The reason scientists are likely to have a better understanding of reality is that they understand what the scientific method is. Atmospheric scientists, geophysicists, climate modelers, etc. have had their work subjected to the rigors of peer-review. A scientist understands that this level of scrutiny is what improves the quality of knowledge (and brought civilization into the Enlightenment). While creationists like to tout Mike Behe and global warming deniers roll-out somebody with a Ph.D. as their "proof" that scientists disagree, most non-scientists have no clue how much critique goes into "scientific consensus." We hear that evolution is "just a theory" -never mind that a theory is a hypothesis that has survived rigorous challenge before attaining that status.
Climatologists are physical scientists. Thus the personal anecdote of the "tree hugger circuit" has no relevance. Sounds like your wife has a "tree-hugger" degree and probably works for the Park Service. I am a wildlife biologist, worked for years in tech. jobs in 4 states before finally landing a good job, and my colleagues have been a mix, some excellent scientists, some not.
There is a huge difference between having a degree in "conservation" and doing real science, which the majority of people seem to be ignorant of. The core of science is not the subject matter, or how many letters someone has after his/her name, but critical review of ideas by colleagues and the process of subjecting work to peer-review. This is often brutal, depending on how contentious the ideas are (and how penile your anonymous reviewers are). Though not perfect, the process of peer review is the best humanity has come up with for critical analysis of ideas. This is why it's laughable that any weight is afforded to the arguments of those who challenge scientific consensus without basing arguments in similar scientific rigor.
The helpful people at ESRI protect their monopoly in GIS software with a method of copy protection based on your system clock. If you ever set your Windows time >3 hrs. into the future (say, to test how an app. with unique calendaring will behave on New Year's Day), the GIS software checks three system files and finds a modification date in the future. Now your $2,500 software will not run because it's convinced that you're trying to fool an annual license (regardless of the fact that you have paid for and are trying to run a "permanent" software license). ESRI's solution? Reinstall Windows and everything else and never change your system date! Fortunately, after wasting half a day determining what the issue is, you can find an undocumented workaround to change the file mod. dates.
The key though is that you have to start with a Mac then configure a Windows PC to the same specs as Apple doesn't offer nearly as many configurations as PC OEMs.
Yes, that's often true -except for the current example which looks at a Mac configured like the PC.
Unlike the MacBook Pro, the MacBook allows HD replacement as a "user-serviceable" part (i.e., doesn't void the warranty; one thing that keeps me from buying a MBP -the hope of eventual better MB graphics being the other...). Now, not everyone is a geek and up for installing the OS, restoring from backups (?!) etc. -but you could buy a big, fast drive for the same $ -and this was posted on Slashdot...
You are providing a perfect example of why a little knowledge is dangerous, and have stated several fallacies. Again, your contention of 'genetic material' never created is rubbish. Copid gives a perfect example in his anagram (below). One way to get that is through polyploidy, which like most mutations is 99.9999% of the time detrimental, but nor always (look it up on Wiki, I'm not going to repeat it here). All natural selection needs is billions of individuals times trillions of generations. Again, it tell you, this statement is utter crap:
'You have to understand that no genetic information is ever added in any case of Microevolution. ' Back it up or shut up.
Also dogs are all the same species, and this quote, "in Microevolution, we are less perfect than our ancestors! " shows total ignorance. Unlike your faith-based approach, evolution does not lead to greater organization or perfection, it's f'n -RANDOM. What maddens logical, thinking people, is realizing I just wasted 10 minutes responding to an AC who will ignore all of the facts and continue to spout idiotic lies. Good day you worthless sack!
Not sure where you found anecdotes to support the definitions you've invented, but the Macro. v. Micro. gain v. loss is BS. I've never heard that in all my undergrad. or graduate studies in Biology and there are lots of counterexamples.
A standard introductory biology experiment is to stick your petri dish under a UV light for a bit (15 minutes) and proceed as above, though you can use traits such as antibiotic resistance or enzyme function that give quick, cheap assays without sequencing. The UV light is analogous to many naturally occurring mutagens (e.g., the sun's UV, other radiation, defensive compounds (venoms, plant 2ndary compounds) -and it will save you lots of time.
Yes, anti-evolutionists certainly claim a great dichotomy between micro-evolution & macro-evolution, but I do not share your contention that this is a big conceptual difference. There is no more fundamental difference than say that of a small earthquake that swings my hanging plant vs. the one that flattened thousands of Pakistani homes, or caused the devastating Indian Ocean tsunamis -all of the same principles are at work, but at a different scale (forces in the case of temblors and generally a really long -time- for speciation, though there are countless examples of e.g., founders effect, that can cause rapid speciation or punctuated evolution).
Understanding the mechanism of natural selection is an exercise in logic, pure and simple. If one can grasp the notion of probability, and really big numbers (like 3.5 billion years of life on earth -and how many generations that is for a bacterium), one can build a logical cause and effect model for evolution and speciation. That said, no one can point to the initial source of life, and I see plenty of room for faith here. The only real dichotomy is one of logic and reason vs. ignorance & dogma ( and, well, Texas...)
You need to drop at least 250 micrograms to really experience the magnitude of the kilogram, man... Wow, Mr. Mackie, Drugs -are- bad. It's not just reference mass lost -Where is my mind? -you thieving Pixies. woooo-oooooh.
Nope,
The time wasted on someone who spouts untruths and cannot be engaged logically is a tremendous waste. Of course you wouldn't appreciate the irony of your reinforcing everything wrong with the ID/creationist side of the "discussion". Bu-bye -fucker.
Hmm nerve. Yeah it is pretty nervy to post dozens of completely ignorant statements and then challenge how others do their work (or really, how science works). That is exactly the kind of conduct that breeds a poisonous and useless discussion. I've had my fill.
What you've creatively coined, the "true intellectual suicide:" is loosing the ability to objectively weigh facts because you always have the "out" that there is something supernatural pulling the strings. Logic cannot function under these rules. You are entitled to your beliefs, but your beliefs are not entitled to challenge my facts. That's what science is for, and your faith is not verifiable and is therefore unscientific. Believe it, pray to it, do whatever you want with it, but keep it out of science -it has absolutely no place there.
No, you can not, "take any piece of data you can present and show how that data supports evolution, so-called "ID", 7 day creation, or even alien beings as the origin of life on this planet." Not scientifically.
I posted another reply to you wherein I asserted, and will state again, that evolution by natural selection is the single most tested null hypothesis in all of science. In every instance where someone has come up with something that violates the theory (i.e., rejected the null hypothesis), further investigation has shown that the observation was in fact consistent with the theory. Let me say again, no tenet in science has been more tested.
You clearly don't understand these concepts and illustrate the ignorance in your discussion of the null above. You asked, "Where is the enlightened discussion on this?" I'll tell you. It is among scientists who understand the profound meaning of the role of the null in the pursuit of knowledge through the scientific method. I have spent hundreds of hours discussing this with my colleagues. Where do you get off with a question like that? You cannot have the discussion if you don't understand the fundamentals. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it is what it is.
So, I'll respect your faith (and I too have had some inexplicable experiences that one might attribute to the supernatural) if you will keep faith and logic separate. What scientists don't appreciate is a challenge to the scientific method, and ultimately logic and the enlightenment posed by the insertion of faith into fact.
You must be kidding me:
"fail to perform the most basic scientific tests: applying and testing for the null hypothesis."
Evolution by natural selection Is the null hypothesis. It is tested with greater frequency than any other meme in science. Period. No one has ever successfully rejected it!
"Nothing out there "proves" evolution"
No, because science falsifies. It never proves anything.
"this is still a theory"
You don't seem to know what that means. It is the height of arrogance to tell a scientist that something is "just a theory".
"for an amateur like you"
Sorry. I am a biologist though not an evolutionary theorist -it just happens that evolution is the one unifying theory that ties together everything in biology. I'm aware of no other discipline that has such a unifying theory.
OK, but understand where it comes from -Logic and evidence is not the same as "prejudice". You seem to dismiss "theory" as though it is just something you pick and choose. The root of this antipathy is, in my opinion, an ignorance of the process of science. It's really not about "belief". I don't "believe" in evolution. I accept it on the weight of evidence.
Hmm, looks like your taking a stab at using logic to argue alternatives to speciation. You spoiled it with, "In the process the change has to be beneficial; the law of natural selection requires it." It most certainly does not say what you claim! If you learn one thing, learn that the theory of natural selection says that the vast majority of mutations are detrimental. It is those that are not that may persist (such as the >80% of non-coding DNA in humans) and occasionally provide a selective advantage and thus be more likely to be passed on.
The reason, "people so vehemently defend evolution theory," is that there are millions of examples that science has documented repudiating everything you have posted. How should, say, a biologist, respond when the consensus of 150 years of post-Darwin science is challenged by someone ignorant of the weight of evidence? One cannot condense the sheer quantity of examples into anything that will sway someone who doesn't understand DNA replication, much less evolutionary theory.
A few points: (oh, and organic chemistry != biochemistry -it takes place in aqueous solution)
"in species that reproduce sexually, you have to have another instance of this mutation in another specimen so that we have two compatible mating partners." Can you say, the next generation?
"Since a bacteria [sic] is a single celled organism, it's relatively simple and it reproduces by mitosis." This is logically false as there obviously sexually reproducing single-celled oranisms. More importantly, you are ignorant of the many examples where bacteria do exchange DNA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacterial_conjugation /
"because the organism was already potentially capable of it" -There is exactly zero evidence to support this bold assertion. "To get to another distinct species often requires adding chromosomes and lengthening the chromosomes" -This is extremely common in plants, and even occurs in humans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyploidy
"people who say evolution doesn't happen aren't complete idiots"
Of course not. Not completely.
Unfortunately, Team Elephant is led by the Current Occupant who does not believe in evolution -or science, as exemplified ad nauseum. Asserting the primacy of faith over fact is a scary trait in a secular leader. That's why the topic is worthy. Your team is nearly exclusive in such "faith-based" approaches. To your point of separating creation from evolution, I agree, though this is a nuance that is lost on the masses, and many scientists (I know, I'm one). Creationist tend to be far more monolithic than scientists, however, with most parroting the God-speak they are fed.
I have to call that too. Show me a stock analyst that has revised outlook down since Tuesday -all have raised guidance significantly, while tech. writers I've read think it's great. Sure some point out valid (and annoying; screw Cingular) flaws, but that's not the main message. You must mean "mixed opinions" like those in the scientific community about global warming, i.e., you can find (or pay) a naysayer.
If poop is flying at me, I'll run first and sniff later
Excellent point, and good words to live by. As it turn out, stuff falling is not a unique experience to my focal prey species, bighorn sheep. To account for this, I used horse apples as a control to the pungent predator scats. Bighorn generally live in steep terrain that frequently crumbles rocks and consequently don't react to the sound of smaller "point slides" and little rocks bouncing or falling (or completing their scatological flight parabola), like those that result from their buddies footsteps -they do react and move fast (or get killed) when larger slide/avalanches occur.
Some days I wonder if a normal job would've been better, but somehow completing the TPS reports on time would seem to lack the excitement of staring face-to-face at a mountain lion or bear or jumping out of helicopters,... -one wonders though.
A couple of years ago I built an air cannon for the purpose of launching mountain lion scat at prey species, as part of my study of prey responses to cues of predation risk. My first test-firing of my dog's turd (using a foam coffee cup sabot) launched it's payload >200 m towards a house on the next street (I hid rather than verify the point of dookie impact). Imagine, if you will, the joy of recreating the primal thrill of monkeys hurling their excrement through the bars -all under the guise of science, of course. Alas, the seals in the sprinkler valves blew out after a dozen firings and I reverted to the low-tech slingshit to complete my experiment. Now if I would just finish writing the Ph.D. instead of posting to slashdot...
Umm, no. We accept a hypothesis after rejecting alternative hypotheses. Strictly speaking, science never proves anything. This concept is at the core of the scientific method.
One area a DVD shines is the nifty Dolby surround experience. Having shelled out $$ for all kinds of channels and an earth-shaking subwoofer, I'd never buy a movie with plain old 2-channel sound. Hopefully Apple can get that right with their "showtime".
IBM sold it's first 8086 computers under the model name "PC" (and trademarked this name). A friend of mine had an IBM "PC Jr" (she was hot -back then...). Throughout the 80's and most of the 90's, Macs were often differentiated from "IBM-PCs" (regardless of the actual manufacturer), since "Windows" did not exist. "PC" is historical nomenclature.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason scientists are likely to have a better understanding of reality is that they understand what the scientific method is. Atmospheric scientists, geophysicists, climate modelers, etc. have had their work subjected to the rigors of peer-review. A scientist understands that this level of scrutiny is what improves the quality of knowledge (and brought civilization into the Enlightenment). While creationists like to tout Mike Behe and global warming deniers roll-out somebody with a Ph.D. as their "proof" that scientists disagree, most non-scientists have no clue how much critique goes into "scientific consensus." We hear that evolution is "just a theory" -never mind that a theory is a hypothesis that has survived rigorous challenge before attaining that status.
Climatologists are physical scientists. Thus the personal anecdote of the "tree hugger circuit" has no relevance. Sounds like your wife has a "tree-hugger" degree and probably works for the Park Service. I am a wildlife biologist, worked for years in tech. jobs in 4 states before finally landing a good job, and my colleagues have been a mix, some excellent scientists, some not.
There is a huge difference between having a degree in "conservation" and doing real science, which the majority of people seem to be ignorant of. The core of science is not the subject matter, or how many letters someone has after his/her name, but critical review of ideas by colleagues and the process of subjecting work to peer-review. This is often brutal, depending on how contentious the ideas are (and how penile your anonymous reviewers are). Though not perfect, the process of peer review is the best humanity has come up with for critical analysis of ideas. This is why it's laughable that any weight is afforded to the arguments of those who challenge scientific consensus without basing arguments in similar scientific rigor.
The helpful people at ESRI protect their monopoly in GIS software with a method of copy protection based on your system clock. If you ever set your Windows time >3 hrs. into the future (say, to test how an app. with unique calendaring will behave on New Year's Day), the GIS software checks three system files and finds a modification date in the future. Now your $2,500 software will not run because it's convinced that you're trying to fool an annual license (regardless of the fact that you have paid for and are trying to run a "permanent" software license). ESRI's solution? Reinstall Windows and everything else and never change your system date! Fortunately, after wasting half a day determining what the issue is, you can find an undocumented workaround to change the file mod. dates.
The key though is that you have to start with a Mac then configure a Windows PC to the same specs as Apple doesn't offer nearly as many configurations as PC OEMs.
Yes, that's often true -except for the current example which looks at a Mac configured like the PC.
Unlike the MacBook Pro, the MacBook allows HD replacement as a "user-serviceable" part (i.e., doesn't void the warranty; one thing that keeps me from buying a MBP -the hope of eventual better MB graphics being the other...). Now, not everyone is a geek and up for installing the OS, restoring from backups (?!) etc. -but you could buy a big, fast drive for the same $ -and this was posted on Slashdot...
You are providing a perfect example of why a little knowledge is dangerous, and have stated several fallacies. Again, your contention of 'genetic material' never created is rubbish. Copid gives a perfect example in his anagram (below). One way to get that is through polyploidy, which like most mutations is 99.9999% of the time detrimental, but nor always (look it up on Wiki, I'm not going to repeat it here). All natural selection needs is billions of individuals times trillions of generations. Again, it tell you, this statement is utter crap: 'You have to understand that no genetic information is ever added in any case of Microevolution. ' Back it up or shut up. Also dogs are all the same species, and this quote, "in Microevolution, we are less perfect than our ancestors! " shows total ignorance. Unlike your faith-based approach, evolution does not lead to greater organization or perfection, it's f'n -RANDOM. What maddens logical, thinking people, is realizing I just wasted 10 minutes responding to an AC who will ignore all of the facts and continue to spout idiotic lies. Good day you worthless sack!
Not sure where you found anecdotes to support the definitions you've invented, but the Macro. v. Micro. gain v. loss is BS. I've never heard that in all my undergrad. or graduate studies in Biology and there are lots of counterexamples.
A standard introductory biology experiment is to stick your petri dish under a UV light for a bit (15 minutes) and proceed as above, though you can use traits such as antibiotic resistance or enzyme function that give quick, cheap assays without sequencing. The UV light is analogous to many naturally occurring mutagens (e.g., the sun's UV, other radiation, defensive compounds (venoms, plant 2ndary compounds) -and it will save you lots of time.
Yes, anti-evolutionists certainly claim a great dichotomy between micro-evolution & macro-evolution, but I do not share your contention that this is a big conceptual difference. There is no more fundamental difference than say that of a small earthquake that swings my hanging plant vs. the one that flattened thousands of Pakistani homes, or caused the devastating Indian Ocean tsunamis -all of the same principles are at work, but at a different scale (forces in the case of temblors and generally a really long -time- for speciation, though there are countless examples of e.g., founders effect, that can cause rapid speciation or punctuated evolution).
Understanding the mechanism of natural selection is an exercise in logic, pure and simple. If one can grasp the notion of probability, and really big numbers (like 3.5 billion years of life on earth -and how many generations that is for a bacterium), one can build a logical cause and effect model for evolution and speciation. That said, no one can point to the initial source of life, and I see plenty of room for faith here. The only real dichotomy is one of logic and reason vs. ignorance & dogma ( and, well, Texas...)
Then again, maybe we shouldn't butter her up. I hope Pele's bad sista' Shake-Shake doesn't feel violated and go tectonic on us -I live on the fault!
You need to drop at least 250 micrograms to really experience the magnitude of the kilogram, man... Wow, Mr. Mackie, Drugs -are- bad. It's not just reference mass lost -Where is my mind? -you thieving Pixies. woooo-oooooh.
Nope, The time wasted on someone who spouts untruths and cannot be engaged logically is a tremendous waste. Of course you wouldn't appreciate the irony of your reinforcing everything wrong with the ID/creationist side of the "discussion". Bu-bye -fucker.
Reject Ho
Your mission has not been successful, as you've certainly pointed out that at least one of them is a complete fucking idiot. Cheers
Hmm nerve. Yeah it is pretty nervy to post dozens of completely ignorant statements and then challenge how others do their work (or really, how science works). That is exactly the kind of conduct that breeds a poisonous and useless discussion. I've had my fill.
No, you can not, "take any piece of data you can present and show how that data supports evolution, so-called "ID", 7 day creation, or even alien beings as the origin of life on this planet." Not scientifically.
I posted another reply to you wherein I asserted, and will state again, that evolution by natural selection is the single most tested null hypothesis in all of science. In every instance where someone has come up with something that violates the theory (i.e., rejected the null hypothesis), further investigation has shown that the observation was in fact consistent with the theory. Let me say again, no tenet in science has been more tested.
You clearly don't understand these concepts and illustrate the ignorance in your discussion of the null above. You asked, "Where is the enlightened discussion on this?" I'll tell you. It is among scientists who understand the profound meaning of the role of the null in the pursuit of knowledge through the scientific method. I have spent hundreds of hours discussing this with my colleagues. Where do you get off with a question like that? You cannot have the discussion if you don't understand the fundamentals. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it is what it is.
So, I'll respect your faith (and I too have had some inexplicable experiences that one might attribute to the supernatural) if you will keep faith and logic separate. What scientists don't appreciate is a challenge to the scientific method, and ultimately logic and the enlightenment posed by the insertion of faith into fact.
Evolution by natural selection Is the null hypothesis. It is tested with greater frequency than any other meme in science. Period. No one has ever successfully rejected it!
"Nothing out there "proves" evolution"
No, because science falsifies. It never proves anything.
"this is still a theory"
You don't seem to know what that means. It is the height of arrogance to tell a scientist that something is "just a theory".
"for an amateur like you"
Sorry. I am a biologist though not an evolutionary theorist -it just happens that evolution is the one unifying theory that ties together everything in biology. I'm aware of no other discipline that has such a unifying theory.
OK, but understand where it comes from -Logic and evidence is not the same as "prejudice". You seem to dismiss "theory" as though it is just something you pick and choose. The root of this antipathy is, in my opinion, an ignorance of the process of science. It's really not about "belief". I don't "believe" in evolution. I accept it on the weight of evidence.
The reason, "people so vehemently defend evolution theory," is that there are millions of examples that science has documented repudiating everything you have posted. How should, say, a biologist, respond when the consensus of 150 years of post-Darwin science is challenged by someone ignorant of the weight of evidence? One cannot condense the sheer quantity of examples into anything that will sway someone who doesn't understand DNA replication, much less evolutionary theory.
A few points: (oh, and organic chemistry != biochemistry -it takes place in aqueous solution)
"in species that reproduce sexually, you have to have another instance of this mutation in another specimen so that we have two compatible mating partners." Can you say, the next generation?"Since a bacteria [sic] is a single celled organism, it's relatively simple and it reproduces by mitosis." This is logically false as there obviously sexually reproducing single-celled oranisms. More importantly, you are ignorant of the many examples where bacteria do exchange DNA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacterial_conjugation /
"because the organism was already potentially capable of it" -There is exactly zero evidence to support this bold assertion. "To get to another distinct species often requires adding chromosomes and lengthening the chromosomes" -This is extremely common in plants, and even occurs in humans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyploidy
"people who say evolution doesn't happen aren't complete idiots" Of course not. Not completely.
Unfortunately, Team Elephant is led by the Current Occupant who does not believe in evolution -or science, as exemplified ad nauseum. Asserting the primacy of faith over fact is a scary trait in a secular leader. That's why the topic is worthy. Your team is nearly exclusive in such "faith-based" approaches. To your point of separating creation from evolution, I agree, though this is a nuance that is lost on the masses, and many scientists (I know, I'm one). Creationist tend to be far more monolithic than scientists, however, with most parroting the God-speak they are fed.
I have to call that too. Show me a stock analyst that has revised outlook down since Tuesday -all have raised guidance significantly, while tech. writers I've read think it's great. Sure some point out valid (and annoying; screw Cingular) flaws, but that's not the main message. You must mean "mixed opinions" like those in the scientific community about global warming, i.e., you can find (or pay) a naysayer.
If poop is flying at me, I'll run first and sniff later Excellent point, and good words to live by. As it turn out, stuff falling is not a unique experience to my focal prey species, bighorn sheep. To account for this, I used horse apples as a control to the pungent predator scats. Bighorn generally live in steep terrain that frequently crumbles rocks and consequently don't react to the sound of smaller "point slides" and little rocks bouncing or falling (or completing their scatological flight parabola), like those that result from their buddies footsteps -they do react and move fast (or get killed) when larger slide/avalanches occur. Some days I wonder if a normal job would've been better, but somehow completing the TPS reports on time would seem to lack the excitement of staring face-to-face at a mountain lion or bear or jumping out of helicopters,... -one wonders though.
A couple of years ago I built an air cannon for the purpose of launching mountain lion scat at prey species, as part of my study of prey responses to cues of predation risk. My first test-firing of my dog's turd (using a foam coffee cup sabot) launched it's payload >200 m towards a house on the next street (I hid rather than verify the point of dookie impact). Imagine, if you will, the joy of recreating the primal thrill of monkeys hurling their excrement through the bars -all under the guise of science, of course. Alas, the seals in the sprinkler valves blew out after a dozen firings and I reverted to the low-tech slingshit to complete my experiment. Now if I would just finish writing the Ph.D. instead of posting to slashdot...
Umm, no. We accept a hypothesis after rejecting alternative hypotheses. Strictly speaking, science never proves anything. This concept is at the core of the scientific method.
One area a DVD shines is the nifty Dolby surround experience. Having shelled out $$ for all kinds of channels and an earth-shaking subwoofer, I'd never buy a movie with plain old 2-channel sound. Hopefully Apple can get that right with their "showtime".
OK, I'll toss in some observations on "PC",
IBM sold it's first 8086 computers under the model name "PC" (and trademarked this name). A friend of mine had an IBM "PC Jr" (she was hot -back then...). Throughout the 80's and most of the 90's, Macs were often differentiated from "IBM-PCs" (regardless of the actual manufacturer), since "Windows" did not exist. "PC" is historical nomenclature.
TD