.....Demonstrating this "in the lab" wouldn't "prove" that such an event occured millions or billions of years ago anyway.....
No it wouldn't it prove it occurred whenever, but it would prove that it is possible at all. There is no need to prove or disprove all of the evolutionary theory, only the allegation that simple things become more complex as time goes on. Just do ONE experiment to demonstrate that this is in fact true.
(.....Thus far no observations that contradict the theory have been observed.....)
The well established laws of entropy totally contradict evolution's central dogma -- namely the progression from the simple toward the complex. Complex systems break down into simpler pieces, but nothing simple ever becomes more complex without the input of energy and INFORMATION.
(....true scientific theories are required to make predictions....)
Evolution has so far failed in its central prediction that complex systems arise from simple ones. It is therefore an invalid theory in its very foundation.
(.....Theories CANNOT be proven....)
Sure they can and are being proven all the time. All our modern technology rests on what were once untested theories. The computer you are reading this on proves many of these. The fundamental laws by which it operates were once untested, unproven theories. Countless experiments were done and refined until we learned how electricity works. So far at least, the laws of electricity appear pretty solid.
....in how many generations? And why use amoebas....
Use as many generations as you can. Use *any* single or multi-celled one life form. Prove by any experiment whatever, the main evolutionary dogma of the complex arising from the simple. Do only ONE such experiment and you will have validated evolution's guiding principle.
This dogma is in direct opposition to the established fact of entropy pushing all things from the complex toward the simple. We get older and wear out. Everything breaks down from order to disorder as time goes forward.
My Honda has wheels at the four corners, therefore it descended from my old Ford which has them, which came from my even older Volkswagen, which also, strangely, has exactly four, not three or six. They also all have steering wheels and other components common to cars. All airplanes also have wings and therefore descended from the Wright bothers flyer.
In other sciences we don't have perfect knowledge, yet the claims of physics, cosmology and chemistry can be tested reliably today. You don't need a time machine to determine if quantum theory is valid. Countless experiment prove, or in some instances disprove various theories in these "hard" sciences. In biology also, experiments can and are being done to learn the behavior of extremely complex systems. The central tenet of evolution is that the simple became more complex as time went on. This part of the theory is against the demonstrated reality of the second law of thermodynamics which says exactly the opposite. Complex systems break down into simpler components and all you have to look into the mirror to see that happening to you. To counteract entropy requires the input of energy, but also INFORMATION.
A complex creature contains vastly more information than a simple one. Even a "simple cell" contains immense amounts of information that is passed to future generations. Nobody has ever done an experiment adding information to a simpler living thing and thereby made a more complex one.
If I had the opportunity to choose a career today, I would choose biology, rather than electronics as I did. Even so, the similarity between complex living systems and complex manmade ones is amazing. If you find a watch on the beach, you can study how it works today, but you can learn nothing of its origin. Because you know watches are of human origin you also know it was designed. You can and should indeed enjoy the study the amazing intricacies of living systems without defending non-proven theories of how they came to be that way. Find out how things work TODAY and use your knowledge to help others and, if that is your goal, make some good money besides. Learn about the programming of the intricate DNA-RNA life codes and learn to write some new programs that may help alleviate human disease and suffering.
Explore the mystery how the brain gives rise to this thing we call mind and consciousness. There is evidence that "mind" may not be limited to the organ of the brain. From electronics I know that no matter how intimately you know the chips and circuits of a computer, you learn NOTHING about the real characteristics thereof until you energize it and load in some software, which in itself is a pure product of mind -- that of the programmer. I suspect that ultimately this is true of humans also. Software per se isn't subject to the same physical laws that hardware is. The situation of our software, the mind may be similar. It is indeed exciting to be a biologist!
......your nonsensical demand that _historical events_ be reproduced in the lab.....
I've never said historical events need be shown experimentally. What must be shown is that fundamental claims of any theory must be proven by experiment.
Geology is a hard science, the claims of which can be shown by repeatable experiments. Wave action, erosion, layering of sediments and many other geologic theories all have been experimentally proven. We can see geology in action in the volcanoes of Hawaii and other places and measure the reflection and refraction of seismic waves throughout the interior of our planet.
The movement from the very simple to complex is contrary to the laws of entropy (second law of thermodynamics) and evolution has never demonstrated how its claims get around this. The fruit fly (drosophila) experiments have not shown any increase, but often a decrease in viability and functionality of these creatures. What is labeled species is not always a genetic or complexity border. The whole progression from "simple" single celled creatures to the complex biological organization of humans and the incredibly complex biochemical systems is a conjecture, NO step of which has ever been duplicated by experiment. If anyone would have succeeded in creating a complex creature, say like a hydra from a collection of cells, that would have been big news that evolutionists would endlessly trumpet and it would of course prove the central tenet of the evolution theory. Evolution preaches that incredible things have occurred over eons of time, yet nobody has ever duplicated even the simplest transformations and increases of complexity by all the best efforts of the evolutionary believers.
It doesn't really matter how creatures reproduce, sexually or by simple division. Make a totally new kind of bacteria, yeast, fungus, --anything -- out of what exists already. I don't have to know in detail all the nuances of evolutionary dogma, but drosophila experiments have not produced any new, kinds of insects of greater or equal complexity. They are still what they always were, even if you apply a new "species" label to them. Their essential characteristics have remained unchanged, not matter what attempts have been made to come up with a new, never been here before creature. There are many distinct kinds of flies, mosquitoes, fleas, ants, many kinds of rodents, reptiles, birds, but they are and have always been as part of uncross-able groupings, no matter what label might be applied to any particular group.
Breeding and adaptation experiments do not prove the progression from simple to complex. Is a Dachshund more or less complex than a Poodle? Is a lighter moth more complex than a darker one or a antibiotic resistant bacteria more complex?
There is lots of lateral transfer of information within nature and from nature to human designs. The optical and auditory structures, hemoglobin, nerve cells and so forth, all show consistent practical design across diverse groups, all based on the underlying laws of physics and chemistry. The lift of the wings of a 747 is occasioned by the same aerodynamic principles that kept the Wright brother's plane in the air and is also used by countless flying creatures. The sonar echolocation systems used by submarines works by the same principles that the designer of dolphins and bats invented long before. Cameras have the same basic structure and major components that human and other mammalian eyes have. These thing show, although not conclusively prove by experiment, that a common design is more likely than the random happenstance of evolution.
.....Uh, two distinct life forms producing a third one?....
OK I should have said two DIFFERENT life forms, or take two or more identical single celled creatures such as say an amoeba, and make an entirely NEW, complex multicellular, viable organism. Make a bird out of two or more reptiles, since evolution claims that birds descended from reptiles. Do an experiment showing evolution of the complex from the simple.
I am not trying to dispute evolution per se, nor any of the other theories of origins, especially of life. My point is that none of the theories of origins has been proved by repeatable experiments, such as is done in other hard sciences. True scientific theories eventually require experiments to prove or disprove their validity. Evolution from simple to complex life forms has never been demonstrated in the lab. The designer put forth by the ID camp has not been put in a test tube either.
.....Creationism and ID states that the universe is only several thousand years old......
I was not talking about the supposed ages espoused by one or other conjecture, only that none of them have been proven in any experiments and are therefore only beliefs.
One of, if not THE central claim of evolution is that the more complex life-forms evolved from the simpler ones.
Evolutionists claim for example, that birds evolved from reptiles. A valid experimental proof of this idea would be to make some kind of bird from two reptiles. That however is admittedly too complex for our present knowledge of biology. A simpler experiment with two very different single celled creatures would certainly also prove the possibility of making a more complex creature from one or more simple ones. Even taking a relatively small collection of the same type of cells, say amoebas and fashioning a new self reproducing organism from them would certainly prove that this claim of evolution is a fact. The claim that the complex arises from the simple has never been tested by experiment. The laws of entropy show that complex systems, left to themselves, degenerate into increasingly simpler pieces. The mess in your house doesn't clean itself up by without the input of energy and information.
My previous post mentioning fruit flies is another test.
.....providing insight as to how species may have arisen....
The operative phrase "may have arises" is precisely where the problem lies. We don't KNOW how it happened and know one has ever MADE it happen to prove the conjecture. There is no reason why such an experiment to demonstrate how to to transmute into a E. coli to into a Mycobacterium has to be done in one step. Do it in as many steps as you can think of, one at a time. Just follow in the lab the same procedures you think evolution took and duplicate that. Using the time excuse doesn't work, since you are doing a directed, carefully planned series of experiments with many generations of bacteria. Evolutions was supposedly done by processes other than the application of intelligence.
One of, if not THE central claim of evolution is that the more complex life-forms evolved from the simpler ones. Experimentally prove how a simpler creature or set of creatures can be made into a totally new, more complex one. Scientists have been experimenting with millions of generations of fruit flies, subjecting them to all sorts of mutation inducing factors and other genetic manipulations. They have succeeded in making some rather grotesque fruit flies this way, but they are still, all without a single exception, fruit flies.
There are certain genetic boundaries that have never been crossed. What has been called species is not necessarily such a grouping boundary.
Living things are very adaptable and in that sense, "survival of the fittest" is certainly valid. However, the urge to survive by adapting to stress in no way proves the claim of evolution from the simple to the complex.
.....What science requires is that we be able to TEST any claim made.....
One of, if not THE central claim of evolution is that the more complex life-forms evolved from the simpler ones. Taking two creatures from the same grouping of complexity and making a hybrid of similar complexity does NOT prove that central tenet. A donkey and a horse are both about equally complex and I suspect so are the dolphin and the killer whale example. Evolutionists claim for example, that birds evolved from reptiles. A valid experimental proof of this idea would be to make some kind of bird from two reptiles. That however is admittedly too complex for our present knowledge of biology.
A simpler experiment with two very different single celled creatures would certainly also prove the possibility of making a more complex creature from one or more simple ones. Even taking a relatively small collection of the same type of cells, say amoebas and fashioning a new self reproducing organism from them would certainly prove that this claim of evolution is a fact. The claim that the complex arises from the simple has never been tested by experiment.
Scientists have been experimenting with millions of generations of fruit flies, subjecting them to all sorts of mutation inducing factors and other genetic manipulations. They have succeeded in making some rather grotesque fruit flies this way, but they are still, all without a single exception, fruit flies.
Even IF such experiments succeeded in demonstrating that evolution from the simple to the complex is a proven fact, it would still leave open how this experiment was done by "nature" without the same sort of intelligent input and arrangements of the conditions under which the experiment was done.
Why should common factors of design in biological systems prove ancestry any more than it does in human designed systems. If you posit that the Wright brother's flyer is the ancestor of a 747 jet, I suppose you could be granted that liberty and apply it also to biology. I'm not sure that is what you mean by ancestry in the case of biology.
My contention is of course that all the complexity we see in biological systems was carefully and deliberately designed, but that premise, just like the evolutionary one cannot be tested by experiments we can do or at least have done until now. That is why evolution, creationism, ID and other theories of origins are not true science, as say physics, geology, cosmology, biology and other "hard" sciences where the fundamental theories involved can be repeatedly tested experimentally.
....And which scientific theories do you think have ever been "proved"...
-> The theories of electrodynamics, which have resulted in all the wonderful gadgets, such as the computer you are now reading this on. -> The theory of nuclear fission, which has resulted in weapons that could destroy mankind. -> The theories behind the chemical reactions of both life and non-life, that make possible the modern materials all around you. -> Einstein theories and quantum theories have been experimentally verified. I'm sure, anybody can come up with a long list of others.
(......All these endeavours make testable, falsifiable predictions and are therefore science by any reasonable definition......)
Some on your list have been tested by experiments. Cosmology operates along well tested principles of physics. The thermonuclear reactions in stars have been reproduced in the lab and by bombs. The same laws of gravity that determine how rocks fall, also apply to stars, planets and galaxies. Geological processes can be duplicated in the lab and in the field. Diamonds, coal, erosion, wave action and other features of geology have been experimentally proven.
Evolutionary biology has never been tested by experiments, to be either true or false. Nobody has ever taken two distinct life forms and made a third one according to the predictions of this conjecture. Nobody has ever demonstrated by experiment the creation of life from the non-living elements. To the extent that any of the processes of a given theory have been experimentally verified, to that extent, these theories qualify as science.
....They just happened to pick the exact same number of hair follicles....
Living things are much more diverse than manmade devices, but nevertheless have many common design features. The underlying chemistry of life with its DNA codes is a tried and true design, just as 4 wheels are in an automobile. The very nature of bio-identification, such as fingerprints, iris scans and the blood vessels in the palm of your hands depend on the uniqueness of each individual. The structure of hemoglobin is similar in all mammals. Physiologically, you (and I) are much more similar in many ways to a pig than any ape. Similarities of design in no way proves descent. Living things are both similar in many ways, yet all individually different.
My main contention is that true science requires EXPERIMENTATION to prove a theory. Before experimental science was born, philosophers had all sorts of theories about the world we live in. Most of them were disproved by experiments, often at great cost, to the early brave souls who went against the prevailing wisdom.
What other widely held theories of science are there, besides evolution and ID and other origin conjectures are there, that do not have even ONE experiment to prove their main assertions? A theory that cannot be ultimately be proved in the laboratory is only a belief system. I happen to BELIEVE in a transcendent Creator God as the originator of all things. You happen to believe something else. However, unlike REAL science, neither your belief concerning origins nor mine has been proved true or false by countless experiments, such as is the case in true science. Therefore, both your and my beliefs should be discussed in a philosophy or religion class, but not as science.
Combine the elements of two kinds of living creatures to form a third, previously unknown kind according to your theory and then come back when you have the result. I'm sure you'd win the Nobel Prize and be very rich and famous.
....If you are not an ape, descended from other apes, then what are ape molars doing in your mouth?....
Yes and my Honda descended from a Ford some time ago. If you are a car, how come you have four wheels, steering mechanism and some kind of engine etc? Common characteristics in no way proves descent. If any thing this tends to show that whoever DESIGNED the ape used some similar components for you and me to accomplish the task of chewing food. Human designers do that all the time -- re-use operational components for similar purposes.
....No amount of "experimenting" will "prove" any explanation in science. Absolutely nothing in science is ever proven......
Experimentation by definition IS science. If a theory cannot be tested by experiment, it is a philosophy. Until a few centuries ago, philosophers argued back and forth about beliefs. After that, real science, based on experiments came to be, PROVED over and over again which beliefs were true. Philosophers and religious teachers speculate and argue, but Scientists try to discover TRUTH about the world we live in. That can only be done by carefully designed, multiple experiments that show which ideas predict what the results these might show in their outcomes. If a particular set of conditions always results in a consistent outcome, that is generally accepted as PROOF that the theory behind the experiment is correct. We KNOW the speed of light is about 3^10^8 meters per second, because it has been measured numerous times by many real scientists.
Evolution, ID or other theories of origins have NO such multiple experimental results to back up their philosophical claims and therefore by DEFINITION are not science. Therefore, NONE of them should be misrepresented as science, since there is no repeatable experimentation to PROVE any one of them is right.
.....Evolution could have been refuted........Evolution could have been refuted....
Neither evolution, creationism or ID have been proved or refuted by repeatable EXPERIMENTS, such as are done in other branches of science. All of them are philosophies, not science. You may be more comfortable with one of these, but NONE of them are supported and tested in the LABORATORY, such as other real sciences are. REAL science is repeatable. Einstein's theories seemed far out when first put forth, but have been EXPERIMENTALLY verified countless times. The esoteric Quantum theory STILL doesn't make sense to most people, but has been shown to be true by multiple experiments by many REAL scientists in real laboratories. Evolution, creationism or ID will become real science on the day their various beliefs are demonstrated by repeatable experiments.
I'm not saying evolution is true or false. It's just not science, but philosophy. You can hold whatever philosophical or religious position you wish, just don't call any of these science. Science is done ONLY by experiments to reveal TRUTH. Evolution, ID, creationism are conjectures to which varying numbers of people subscribe. Just because some of these people who believe a particular conjecture are labeled "scientists", does not make them so.
There are trees that are much older than that. Ancient Redwood trees, Olive trees from the time of Christ, Bristlecone Pines and maybe others. There are also ice cores that can be found, much older than that. I think that 1200 AD cutoff was done to show (lie) by statistics a desired result.
Like a previous poster said, There will be winners and losers in the coming climate change and right now it is impossible to predict for sure where and who they will be. I'd bet though that the frozen wastes of northern Canada and Russia will see of time of boom.
There are trees that are much older than that. Ancient Redwood trees, Olive trees from the time of Christ, Bristlecone Pines and maybe others. There are also ice cores that can be found, much older than that. I think that 1200 AD cutoff was done to show (lie) by statistics a desired result.
Like a previous poster said, There will be winners and losers in the coming climate change and right now it is impossible to predict for sure where and who they will be. I'd bet though that the frozen wastes of northern Canada and Russia will see a time of boom.
......for instance it's known that some bacteria actively mutate their DNA in response to extreme environmental stress....
Even when they do, they are basically still the same bacteria. An e-coli or coccus may adapt to stress, but they still remain one or the other even though both have adapted to survive. No distinct new type of bacteria is created that might have some of the best traits of either.
......"Scientists debate the details of how evolution happens."......
True science involves experimentation thereby exploring the underlying laws of nature. Until a few hundred years or so ago, scientific philosophers debated about how fast light went, how things fall, the nature and position of the planets alongside with how many Angels could dance on the head of a pin etc. Then a few daring individuals did experiments that shattered, to the great chagrin and fierce resistance of these "scientists", many of the then held "scientific" ideas. The laws of electricity, light, biological reproduction of cells and many more were determined by repeatable, consistent experiments. Einstein's and quantum theories seemed implausible at the time they were first proposed, but have since been verified by countless experiments.
Evolution and ID are philosophical or religious notions of how things came to be, but are not science, since neither have been nor can be demonstrated or refuted by experiment. Experiments or observations of the great adaptability of organisms do not demonstrate true Darwinian evolution as commonly preached in our classrooms today. The whole concept of man having crawled out of the primal ooze is a figment of scientific philosophers imagination. No experiment has EVER been done to demonstrate even ONE of the many steps along the way.
Only an experiment taking two distinct creatures and making out of them and entirely new, very different third would demonstrate true evolution. Take an amoeba and a paramecium, both "simple" single celled and make a new single celled or multi-celled organism that never existed before. Genetic science has shown that there are certain group barriers that prevent coming up with new, viable, reproducing life forms.
Even the origin of life itself cannot be shown experimentally. Nobody has ever taken any mixture of elements, none of which have ever been part of something alive, and created any life. Using chemicals that had been part of a living organism does not make life from non-life. Even making a self sustaining living cell out of a mixture of amino acids have never been done in a lab.
If any of the above experiments were successful, it would only show that careful planning, ie, intelligence are required, not some nebulous mechanisms that took place over eons of time according to pure chance.
Darwinian evolution and ID are not based on science which requires EXPERIMENTS, but philosophies based on faith and as such should BOTH be taught in religion or philosophy classes and not pawned off as "science".
They or any corporation will adhere to this motto only as long as it holds no detriment to their bottom line.
If you want to keep something truly secret, don't entrust it to a computer other than the one between your ears. So far at least, nobody has devised a "readout" of that one. If you want to communicate this secret, whisper it into someone's ear while flushing the toilet in a bathroom.
....while China keeps giving good revenue, they will continue.....
Is there anybody here at/. in doubt that *any* corporation will NOT sacrifice principle at the altar of profit? Corporations, even ones the spout "do no evil" will never, ever, in any way, shape or form protect an individual's rights, if that means even one cent less money in the cash register. Why is everybody so outraged at Yahoo about this? Obeying somebody's "law" is just a convenient excuse.
.....You may not think predictions about bacteria, moths, or fruit flies are very interesting, but since these (and other similar ones) are the only creatures with short enough lifetimes that we might be able to expect some kind of really noticeable evolution to occur, I'm afraid you'll have to deal with it......
A lot of phenomena of living things are all shoved together under the moniker "evolution". All the things that you and others have described fall under the category of adaptation to the environment. Moths and bacteria and many other living things can, do, and must adapt to their environment. A resistant bacteria or a darker/lighter moth are still such respectively and never "evolve" into an entirely different kind of creature. Breeding has produced who knows how many different kinds of dogs, cats, horses or even bacteria. They all however remain dogs, cats, horses etc. and do not become anything other than those. A Dachshund is very different than a great Dane, yet both are still dogs and never will be anything other than that.
A non-adpatation experiment, true evolution from one group to an entirely different group, would be a valid experiment, outside of the adaptation possibility. Start wil a culture of some strain of e-coli and "evolve" that into some kind of streptococcous would be true evolution. Start with an amoeba and "evolve" it be any means whatsoever into a paramecium would be. Mendel and others have shown that there are certain genetic borders that cannot be crossed.
(......Scientists have devised simple forms of RNA which replicate themselves in a nutrient bath.....)
Making a special nutrient bath composed of compounds that were once part of a living organism and then having some of those pieces come back together is not "making life". You must make a bath of chemicals from constituents, NONE of which were ever part of any living organism before. Anyone who does that would have demonstrated EXPERIMENTALLY how life (even a simple subcomponent like RNA) can be made from totally non-living matter.
Evolutionists have NEVER even made a single experiment that demonstrates evolution as Darwin or his present day believers conjecture it may have happened. Where are all the intervening transitions from one group to another? There are distinct, fully formed groups found in the fossil record, but never any of the thousands of transition creatures that ought to be there if the Darwinian evolution of the species were correct.
Before modern EXPERIMENTAL science, there were philosophers who speculated on how things worked. Only in the last few hundred years science changed from philosphical conjectures to repeatable experiments. Evolution is a throwback to the argumants of philosophers, all of them believing in the religion of atheism, rather than true experimental science.
.....If you're suggesting that because the theory of evolution hasn't explained everything means that it's yet to be proved, then you're wrong......
The orginal article was about testing string theory predictions EXPERIMENTALLY, thus determining if I set up condtions A, then result B will follow. If result B does happen, then the theory is on the right track and further tests can be done to refine the theory. If not then the theory gets thrown out or modified and new experiments done to test the refined version.
That's what happened with Einstein's theory of relativity. A TRUE theory of science is, that if I set up conditions A in an experiment, then result B should be observed. Many REPEATABLE, consistent experiments like this have been done with Einstein's theory, but what similar experiments have been done to show that the theory of evolution is an accurate predictor of the future? Nobbody has made evolution happen in the laboratory. Nobody has been able to take non-living chemicals and make even the simplest living thing out of them, thus PREDICTING the future through experiment. Nobody has ever taken a number of simple cells as building blocks and contructed a simple self sustaining multicellular organism -- kind of like biological lego blocks. Evolution is a conjecture, postulating immense eons of time, of how things may have come to be through the distant past, but has not in any way shape or form been experimentally tested in a lab, such as many other theories of science. Even the so called "missing links" from the past have never been found, because the are just that -- "missing" --ie. they never existed.
Real science requires EXPERIMENTS that can be done by anyone with the right tools and that will ALWAYS give results consistent with the theory behind the experiment. When scientists can devise a consistent, repeatable experiment that shows how life can come from non-life, then evolution rises to a falsifyable, experimentally verified theory. Until then it is a conjecture, believed by faith, of how things may have happened in the past, but not a predictor of the future.
....Since a theory which doesn't make predictions is, by definition, not falsifiable, string theory would therefore qualify as a non-falsifiable theory.......
In that case, this also fits the theory of evolution. Evolution attempts to explain the past, but what predictions does it make of the future than could be checked out by experiment? I'm not taking about breeding or adaptation here, but the jumps from simple organisms to more complex. Even more so, why has nobody yet done by diligent effort what supposedly happened by accident--- the creation of life from non-life? How about putting one or two, or even a hundred non-life derived chemicals together and making a simple cell or even a virus? Evolution makes no predictions on how this might be done.
.... seriously lower public confidence in the platform; both with users and developers.....
Other than those here on/. and possibly software developers, who CARES what is in the box? Certainly not the ordinary Joe User, who just wants the computer to do a job. Maybe a computer with several different kinds of chips, for different jobs could be offered at various price levels. Somone who never plays games or videos can use a much less powerful processor, which can save money, power or both. Since Apple is the only mass market computer maker who does both the hardware and the software, they could offer a bottom line single processor Intel based and a top of the line system with several of both kinds of chips, each doing what it does best. The user never sees any of this. Just a computer that runs rings around anything else on the market in certain kinds of tasks. Why should it be impossible or even very difficult to build a computer that can transparently run *any* software that has ever been written? As chips get cheaper and more powerful, there may be systems with a few dozen or more processing units of various types and the OS decides which combination of them will do the best job. It would be sort of like the boss of a work crew on a building project who decides what part of the overall project to assign to each worker, based on each worker's abilities. The system can even be robust enough, so if any of the worker processors "calls in sick", the impact on the project is minimal. As the hardware performance increases, there comes a point at which the hardware itself becomes a very small part of the whole computer SYSTEM equation. Repeat ten times: " It's the software that makes a computer do what it does!"
Slashdot Mirror
.....Demonstrating this "in the lab" wouldn't "prove" that such an event occured millions or billions of years ago anyway.....
No it wouldn't it prove it occurred whenever, but it would prove that it is possible at all. There is no need to prove or disprove all of the evolutionary theory, only the allegation that simple things become more complex as time goes on. Just do ONE experiment to demonstrate that this is in fact true.
(.....Thus far no observations that contradict the theory have been observed.....)
The well established laws of entropy totally contradict evolution's central dogma -- namely the progression from the simple toward the complex. Complex systems break down into simpler pieces, but nothing simple ever becomes more complex without the input of energy and INFORMATION.
(....true scientific theories are required to make predictions....)
Evolution has so far failed in its central prediction that complex systems arise from simple ones. It is therefore an invalid theory in its very foundation.
(.....Theories CANNOT be proven....)
Sure they can and are being proven all the time. All our modern technology rests on what were once untested theories. The computer you are reading this on proves many of these. The fundamental laws by which it operates were once untested, unproven theories. Countless experiments were done and refined until we learned how electricity works. So far at least, the laws of electricity appear pretty solid.
....in how many generations? And why use amoebas....
Use as many generations as you can. Use *any* single or multi-celled one life form. Prove by any experiment whatever, the main evolutionary dogma of the complex arising from the simple. Do only ONE such experiment and you will have validated evolution's guiding principle.
This dogma is in direct opposition to the established fact of entropy pushing all things from the complex toward the simple. We get older and wear out. Everything breaks down from order to disorder as time goes forward.
My Honda has wheels at the four corners, therefore it descended from my old Ford which has them, which came from my even older Volkswagen, which also, strangely, has exactly four, not three or six. They also all have steering wheels and other components common to cars. All airplanes also have wings and therefore descended from the Wright bothers flyer.
...... We don't have a time machine......
In other sciences we don't have perfect knowledge, yet the claims of physics, cosmology and chemistry can be tested reliably today. You don't need a time machine to determine if quantum theory is valid. Countless experiment prove, or in some instances disprove various theories in these "hard" sciences. In biology also, experiments can and are being done to learn the behavior of extremely complex systems. The central tenet of evolution is that the simple became more complex as time went on. This part of the theory is against the demonstrated reality of the second law of thermodynamics which says exactly the opposite. Complex systems break down into simpler components and all you have to look into the mirror to see that happening to you. To counteract entropy requires the input of energy, but also INFORMATION.
A complex creature contains vastly more information than a simple one. Even a "simple cell" contains immense amounts of information that is passed to future generations. Nobody has ever done an experiment adding information to a simpler living thing and thereby made a more complex one.
If I had the opportunity to choose a career today, I would choose biology, rather than electronics as I did. Even so, the similarity between complex living systems and complex manmade ones is amazing. If you find a watch on the beach, you can study how it works today, but you can learn nothing of its origin. Because you know watches are of human origin you also know it was designed. You can and should indeed enjoy the study the amazing intricacies of living systems without defending non-proven theories of how they came to be that way. Find out how things work TODAY and use your knowledge to help others and, if that is your goal, make some good money besides. Learn about the programming of the intricate DNA-RNA life codes and learn to write some new programs that may help alleviate human disease and suffering.
Explore the mystery how the brain gives rise to this thing we call mind and consciousness. There is evidence that "mind" may not be limited to the organ of the brain. From electronics I know that no matter how intimately you know the chips and circuits of a computer, you learn NOTHING about the real characteristics thereof until you energize it and load in some software, which in itself is a pure product of mind -- that of the programmer. I suspect that ultimately this is true of humans also. Software per se isn't subject to the same physical laws that hardware is. The situation of our software, the mind may be similar. It is indeed exciting to be a biologist!
......your nonsensical demand that _historical events_ be reproduced in the lab.....
I've never said historical events need be shown experimentally. What must be shown is that fundamental claims of any theory must be proven by experiment.
Geology is a hard science, the claims of which can be shown by repeatable experiments. Wave action, erosion, layering of sediments and many other geologic theories all have been experimentally proven. We can see geology in action in the volcanoes of Hawaii and other places and measure the reflection and refraction of seismic waves throughout the interior of our planet.
The movement from the very simple to complex is contrary to the laws of entropy (second law of thermodynamics) and evolution has never demonstrated how its claims get around this. The fruit fly (drosophila) experiments have not shown any increase, but often a decrease in viability and functionality of these creatures. What is labeled species is not always a genetic or complexity border. The whole progression from "simple" single celled creatures to the complex biological organization of humans and the incredibly complex biochemical systems is a conjecture, NO step of which has ever been duplicated by experiment. If anyone would have succeeded in creating a complex creature, say like a hydra from a collection of cells, that would have been big news that evolutionists would endlessly trumpet and it would of course prove the central tenet of the evolution theory. Evolution preaches that incredible things have occurred over eons of time, yet nobody has ever duplicated even the simplest transformations and increases of complexity by all the best efforts of the evolutionary believers.
It doesn't really matter how creatures reproduce, sexually or by simple division. Make a totally new kind of bacteria, yeast, fungus, --anything -- out of what exists already. I don't have to know in detail all the nuances of evolutionary dogma, but drosophila experiments have not produced any new, kinds of insects of greater or equal complexity. They are still what they always were, even if you apply a new "species" label to them. Their essential characteristics have remained unchanged, not matter what attempts have been made to come up with a new, never been here before creature. There are many distinct kinds of flies, mosquitoes, fleas, ants, many kinds of rodents, reptiles, birds, but they are and have always been as part of uncross-able groupings, no matter what label might be applied to any particular group.
Breeding and adaptation experiments do not prove the progression from simple to complex. Is a Dachshund more or less complex than a Poodle? Is a lighter moth more complex than a darker one or a antibiotic resistant bacteria more complex?
There is lots of lateral transfer of information within nature and from nature to human designs. The optical and auditory structures, hemoglobin, nerve cells and so forth, all show consistent practical design across diverse groups, all based on the underlying laws of physics and chemistry. The lift of the wings of a 747 is occasioned by the same aerodynamic principles that kept the Wright brother's plane in the air and is also used by countless flying creatures. The sonar echolocation systems used by submarines works by the same principles that the designer of dolphins and bats invented long before. Cameras have the same basic structure and major components that human and other mammalian eyes have. These thing show, although not conclusively prove by experiment, that a common design is more likely than the random happenstance of evolution.
.....Uh, two distinct life forms producing a third one?....
OK I should have said two DIFFERENT life forms, or take two or more identical single celled creatures such as say an amoeba, and make an entirely NEW, complex multicellular, viable organism. Make a bird out of two or more reptiles, since evolution claims that birds descended from reptiles. Do an experiment showing evolution of the complex from the simple.
......as a means of disputing evolution .....
I am not trying to dispute evolution per se, nor any of the other theories of origins, especially of life. My point is that none of the theories of origins has been proved by repeatable experiments, such as is done in other hard sciences. True scientific theories eventually require experiments to prove or disprove their validity. Evolution from simple to complex life forms has never been demonstrated in the lab. The designer put forth by the ID camp has not been put in a test tube either.
.....Creationism and ID states that the universe is only several thousand years old......
I was not talking about the supposed ages espoused by one or other conjecture, only that none of them have been proven in any experiments and are therefore only beliefs.
One of, if not THE central claim of evolution is that the more complex life-forms evolved from the simpler ones.
Evolutionists claim for example, that birds evolved from reptiles. A valid experimental proof of this idea would be to make some kind of bird from two reptiles. That however is admittedly too complex for our present knowledge of biology. A simpler experiment with two very different single celled creatures would certainly also prove the possibility of making a more complex creature from one or more simple ones. Even taking a relatively small collection of the same type of cells, say amoebas and fashioning a new self reproducing organism from them would certainly prove that this claim of evolution is a fact. The claim that the complex arises from the simple has never been tested by experiment. The laws of entropy show that complex systems, left to themselves, degenerate into increasingly simpler pieces. The mess in your house doesn't clean itself up by without the input of energy and information.
My previous post mentioning fruit flies is another test.
.....providing insight as to how species may have arisen....
The operative phrase "may have arises" is precisely where the problem lies. We don't KNOW how it happened and know one has ever MADE it happen to prove the conjecture. There is no reason why such an experiment to demonstrate how to to transmute into a E. coli to into a Mycobacterium has to be done in one step. Do it in as many steps as you can think of, one at a time. Just follow in the lab the same procedures you think evolution took and duplicate that. Using the time excuse doesn't work, since you are doing a directed, carefully planned series of experiments with many generations of bacteria. Evolutions was supposedly done by processes other than the application of intelligence.
One of, if not THE central claim of evolution is that the more complex life-forms evolved from the simpler ones. Experimentally prove how a simpler creature or set of creatures can be made into a totally new, more complex one. Scientists have been experimenting with millions of generations of fruit flies, subjecting them to all sorts of mutation inducing factors and other genetic manipulations. They have succeeded in making some rather grotesque fruit flies this way, but they are still, all without a single exception, fruit flies.
There are certain genetic boundaries that have never been crossed. What has been called species is not necessarily such a grouping boundary.
Living things are very adaptable and in that sense, "survival of the fittest" is certainly valid. However, the urge to survive by adapting to stress in no way proves the claim of evolution from the simple to the complex.
.....What science requires is that we be able to TEST any claim made.....
One of, if not THE central claim of evolution is that the more complex life-forms evolved from the simpler ones. Taking two creatures from the same grouping of complexity and making a hybrid of similar complexity does NOT prove that central tenet. A donkey and a horse are both about equally complex and I suspect so are the dolphin and the killer whale example. Evolutionists claim for example, that birds evolved from reptiles. A valid experimental proof of this idea would be to make some kind of bird from two reptiles. That however is admittedly too complex for our present knowledge of biology.
A simpler experiment with two very different single celled creatures would certainly also prove the possibility of making a more complex creature from one or more simple ones. Even taking a relatively small collection of the same type of cells, say amoebas and fashioning a new self reproducing organism from them would certainly prove that this claim of evolution is a fact. The claim that the complex arises from the simple has never been tested by experiment.
Scientists have been experimenting with millions of generations of fruit flies, subjecting them to all sorts of mutation inducing factors and other genetic manipulations. They have succeeded in making some rather grotesque fruit flies this way, but they are still, all without a single exception, fruit flies.
Even IF such experiments succeeded in demonstrating that evolution from the simple to the complex is a proven fact, it would still leave open how this experiment was done by "nature" without the same sort of intelligent input and arrangements of the conditions under which the experiment was done.
Why should common factors of design in biological systems prove ancestry any more than it does in human designed systems. If you posit that the Wright brother's flyer is the ancestor of a 747 jet, I suppose you could be granted that liberty and apply it also to biology. I'm not sure that is what you mean by ancestry in the case of biology.
My contention is of course that all the complexity we see in biological systems was carefully and deliberately designed, but that premise, just like the evolutionary one cannot be tested by experiments we can do or at least have done until now. That is why evolution, creationism, ID and other theories of origins are not true science, as say physics, geology, cosmology, biology and other "hard" sciences where the fundamental theories involved can be repeatedly tested experimentally.
....And which scientific theories do you think have ever been "proved"...
-> The theories of electrodynamics, which have resulted in all the wonderful gadgets, such as the computer you are now reading this on. -> The theory of nuclear fission, which has resulted in weapons that could destroy mankind.
-> The theories behind the chemical reactions of both life and non-life, that make possible the modern materials all around you.
-> Einstein theories and quantum theories have been experimentally verified. I'm sure, anybody can come up with a long list of others.
(......All these endeavours make testable, falsifiable predictions and are therefore science by any reasonable definition......)
Some on your list have been tested by experiments. Cosmology operates along well tested principles of physics. The thermonuclear reactions in stars have been reproduced in the lab and by bombs. The same laws of gravity that determine how rocks fall, also apply to stars, planets and galaxies. Geological processes can be duplicated in the lab and in the field. Diamonds, coal, erosion, wave action and other features of geology have been experimentally proven.
Evolutionary biology has never been tested by experiments, to be either true or false. Nobody has ever taken two distinct life forms and made a third one according to the predictions of this conjecture. Nobody has ever demonstrated by experiment the creation of life from the non-living elements. To the extent that any of the processes of a given theory have been experimentally verified, to that extent, these theories qualify as science.
....They just happened to pick the exact same number of hair follicles....
Living things are much more diverse than manmade devices, but nevertheless have many common design features. The underlying chemistry of life with its DNA codes is a tried and true design, just as 4 wheels are in an automobile. The very nature of bio-identification, such as fingerprints, iris scans and the blood vessels in the palm of your hands depend on the uniqueness of each individual. The structure of hemoglobin is similar in all mammals. Physiologically, you (and I) are much more similar in many ways to a pig than any ape. Similarities of design in no way proves descent. Living things are both similar in many ways, yet all individually different.
My main contention is that true science requires EXPERIMENTATION to prove a theory. Before experimental science was born, philosophers had all sorts of theories about the world we live in. Most of them were disproved by experiments, often at great cost, to the early brave souls who went against the prevailing wisdom.
What other widely held theories of science are there, besides evolution and ID and other origin conjectures are there, that do not have even ONE experiment to prove their main assertions? A theory that cannot be ultimately be proved in the laboratory is only a belief system. I happen to BELIEVE in a transcendent Creator God as the originator of all things. You happen to believe something else. However, unlike REAL science, neither your belief concerning origins nor mine has been proved true or false by countless experiments, such as is the case in true science. Therefore, both your and my beliefs should be discussed in a philosophy or religion class, but not as science.
Combine the elements of two kinds of living creatures to form a third, previously unknown kind according to your theory and then come back when you have the result. I'm sure you'd win the Nobel Prize and be very rich and famous.
....If you are not an ape, descended from other apes, then what are ape molars doing in your mouth?....
Yes and my Honda descended from a Ford some time ago. If you are a car, how come you have four wheels, steering mechanism and some kind of engine etc? Common characteristics in no way proves descent. If any thing this tends to show that whoever DESIGNED the ape used some similar components for you and me to accomplish the task of chewing food. Human designers do that all the time -- re-use operational components for similar purposes.
....No amount of "experimenting" will "prove" any explanation in science. Absolutely nothing in science is ever proven......
Experimentation by definition IS science. If a theory cannot be tested by experiment, it is a philosophy. Until a few centuries ago, philosophers argued back and forth about beliefs. After that, real science, based on experiments came to be, PROVED over and over again which beliefs were true. Philosophers and religious teachers speculate and argue, but Scientists try to discover TRUTH about the world we live in. That can only be done by carefully designed, multiple experiments that show which ideas predict what the results these might show in their outcomes. If a particular set of conditions always results in a consistent outcome, that is generally accepted as PROOF that the theory behind the experiment is correct. We KNOW the speed of light is about 3^10^8 meters per second, because it has been measured numerous times by many real scientists.
Evolution, ID or other theories of origins have NO such multiple experimental results to back up their philosophical claims and therefore by DEFINITION are not science. Therefore, NONE of them should be misrepresented as science, since there is no repeatable experimentation to PROVE any one of them is right.
.....Evolution could have been refuted.... ....Evolution could have been refuted....
Neither evolution, creationism or ID have been proved or refuted by repeatable EXPERIMENTS, such as are done in other branches of science. All of them are philosophies, not science. You may be more comfortable with one of these, but NONE of them are supported and tested in the LABORATORY, such as other real sciences are. REAL science is repeatable. Einstein's theories seemed far out when first put forth, but have been EXPERIMENTALLY verified countless times. The esoteric Quantum theory STILL doesn't make sense to most people, but has been shown to be true by multiple experiments by many REAL scientists in real laboratories. Evolution, creationism or ID will become real science on the day their various beliefs are demonstrated by repeatable experiments.
I'm not saying evolution is true or false. It's just not science, but philosophy. You can hold whatever philosophical or religious position you wish, just don't call any of these science. Science is done ONLY by experiments to reveal TRUTH. Evolution, ID, creationism are conjectures to which varying numbers of people subscribe. Just because some of these people who believe a particular conjecture are labeled "scientists", does not make them so.
......Reliable records from trees.....
There are trees that are much older than that. Ancient Redwood trees, Olive trees from the time of Christ, Bristlecone Pines and maybe others. There are also ice cores that can be found, much older than that. I think that 1200 AD cutoff was done to show (lie) by statistics a desired result.
Like a previous poster said, There will be winners and losers in the coming climate change and right now it is impossible to predict for sure where and who they will be. I'd bet though that the frozen wastes of northern Canada and Russia will see of time of boom.
......Reliable records from trees.....
There are trees that are much older than that. Ancient Redwood trees, Olive trees from the time of Christ, Bristlecone Pines and maybe others. There are also ice cores that can be found, much older than that. I think that 1200 AD cutoff was done to show (lie) by statistics a desired result.
Like a previous poster said, There will be winners and losers in the coming climate change and right now it is impossible to predict for sure where and who they will be. I'd bet though that the frozen wastes of northern Canada and Russia will see a time of boom.
......for instance it's known that some bacteria actively mutate their DNA in response to extreme environmental stress....
Even when they do, they are basically still the same bacteria. An e-coli or coccus may adapt to stress, but they still remain one or the other even though both have adapted to survive. No distinct new type of bacteria is created that might have some of the best traits of either.
......Perhaps someone who isn't still drunk from last night can better explain where I'm coming from.....
There are basically two choices, but both are BELIEFS you can choose from.
One is: The path of your origins is "out of the goo by way of the zoo to you".
The other is: Your ancestors were put here by a transcendent Creator God who has a purpose for your existence.
Neither of the above can be "proved", but you may believe one or the other. Many, if not most people still believe the latter is more satisfying.
......"Scientists debate the details of how evolution happens." ......
True science involves experimentation thereby exploring the underlying laws of nature. Until a few hundred years or so ago, scientific philosophers debated about how fast light went, how things fall, the nature and position of the planets alongside with how many Angels could dance on the head of a pin etc. Then a few daring individuals did experiments that shattered, to the great chagrin and fierce resistance of these "scientists", many of the then held "scientific" ideas. The laws of electricity, light, biological reproduction of cells and many more were determined by repeatable, consistent experiments. Einstein's and quantum theories seemed implausible at the time they were first proposed, but have since been verified by countless experiments.
Evolution and ID are philosophical or religious notions of how things came to be, but are not science, since neither have been nor can be demonstrated or refuted by experiment. Experiments or observations of the great adaptability of organisms do not demonstrate true Darwinian evolution as commonly preached in our classrooms today. The whole concept of man having crawled out of the primal ooze is a figment of scientific philosophers imagination. No experiment has EVER been done to demonstrate even ONE of the many steps along the way.
Only an experiment taking two distinct creatures and making out of them and entirely new, very different third would demonstrate true evolution. Take an amoeba and a paramecium, both "simple" single celled and make a new single celled or multi-celled organism that never existed before. Genetic science has shown that there are certain group barriers that prevent coming up with new, viable, reproducing life forms.
Even the origin of life itself cannot be shown experimentally. Nobody has ever taken any mixture of elements, none of which have ever been part of something alive, and created any life. Using chemicals that had been part of a living organism does not make life from non-life. Even making a self sustaining living cell out of a mixture of amino acids have never been done in a lab.
If any of the above experiments were successful, it would only show that careful planning, ie, intelligence are required, not some nebulous mechanisms that took place over eons of time according to pure chance.
Darwinian evolution and ID are not based on science which requires EXPERIMENTS, but philosophies based on faith and as such should BOTH be taught in religion or philosophy classes and not pawned off as "science".
....corporate motto like "don't be evil"......
They or any corporation will adhere to this motto only as long as it holds no detriment to their bottom line.
If you want to keep something truly secret, don't entrust it to a computer other than the one between your ears. So far at least, nobody has devised a "readout" of that one. If you want to communicate this secret, whisper it into someone's ear while flushing the toilet in a bathroom.
....while China keeps giving good revenue, they will continue.....
/. in doubt that *any* corporation will NOT sacrifice principle at the altar of profit? Corporations, even ones the spout "do no evil" will never, ever, in any way, shape or form protect an individual's rights, if that means even one cent less money in the cash register. Why is everybody so outraged at Yahoo about this? Obeying somebody's "law" is just a convenient excuse.
Is there anybody here at
.....You may not think predictions about bacteria, moths, or fruit flies are very interesting, but since these (and other similar ones) are the only creatures with short enough lifetimes that we might be able to expect some kind of really noticeable evolution to occur, I'm afraid you'll have to deal with it......
A lot of phenomena of living things are all shoved together under the moniker "evolution". All the things that you and others have described fall under the category of adaptation to the environment. Moths and bacteria and many other living things can, do, and must adapt to their environment. A resistant bacteria or a darker/lighter moth are still such respectively and never "evolve" into an entirely different kind of creature. Breeding has produced who knows how many different kinds of dogs, cats, horses or even bacteria. They all however remain dogs, cats, horses etc. and do not become anything other than those. A Dachshund is very different than a great Dane, yet both are still dogs and never will be anything other than that.
A non-adpatation experiment, true evolution from one group to an entirely different group, would be a valid experiment, outside of the adaptation possibility. Start wil a culture of some strain of e-coli and "evolve" that into some kind of streptococcous would be true evolution. Start with an amoeba and "evolve" it be any means whatsoever into a paramecium would be. Mendel and others have shown that there are certain genetic borders that cannot be crossed.
(......Scientists have devised simple forms of RNA which replicate themselves in a nutrient bath.....)
Making a special nutrient bath composed of compounds that were once part of a living organism and then having some of those pieces come back together is not "making life". You must make a bath of chemicals from constituents, NONE of which were ever part of any living organism before. Anyone who does that would have demonstrated EXPERIMENTALLY how life (even a simple subcomponent like RNA) can be made from totally non-living matter.
Evolutionists have NEVER even made a single experiment that demonstrates evolution as Darwin or his present day believers conjecture it may have happened. Where are all the intervening transitions from one group to another? There are distinct, fully formed groups found in the fossil record, but never any of the thousands of transition creatures that ought to be there if the Darwinian evolution of the species were correct.
Before modern EXPERIMENTAL science, there were philosophers who speculated on how things worked. Only in the last few hundred years science changed from philosphical conjectures to repeatable experiments. Evolution is a throwback to the argumants of philosophers, all of them believing in the religion of atheism, rather than true experimental science.
.....If you're suggesting that because the theory of evolution hasn't explained everything means that it's yet to be proved, then you're wrong......
The orginal article was about testing string theory predictions EXPERIMENTALLY, thus determining if I set up condtions A, then result B will follow. If result B does happen, then the theory is on the right track and further tests can be done to refine the theory. If not then the theory gets thrown out or modified and new experiments done to test the refined version.
That's what happened with Einstein's theory of relativity. A TRUE theory of science is, that if I set up conditions A in an experiment, then result B should be observed. Many REPEATABLE, consistent experiments like this have been done with Einstein's theory, but what similar experiments have been done to show that the theory of evolution is an accurate predictor of the future? Nobbody has made evolution happen in the laboratory. Nobody has been able to take non-living chemicals and make even the simplest living thing out of them, thus PREDICTING the future through experiment. Nobody has ever taken a number of simple cells as building blocks and contructed a simple self sustaining multicellular organism -- kind of like biological lego blocks. Evolution is a conjecture, postulating immense eons of time, of how things may have come to be through the distant past, but has not in any way shape or form been experimentally tested in a lab, such as many other theories of science. Even the so called "missing links" from the past have never been found, because the are just that -- "missing" --ie. they never existed.
Real science requires EXPERIMENTS that can be done by anyone with the right tools and that will ALWAYS give results consistent with the theory behind the experiment. When scientists can devise a consistent, repeatable experiment that shows how life can come from non-life, then evolution rises to a falsifyable, experimentally verified theory. Until then it is a conjecture, believed by faith, of how things may have happened in the past, but not a predictor of the future.
....Since a theory which doesn't make predictions is, by definition, not falsifiable, string theory would therefore qualify as a non-falsifiable theory.......
In that case, this also fits the theory of evolution. Evolution attempts to explain the past, but what predictions does it make of the future than could be checked out by experiment? I'm not taking about breeding or adaptation here, but the jumps from simple organisms to more complex. Even more so, why has nobody yet done by diligent effort what supposedly happened by accident--- the creation of life from non-life? How about putting one or two, or even a hundred non-life derived chemicals together and making a simple cell or even a virus? Evolution makes no predictions on how this might be done.
.... seriously lower public confidence in the platform; both with users and developers.....
/. and possibly software developers, who CARES what is in the box? Certainly not the ordinary Joe User, who just wants the computer to do a job. Maybe a computer with several different kinds of chips, for different jobs could be offered at various price levels. Somone who never plays games or videos can use a much less powerful processor, which can save money, power or both. Since Apple is the only mass market computer maker who does both the hardware and the software, they could offer a bottom line single processor Intel based and a top of the line system with several of both kinds of chips, each doing what it does best. The user never sees any of this. Just a computer that runs rings around anything else on the market in certain kinds of tasks. Why should it be impossible or even very difficult to build a computer that can transparently run *any* software that has ever been written? As chips get cheaper and more powerful, there may be systems with a few dozen or more processing units of various types and the OS decides which combination of them will do the best job. It would be sort of like the boss of a work crew on a building project who decides what part of the overall project to assign to each worker, based on each worker's abilities. The system can even be robust enough, so if any of the worker processors "calls in sick", the impact on the project is minimal. As the hardware performance increases, there comes a point at which the hardware itself becomes a very small part of the whole computer SYSTEM equation. Repeat ten times: " It's the software that makes a computer do what it does!"
Other than those here on