Red Hat -> Lots of enterprise and business users
Suse -> More of the same, except mostly in Europe
Mandrake -> Fast growing with non-techies and some businesses too
Fedora/Old Red Hat -> Fast growing with home users
Debian -> Growing with home users
Slackware/Knoppix/Gentoo... -> all have niche audiences
http://www.distrowatch.com/ has a ranking of people downloading each distro from them at the lower right of the page.
There most certainly is a difference. Such a split has no justifcation.
You need justification to show that the two are the same. Even if you could, through some miracle, observe evolution today, it would be a far stretch to assume that, based on that observation, evolution created life. That is stepping well beyond the bounds of science - inferring and conjecturing.
What I would want would be proof that you haven't proven natural selection instead of evolution. You would have to prove that you have created new species of fruit flies and not merely brought out different traits through environment. To my knowledge, that has never been done.
There is a very real difference between the curvature observation and evolution. Einstein proposed a law, a universal, that would show itself in the curving of light.
The theory of evolution is more broad. In particular, even if you could somehow show species evolving at present, it doesn't show anything about the past. So I suppose we would have to split the discussion into ongoing and past evolution. Is evolution occuring today? Did evolution create life? The answer to either of these does not answer the other. Which is where the problem occurs. When we say evolution/creation, we are dealing with "Did evolution create life?". But your observations are all related to "Is evolution occuring today?". Whereas Einstein didn't have to deal with such a split. So I find your comparison lacking.
It also needs some predictive power - this both increases our knowledge and provides a path for revisions to the theory.
I beleive both creation and evolution have similar predictive power, in that they both have some sloppy, cut-rate predictive power. But neither is really any good.
For instance, according to creation, the highpoint of all the earth was just after creation. It has been going downhill ever since. So according to creation, look for continued extinctions and loss of more and more species as time goes on.
While this is technically predictive, it isn't what we're looking for.
The evolutionary predictions are similar; shoddy half-predictions that don't really test the theory.
That is a very loose, and I will say wrong interpretation of the word prediction. A prediction can be tested with an empirical experiment that can either support or refute the prediction. This reasoning is to pile up observations after-the-fact and use those in place of a test.
1. Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil evidence and genetic evidence [Ingman et al. 2000].
That is not a prediction. That is an observation made after the fact. Furthermore, it is recursive reasoning, since its assumes evolution to support itself. It appears as though the rest of your examples were similar. A prediction is an idea that can be tested with an empirical experiment that could indicate acceptance or rejection of the idea. The idea that we, and other organisms evolved from lifelessness into our present state cannot make testable predictions.
Creationism fails utterly as a theory because it has no predictive power at all.
Wrong. It has just as much as evolution. Or perhaps I should say evolution has no predictive power at all. Since we're dealing with origins, we are necessarily dealing with a process that occurred before any of us were alive. All we can do is make observations. But it's too late to make predictions, which gives both creation and evolution a failing grade when it comes to science.
How do you explain the remarkable genetic match between humans and chimpanzees
If you observe two patterns with a statistical corrolation there are several possibilites:
A causes B
B causes A
C causes A and B
fact: Chimps look like humans and have similar DNA.
Is that proof that one evolved from the other? Or perhaps they were created with similar DNA which caused them to look similar. Your assumption determines the outcome.
and there is still a lot of evidence in support of evolution (or rather natural selection)
No contest there. I'm quite certain natural selection occurs. But while part of the idea of evolution, they are not one in the same.
But CBR and the idea of the big bang doesn't hold up on its own without some assumptions and information taken to be correct. Your ideas only hold true if you take your own assumptions to be true. That is the point.
This is the same way republicans and democrats come to different oppinions using the same data. The only difference is the base assumptions. And you shouldn't say those who beleive in creation are wrong because they assume the existance of God, when your own ideas are underpinned by your own assumptions.
I don't think things are all so clear cut as you make them sound.
You could rewrite your sentence
"I have found the theory of creation lacking for scientific reasons. It is a fascinating idea, but far from proven."
I agree totally. Both viewpoints require a substantial amount of faith and a beleif system that cannot be proven.
Evolution predicts certain things, and these seem to be accurate, so it's the best model we have at the moment.
The theory of evolution doesn't predict anything. It is a reactionary "theory" in which we look at an outcome and guess the process. Since the process we guessed arrives at the outcome we observe, we assume it is correct. This is not prediction!
Don't confuse science with scientism. You are absolutely correct. I am a scientist myself and have nothing against the process. Many of the comments have been in the scientism camp, and I was responding to them.
the belief in absolute time for example, has long been debunked
I don't think the question of causation and a miracle instantiation of a particle can be brushed aside by waving your hands at the idea of time. Many new ideas from physicists and astronomers, no matter how famous, are far-fetched and many will probably be proven to be crap.
I have posted previously on my views of the relation between religion and science and got modded down for them.
I have been posting in this thread and also have been modded as flamebaiting and trolling for comments that clearly are not inflammitory. It shows how touchy this issue is. Simply stating that you don't accept evolution is seen as inflametory language! At the time of this post, nearly all the the posts critiquing or disagreeing with evolution have been modded down, regardless of their tone or merit. While nearly all the posts supporting evolution have been modded up as insightful. Clearly some underlying personal feelings are growing stronger then moderator guidelines. And that mirrors the larger handling of this issue. Both sides are quite passionate about it, and occassionally go overboard, which has painted the issue red.
You certainly can have two conflicting theories however. Particle/wave duality is a case in point. Neither theory replaced or expanded beyond the other. Both are still in existance. Both are accepted. And both are used. Yet they are fundamentally contradictory.
In my experience, people do not rely on evidence for creation, they rely on faith. I can however, tell you that the evidence for evolution is quite sketchy. And the theory of evolution certainly isn't proven.
The list is pretty long, but for starters, the dating methods universally used for all evolutionary theories are crap. If one rock is sent to be radiometrically dated using three different methods, you'd be lucky to have the results all come back withing 10 million years of each other. And you might have a span of more than 100 million years if you're unlucky.
Skeletons != proof
skeletons with similarities to other skeletons are not proof of evolution. They seem like it at first. But without making a direct connection (which cannot be done without actually observing the process) the skeleton/fossil proof is just speculation.
Furthermore, many of the skeletons found were hyped to be something spectacular, and later found to be not so spectacular. The missing link fossils have all (to my knowledge) been proven false. They were either completely human or completely monkey. One of them was even a mixture of human bones and monkey bones, that, when reconstructed, looked a lot like a half-man-half-monkey!
I could go on. But the point is, the "science proves the theory of evolution" statement is not accurate. I would be happy to answer any questions or continue this list.
I am a conservative Christian (please hold your insults), and I have found the theory of evolution lacking for scientific reasons. It is a fascinating idea, but far from proven.
I've often marveled at the amount of faith it requires to accept evolution and the purely secular theory of the origin of everything. The idea that a superdense particle passed into being from nothingness for no reason and with no cause is pretty hard to swallow. Much moreso than God purposefully creating.
Remember how goofy the drawings and voices were when the show just started? Every once in a while I see and old one, and I want to puke. It really shows how far they've come from 15 seasons of practice.
I can't say the writing has improved as much as the animation and voices though.
I believe I do approach this with an open mind. But an open mind can still disagree in its final judgement.
My thought process went something like:
Ok, maybe we can redefine life. But where does it stop? Can anything that affects anything else be considered life? No. (an arbitrary judgement on my part. But it has to be done at some point.) So I decided there has to be some reasonable threshold used to judge so that we don't just start thinking everything is alive. After all, every word has an arbitrary meaning. And if we expand "alive" to include anything that has an interesting attribute then the word becomes meaningless.
So I read the examples and found that none of them showed an organism or system that really gave back more than was put into it. All the computer systems were programmed and specifically set up. Even those given loose rules were still designed and programmed. Most of the examples were interesting, but none "blurred the line." They all seemed to be complex, yet deterministic dominos.
I'd be very interested in what means or processes you use to derive these absolutes and universal absolutes, and what the difference is between them.
First of all, I sound like an idiot for not proofreading the quote you used!
In answer to your question: aside from religious beliefs, which I take it you wouldn't appreciate, there are several. The idea of temperature, size/length, and energy used to all be considered rather relative. More advancements have shown certain limits and constants that put things more in perspective.
For instance, many years ago I was thinking about the size of a human. Are we small? Are we big? Or are we just some size that's only describable in relation to something else (small compared to a star, big compared to bacteria) so it doesn't matter. But fundamental particles, as well as the aparent minimum and maxium size of molecules sets a framework against which everything can be measured.
I know this is a little more fundamental than the "what is life" question. But the mindset that there are some universal absolutes is still there.
This is a general trend of adding garbage to an otherwise simple device. Digitals watches, cell phones, etc.
If you're going to have a multipurpose machine, like a computer, then call it that. Otherwise you end up with a watch that takes the temperature, tells time, takes pictures, has an address book, and makes calls.
Then your cell phone makes calls, tells time, takes the temperature, takes pictures and has an address book.
Your handheld address book tells time, takes the temperature, takes pictures, makes phone calls.
Your digital camera takes pictures, tells time...
I had to laugh when I read the story on slashdot. How can OLD watches still hang around that just tell time?
I don't think our "pattern matchers" and "bias of cognition" are all that innacurate. I disagree with the idea that everything is relative. I beleive there are some absolutes and universal absolutes in the universe.
When you say we might find 'living systems' everywhere we look, I think that's quite a stretch, and that there really is a difference between this type of contrived cooperation, and actual, beautiful life.
Artificial intelligence would have to make astounding advancements to even begin to blur the lines between machines and life.
Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat -> Lots of enterprise and business users
Suse -> More of the same, except mostly in Europe
Mandrake -> Fast growing with non-techies and some businesses too
Fedora/Old Red Hat -> Fast growing with home users
Debian -> Growing with home users Slackware/Knoppix/Gentoo... -> all have niche audiences
http://www.distrowatch.com/ has a ranking of people downloading each distro from them at the lower right of the page.
There most certainly is a difference.
Such a split has no justifcation.
You need justification to show that the two are the same. Even if you could, through some miracle, observe evolution today, it would be a far stretch to assume that, based on that observation, evolution created life. That is stepping well beyond the bounds of science - inferring and conjecturing.
What I would want would be proof that you haven't proven natural selection instead of evolution. You would have to prove that you have created new species of fruit flies and not merely brought out different traits through environment. To my knowledge, that has never been done.
There is a very real difference between the curvature observation and evolution. Einstein proposed a law, a universal, that would show itself in the curving of light.
The theory of evolution is more broad. In particular, even if you could somehow show species evolving at present, it doesn't show anything about the past. So I suppose we would have to split the discussion into ongoing and past evolution. Is evolution occuring today? Did evolution create life? The answer to either of these does not answer the other. Which is where the problem occurs. When we say evolution/creation, we are dealing with "Did evolution create life?". But your observations are all related to "Is evolution occuring today?". Whereas Einstein didn't have to deal with such a split. So I find your comparison lacking.
It also needs some predictive power - this both increases our knowledge and provides a path for revisions to the theory.
I beleive both creation and evolution have similar predictive power, in that they both have some sloppy, cut-rate predictive power. But neither is really any good.
For instance, according to creation, the highpoint of all the earth was just after creation. It has been going downhill ever since. So according to creation, look for continued extinctions and loss of more and more species as time goes on.
While this is technically predictive, it isn't what we're looking for.
The evolutionary predictions are similar; shoddy half-predictions that don't really test the theory.
That is a very loose, and I will say wrong interpretation of the word prediction. A prediction can be tested with an empirical experiment that can either support or refute the prediction. This reasoning is to pile up observations after-the-fact and use those in place of a test.
1. Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil evidence and genetic evidence [Ingman et al. 2000].
That is not a prediction. That is an observation made after the fact. Furthermore, it is recursive reasoning, since its assumes evolution to support itself. It appears as though the rest of your examples were similar. A prediction is an idea that can be tested with an empirical experiment that could indicate acceptance or rejection of the idea. The idea that we, and other organisms evolved from lifelessness into our present state cannot make testable predictions.
Creationism fails utterly as a theory because it has no predictive power at all.
Wrong. It has just as much as evolution. Or perhaps I should say evolution has no predictive power at all. Since we're dealing with origins, we are necessarily dealing with a process that occurred before any of us were alive. All we can do is make observations. But it's too late to make predictions, which gives both creation and evolution a failing grade when it comes to science.
How do you explain the remarkable genetic match between humans and chimpanzees
If you observe two patterns with a statistical corrolation there are several possibilites:
A causes B
B causes A
C causes A and B
fact: Chimps look like humans and have similar DNA.
Is that proof that one evolved from the other? Or perhaps they were created with similar DNA which caused them to look similar. Your assumption determines the outcome.
and there is still a lot of evidence in support of evolution (or rather natural selection)
No contest there. I'm quite certain natural selection occurs. But while part of the idea of evolution, they are not one in the same.
But CBR and the idea of the big bang doesn't hold up on its own without some assumptions and information taken to be correct. Your ideas only hold true if you take your own assumptions to be true. That is the point.
This is the same way republicans and democrats come to different oppinions using the same data. The only difference is the base assumptions. And you shouldn't say those who beleive in creation are wrong because they assume the existance of God, when your own ideas are underpinned by your own assumptions.
I don't think things are all so clear cut as you make them sound.
You could rewrite your sentence
"I have found the theory of creation lacking for scientific reasons. It is a fascinating idea, but far from proven."
I agree totally. Both viewpoints require a substantial amount of faith and a beleif system that cannot be proven.
Evolution predicts certain things, and these seem to be accurate, so it's the best model we have at the moment.
The theory of evolution doesn't predict anything. It is a reactionary "theory" in which we look at an outcome and guess the process. Since the process we guessed arrives at the outcome we observe, we assume it is correct. This is not prediction!
Don't confuse science with scientism.
You are absolutely correct. I am a scientist myself and have nothing against the process. Many of the comments have been in the scientism camp, and I was responding to them.
the belief in absolute time for example, has long been debunked
I don't think the question of causation and a miracle instantiation of a particle can be brushed aside by waving your hands at the idea of time. Many new ideas from physicists and astronomers, no matter how famous, are far-fetched and many will probably be proven to be crap.
I have posted previously on my views of the relation between religion and science and got modded down for them.
I have been posting in this thread and also have been modded as flamebaiting and trolling for comments that clearly are not inflammitory. It shows how touchy this issue is. Simply stating that you don't accept evolution is seen as inflametory language! At the time of this post, nearly all the the posts critiquing or disagreeing with evolution have been modded down, regardless of their tone or merit. While nearly all the posts supporting evolution have been modded up as insightful. Clearly some underlying personal feelings are growing stronger then moderator guidelines. And that mirrors the larger handling of this issue. Both sides are quite passionate about it, and occassionally go overboard, which has painted the issue red.
You certainly can have two conflicting theories however. Particle/wave duality is a case in point. Neither theory replaced or expanded beyond the other. Both are still in existance. Both are accepted. And both are used. Yet they are fundamentally contradictory.
You've gotten my point exactly!
Both ideas require the same faith in something you can't necessarily understand or prove.
So people shouldn't look down on religion because of what they see as a fault for requiring this kind of faith.
In my experience, people do not rely on evidence for creation, they rely on faith. I can however, tell you that the evidence for evolution is quite sketchy. And the theory of evolution certainly isn't proven.
The list is pretty long, but for starters, the dating methods universally used for all evolutionary theories are crap. If one rock is sent to be radiometrically dated using three different methods, you'd be lucky to have the results all come back withing 10 million years of each other. And you might have a span of more than 100 million years if you're unlucky.
Skeletons != proof
skeletons with similarities to other skeletons are not proof of evolution. They seem like it at first. But without making a direct connection (which cannot be done without actually observing the process) the skeleton/fossil proof is just speculation.
Furthermore, many of the skeletons found were hyped to be something spectacular, and later found to be not so spectacular. The missing link fossils have all (to my knowledge) been proven false. They were either completely human or completely monkey. One of them was even a mixture of human bones and monkey bones, that, when reconstructed, looked a lot like a half-man-half-monkey!
I could go on. But the point is, the "science proves the theory of evolution" statement is not accurate. I would be happy to answer any questions or continue this list.
I agree.
I am a conservative Christian (please hold your insults), and I have found the theory of evolution lacking for scientific reasons. It is a fascinating idea, but far from proven.
I've often marveled at the amount of faith it requires to accept evolution and the purely secular theory of the origin of everything. The idea that a superdense particle passed into being from nothingness for no reason and with no cause is pretty hard to swallow. Much moreso than God purposefully creating.
The Simpsons has been on FOX for 15 seasons
Remember how goofy the drawings and voices were when the show just started? Every once in a while I see and old one, and I want to puke. It really shows how far they've come from 15 seasons of practice.
I can't say the writing has improved as much as the animation and voices though.
The only downside is that it appear to only be available in China right now.
Well I suppose you could learn Chinese, but paying for around-the-world roaming fees will probably screw you.
Sorry,
I intentially used what I consider less offensive words. But I suppose they are still not words I'm proud to use.
For account assistance, press or say ONE
If you know your party's extension, press or say TWO
For a staff directory, press or say THREE
To speak with an operator, press FOUR or say "SHIT SHIT ASS DAMN"
To repeat this menu press *
I believe I do approach this with an open mind. But an open mind can still disagree in its final judgement.
My thought process went something like:
Ok, maybe we can redefine life. But where does it stop? Can anything that affects anything else be considered life? No. (an arbitrary judgement on my part. But it has to be done at some point.) So I decided there has to be some reasonable threshold used to judge so that we don't just start thinking everything is alive. After all, every word has an arbitrary meaning. And if we expand "alive" to include anything that has an interesting attribute then the word becomes meaningless.
So I read the examples and found that none of them showed an organism or system that really gave back more than was put into it. All the computer systems were programmed and specifically set up. Even those given loose rules were still designed and programmed. Most of the examples were interesting, but none "blurred the line." They all seemed to be complex, yet deterministic dominos.
I'd be very interested in what means or processes you use to derive these absolutes and universal absolutes, and what the difference is between them.
First of all, I sound like an idiot for not proofreading the quote you used!
In answer to your question: aside from religious beliefs, which I take it you wouldn't appreciate, there are several. The idea of temperature, size/length, and energy used to all be considered rather relative. More advancements have shown certain limits and constants that put things more in perspective.
For instance, many years ago I was thinking about the size of a human. Are we small? Are we big? Or are we just some size that's only describable in relation to something else (small compared to a star, big compared to bacteria) so it doesn't matter. But fundamental particles, as well as the aparent minimum and maxium size of molecules sets a framework against which everything can be measured.
I know this is a little more fundamental than the "what is life" question. But the mindset that there are some universal absolutes is still there.
NO KIDDING!!!
This is a general trend of adding garbage to an otherwise simple device. Digitals watches, cell phones, etc.
If you're going to have a multipurpose machine, like a computer, then call it that. Otherwise you end up with a watch that takes the temperature, tells time, takes pictures, has an address book, and makes calls.
Then your cell phone makes calls, tells time, takes the temperature, takes pictures and has an address book.
Your handheld address book tells time, takes the temperature, takes pictures, makes phone calls.
Your digital camera takes pictures, tells time...
I had to laugh when I read the story on slashdot. How can OLD watches still hang around that just tell time?
BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT A WATCH IS FOR.
But you can only go so far thinking yourself a great philosopher before even children start to think you're a fool.
I agree with the original poster, the ideas laid out in this article are pretty far fetched.
I don't think our "pattern matchers" and "bias of cognition" are all that innacurate. I disagree with the idea that everything is relative. I beleive there are some absolutes and universal absolutes in the universe.
When you say we might find 'living systems' everywhere we look, I think that's quite a stretch, and that there really is a difference between this type of contrived cooperation, and actual, beautiful life.
Artificial intelligence would have to make astounding advancements to even begin to blur the lines between machines and life.