One can easilty see than in real biology the experiments are redoable, while in "macroevolution" there are no experiments, only observations of different degrees of differences between organisms on phenotypical and genotypical level. It comes back again to the earlier point of our discussion on which we did not disagree. All the specific bickering that we had after that was rhetorical, because you will never by definition give me required rigorous evidence of what actually happened.
I'm unsure why you continue press this point, as I thought we put it to rest several posts ago. Let me reiterate and clarify my position: I fully accept that, according to your particular and unusual definition of the scientific method, macro-evolution is not a science. But every argument you put forward is only valid within the philosophical framework you have constructed. In order for one to accept the validity of your arguments, one has to accept the axioms upon which you base your arguments. You assert that disciplines that rely only upon observation of natural events, such as astronomy, are not truly scientific because one cannot perform repeatable experiments on galactic formation or follow the evolution of species over millions of years.
This is fine. That's your prerogative. But for some reason you continue to persist in your arguments, when I rather thought I made it quite clear that I don't agree with the axioms upon which you base those arguments. For instance, the following quote is typical of your arguments:
As I said: historical "sciences", like macroevolution, are not sciences. By definition. There is no absolutely no sense on arguing beyond that. If you cannot reproduce the phenomena or at least re-observe it (in principle), that is not science.
This paragraph appears to sum up your views. Yet you don't seem to realise that whilst I accept your logic, I don't accept your definition of science. Nor is it likely that your viewpoints are in the majority. If you are correct, then either:
The majority of the scientific community agree with your viewpoint, and do not view disciplines such as astronomy as being science, or hypotheses such as macro-evolution as being scientific.
The majority of scientists agree with your viewpoint, but are unable, or too ignorant, to follow a simple logical argument.
The majority of scientists disagree with your viewpoint on the scientific method.
It's not hard to find examples of respected scientific institutions who consider so-called historical sciences as being scientific. For instance, this very year John Mather and George Smoot were awarded the Nobel prize for their contributions toward the Big Bang theory. You've already said you do not consider the Big Bang theory as being scientific, so you're already at odds with the Nobel foundation:
My point was that the field itself, that is "origin of life or species or origin of anything" is not scientific, because (a) it is historical (b) involves spans of time that are beyond experimentation. So does a theory of big-bang, so does much of astrophysics involving sayings like "galactics originated from this or that".
The second option, that the majority of scientists cannot follow through a simple logical argument, seems somewhat unlikely. It seems rather arrogant to suppose that you, and I for that matter, are better at logical analysis than almost all the scientific community.
Which leads only to the third option, that your particular definition of the scientific method differs considerably from any of the common viewpoints on the matter. Given this, any further argument on this particular subject would appear quite pointless, as your entire argument appears to be based upon a set of axioms that few scientists would accept as being valid.
Because the term speciation and species loses almost all sense as a distinct taxonomical unit if you remove the sexual aspect of procreation.
Again, why? As far as I'm aware, parthenogenesis in animals only results in females, and the examples of speciation recorded include both males and females, so clearly some sexual reproduction is going on. Secondly, why does the method of speciation matter, surely all we're concerned about is the end result? Thirdly, does that mean you don't consider creatures that reproduce asexually as having species?
It helps an opposite case even less if you present the body of evidence without bothering to read it through.
Why? A body of evidence does not, as far as I'm aware, usually exhibit quantum behaviour. My reading through a list of pre-compiled evidence against speciation won't affect it's worth, and the people compiling the evidence have more expertise than I do at judging whether it is valid or not.
I read through talkorigins, it lacks the specifics of my question. In what way?
Here we go. So this is what it is, you are just trusting the scientists. Science has nothing to do with trust. Real scientist trusts only because he knows that he can verify that the other scientist is right, that is his Results and Discussion section follows from his Introduction and Methods if not by exactly reproducing the paper (does not happen much) then by doing similar experiments.
Of course. Excuse me for four years whilst I study for a degree in biology.
In a perfect world, one could do exactly this. One could evaluate the evidence provided, and come to a logical conclusion about who is right and who is wrong. In reality, only specialists can accurately gauge the truth of complex biological theories, as the span of knowledge humankind has collectively amassed is far too large for any individual to process.
For instance, my field of expertise happens to be computer science. I rather suspect it would not be hard for me to convince a layman of the validity of a theory, which a specialist would recognise as being complete and utter bullshit. Indeed, many would say this already happens on a regular basis. Given this, how can I personally evaluate the validity of biological evidence with any degree of accuracy? If I accept that I can present bullshit as a respectable theory in my field, then I must accept the possibility that the same applies to every other field.
The only way around this is to either educate oneself in a field, which nowadays takes many years, or rely on a web of trust and respectability, trusting in the collective opinion of experts in a particular field. If I were a biologist, no doubt I could accurately assess the merits of speciation, but I am not, and I rather suspect you are not, either.
What is the probability of N->M mutated organism to produce a progeny that is capable of reproducing itself? I am not even talking a mule case (pairing between organism with M chromosomes and organism with N chromosomes), which is sterile, but at least happens (artificially! how often it happens in nature?) The probability of two similar such mutations meeting is even less.
Sure, but we're dealing with a very large number of species, and very large timescales, so just saying that it's a low probability doesn't tell us much. It's a low possibility that I'll win the lottery (assuming I played), but many people do win, some even twice over. Experiments, and even natural observations, deal with relatively small sets of animals over extremely small timescales. Even if no examples of speciation were ever observed, it would tell us relatively little.
parthenogenesis would facilitate the probability of increasing the chromosome count or decreasing it by asexual reproduction from a female which would increase the population of those she-dawns and increase the probability of mating with similar he-dawns (I am even not starting on probabilities of a triploidy mutation to be reproducible).
But why would that invalidate observed speciation?
So it would be easy for you to pick the most solid one, satisfiying the requirement.
I thought you read through the examples on Talk Origins? I noticed several examples of plant speciation with just a cursory glance. It doesn't really help your case to dismiss a body of evidence without bothering to read it through. As to which is the most solid one, I lack the knowledge to judge.
However, I'm somewhat uncertain as to where your argument is heading. Even if you managed to find a reason to dismiss every single piece of evidence that exists, it's not as if that would invalidate macro-evolution. I do suppose you could be trying to show that there are no valid lab experiments that demonstrate speciation, but that would only count against macro-evolution if we accept your viewpoint on the scientific method. So what point are you trying to make?
His argument is more that he doesn't consider sciences and theories that rely on observation of natural events, such as evolution, astronomy, geology etc. as being sciences. That's fine, but it's a fringe philosophy, and one can demonstrate quite successfully that it is a fringe philosophy. Beyond that, his arguments seem to have been whittled down to how much observed evidence we have for speciation, and then for specific types of speciation. A typical God of the Gaps argument, if we were arguing from a religious perspective. However, since a lack of evidence doesn't disprove a theory, I'm rather unsure where he's going with it.
It's an interesting argument, if one that is somewhat confusing at times. You're welcome to jump in, if you wish.
Show me how the number of chromosomes changed in any of the examples.
There are a number of examples listed where plant speciation has been observed with increased chromosome count. I'm unaware of any animal speciation that results in an increased chromosome count, but there are many examples of animal speciation, and numerous observations of increases or decreases of chromosome count within the same species. What makes you think that these two conditions are mutually exclusive?
but still they have a number of species distinct from closest species, so I need example demonstrating how the requested transition occurs without parthenogenesis
I'm unclear what you mean. What requested transition?
Secondly, how exactly is observed speciation invalidated if the animal being observed is capable of parthenogenesis?
If you read this, for starters, you will find out that it is not merely "your own definition", and that there is no "common accepted terminology".
It's true that people quibble over the exact meaning of the so-called scientific method, and there are many schools of thought on the matter. Wikipedia lists the main points of view on the subject, but you'll notice, I hope, that under all of the viewpoints listed, evolution would still be considered a science. Your own viewpoint differs considerably from any of them, and the evidence would suggest that your particular view on the scientific method is in the extreme minority.
I also gave you an idea of how "science" of macroevolution is useless in terms of technology, practical application to the material needs of humans, while obviously all real science have undeniable relation to technology.
Again, just because you know of no uses of "macro" evolution, doesn't mean that none exist. Secondly, it's only obvious that "real" science has a relation to technology if we use your definition of the scientific method, which as I've already pointed out, is a minority viewpoint.
nevertheless, scientific theories have clearly definable domains of their numerical validity, for example, Newtonian mechanics, and in that terms they are achieving the pick of "true" that is possible for any abstraction.
Are you referring to logical consistency? I would have thought that was one of the basic requirements for a theory. If your hypothesis is not internally consistent, then it's fallen over at the first hurdle.
It would help if you were a little more clear. You appear to be talking about consistency, and if so, then referring to it as verifiability is confusing and inaccurate.
it would be much easier and much more self-consistent if you start distinguishing microevolution and macroevolution.
It's a distinction that's pushed by creationist and ID proponents, and as such there's a certain stigma associated with the use of the words. However, I guess it's no different from distinguishing a pond from a lake; whilst the distinction is artificial, it may help to keep our discussion less verbose.
No info on number of chromosomes change. I suspect, that if there was a number of chromosomes would have changed in this case, the hupla created by evolutionists would certainly resonate from Galapagos Islands to Kansas.
Why? Macroevolution is hardly a controversial theory amongst biologists, and a differing of chromosome counts have been observed and documented in a large number of species, including humans.
Please provide another example (I am repeating the challenge from GGGP post:
It seems only fair that you first answer my question on parthenogenesis. You dismissed all the previous examples because you wanted an example with a "species that is not capable of parthenogenesis", yet you failed to provide any sources demonstrating that every species mentioned in that document had been observed to be capable of parthenogenesis. Before dismissing such a large quantity of evidence, you surely should first demonstrate why they should be dismissed.
To be short. Point is: scientific theory needs scientific experiments, done in the past, planned in the future or any way feasible.
As I've pointed out before, this is merely your own definition, and different from the common accepted terminology. Scientific theories must be based upon a testable hypothesis; a good way to test a hypothesis is through experimentation, but it is not the only method. Whilst less efficient, observation of natural events is a equally valid method from which to test a hypothesis.
Consider; if your definition is the commonly accepted standard, then it could be logically demonstrated that evolution and astronomy are not sciences. Whilst the scientific community is far from perfect, I rather doubt you'd have the overwhelming majority disagreeing with something that could be logically demonstrated to be true. Thus, either your definition differs from the accepted standard, or nearly every scientist in the world is unable, or too closed minded, to follow a simple logical argument. The former explanation seems rather more probable.
but once it has been verified, it ceases to be a theory and becomes fact.
No, it does not.
Veri is latin for truth. To verify something is to literally show it to be true. A fact is an indisputable truth. Thus, the sentence you claim is incorrect is actually a tautology; deliberately so, as I was using it to emphasis a point.
Again, we come down to definitions, though this time it's probably down to the ambiguity of the English language. On the one hand, Googling for "verify" gets me definitions like "To prove the truth of by presentation of evidence or testimony", or "to act as ultimate proof", on the other, we get more watered down versions like "To determine or test the truth or accuracy of, as by comparison, investigation, or reference".
However, since we're talking about science and logical correctness, and since you provided a link to the Verifiability Theory of Meaning (which deals with logical verifiability), I assumed you meant the precise, formal definition. To verify; to prove something true. Likewise, I assume that what you mean by falsify is to prove something false.
Clearly I was wrong in this assumption, and that may explain why you were insisting that theories are commonly verified.
Most theories are impossible to verify; that is, impossible to prove absolutely true. Evolution is borderline; I'd say it was infeasible to prove it true, as such proof would require escaping our own light cone. So if I said theories are impossible to verify, I was technically mistaken. I should have said that any established theory is either impossible, or infeasible to verify. From a practical standpoint, though, these equate to pretty much the same thing.
I read section 5.1.2, 5.3, 5.4 (Natural parthenogenesis has been observed in many lower animals, especially insects) does not count, since I asked for a specific example of a speciations in a species that is not capable of parthenogenesis. 5.5. - insects again (though it does not involve chromosome count change I comment on this anyway). 5.5.1 citing "However, it remains to be seen whether host-associated traits can evolve into effective enough barriers to gene flow to result eventually in the complete reproductive isolation of R. pomonella populations." enough said, not different species. 5.5.2 not different species (assorative mating - same species). How's 5.6 is related to the subj? No new species. Same for all other examples.
It seems rather unlikely that a prominent and respected site dedicated to collecting scientific evidence to demonstrate certain concepts, would provide dozens of pages of evidence which are all, in your opinion, invalid. Further, parthenogenesis is only mentioned once in the entire document; how were you able to discover that the species mentioned have previously demonstrated parthenogenesis? Not
(1) I never claimed that you need BOTH of principles to qualify your theory as scientific.
If by "priciples" you mean empirical and analytical verification, you are correct; neither is needed for a scientific theory. Only falsification is a required element to mark a theory as scientific, at least according to the generally accepted definition.
A scientific theory can be verifiable, but once it has been verified, it ceases to be a theory and becomes fact. Accordingly, few theories are directly verifiable; they are merely educated guesses that fit the evidence provided.
This supports only the theory that life existed at that time.
Your point being? As I said before, science works through falsification; the disproof of theories. If life didn't exist at that time, then it would imply that complex lifeforms were created in a very short time period. Since evolution predicts that changes to species are slow, the lack of fossils would count as evidence against evolution, correct?
So Darwin's prediction stems from his theory on the origin of species. His theory said life evolves slowly and gradually over long periods of time, therefore Cambrian life must have evolved slowly from earlier life, therefore there must have been life in the Precambrian era, therefore there should be evidence of that life, therefore there should be fossils in Precambrian rock. A chain of logic based upon his initial theory, ending in a prediction that ultimately proved to be correct.
I do not know what you mean by macroscopic, I mean observed speciation: species A with N chromosomes having capable of only exlusively sexual procreation between two different specimen of that species converting to a species B with M chromosomes being capable of procreation independent of species A.
There are numerous examples of observed speciation, mostly in species with short lifespans, such as insects, but a few in larger species such as birds and mice. Talk Origins, the website referenced by the Slashdot article, lists examples of observed speciation.
Why is it my problem (or people who share my view, I am not the only one) but not of the rest of the world?
You need to make your views more clear. If you say, "Evolution is unscientific", without explaining that your definition of "unscientific" differs from the norm, there's bound to be misunderstandings. For instance, if I defined "feline" as an eight-limbed invertebrate, then I could assert that a large proportion of felines were poisonous. But unless I explained first that I had a rather unusual definition of the word "feline", misunderstandings would inevitably arise.
Your argument appears to be not so much that long-term evolution is unscientific, more that you disagree with the generally accepted definition of science. But unless you explain this, people aren't going to know that the basic axioms you're basing your arguments on are different from theirs.
I'm sure there's already a name for your rather restrictive and utilitarian view of science. Perhaps you should look it up?
have you heard of scientific "predictions"? Every such successful prediction validates the theory. I have already given you the link to the positivist definition of verifiability.
Maybe you should read the definition more carefully. You didn't give me the positivist definition of verifiability, you gave me a link to the
verifiability theory of meaning. The verifiability theory is a school of thought that attempts to connect the abstract definition of meaning with the more concrete concepts of verifiability or falsifiability. Verifiability is either analytical - that is, one can prove logically that a certain statement is true - or empirical, where one can provide observational evidence that demonstrates the validity of your statement.
For instance, if I take a photograph of a white bird, I can assert that there exists at least one white bird in the world; this is empirical verifiability. I can then argue that if at least one white bird exists, then therefore not all birds can be black; this is analytical verifiability. However, if I observe white birds and black birds, but never a black and white bird, I might theorise that no such bird can exist. This is a theory, because unlike the previous two statements, it cannot be verified by either analytical or empirical evidence, one cannot prove absolutely that no black and white bird exists.
But it's perfectly possible to disprove my No Black And White Bird theory; all one has to do is observe a black and white bird, and thus my theory is falsifiable. If a long time goes by without anyone observing a black and white bird, people might give my theory more weight. This is what experimentation and observation achieve; they can never prove a theory correct beyond all doubt, but they can provide evidence that my theory is probably correct.
Every such successful prediction validates the theory (macroevolution has zero, all the bones that yet to be discovered are only static snapshots of whatever might happened in between the events, which is exactly what it is: "whatever"))
Where to begin? Well, I guess one could do worse than Darwin, who made a number of predictions based on his theory. For instance, Darwin predicted that fossils would be found in rock dated to the Precambrian era, when no such fossil had been found to date. He even went so far as to say the total absense of Precambrian fossils being found was "inexplicable" and that the lack might "be truly urged as a valid argument" against his theory.
His prediction was proved correct, nearly 100 years later in 1953. The reason the fossils weren't found previously is because they were microscopic, but once people realised that it was discovered that they were, in fact, quite abundant. It was a prediction, it was certainly successful, and it was based on Darwin's theory that creatures evolved slowly and gradually over billions of years. If there were complex lifeforms in the Cambrian era, one might theorise, as Darwin did, that they evolved from less complex ancestors in the Cambrian. Thus, if one is finding complex fossils in the Precambrian, then theoretically one should be finding fossils in the Precambrian.
Show me scientific experiments proving that evolution goes beyond the evolution inside sexual species.
Could you be more specific? Are you talking about observed macroscopic speciation? Increases in chromosome count? What, precisely?
So, no, evolution does not contradict Bible, Qur'an or anything. It contradicts only rigorous and honest definition of science, which has a courage to go beyond "science can do everything with time" to a mere recognition that there are things we will never know.
The problem is that your "rigorous and honest" definition of science is rather at odds with the definition the rest of us hold. Putting aside your lack of knowledge about evolutionary evidence, this is what it boils down to. Afte
I do realise that there are certain aspect about the scientific method that are hard to grasp. However, perhaps you should not speak so authoritatively over a subject you apparently know so little about. Your replies demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding about science in general. For instance:
This does not qualify for falsifiability, because we already know that it (a) is not true (b) and the fact that stars are more than 6000 light years away is not a proof of the validity of macroevolution theory. Same goes for your geological arguments. And hit me with at least one of "thousand other things".
Firstly, you speak of proof and validity. This only applies to mathematics and measurements, not to theories. A theory cannot be proved right, or validated, it can only be shown to be wrong. This applies as much to evolution as it does to the theory that planets are held in their orbit by the gravity of the Sun.
The second thing you appear to be confused about is the definition of falsifiability as it applies to the scientific method. The result of an experiment doesn't affect the falsifiability of a theory. If it did, then the moment scientists ran out of tests to run on a theory, it would cease to be falsifiable, and by definition, cease being a theory.
The reason I chose 6000 light years, is because it would imply that the Universe was only 6000 years old, which isn't enough time for "macro" evolution to occur. Likewise, if the age of the Earth was very young, we'd have the same problem. These experiments have the potential to invalidate evolution, and thus count toward it's falsifiable nature.
Those all are not sciences, because they all do not involved repeatable experiments in the controlled environment.
Again, another popular misconception. Coincidentally, this is addressed by the very site that was removed from Google's search index, Talk Origins. Science doesn't just involve running experiments in a controlled environment, it also covers repeatable observations of phenomenon. If it didn't, science would be far more limited; one couldn't call astronomy science, for instance, or geology, or any branch of science that deals with natural forces and objects too large to reproduce in a lab.
The problem is that all your objections to evolution also apply to many other well established scientific fields. Should we argue instead whether the Sun's gravity is related to its mass, or due to giant invisible mice tugging on anything close to it? Evolution isn't particularly different from many other theories; it just happens to be one of the most successful and robust. Normally this would be accepted in the same way that any other established theory is accepted, but whilst theories about the movements of planets or the behaviour of electrical currents do little to offend people, evolution seemingly does.
It may be a feature of the British road system, but I can't think of many ways this would happen. Generally speaking, slow drivers don't do a lot of overtaking, and oncoming traffic has priority at junctions. Perhaps this could occur at sliproads, but sliproads usually only run into multi-lane roads, so only the slow lane would be affected by this.
... and make it understood to the slowpoke before you that he is indeed a slowpoke?
Uhuh. That's about as effective and intelligent as staring down the barrel of a gun to check if it's loaded. Secondly, if someone tailgates you, the advised and safest course of action is to maximise your stopping distance, which frequently means slowing down. Thus, tailgating a good driver will only cause you to slow down further, and tailgating an bad driver merely raises the risk of a collision, whilst simultaneously making it much harder for you to overtake.
Lisp has a habit of appearing rather messy at times, and some standard libraries (such as CLOS) are not particular elegant or aesthetically pleasing, at least to my eyes. I suspect that Lisp suffers from a lot of historical cruft in it's standard libraries - CDR anyone?
I prefer the aesthetics of Haskell, myself, though it would be rather interesting to see how elegant and expressive one could make a Lisp dialect.
The "virtual machine" aspect of the Java programming environment has probably done more to harm the quality of programmers than anything else. I know java programmers who don't understand how a computer works. They ask me questions about "how the processor loads strings into registers" and such. Being able to not think about the nitty gritty of the processor you are writing your code for is great, but that doesn't justify not knowing the basics of how a processor actually works.
You don't explain how knowing the gritty details of a computer helps a person become a better programmer. Sure, it's nice to know, and I once spent several enjoyable months getting to know the instuction set of the 68008 very well indeed, but I'm not altogether sure that experience has been particularly useful. Most of the work I do is either highly abstracted, or efficient enough without giving a thought to the processor's architecture.
Or, to put it another way, you don't necessarily have to know how to bake clay bricks in order to become a good architect.
In Britain, any extra lanes on the road should technically only be used when overtaking other vehicles, so if you're in the fast lane and can move over, you should do it anyway. It doesn't operate quite that way in practise, but in my experience the problem you describe is not that usual over here. For instance, I don't see many people sitting in the fast lane of a motorway doing only 70mph, unless there are speed cameras about.
Tailgating connected to road rage, etc? No kidding! They're tailgating because they're frustrated with drivers.
The car ahead of you is driving slowly. Do you:
a) Slow down to increase the distance between your cars, giving yourself a wider field of view and making it easier to overtake.
b) Speed up and tailgate, restricting your view and making it harder to overtake, whilst simultaneously increasing the risk of a collision, which you'll wind up paying for.
I propose that the root cause of tailgating is not because the drivers are frustrated, but because they are fucking morons.
MS and Novell try and fix this issue, which will do nothing but benefit the distribution of OO and you bitch and moan.
This is the same Microsoft that a few weeks ago, claimed:
[Novell have] appropriately compensated Microsoft for our intellectual property, which is important to us. In a sense you could say anybody who has got Linux in their data center today sort of has an undisclosed balance sheet liability.
After essentially telling people they've started up a Mafia-style IP protection racket, is it any wonder that people might be just a little bit suspicious of anything that looks like Microsoft IP?
No scientific theory is verifiable, only raw data is verifiable. You could, for instance, say that a particular fossil was X metres across, and one could verify that data easily with a tape measure. However, you cannot verify a theory, because a theory is merely an explanation which appears to fit all the available facts.
and unfalsifiable
Of course it is. If we found a giant spaceship buried in the Earth's core with a dead alien clutching a book that said, "Biosphere Creation for Dummies", or if God himself descended to Earth and said, "No, really, it was only 6 days.", then that would, in my book, pretty much falsify the theory of evolution.
These are extreme examples, but there are also other, more subtle possibilities. If we had found that each animal had no DNA in common with another, then we might consider the possibility they were created. Or if all the stars in the sky were all no more than 6000 light years away. Or if geologists discovered that the geology of the Earth pointed to an age of only 6000 years. Or any one of a thousand other things.
Evolution is very falsifiable. That it hasn't been, despite 150 years of criticism, speaks volumes. It's one of the most established theories we have. It's more established than the theories that keep our GPS satellites recording the right data, more established than the theories we have that govern production of our electronics, more established even than the theories that result in antibiotics. It's an extremely robust theory, and one of the core concepts of modern biology.
Not only is evolution, even so called "macro" evolution, a scientific theory, it's one of the most long-standing and successful.
The "discussion" between creationists and "originists" (those who overstretch evolution to explain the origin ov life, species beyond intraspecies microevolution) does not make sense, because both are not science.
Funny how every major scientific institution in the world disagrees with you. How, exactly, is so-called "macroscopic" evolution unscientific?
Alternatively, maybe the Slashdot editors wanted to rile up creationists. You need two sides to have an argument, after all.
However, I don't think evolution/creationism is the only subject that stirs up the hive; any subject which has a high bullshit ratio results in a large number of posts. Politicians and entities like the RIAA elect similar outcries whenever their stupidity graces the front page of Slashdot, and creationism hardly has a monopoly over idiocy, though it does try pretty hard.
Sonic's legs don't seem to be moving at the pace he's running, which seems to kill the illusion of speed a little. He also turns a little too quickly; there's no sense of momentum. I guess it's easier to get these things right in 2D than 3D.
And not only do you have more power, it can be managed more easily by nonexperts using GUIs instead of text files.
It's true that Windows provides a more fine-grained security model by default, and that this security model is more easily managed. However, I think you fail to take into account the extent to which Linux's security model can be extended.
For instance, with systrace one can restrict what files a process has access to, whether it can write to a particular set of files, what ports its allowed to open and even what kernel calls its allowed to access. I haven't looked much into SELinux or AppArmor, but I gather they have similar capabilities.
The problem with Linux is not that it is less powerful than Windows, rather that it is more complicated to set up fine-grained permissions, and most user-friendly distributions don't seem to bother, possibly because there is less of a problem with Linux users running untrusted binaries.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm unsure why you continue press this point, as I thought we put it to rest several posts ago. Let me reiterate and clarify my position: I fully accept that, according to your particular and unusual definition of the scientific method, macro-evolution is not a science. But every argument you put forward is only valid within the philosophical framework you have constructed. In order for one to accept the validity of your arguments, one has to accept the axioms upon which you base your arguments. You assert that disciplines that rely only upon observation of natural events, such as astronomy, are not truly scientific because one cannot perform repeatable experiments on galactic formation or follow the evolution of species over millions of years.
This is fine. That's your prerogative. But for some reason you continue to persist in your arguments, when I rather thought I made it quite clear that I don't agree with the axioms upon which you base those arguments. For instance, the following quote is typical of your arguments:
As I said: historical "sciences", like macroevolution, are not sciences. By definition. There is no absolutely no sense on arguing beyond that. If you cannot reproduce the phenomena or at least re-observe it (in principle), that is not science.This paragraph appears to sum up your views. Yet you don't seem to realise that whilst I accept your logic, I don't accept your definition of science. Nor is it likely that your viewpoints are in the majority. If you are correct, then either:
It's not hard to find examples of respected scientific institutions who consider so-called historical sciences as being scientific. For instance, this very year John Mather and George Smoot were awarded the Nobel prize for their contributions toward the Big Bang theory. You've already said you do not consider the Big Bang theory as being scientific, so you're already at odds with the Nobel foundation:
My point was that the field itself, that is "origin of life or species or origin of anything" is not scientific, because (a) it is historical (b) involves spans of time that are beyond experimentation. So does a theory of big-bang, so does much of astrophysics involving sayings like "galactics originated from this or that".The second option, that the majority of scientists cannot follow through a simple logical argument, seems somewhat unlikely. It seems rather arrogant to suppose that you, and I for that matter, are better at logical analysis than almost all the scientific community.
Which leads only to the third option, that your particular definition of the scientific method differs considerably from any of the common viewpoints on the matter. Given this, any further argument on this particular subject would appear quite pointless, as your entire argument appears to be based upon a set of axioms that few scientists would accept as being valid.
Again, why? As far as I'm aware, parthenogenesis in animals only results in females, and the examples of speciation recorded include both males and females, so clearly some sexual reproduction is going on. Secondly, why does the method of speciation matter, surely all we're concerned about is the end result? Thirdly, does that mean you don't consider creatures that reproduce asexually as having species?
It helps an opposite case even less if you present the body of evidence without bothering to read it through.Why? A body of evidence does not, as far as I'm aware, usually exhibit quantum behaviour. My reading through a list of pre-compiled evidence against speciation won't affect it's worth, and the people compiling the evidence have more expertise than I do at judging whether it is valid or not.
I read through talkorigins, it lacks the specifics of my question. In what way? Here we go. So this is what it is, you are just trusting the scientists. Science has nothing to do with trust. Real scientist trusts only because he knows that he can verify that the other scientist is right, that is his Results and Discussion section follows from his Introduction and Methods if not by exactly reproducing the paper (does not happen much) then by doing similar experiments.Of course. Excuse me for four years whilst I study for a degree in biology.
In a perfect world, one could do exactly this. One could evaluate the evidence provided, and come to a logical conclusion about who is right and who is wrong. In reality, only specialists can accurately gauge the truth of complex biological theories, as the span of knowledge humankind has collectively amassed is far too large for any individual to process.
For instance, my field of expertise happens to be computer science. I rather suspect it would not be hard for me to convince a layman of the validity of a theory, which a specialist would recognise as being complete and utter bullshit. Indeed, many would say this already happens on a regular basis. Given this, how can I personally evaluate the validity of biological evidence with any degree of accuracy? If I accept that I can present bullshit as a respectable theory in my field, then I must accept the possibility that the same applies to every other field.
The only way around this is to either educate oneself in a field, which nowadays takes many years, or rely on a web of trust and respectability, trusting in the collective opinion of experts in a particular field. If I were a biologist, no doubt I could accurately assess the merits of speciation, but I am not, and I rather suspect you are not, either.
What is the probability of N->M mutated organism to produce a progeny that is capable of reproducing itself? I am not even talking a mule case (pairing between organism with M chromosomes and organism with N chromosomes), which is sterile, but at least happens (artificially! how often it happens in nature?) The probability of two similar such mutations meeting is even less.Sure, but we're dealing with a very large number of species, and very large timescales, so just saying that it's a low probability doesn't tell us much. It's a low possibility that I'll win the lottery (assuming I played), but many people do win, some even twice over. Experiments, and even natural observations, deal with relatively small sets of animals over extremely small timescales. Even if no examples of speciation were ever observed, it would tell us relatively little.
But why would that invalidate observed speciation?
So it would be easy for you to pick the most solid one, satisfiying the requirement.I thought you read through the examples on Talk Origins? I noticed several examples of plant speciation with just a cursory glance. It doesn't really help your case to dismiss a body of evidence without bothering to read it through. As to which is the most solid one, I lack the knowledge to judge.
However, I'm somewhat uncertain as to where your argument is heading. Even if you managed to find a reason to dismiss every single piece of evidence that exists, it's not as if that would invalidate macro-evolution. I do suppose you could be trying to show that there are no valid lab experiments that demonstrate speciation, but that would only count against macro-evolution if we accept your viewpoint on the scientific method. So what point are you trying to make?
His argument is more that he doesn't consider sciences and theories that rely on observation of natural events, such as evolution, astronomy, geology etc. as being sciences. That's fine, but it's a fringe philosophy, and one can demonstrate quite successfully that it is a fringe philosophy. Beyond that, his arguments seem to have been whittled down to how much observed evidence we have for speciation, and then for specific types of speciation. A typical God of the Gaps argument, if we were arguing from a religious perspective. However, since a lack of evidence doesn't disprove a theory, I'm rather unsure where he's going with it.
It's an interesting argument, if one that is somewhat confusing at times. You're welcome to jump in, if you wish.
That rather neatly avoids my question.
Show me how the number of chromosomes changed in any of the examples.There are a number of examples listed where plant speciation has been observed with increased chromosome count. I'm unaware of any animal speciation that results in an increased chromosome count, but there are many examples of animal speciation, and numerous observations of increases or decreases of chromosome count within the same species. What makes you think that these two conditions are mutually exclusive?
I'm unclear what you mean. What requested transition?
Secondly, how exactly is observed speciation invalidated if the animal being observed is capable of parthenogenesis?
It's true that people quibble over the exact meaning of the so-called scientific method, and there are many schools of thought on the matter. Wikipedia lists the main points of view on the subject, but you'll notice, I hope, that under all of the viewpoints listed, evolution would still be considered a science. Your own viewpoint differs considerably from any of them, and the evidence would suggest that your particular view on the scientific method is in the extreme minority.
I also gave you an idea of how "science" of macroevolution is useless in terms of technology, practical application to the material needs of humans, while obviously all real science have undeniable relation to technology.Again, just because you know of no uses of "macro" evolution, doesn't mean that none exist. Secondly, it's only obvious that "real" science has a relation to technology if we use your definition of the scientific method, which as I've already pointed out, is a minority viewpoint.
nevertheless, scientific theories have clearly definable domains of their numerical validity, for example, Newtonian mechanics, and in that terms they are achieving the pick of "true" that is possible for any abstraction.Are you referring to logical consistency? I would have thought that was one of the basic requirements for a theory. If your hypothesis is not internally consistent, then it's fallen over at the first hurdle.
It would help if you were a little more clear. You appear to be talking about consistency, and if so, then referring to it as verifiability is confusing and inaccurate.
it would be much easier and much more self-consistent if you start distinguishing microevolution and macroevolution.It's a distinction that's pushed by creationist and ID proponents, and as such there's a certain stigma associated with the use of the words. However, I guess it's no different from distinguishing a pond from a lake; whilst the distinction is artificial, it may help to keep our discussion less verbose.
No info on number of chromosomes change. I suspect, that if there was a number of chromosomes would have changed in this case, the hupla created by evolutionists would certainly resonate from Galapagos Islands to Kansas.Why? Macroevolution is hardly a controversial theory amongst biologists, and a differing of chromosome counts have been observed and documented in a large number of species, including humans.
Please provide another example (I am repeating the challenge from GGGP post:It seems only fair that you first answer my question on parthenogenesis. You dismissed all the previous examples because you wanted an example with a "species that is not capable of parthenogenesis", yet you failed to provide any sources demonstrating that every species mentioned in that document had been observed to be capable of parthenogenesis. Before dismissing such a large quantity of evidence, you surely should first demonstrate why they should be dismissed.
To be short. Point is: scientific theory needs scientific experiments, done in the past, planned in the future or any way feasible.
As I've pointed out before, this is merely your own definition, and different from the common accepted terminology. Scientific theories must be based upon a testable hypothesis; a good way to test a hypothesis is through experimentation, but it is not the only method. Whilst less efficient, observation of natural events is a equally valid method from which to test a hypothesis.
Consider; if your definition is the commonly accepted standard, then it could be logically demonstrated that evolution and astronomy are not sciences. Whilst the scientific community is far from perfect, I rather doubt you'd have the overwhelming majority disagreeing with something that could be logically demonstrated to be true. Thus, either your definition differs from the accepted standard, or nearly every scientist in the world is unable, or too closed minded, to follow a simple logical argument. The former explanation seems rather more probable.
but once it has been verified, it ceases to be a theory and becomes fact.
No, it does not.
Veri is latin for truth. To verify something is to literally show it to be true. A fact is an indisputable truth. Thus, the sentence you claim is incorrect is actually a tautology; deliberately so, as I was using it to emphasis a point.
Again, we come down to definitions, though this time it's probably down to the ambiguity of the English language. On the one hand, Googling for "verify" gets me definitions like "To prove the truth of by presentation of evidence or testimony", or "to act as ultimate proof", on the other, we get more watered down versions like "To determine or test the truth or accuracy of, as by comparison, investigation, or reference".
However, since we're talking about science and logical correctness, and since you provided a link to the Verifiability Theory of Meaning (which deals with logical verifiability), I assumed you meant the precise, formal definition. To verify; to prove something true. Likewise, I assume that what you mean by falsify is to prove something false.
Clearly I was wrong in this assumption, and that may explain why you were insisting that theories are commonly verified.
Most theories are impossible to verify; that is, impossible to prove absolutely true. Evolution is borderline; I'd say it was infeasible to prove it true, as such proof would require escaping our own light cone. So if I said theories are impossible to verify, I was technically mistaken. I should have said that any established theory is either impossible, or infeasible to verify. From a practical standpoint, though, these equate to pretty much the same thing.
It seems rather unlikely that a prominent and respected site dedicated to collecting scientific evidence to demonstrate certain concepts, would provide dozens of pages of evidence which are all, in your opinion, invalid. Further, parthenogenesis is only mentioned once in the entire document; how were you able to discover that the species mentioned have previously demonstrated parthenogenesis? Not
If by "priciples" you mean empirical and analytical verification, you are correct; neither is needed for a scientific theory. Only falsification is a required element to mark a theory as scientific, at least according to the generally accepted definition.
A scientific theory can be verifiable, but once it has been verified, it ceases to be a theory and becomes fact. Accordingly, few theories are directly verifiable; they are merely educated guesses that fit the evidence provided.
Your point being? As I said before, science works through falsification; the disproof of theories. If life didn't exist at that time, then it would imply that complex lifeforms were created in a very short time period. Since evolution predicts that changes to species are slow, the lack of fossils would count as evidence against evolution, correct?
So Darwin's prediction stems from his theory on the origin of species. His theory said life evolves slowly and gradually over long periods of time, therefore Cambrian life must have evolved slowly from earlier life, therefore there must have been life in the Precambrian era, therefore there should be evidence of that life, therefore there should be fossils in Precambrian rock. A chain of logic based upon his initial theory, ending in a prediction that ultimately proved to be correct.
There are numerous examples of observed speciation, mostly in species with short lifespans, such as insects, but a few in larger species such as birds and mice. Talk Origins, the website referenced by the Slashdot article, lists examples of observed speciation.
You need to make your views more clear. If you say, "Evolution is unscientific", without explaining that your definition of "unscientific" differs from the norm, there's bound to be misunderstandings. For instance, if I defined "feline" as an eight-limbed invertebrate, then I could assert that a large proportion of felines were poisonous. But unless I explained first that I had a rather unusual definition of the word "feline", misunderstandings would inevitably arise.
Your argument appears to be not so much that long-term evolution is unscientific, more that you disagree with the generally accepted definition of science. But unless you explain this, people aren't going to know that the basic axioms you're basing your arguments on are different from theirs.
I'm sure there's already a name for your rather restrictive and utilitarian view of science. Perhaps you should look it up?
Maybe you should read the definition more carefully. You didn't give me the positivist definition of verifiability, you gave me a link to the verifiability theory of meaning. The verifiability theory is a school of thought that attempts to connect the abstract definition of meaning with the more concrete concepts of verifiability or falsifiability. Verifiability is either analytical - that is, one can prove logically that a certain statement is true - or empirical, where one can provide observational evidence that demonstrates the validity of your statement.
For instance, if I take a photograph of a white bird, I can assert that there exists at least one white bird in the world; this is empirical verifiability. I can then argue that if at least one white bird exists, then therefore not all birds can be black; this is analytical verifiability. However, if I observe white birds and black birds, but never a black and white bird, I might theorise that no such bird can exist. This is a theory, because unlike the previous two statements, it cannot be verified by either analytical or empirical evidence, one cannot prove absolutely that no black and white bird exists.
But it's perfectly possible to disprove my No Black And White Bird theory; all one has to do is observe a black and white bird, and thus my theory is falsifiable. If a long time goes by without anyone observing a black and white bird, people might give my theory more weight. This is what experimentation and observation achieve; they can never prove a theory correct beyond all doubt, but they can provide evidence that my theory is probably correct.
Where to begin? Well, I guess one could do worse than Darwin, who made a number of predictions based on his theory. For instance, Darwin predicted that fossils would be found in rock dated to the Precambrian era, when no such fossil had been found to date. He even went so far as to say the total absense of Precambrian fossils being found was "inexplicable" and that the lack might "be truly urged as a valid argument" against his theory.
His prediction was proved correct, nearly 100 years later in 1953. The reason the fossils weren't found previously is because they were microscopic, but once people realised that it was discovered that they were, in fact, quite abundant. It was a prediction, it was certainly successful, and it was based on Darwin's theory that creatures evolved slowly and gradually over billions of years. If there were complex lifeforms in the Cambrian era, one might theorise, as Darwin did, that they evolved from less complex ancestors in the Cambrian. Thus, if one is finding complex fossils in the Precambrian, then theoretically one should be finding fossils in the Precambrian.
Could you be more specific? Are you talking about observed macroscopic speciation? Increases in chromosome count? What, precisely?
The problem is that your "rigorous and honest" definition of science is rather at odds with the definition the rest of us hold. Putting aside your lack of knowledge about evolutionary evidence, this is what it boils down to. Afte
I do realise that there are certain aspect about the scientific method that are hard to grasp. However, perhaps you should not speak so authoritatively over a subject you apparently know so little about. Your replies demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding about science in general. For instance:
This does not qualify for falsifiability, because we already know that it (a) is not true (b) and the fact that stars are more than 6000 light years away is not a proof of the validity of macroevolution theory. Same goes for your geological arguments. And hit me with at least one of "thousand other things".Firstly, you speak of proof and validity. This only applies to mathematics and measurements, not to theories. A theory cannot be proved right, or validated, it can only be shown to be wrong. This applies as much to evolution as it does to the theory that planets are held in their orbit by the gravity of the Sun.
The second thing you appear to be confused about is the definition of falsifiability as it applies to the scientific method. The result of an experiment doesn't affect the falsifiability of a theory. If it did, then the moment scientists ran out of tests to run on a theory, it would cease to be falsifiable, and by definition, cease being a theory.
The reason I chose 6000 light years, is because it would imply that the Universe was only 6000 years old, which isn't enough time for "macro" evolution to occur. Likewise, if the age of the Earth was very young, we'd have the same problem. These experiments have the potential to invalidate evolution, and thus count toward it's falsifiable nature.
Those all are not sciences, because they all do not involved repeatable experiments in the controlled environment.Again, another popular misconception. Coincidentally, this is addressed by the very site that was removed from Google's search index, Talk Origins. Science doesn't just involve running experiments in a controlled environment, it also covers repeatable observations of phenomenon. If it didn't, science would be far more limited; one couldn't call astronomy science, for instance, or geology, or any branch of science that deals with natural forces and objects too large to reproduce in a lab.
The problem is that all your objections to evolution also apply to many other well established scientific fields. Should we argue instead whether the Sun's gravity is related to its mass, or due to giant invisible mice tugging on anything close to it? Evolution isn't particularly different from many other theories; it just happens to be one of the most successful and robust. Normally this would be accepted in the same way that any other established theory is accepted, but whilst theories about the movements of planets or the behaviour of electrical currents do little to offend people, evolution seemingly does.
... and allowing one more slowpoke into the gap?It may be a feature of the British road system, but I can't think of many ways this would happen. Generally speaking, slow drivers don't do a lot of overtaking, and oncoming traffic has priority at junctions. Perhaps this could occur at sliproads, but sliproads usually only run into multi-lane roads, so only the slow lane would be affected by this.
... and make it understood to the slowpoke before you that he is indeed a slowpoke?Uhuh. That's about as effective and intelligent as staring down the barrel of a gun to check if it's loaded. Secondly, if someone tailgates you, the advised and safest course of action is to maximise your stopping distance, which frequently means slowing down. Thus, tailgating a good driver will only cause you to slow down further, and tailgating an bad driver merely raises the risk of a collision, whilst simultaneously making it much harder for you to overtake.
Lisp has a habit of appearing rather messy at times, and some standard libraries (such as CLOS) are not particular elegant or aesthetically pleasing, at least to my eyes. I suspect that Lisp suffers from a lot of historical cruft in it's standard libraries - CDR anyone?
I prefer the aesthetics of Haskell, myself, though it would be rather interesting to see how elegant and expressive one could make a Lisp dialect.
You don't explain how knowing the gritty details of a computer helps a person become a better programmer. Sure, it's nice to know, and I once spent several enjoyable months getting to know the instuction set of the 68008 very well indeed, but I'm not altogether sure that experience has been particularly useful. Most of the work I do is either highly abstracted, or efficient enough without giving a thought to the processor's architecture.
Or, to put it another way, you don't necessarily have to know how to bake clay bricks in order to become a good architect.
In Britain, any extra lanes on the road should technically only be used when overtaking other vehicles, so if you're in the fast lane and can move over, you should do it anyway. It doesn't operate quite that way in practise, but in my experience the problem you describe is not that usual over here. For instance, I don't see many people sitting in the fast lane of a motorway doing only 70mph, unless there are speed cameras about.
If they're doing the speed limit, why would you need to overtake them?
The car ahead of you is driving slowly. Do you:
a) Slow down to increase the distance between your cars, giving yourself a wider field of view and making it easier to overtake.
b) Speed up and tailgate, restricting your view and making it harder to overtake, whilst simultaneously increasing the risk of a collision, which you'll wind up paying for.
I propose that the root cause of tailgating is not because the drivers are frustrated, but because they are fucking morons.
This is the same Microsoft that a few weeks ago, claimed:
After essentially telling people they've started up a Mafia-style IP protection racket, is it any wonder that people might be just a little bit suspicious of anything that looks like Microsoft IP?
No scientific theory is verifiable, only raw data is verifiable. You could, for instance, say that a particular fossil was X metres across, and one could verify that data easily with a tape measure. However, you cannot verify a theory, because a theory is merely an explanation which appears to fit all the available facts.
Of course it is. If we found a giant spaceship buried in the Earth's core with a dead alien clutching a book that said, "Biosphere Creation for Dummies", or if God himself descended to Earth and said, "No, really, it was only 6 days.", then that would, in my book, pretty much falsify the theory of evolution.
These are extreme examples, but there are also other, more subtle possibilities. If we had found that each animal had no DNA in common with another, then we might consider the possibility they were created. Or if all the stars in the sky were all no more than 6000 light years away. Or if geologists discovered that the geology of the Earth pointed to an age of only 6000 years. Or any one of a thousand other things.
Evolution is very falsifiable. That it hasn't been, despite 150 years of criticism, speaks volumes. It's one of the most established theories we have. It's more established than the theories that keep our GPS satellites recording the right data, more established than the theories we have that govern production of our electronics, more established even than the theories that result in antibiotics. It's an extremely robust theory, and one of the core concepts of modern biology.
Not only is evolution, even so called "macro" evolution, a scientific theory, it's one of the most long-standing and successful.
Funny how every major scientific institution in the world disagrees with you. How, exactly, is so-called "macroscopic" evolution unscientific?
Alternatively, maybe the Slashdot editors wanted to rile up creationists. You need two sides to have an argument, after all.
However, I don't think evolution/creationism is the only subject that stirs up the hive; any subject which has a high bullshit ratio results in a large number of posts. Politicians and entities like the RIAA elect similar outcries whenever their stupidity graces the front page of Slashdot, and creationism hardly has a monopoly over idiocy, though it does try pretty hard.
Sonic's legs don't seem to be moving at the pace he's running, which seems to kill the illusion of speed a little. He also turns a little too quickly; there's no sense of momentum. I guess it's easier to get these things right in 2D than 3D.
It's true that Windows provides a more fine-grained security model by default, and that this security model is more easily managed. However, I think you fail to take into account the extent to which Linux's security model can be extended.
For instance, with systrace one can restrict what files a process has access to, whether it can write to a particular set of files, what ports its allowed to open and even what kernel calls its allowed to access. I haven't looked much into SELinux or AppArmor, but I gather they have similar capabilities.
The problem with Linux is not that it is less powerful than Windows, rather that it is more complicated to set up fine-grained permissions, and most user-friendly distributions don't seem to bother, possibly because there is less of a problem with Linux users running untrusted binaries.
That's the first I'd heard of it. Could you provide a link to the results collected so far from the Pierre Auger Observatory?
My point was more that it's naive to suppose we are the most, or only, intelligent species in the Universe.