This is too simplistic a statement. Mutations as seen in the general population are rare. Other types of mutation (point mutation, indels etc.) are relatively frequent but there are mechanisms to mitigate these mutations. In fact it is estimated that approx. that every new human cell contains some 120 new mutations. But these mutations have little effect because of repeated DNA sections, junk DNA etc.etc.
Not all are sterile, of course. In fact, in just a short time, beneficial mutations can be seen.
France's hostility to faith?? (And yes, I have lived and worked there for several years - and more than once). France is pretty heavily Catholic and has a large Muslim population - but hundreds of thousands of fanatics? You mean the sort that bomb and invade whole countries? Oh wait....
But that's the point. If you cannot prove/disprove the existence of gods, why invent such a notion? To atheists, the whole clutter of contradictions and hypothesizing as a result of these inventions is ridiculous. Keep it simple.
Why can't it be proven? There are already ideas to test the theory. Once these tests are performed,then the theory is either discarded, incrementally improved or generally accepted.
As for evolution, it is often used not just as a theory, but to "prove" God does not exist, we are just slightly improved MONKEYS (you included!) etc.etc.etc....
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong...
1. Evolution is neutral. It gets as far as it can to do a reasonable job. Otherwise, for example, we would have MUCH better eyes than we have. Octopodi (octopus pl.) have better functioning eyes than do we. In other words,there is no notion of improvement in the ToE.
2. Evolution implies we and any other currently existing animal had a common ancestor. We are not improved monkeys (or apes or horses etc.)
3. The ToE makes no assumptions about the existence/non-existence of God. It is a theory about evolution. If you wish to hypothesize a 'starting line' God, then the ToE does not stop you from doing so.
4. To me, the notion of a soul is illogical and contradictory but this has nothing to do with the ToE.
5. Morality has nothing to do with the ToE. Two sub-points: a. From a secular point of view, you can argue that, as life is the one and only thing you own in the brief moment of its existence, this is the one thing you truly respect. b. The ToE makes no assumptions about free will. Looking at an ant, however, it is easy to argue that its genes and environment determine its behaviour precisely. Anything 'immoral' that an ant performs is then excusable. For us humans, of course, it is far more tricky but the ToE makes no pronouncements on that subject.
6. As to a blind mechanism (ie no creator) causing an evolutionary process, I can recommend no better book than: 'The Blind Watchmaker' by Richard Dawkins.
The chance of a beneficial genetic mutation is close to zero
Wrong: Evidence
Evolutionists keep expanding the time frame of events
Evidence?
They dig up fossils of several creatures and decide that there was some sort of evolutionary relationship between them. Why can't there just have existed distinct creatures that may or may not have similar traits, but no ancestorial relationships?
They assume neither and both. The evidence (age, traits etc.etc.) determines one or the other based on previous evidence/conclusions.
Evolutionists have an agenda
Based on testable theories. Creationists have no testable theories.
That Crichton book is utter tripe with a biased culling of eveidence. Crichton admits he's no scientist so using this as an argument is a waste of time.
I know homosexual men who have reproduced. Homosexual men do not necessarily restrict themselves 100% to men. Hence, if homosexuality is genetic, it is a strategy that can work (from an evolutionary point o view).
You need to change your provider. I've got 4Mb from Bulldog fo UKP20-00/mth (Eur 30-00), my brother is on HomeChoice at 2MB plus 40channels of TV for about UKP15-00/mth (Eur 22-00)
Afghanistan? Did it have a freely elected government at the time?
No, no. Your list is mainly a bunch of governments supplying an expert or two here and there so that the US limits its arm twisting. Most of these countries have now withdrawn (Spain etc.) and nearly all those who contributed did so specifically against the wish of the general population (again, in Spain 90% were against any involvement in Iraq).
As these countries are often called in Europe: a coalition of the unwilling. I'd say 95% of the people in this world are unhappy with US foreign policy at the moment (except if you've got some lucrative construction/security contract...)
I am glad Bulgaria is still some years away from becoming a member of the EU
My wife (being Bulgarian) wouldn't agree! The amount of time, effort and money we had to spend to get her to be able to live and work in the UK was ridiculous. (As opposed to Germany and Holland where it was easy...).
So it's not a Fisheries Council meeting, it's a: "AOB (and please don't raise any objections) & Fisheries Council" meeting. Still Byzantine by any definition...
Keep at it! Refer to her letter and take extracts (using FFI etc. to help) politely pointing out where she is being a corporate hack and technical idiot.
These politicians rely on you giving up when they reply -and they can safely claim that you must have, by default, agreed with their position because you didn't get back immediately. Keep banging on, be a pain, just having these letters/faxes has a drip-drip effect.
It's worse than that IIRC. "Technical effect", "computer-implemented invention" and the like are not phrases used by any computer professional I know. They are code-phrases for "'pure' software". "Technical effect" is not the same as "physical effect", one-click (TM) has a technical effect but who (in their right mind) argues it is a good patent? Write to your minister, your MP and your MEPs clarifying this (for their own benefit. of course). The argument is:
'To be patentable, an invention must have technical character. This means that the invention must relate to a technical field and solve a technical problem. A computer program has a technical character if it causes a technical effect when run on a computer. This effect must be more than the "normal" physical interaction between program and computer.
In practice, this requirement is rarely a problem for inventions that use software for their realization. So it should not come as a surprise that there are many European patents covering software-related inventions.' [Ius mentis]
competitiveness formation is responsible for the swpats, if they bring it on as A-point they can indeed have it signed at the Fisheries Council session.
I still don't see what Byzantine process allows a Fisheries Council session to concentrate not on fisheries related business but to include swpat business. After all, there's a lot to do in the fisheries sphere given the possible collapse of fishing grounds.
Apart from my MP, I have written to Lord Sainsbury directly and to Tam Dalyell who had the courtesy of replying. I have yet to hear from the DTI. I wrote to all London MEPs and received replies from three. Two of them seemed concerned, one spouted Ms. McCarthy's (?) propaganda. It's a real battle when you are an individual...
governments are democratically elected so the council is democratic
You clearly went to the political party school of logic. Political hacks appointed into the job by a very small coterie of senior politicians giving a pat on the back to one of their own (who doesn't ever have to have been elected to any post at any time) does not mean the council has any democratic credentials. They might vote amongst themselves but 25 appointed (and very possibly corrupt if history has any say) special interest individuals coming to a conclusion does not fill me with unbridled confidence...
Lord Sainsbury of Turville
Undersecretary of State for Science and Innovation
DTI
1 Victoria Street
London
SW1H 0ET
He seems to think buzzphrases such as "computer-implemented invention" means all is OK. This buzzphrase is actually EPO code for "'pure' software invention". He and all our MEPs and commissioners should be made aware of this fact. He is aware, however, that business process patents are a bad idea. Keep up the pressure!
Slashdot Mirror
There's a 67 min transmit delay between Saturn and here. One time is for the data to appear here, the other (earlier time) when it arrives at Cassini.
Mutations are rare and usually sterile...
This is too simplistic a statement. Mutations as seen in the general population are rare. Other types of mutation (point mutation, indels etc.) are relatively frequent but there are mechanisms to mitigate these mutations. In fact it is estimated that approx. that every new human cell contains some 120 new mutations. But these mutations have little effect because of repeated DNA sections, junk DNA etc.etc.
Not all are sterile, of course. In fact, in just a short time, beneficial mutations can be seen.
France's hostility to faith?? (And yes, I have lived and worked there for several years - and more than once). France is pretty heavily Catholic and has a large Muslim population - but hundreds of thousands of fanatics? You mean the sort that bomb and invade whole countries? Oh wait....
But that's the point. If you cannot prove/disprove the existence of gods, why invent such a notion? To atheists, the whole clutter of contradictions and hypothesizing as a result of these inventions is ridiculous. Keep it simple.
Why can't it be proven? There are already ideas to test the theory. Once these tests are performed,then the theory is either discarded, incrementally improved or generally accepted.
As for evolution, it is often used not just as a theory, but to "prove" God does not exist, we are just slightly improved MONKEYS (you included!) etc.etc.etc....
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong...
1. Evolution is neutral. It gets as far as it can to do a reasonable job. Otherwise, for example, we would have MUCH better eyes than we have. Octopodi (octopus pl.) have better functioning eyes than do we. In other words,there is no notion of improvement in the ToE.
2. Evolution implies we and any other currently existing animal had a common ancestor. We are not improved monkeys (or apes or horses etc.)
3. The ToE makes no assumptions about the existence/non-existence of God. It is a theory about evolution. If you wish to hypothesize a 'starting line' God, then the ToE does not stop you from doing so.
4. To me, the notion of a soul is illogical and contradictory but this has nothing to do with the ToE.
5. Morality has nothing to do with the ToE. Two sub-points: a. From a secular point of view, you can argue that, as life is the one and only thing you own in the brief moment of its existence, this is the one thing you truly respect. b. The ToE makes no assumptions about free will. Looking at an ant, however, it is easy to argue that its genes and environment determine its behaviour precisely. Anything 'immoral' that an ant performs is then excusable. For us humans, of course, it is far more tricky but the ToE makes no pronouncements on that subject.
6. As to a blind mechanism (ie no creator) causing an evolutionary process, I can recommend no better book than: 'The Blind Watchmaker' by Richard Dawkins.
Indeed, the good old post hoc, ergo propter hoc method (which is logically wrong).
Eg:
1. All trousers have two legs
2. All men wear trousers
3. Therefore all men have two legs
The chance of a beneficial genetic mutation is close to zero
Wrong: Evidence
Evolutionists keep expanding the time frame of events
Evidence?
They dig up fossils of several creatures and decide that there was some sort of evolutionary relationship between them. Why can't there just have existed distinct creatures that may or may not have similar traits, but no ancestorial relationships?
They assume neither and both. The evidence (age, traits etc.etc.) determines one or the other based on previous evidence/conclusions.
Evolutionists have an agenda
Based on testable theories. Creationists have no testable theories.
This is not the first motion controlled phone: MyDevice came out 18 months ago.
With that argument, Iraq is safe as houses. Why don't you move there?
That Crichton book is utter tripe with a biased culling of eveidence. Crichton admits he's no scientist so using this as an argument is a waste of time.
Here's a link
But I can get this sort of thing: Where I live in London without any trouble.
I know homosexual men who have reproduced. Homosexual men do not necessarily restrict themselves 100% to men. Hence, if homosexuality is genetic, it is a strategy that can work (from an evolutionary point o view).
You need to change your provider. I've got 4Mb from Bulldog fo UKP20-00/mth (Eur 30-00), my brother is on HomeChoice at 2MB plus 40channels of TV for about UKP15-00/mth (Eur 22-00)
With all my toolbars, it's making it hard to read your posts. Could you please ensure everything fits onto one (or maybe two) lines at most please?
Afghanistan? Did it have a freely elected government at the time?
No, no. Your list is mainly a bunch of governments supplying an expert or two here and there so that the US limits its arm twisting. Most of these countries have now withdrawn (Spain etc.) and nearly all those who contributed did so specifically against the wish of the general population (again, in Spain 90% were against any involvement in Iraq).
As these countries are often called in Europe: a coalition of the unwilling. I'd say 95% of the people in this world are unhappy with US foreign policy at the moment (except if you've got some lucrative construction/security contract...)
I am glad Bulgaria is still some years away from becoming a member of the EU
My wife (being Bulgarian) wouldn't agree! The amount of time, effort and money we had to spend to get her to be able to live and work in the UK was ridiculous. (As opposed to Germany and Holland where it was easy...).
So it's not a Fisheries Council meeting, it's a: "AOB (and please don't raise any objections) & Fisheries Council" meeting. Still Byzantine by any definition...
Keep at it! Refer to her letter and take extracts (using FFI etc. to help) politely pointing out where she is being a corporate hack and technical idiot.
These politicians rely on you giving up when they reply -and they can safely claim that you must have, by default, agreed with their position because you didn't get back immediately. Keep banging on, be a pain, just having these letters/faxes has a drip-drip effect.
It's worse than that IIRC. "Technical effect", "computer-implemented invention" and the like are not phrases used by any computer professional I know. They are code-phrases for "'pure' software". "Technical effect" is not the same as "physical effect", one-click (TM) has a technical effect but who (in their right mind) argues it is a good patent? Write to your minister, your MP and your MEPs clarifying this (for their own benefit. of course). The argument is:
'To be patentable, an invention must have technical character. This means that the invention must relate to a technical field and solve a technical problem. A computer program has a technical character if it causes a technical effect when run on a computer. This effect must be more than the "normal" physical interaction between program and computer. In practice, this requirement is rarely a problem for inventions that use software for their realization. So it should not come as a surprise that there are many European patents covering software-related inventions.' [Ius mentis]
"See No ePatents and No to swpats for sensible arguments.
competitiveness formation is responsible for the swpats, if they bring it on as A-point they can indeed have it signed at the Fisheries Council session.
I still don't see what Byzantine process allows a Fisheries Council session to concentrate not on fisheries related business but to include swpat business. After all, there's a lot to do in the fisheries sphere given the possible collapse of fishing grounds.
Apart from my MP, I have written to Lord Sainsbury directly and to Tam Dalyell who had the courtesy of replying. I have yet to hear from the DTI. I wrote to all London MEPs and received replies from three. Two of them seemed concerned, one spouted Ms. McCarthy's (?) propaganda. It's a real battle when you are an individual...
governments are democratically elected so the council is democratic
You clearly went to the political party school of logic. Political hacks appointed into the job by a very small coterie of senior politicians giving a pat on the back to one of their own (who doesn't ever have to have been elected to any post at any time) does not mean the council has any democratic credentials. They might vote amongst themselves but 25 appointed (and very possibly corrupt if history has any say) special interest individuals coming to a conclusion does not fill me with unbridled confidence...
If in the UK, write also to:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville
Undersecretary of State for Science and Innovation
DTI
1 Victoria Street
London
SW1H 0ET
He seems to think buzzphrases such as "computer-implemented invention" means all is OK. This buzzphrase is actually EPO code for "'pure' software invention". He and all our MEPs and commissioners should be made aware of this fact. He is aware, however, that business process patents are a bad idea. Keep up the pressure!