imagine the same is true for blood clotting.
And you'd think that wouldn't seem like nonsense to scientists? I don't believe this would convince anyone. People would just think the guy is a crackpot.
Dude, this is God (or some equivalent entity) we're talking about, right? If he comes off as a crackpot, he's not doing his job.
IMO the genome should be designed to maximize survival in varying environments, not to store history texts.
Mine too (except substitute "is" for "should be"). It would still convince me though.
... it seems likely it should have a lot of the same building blocks as these other organisms.
One would think so, but presumably a designer could set these things up pretty much however he wants.
This would most likely convince only people who are inclined to believe that David Copperfield actually can produce a jet fighter out of thin air.
I think it's kind of funny that you're pointing out how ridiculous some of this stuff is, when spontaneous generation of species is exactly what you're proposing happened.
I was thinking more about the sudden appearance of an unlikely species in a well-explored environment. Platypi well designed for life in Hudson's Bay, for example. Ptarmigans in the Sahara (with the required modifications, of course). Like I said before - it's unlikely, but so's your claim.
Absolutely, if we find an obelisk with regular markings on the said, it's a fair assumption that somebody put it there. We can all agree on that. The problem is that when we look at organisms you see an obelisk and I see a stalagmite. I'm fairly convinced I know what I'm seeing, but when I talk to you about it you say things like "well obviously the obelisk builders wanted it to be lumpy" and "sure it's built under a cave roof that drips mineralized water all the time, but think how many drips would be needed to make something this size".
The order, in my mind, implies the designer. I'd be glad to elaborate, if you are interested.
Please do so. (Unless I've guessed right that you're going for the transcendental argument)
Speaking of following the evidence, have you ever read the Bible?
Parts of it. The parts that weren't history or genealogy struck me as just another mythology.
Based on considerable study, I am convinced that the Bible is trustworthy. This lends credence to my belief in a designer.
Based on limited study I'm (fairly) convinced that it isn't. I could study it some more, sure, but why throw good time after bad? This has no effect on my belief in evolution.
There are a number of philosophical and historical things that support my faith in the Hebrew scriptures
Such as?
Have you ever read literature from Intelligent design proponents to see if their claims make sense? To see if they provide evidence that you consider valid?
Sure (if you lump Creationism and ID in the same bucket, which I do). It didn't do much for me. A lot of fuzzy numbers and appeals to the Bible (much like our little thread here).
...it looks from your sentence above that there is no evidence which could convince you.
I sincerely hope that this isn't the case; I strive for intellectual honesty in everything that I do. My only "philosophy" is to follow the evidence whereever it leads. See my sig for details.
I'd like to ask "What evidence would be sufficient to demonstrate that a designer/creator exists?"
I can think of lots of things. The designer could describe in verifiable detail how it went about it. We could discover the complete text of Genesis encoded in the human genome. A creature could be found (preferably living, but possibly fossilized) that obviously has nothing in common with other creatures. We could observe the spontaneous creation of a species. I'm sure there are hundreds of other possibilities.
Any of those (or hundreds more that I can't think of) would convince me. Now, none of them seem very likely (to me, at least), but that's kind of the point. There are plenty of other things that would at least be evidence for the ID hypothesis, but all I've ever seen is arguments against evolution. I answered your question, now it's your turn: what evidence is there for Creationism/ID?
They just have yet to see the existence of anything unnatural. The fact remains though, you can have evolution without abiogenesis (and vice versa, I suppose).
Coppedge's calculations make more sense now that I see my misunderstanding. I'll look up the assumptions he's used, but I'm not exactly holding my breath.
Even if true, the figures don't support ID any more than they support spontaneous generation.
If you had 10 coins numbered 1-10, and if you could draw and record one coin every 5 seconds, 24 hours per day, it would take more than 1,500 years for chance, on average, to count to ten.
Well, for one thing that's wrong. 10 coins can be arranged in 10! ways:
(3 628 800 tries * 10 draws per try) / (60s / 5s per draw * 60m * 24h * 365d) draws per year = 5.75 years to get every combination.
Forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical about his other calculations.
But if you have a preconceived notion that natural phenomena is the ONLY way that changes can occur or species could appear, then you could possibly have removed the real way that this happened.
Well, obviously. Good thing I (and the vast majority of biologists I would imagine) have no such preconceived notion. Show us an unnatural phenomena that can cause these things and we'll change our tune.
The problem with your model is that it's a false simplicity. Evolution via natural selection is simple in that the only things required are known to exist.
variation within a population (and the possibility of random variation, ie. mutation)
different rates of reproduction often corresponding with that variation
inheritance of traits
If all of these things are true then it logically follows that a population will change over time to become more successful at reproduction.
We know that this happens, and we know that it can create fairly substantial change (even in the short time we've bothered to look for it).
On the other hand, you are proposing an incredibly complex entity that nobody can show exists (let alone describe properties of). Your explanation is simpler in that it requires fewer words to explain, but introduces baseless speculation.
Specifically I believe that the current conventional wisdom about this explanation of origin of species will one day be as outdated thought as the geocentric solar system.
Maybe, but at the moment it's the best we've got. Do you have a well-supported hypothesis that you'd like to propose?
Move to puncutate equilibrium where radical changes happen within a single breeding cycle. For example, this suggests that I should make sure that the windows are closed when my wife gives birth in case she has a bird instead of a baby human.
Um... WTF? This is a horrible, horrible straw man. I don't even know where to start with this.
Show me someone who claims that rapid change in one generation is a significant factor in evolution (let alone something as ridiculous as bird -> human) and I'll show you someone with a severe misunderstanding of what's being proposed. That's not punctuated equilibrium, that's idiocy.
Neither seems probable to me. Occam's razor suggests that the simplest explanation is the most likely, and I think that it's more reasonable to suggest that there is a designer/creator that set up the universe and creatures of different types.
This is a bit of a bastardization of good old OR. It's about unnecessarily multiplying entities; if we can explain something just as well with known phenomena as with hypothesized ones the choice is obvious.
It takes too long? 4 billion years is a pretty long time. As for irreducible complexity, meh. Where's the irreducible complexity that makes it impossible for a cat & a dog to be related?
Again though, how do you tell where the line between different "types" lies?
It's not just about reproduction; even if asexual reproduction were perfect (which I doubt), there's still the possibility of all kinds of fun mutations due to environmental factors.
You say that a hare an a rabbit are the same time, while a cat and a dog are not. How do you tell if two creatures are of the same type? Where does the line lie? What stops many small changes from becoming one big one?
Slashdot Mirror
Firefox is in accordance with most of the standards (as are Opera & Safari & Konquerer - basically everybody except IE). Acid2 was designed to demonstrate things that have been overlooked.
The problem is that if the standard changes before it's released then you've got a lot of nonstandard implementations out there with no easy way to distinguish between them. (incidentally, AFAIK -moz-border-radius isn't entirely in line with the proposed recommendation. i still use it, because it's nice)
The display itself wouldn't have to be one dimensional (a progress bar is 1D, for example). Still not terribly useful.
And I might suddenly stop feeling the same way about theft if I found a big bag of money lying by the street, but so what?
Because I was born and haven't died yet?
The only "point" is whatever you want it to be. I won't support wholesale murder (ie. launching nukes) because I respect other people's right to life.
If you don't enjoy your life, then of course it's pointless to continue. If you do, then it's pointless not to. Why do you care whether the species survives? What good does it serve? It seems a pretty hollow "meaning" to base your life upon.Word. I mean, I want to survive, but who cares whether some hypothetical future generation comes to exist or not?
I have to think that a lot of the drive is based on a misapplication of evolutionary theory. What's the point in making a goal of survival of the species?All 6 billion people in existence dying is no more of a tragedy than all 6 billion people on Earth dying and however many surviving elsewhere. People are going to die one way or another, I really don't care in the slightest whether the species as a whole survives.
Oh, I'm quite familiar with the concept of irreducible complexity. My point was that only reason to think one component is useless without the rest is because you and Behe say so. There are several proposed models for the evolution of the eye and I imagine the same is true for blood clotting.
Dude, this is God (or some equivalent entity) we're talking about, right? If he comes off as a crackpot, he's not doing his job.
Mine too (except substitute "is" for "should be"). It would still convince me though.
One would think so, but presumably a designer could set these things up pretty much however he wants.
I think it's kind of funny that you're pointing out how ridiculous some of this stuff is, when spontaneous generation of species is exactly what you're proposing happened.
I was thinking more about the sudden appearance of an unlikely species in a well-explored environment. Platypi well designed for life in Hudson's Bay, for example. Ptarmigans in the Sahara (with the required modifications, of course). Like I said before - it's unlikely, but so's your claim.
Absolutely, if we find an obelisk with regular markings on the said, it's a fair assumption that somebody put it there. We can all agree on that. The problem is that when we look at organisms you see an obelisk and I see a stalagmite. I'm fairly convinced I know what I'm seeing, but when I talk to you about it you say things like "well obviously the obelisk builders wanted it to be lumpy" and "sure it's built under a cave roof that drips mineralized water all the time, but think how many drips would be needed to make something this size".
Please do so. (Unless I've guessed right that you're going for the transcendental argument)
Parts of it. The parts that weren't history or genealogy struck me as just another mythology.
Based on limited study I'm (fairly) convinced that it isn't. I could study it some more, sure, but why throw good time after bad? This has no effect on my belief in evolution.
Such as?
Sure (if you lump Creationism and ID in the same bucket, which I do). It didn't do much for me. A lot of fuzzy numbers and appeals to the Bible (much like our little thread here).
I sincerely hope that this isn't the case; I strive for intellectual honesty in everything that I do. My only "philosophy" is to follow the evidence whereever it leads. See my sig for details.
I can think of lots of things. The designer could describe in verifiable detail how it went about it. We could discover the complete text of Genesis encoded in the human genome. A creature could be found (preferably living, but possibly fossilized) that obviously has nothing in common with other creatures. We could observe the spontaneous creation of a species. I'm sure there are hundreds of other possibilities.
Any of those (or hundreds more that I can't think of) would convince me. Now, none of them seem very likely (to me, at least), but that's kind of the point. There are plenty of other things that would at least be evidence for the ID hypothesis, but all I've ever seen is arguments against evolution. I answered your question, now it's your turn: what evidence is there for Creationism/ID?Unfortunately for you most people who qualify would say "nowhere".
Of course it would. Demonstrate that it's impossible that they had a common ancestor and you'll have completely changed the face of modern biology.They just have yet to see the existence of anything unnatural. The fact remains though, you can have evolution without abiogenesis (and vice versa, I suppose).
Coppedge's calculations make more sense now that I see my misunderstanding. I'll look up the assumptions he's used, but I'm not exactly holding my breath.
Even if true, the figures don't support ID any more than they support spontaneous generation.Oh yeah, and abiogenesis != evolution.
Where's the irreducible complexity that makes it impossible for a cat & a dog to be related?
Well, for one thing that's wrong. 10 coins can be arranged in 10! ways:
(3 628 800 tries * 10 draws per try) / (60s / 5s per draw * 60m * 24h * 365d) draws per year = 5.75 years to get every combination.
Forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical about his other calculations.Well, obviously. Good thing I (and the vast majority of biologists I would imagine) have no such preconceived notion. Show us an unnatural phenomena that can cause these things and we'll change our tune.
The problem with your model is that it's a false simplicity. Evolution via natural selection is simple in that the only things required are known to exist.
If all of these things are true then it logically follows that a population will change over time to become more successful at reproduction.
We know that this happens, and we know that it can create fairly substantial change (even in the short time we've bothered to look for it).
On the other hand, you are proposing an incredibly complex entity that nobody can show exists (let alone describe properties of). Your explanation is simpler in that it requires fewer words to explain, but introduces baseless speculation.
Maybe, but at the moment it's the best we've got. Do you have a well-supported hypothesis that you'd like to propose?Um... WTF? This is a horrible, horrible straw man. I don't even know where to start with this.
Show me someone who claims that rapid change in one generation is a significant factor in evolution (let alone something as ridiculous as bird -> human) and I'll show you someone with a severe misunderstanding of what's being proposed. That's not punctuated equilibrium, that's idiocy.
This is a bit of a bastardization of good old OR. It's about unnecessarily multiplying entities; if we can explain something just as well with known phenomena as with hypothesized ones the choice is obvious.
It takes too long? 4 billion years is a pretty long time. As for irreducible complexity, meh. Where's the irreducible complexity that makes it impossible for a cat & a dog to be related?
Again though, how do you tell where the line between different "types" lies?
The difference there is that the entire OSS world isn't some monolithic entity, whereas Microsoft...
Anyone got another link to that? (preferably direct to the ASF) I'm not getting anything there.
It's not just about reproduction; even if asexual reproduction were perfect (which I doubt), there's still the possibility of all kinds of fun mutations due to environmental factors.
You say that a hare an a rabbit are the same time, while a cat and a dog are not. How do you tell if two creatures are of the same type? Where does the line lie? What stops many small changes from becoming one big one?