The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide
mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs)
that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions
of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences
So they are overtly evolutionists and would be unlikely to publish something
in their FAQ that disputed the evolutionist position. This is no different
to what AiG do with TJ.
There you go. This is what makes any appeal to a
deity a non-theory.
Not at all... my appeal to a deity is one the assumptions to my creationist
'theory'. Just as you would assume the non-existence (or non-interference)
of a deity as one of your assumptions. Now that we've each developed
theories based on those assumptions, we test our theories against observed
evidence and change our theories (but not our assumptions) to suit.
There is no observation that cannot arguably be
consistent with creation by a divine power.
Sure there is. If the world didn't run by a series of rational,
definable rules (science) then this would seem to indicate the absence of a
rational, ordered creator. Finding intelligent life on another planet
would seriously rock my assumptions as this doesn't make sense in the biblical
framework. An anthropological record stretching beyond the biblical record
would rock my assumptions. There are lots of other things.
Similarly there might by other things that may disturb your assumptions.
A young universe would. The lack of intermediate fossils might.
Science can explain why grass is green, but creation
science can as well: God willed it to be so.
Creation science would say that grass is blue, not just because God willed it
to be so, but because it was appropriate for the grass (i.e. photosynthesis
etc). However I don't agree with special pleading... e.g.
arguments where a creationist might suggest that light was created en-route to
the earth, or that God buried the fossils when he made the Earth, these are not
scientific arguments in my mind.
Is there any testable hypothesis that could
result in the rejection of creation theory?
IMO, I don't believe there is. But I ask you back, is there any
testable hypothesis that could result in the rejection of evolution theory?
I'll take a look at talkorigins and will consider posting there if they seem
open to an equitable discussion. I guess what creationists are asking for
is not so much for belief to believe our theory, but rather for people to admit
that it is as much a valid science as is evolution. Scientists assumptions
are influenced by their world-view and while the majority of scientists would
believe evolutionary theory now, and not creation theory, this is not
necessarily due to a lack of evidence for the creationist argument, but rather
because of the humanistic world-view present across the world at this time.
Those scientists who are brought up with a Christian world view that choose to
believe creation are not necessarily any less educated, intelligent, biased or
closed minded than those on the other side of the argument.
I just had a read of the article that you quoted from talkorigins and I feel
that they're doing quite a bit of handwaving to give credibility to what they
are saying. They talk about classifying the animals using some sort of
phylogeny and then by doing this you can group systems together into a
hierarchy... yet this is to be expected in both an evolutionary and creationist
model anyway, so it does not support either side.
Grouping into phylogenies is about grouping on shared characteristics,
whether those characteristics are genetic or physical. So is it really
surprising that once we've done this we can keep grouping our subgroups into
supergroups? This is to be expected.
What is more interesting in these phylogenies is not the similarities between
groups in the particular schema that you've come up with, but the similarities
between distantly related groups... this is where evolutionary theory needs to
come up with parallel evolution of similar structures in individuals that are
only distantly related on the particular taxonomy used. And then if you
start looking at genetic similarities you start running into problems such as
the similarity between a Zebra Fish's DNA and a Human DNA and also noticing that
we have DNA that is more similar to a rats than to a cats... these don't make
sense in any yet developed phylogenies that assume common descent.
The article also mentions a common descent of languages... whereas this is
simply not true... most linguists would agree that research shows that the
worlds languages actually descend from approximately 17 different non-related
root languages.
As scientists we've got to be careful not to interpret evidence in the hope
of finding support for our theory but rather to try to be objective. I
believe if, for a moment, a given scientist would ignore the implications of the
creationist framework (i.e. the existence of a God), and examine his science in
light of the creationist framework, that he/she would find some (in my opinion
more) support for this framework than the evolutionary one.
but I challenge you to find any of their work on
specified complexity (or creationism in general) referenced in any of the
standard peer reviewed journals.
There won't be any of there articles published in a the standard peer
reviewed journals... not because of lack of trying, but rather because of the
overt bias of these journals against creationist arguments (one of the
challenges of serious creationist researchers). However there would likely
be material in the technical journal called TJ which is a forum for
creationist scientists to publish their papers in a peer reviewed journal, it is
published by Answers In Genesis. Without doing an exhaustive search I can
refer you to
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative_10september2001.asp,
which is not a peer reviewed article, but it does provide a good starting point.
Nonetheless I believe an increase in specified complexity is a fairly obvious
concept.
The problem is, it must be possible to find evidence
that refutes a theory.
It is difficult to find evidence to completely refute a theory about
something that happened in the past (including evolution and creation theories),
and some zealots on both sides of the argument will hold on to their theories
regardless of what evidence is shown to them, however I believe modern
creationist scientist do themselves justice in making creation a science and not
a matter of faith... they do struggle with and attempt to answer critics in
regards to issues such as distant starlight (refer Dr Russell Humphreys -
Starlight and Time for example); and much research in the creationist area has
provided answers to questions that to this day remain unanswered when viewed in
an evolutionary framework - for example the proliferation of comets in a
supposedly old solar ssytem; appeals to a Kuiper Belt or Oort Cloud are as much
a fudge as are the explanations from creationists that claim that distant
startlight was created en-route. Oort Clouds were given up on long ago and
evidence is not showing the expected number of Trans-Newtonian Objects to
support the theory of a Kuiper Belt. In fact that is what this/. article
is about - we've believed that there is dark matter for a while because as a
'fudge' it helps us explain things... physicists hold on to and use the theory
because it assists them understand things, but one day they may realise that one
of their assumptions need to be changed in order to move forward.
It just can't be considered a scientific theory as
it is completely untestable.
The same could be said of evolution. We've got to remember to separate
observable science from historical science. We can formulate a theory
about gravity and test it because it is observable and testable now... however
theories about the past (creation or evolution) are not testable in the same
matter... instead we formulate theories and interpret the evidence in light of
these theories (the facts do not speak for themselves when looking at fossils)
and see how our theories stack up...
Consider the fossils for example... the creationist would ask what you'd
expect to find after a world-wide catastrophe like a flood that reformed the
entire earths surface... you would expect to find millions of dead things,
buried in rock laid down by water all over the earth... and that's exactly what
we do find... laid down in the same order that creationists would predict.
Meanwhile evolutionists in their attempt to discredit creationists ignore
fossils in sedimentary rock on the top of Everest and continue to claim that
Mars - a planet that is dry - suffered a global flood while the earth didn't -
that's putting your head in the sand.
Could you define exactly what you mean by specified
complexity and an objective test to determine if this property is present or
absent? All I could find on google was some creationist writings, but since
we're talking about biology here, I'd like to see how real scientists use the
term.
Well just because someone is a creationist doesn't mean that they're not a
scientist. As specified complexity is a term used by creationists and
avoided by evolutionists I think the best explanation of it would likely be
given by a creationist... so I'm sure what you've found on google will help
explain it to you if you can't work it out for yourself.
Also, since you asked, common descent is the fact
that the fossil record and genetic records agree with each other to demonstrate
the nature of the relationship between all living things.
Of course they do. No scientist would expect observable evidence to
contradict the facts. What is at issue though is the interpretation of the
facts. They evidence of the fossil record and the genetic record provides,
in my opinion (and that of creationists), more support to the theory of creation
than that of evolution.
Finally please lay out what the theory of creation
is
There is not enough space here to lay out the theory of creation in full
(just as you couldn't do justice to the theory of evolution in a single
paragraph), but I'm sure google will explain it to you. I would attempt to
explain it my explaining creationist assumptions, i.e.:
* The universe is not old, but rather quite young (in my opinion
approximately 6000 years).
* In the beginning the universe, the earth, and life was created fully formed
and fully operational.
As opposed to evolutionary assumptions:
* The universe is very old.
* In the beginning there was nothing and everything began by itself, i.e. if
there is a God then he was not involved in the process.
Now before some people attack me, I know some evolutionists believe in God
and I know some creationists believe in an old earth... but I feel these
assumptions I've given polarise the argument.
and how the fact of the twin nested hierarchies
provides evidence for it, as you claim in your final paragraph.
I'm not familiar with twin nested hierarchies, and while I could google it,
I'm sure that not having heard the term before now, I wouldn't be able to give a
reasonable argument regarding it, so I won't even try. But please explain
to me what it is.
From Frederic H. Martini, Ph.D., Fundamentals of Anatomy and Physiology,
p. 916, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1995: The mucosa and
submucosa of the appendix are dominated by lymphoid nodules, and its primary
function is as an organ of the lymphatic system.
It does have a function, it's just that we didn't know about it until
recently. Redundancy in the body lets us do without it.
the increase in complexity is gradual, over hundreds
if not thousands of generations.
That's OK, we see thousands of generations of bacteria occur within our
lifetime... but no such examples of increase in specified complexity have ever
been found even amongst them. In fact bacteria found in ancient specimens
(thousands of years) show no difference between the bacteria of today.
his scenario for the creation of an eye should
suffice to convince you that such an increase in complexity is indeed possible
I've read this scenario, and in fact, far from convincing me, it shows me
even more how unlikely this scenario is. His scenario is a series of steps
of how an eye could evolve, however its a far cry from proposing that an eye
could evolve that way to demonstrating that it happened.
Where does evolution imply some teleological notion of progress?
It doesn't, however it does imply/require the increase in specified
complexity over time (what I referred to as the upward process)... however this
is a process which has never been demonstrated, by the proponents of evolution.
NB: I am not talking about a mutation that produces a benefit, but rather a
mutation that produces specified complexity that was not existent before the
mutation. I challenge you to find a single example of a mutation that has
produced complexity that was not present is the organism's parent/s before the mutation.
All evolution (or the theory of natural selection as
it should more properly be called)
They're different theories. Natural selection obviously operates,
evolution of microbes to man is still in dispute.
time and the changes in the environment over time
are quite sufficient to account for all the forms we see today.
Again, this has never been shown to be true.
There's no reason to hang on to your creation myths
any more
I need feel the need to make derogatory comments about your beliefs... so I
don't see why you need to do the same about mine. I don't hold on to
belief in creation in spite of the evidence... I hold on to it because the
evidence supports at (as a hypothesis) better than it supports microbes to man
evolution.
I don't know why we have an obsession with having our robots look human! In terms of usefulness they would be better off being built in a manner that best suits their purpose, not trying to pretend they're something they're not.
Consider movies like Toy Story, where they have animated humans that they've tried to make look real... of course it's easy to tell that they are not real, and in fact they have an element of unreality and unbelievability about them. I would connect more with a straight cartoon character, where there is no attempt to make them look real then I would with something that is trying to be real, but isn't quite.
My son (6yo) has aspergers, and I also believe I have aspergers (not diagnose), but I believe I've learnt enough to get around mine.
I wouldn't describe it as a defect however... it's just a difference. In fact if the whole world had aspergers, we wouldn't really lack anything as a society... in fact we'd probably be more productive.
If I was to have a surgeon operate on me, I would prefer him to have aspergers as I know he would pay close attention to the detail and not be readily distracted from the task at hand... he would likely take higher pride in getting the job done exactly right than the non-aspergers.
In fact, I wouldn't give up my Aspergers for anything, because now that I've learnt a lot of the social cues from an intellectual point of view, I find that I can cope easier than others in many situations as I don't get so easily swayed by the emotional aspects.
In a sense this is a situation where the gulls have
in most ways already evolved into two species.
Perhaps you misunderstand the position of anti-evolutionists (or
creationists). As a creationist, I don't disagree with variation within or without of a
species (speciation); that would be intellectual suicide and I'd be foolish to
hold to a belief for which scientific evidence proves to be wrong...
But rather, creationists believe that rather than all living organisms having
evolved from a single organelle, that in the beginning there was created a
number of discrete organisms (kind's). Since then these organisms have
changed, been bread into 'purebreads' with specific features, and in some cases
speciated to become separate species that can't interbreed with their original
'kind'. So in this model, rather than believing in the upward process of
evolution that pushes towards better and better species, we see the organisms in
the world degrading (from a genetic point of view) to more 'refined' species.
i.e. once a new species how sprung out of it's original 'kind', it no longer has
the genetic information in it to climb up the genetic ladder and produce new
variation.
I hope this helps explains the creationist position as I find it is something
that is often misunderstood. I know that a lot of people will argue that
they simply can't accept that there was a number of organisms originally
created, but this is an assumption on creationists behalf that we can't prove;
just an evolutionists assumption that in the beginning there was nothing is an
assumption that they can never prove. All we can do now is scientifically
test our hypothesise against observable evidence to see which one seems more
correct.
That evolution occurs is a fact which can be
demonstrated.
Actually, its not a fact that can be demonstrated. We can see changes happening within species
occurring and we can see speciation occurring, however we cannot 'demonstrate'
something that may have happened once, some time in the past. The same
applies to dark matter, we can't 'prove' that it exists, but only propose a
hypothesis and then test that hypothesis, however unless we actually touch some
dark matter, we've never proven it exists.
A proof is only obtained through demonstrable, repeatable experiments,
something that we're never going to be able to do for evolution and something
we're not going to be able to do for dark matter for a long time.
BTW: I am a creationist. But admit that I'm not able to prove creation
happened, just as you can't prove evolution happened, we can both only test our
hypothesis against observed evidence.
What I think is unconscionable is that county officials have not yet determined if they will notify the families involved... Surely they have an obligation to do this and those families would have every right to launch a class lawsuit against the county.
The fact that the county is considering not telling them shows what sort of a priority they place on the peoples privacy!
Yeh, ok fair enough and I could argue things about inside our atmosphere etc... but that's not the point.
The point is that there has already been an operational scramjet flight.
Does launching something high into the air and then
letting it plummet back to Earth count? I'm pretty sure most planes can go
pretty damn fast if they nose down from 186 miles up...:)
Ahhh... actually, no they don't go all that fast. Ever heard of
terminal velocity
You don't get to Mach 7.6 using just the force of gravity!!!
Errmmm... no. You're wrong. Have you actually read the
bulletin... it's called "Vulnerability in Microsoft Internet Security and
Acceleration Server 2000 H.323 Filter Could Allow Remote Code Execution".
Take a look at learning
connections (people, don't click it unless you're interested as they will
most certainly be/.'d), they provide physical exercise programs for
children and adults with learning difficulties. By providing physical
stimulus they're able to activate parts of the brain that don't appear to be
working properly. They've been operating (in Australia) for 28 years and
have had a great deal of success through a simple program.
As the computer programs provide a similar type of activity (teaching the
brain how to work properly) I believe it would work as well.
People, please don't discount mental disorders (including ADHD) as being just
made up.. for those who are suffering from them and those around them they are
very real conditions.
Acutally I predict that it will be developed quite easily... see you don't
need to train the computer to understand the signals the brain is sending.
Instead you simply hook it up and then let the person get used to it.
The brain is actually very good at working out how to use things it is connected
to. A similar thing happens with
bionic prosthetics;
once hooked up the brain sort of just 'fiddles' with the nerves until it gets it
right.
I remember reading about a guy years ago who connected a radio
transmitter/receiver to a set of nerve bundles into his arm and the other end
into a bundle in his wife's arm. After a while they learnt to feel each
others emotions even though they didn't know exactly how they did it.
Slashdot Mirror
So they are overtly evolutionists and would be unlikely to publish something in their FAQ that disputed the evolutionist position. This is no different to what AiG do with TJ.
There you go. This is what makes any appeal to a deity a non-theory.
Not at all... my appeal to a deity is one the assumptions to my creationist 'theory'. Just as you would assume the non-existence (or non-interference) of a deity as one of your assumptions. Now that we've each developed theories based on those assumptions, we test our theories against observed evidence and change our theories (but not our assumptions) to suit.
There is no observation that cannot arguably be consistent with creation by a divine power.
Sure there is. If the world didn't run by a series of rational, definable rules (science) then this would seem to indicate the absence of a rational, ordered creator. Finding intelligent life on another planet would seriously rock my assumptions as this doesn't make sense in the biblical framework. An anthropological record stretching beyond the biblical record would rock my assumptions. There are lots of other things.
Similarly there might by other things that may disturb your assumptions. A young universe would. The lack of intermediate fossils might.
Science can explain why grass is green, but creation science can as well: God willed it to be so.
Creation science would say that grass is blue, not just because God willed it to be so, but because it was appropriate for the grass (i.e. photosynthesis etc). However I don't agree with special pleading... e.g. arguments where a creationist might suggest that light was created en-route to the earth, or that God buried the fossils when he made the Earth, these are not scientific arguments in my mind.
Is there any testable hypothesis that could result in the rejection of creation theory?
IMO, I don't believe there is. But I ask you back, is there any testable hypothesis that could result in the rejection of evolution theory?
I'll take a look at talkorigins and will consider posting there if they seem open to an equitable discussion. I guess what creationists are asking for is not so much for belief to believe our theory, but rather for people to admit that it is as much a valid science as is evolution. Scientists assumptions are influenced by their world-view and while the majority of scientists would believe evolutionary theory now, and not creation theory, this is not necessarily due to a lack of evidence for the creationist argument, but rather because of the humanistic world-view present across the world at this time. Those scientists who are brought up with a Christian world view that choose to believe creation are not necessarily any less educated, intelligent, biased or closed minded than those on the other side of the argument.
Enough from me... off I go to talkorigins.
I just had a read of the article that you quoted from talkorigins and I feel that they're doing quite a bit of handwaving to give credibility to what they are saying. They talk about classifying the animals using some sort of phylogeny and then by doing this you can group systems together into a hierarchy... yet this is to be expected in both an evolutionary and creationist model anyway, so it does not support either side.
Grouping into phylogenies is about grouping on shared characteristics, whether those characteristics are genetic or physical. So is it really surprising that once we've done this we can keep grouping our subgroups into supergroups? This is to be expected.
What is more interesting in these phylogenies is not the similarities between groups in the particular schema that you've come up with, but the similarities between distantly related groups... this is where evolutionary theory needs to come up with parallel evolution of similar structures in individuals that are only distantly related on the particular taxonomy used. And then if you start looking at genetic similarities you start running into problems such as the similarity between a Zebra Fish's DNA and a Human DNA and also noticing that we have DNA that is more similar to a rats than to a cats... these don't make sense in any yet developed phylogenies that assume common descent.
The article also mentions a common descent of languages... whereas this is simply not true... most linguists would agree that research shows that the worlds languages actually descend from approximately 17 different non-related root languages.
As scientists we've got to be careful not to interpret evidence in the hope of finding support for our theory but rather to try to be objective. I believe if, for a moment, a given scientist would ignore the implications of the creationist framework (i.e. the existence of a God), and examine his science in light of the creationist framework, that he/she would find some (in my opinion more) support for this framework than the evolutionary one.
There won't be any of there articles published in a the standard peer reviewed journals... not because of lack of trying, but rather because of the overt bias of these journals against creationist arguments (one of the challenges of serious creationist researchers). However there would likely be material in the technical journal called TJ which is a forum for creationist scientists to publish their papers in a peer reviewed journal, it is published by Answers In Genesis. Without doing an exhaustive search I can refer you to http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback /negative_10september2001.asp,
which is not a peer reviewed article, but it does provide a good starting point.
Nonetheless I believe an increase in specified complexity is a fairly obvious
concept.
The problem is, it must be possible to find evidence that refutes a theory.
It is difficult to find evidence to completely refute a theory about something that happened in the past (including evolution and creation theories), and some zealots on both sides of the argument will hold on to their theories regardless of what evidence is shown to them, however I believe modern creationist scientist do themselves justice in making creation a science and not a matter of faith... they do struggle with and attempt to answer critics in regards to issues such as distant starlight (refer Dr Russell Humphreys - Starlight and Time for example); and much research in the creationist area has provided answers to questions that to this day remain unanswered when viewed in an evolutionary framework - for example the proliferation of comets in a supposedly old solar ssytem; appeals to a Kuiper Belt or Oort Cloud are as much a fudge as are the explanations from creationists that claim that distant startlight was created en-route. Oort Clouds were given up on long ago and evidence is not showing the expected number of Trans-Newtonian Objects to support the theory of a Kuiper Belt. In fact that is what this /. article
is about - we've believed that there is dark matter for a while because as a
'fudge' it helps us explain things... physicists hold on to and use the theory
because it assists them understand things, but one day they may realise that one
of their assumptions need to be changed in order to move forward.
It just can't be considered a scientific theory as it is completely untestable.
The same could be said of evolution. We've got to remember to separate observable science from historical science. We can formulate a theory about gravity and test it because it is observable and testable now... however theories about the past (creation or evolution) are not testable in the same matter... instead we formulate theories and interpret the evidence in light of these theories (the facts do not speak for themselves when looking at fossils) and see how our theories stack up...
Consider the fossils for example... the creationist would ask what you'd expect to find after a world-wide catastrophe like a flood that reformed the entire earths surface... you would expect to find millions of dead things, buried in rock laid down by water all over the earth... and that's exactly what we do find... laid down in the same order that creationists would predict. Meanwhile evolutionists in their attempt to discredit creationists ignore fossils in sedimentary rock on the top of Everest and continue to claim that Mars - a planet that is dry - suffered a global flood while the earth didn't - that's putting your head in the sand.
Well just because someone is a creationist doesn't mean that they're not a scientist. As specified complexity is a term used by creationists and avoided by evolutionists I think the best explanation of it would likely be given by a creationist... so I'm sure what you've found on google will help explain it to you if you can't work it out for yourself.
Also, since you asked, common descent is the fact that the fossil record and genetic records agree with each other to demonstrate the nature of the relationship between all living things.
Of course they do. No scientist would expect observable evidence to contradict the facts. What is at issue though is the interpretation of the facts. They evidence of the fossil record and the genetic record provides, in my opinion (and that of creationists), more support to the theory of creation than that of evolution.
Finally please lay out what the theory of creation is
There is not enough space here to lay out the theory of creation in full (just as you couldn't do justice to the theory of evolution in a single paragraph), but I'm sure google will explain it to you. I would attempt to explain it my explaining creationist assumptions, i.e.:
* The universe is not old, but rather quite young (in my opinion approximately 6000 years).
* In the beginning the universe, the earth, and life was created fully formed and fully operational.
As opposed to evolutionary assumptions:
* The universe is very old.
* In the beginning there was nothing and everything began by itself, i.e. if there is a God then he was not involved in the process.
Now before some people attack me, I know some evolutionists believe in God and I know some creationists believe in an old earth... but I feel these assumptions I've given polarise the argument.
and how the fact of the twin nested hierarchies provides evidence for it, as you claim in your final paragraph.
I'm not familiar with twin nested hierarchies, and while I could google it, I'm sure that not having heard the term before now, I wouldn't be able to give a reasonable argument regarding it, so I won't even try. But please explain to me what it is.
From Frederic H. Martini, Ph.D., Fundamentals of Anatomy and Physiology, p. 916, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1995: The mucosa and submucosa of the appendix are dominated by lymphoid nodules, and its primary function is as an organ of the lymphatic system.
It does have a function, it's just that we didn't know about it until recently. Redundancy in the body lets us do without it.
the increase in complexity is gradual, over hundreds if not thousands of generations.
That's OK, we see thousands of generations of bacteria occur within our lifetime... but no such examples of increase in specified complexity have ever been found even amongst them. In fact bacteria found in ancient specimens (thousands of years) show no difference between the bacteria of today.
his scenario for the creation of an eye should suffice to convince you that such an increase in complexity is indeed possible
I've read this scenario, and in fact, far from convincing me, it shows me even more how unlikely this scenario is. His scenario is a series of steps of how an eye could evolve, however its a far cry from proposing that an eye could evolve that way to demonstrating that it happened.
It doesn't, however it does imply/require the increase in specified complexity over time (what I referred to as the upward process)... however this is a process which has never been demonstrated, by the proponents of evolution. NB: I am not talking about a mutation that produces a benefit, but rather a mutation that produces specified complexity that was not existent before the mutation. I challenge you to find a single example of a mutation that has produced complexity that was not present is the organism's parent/s before the mutation.
All evolution (or the theory of natural selection as it should more properly be called)
They're different theories. Natural selection obviously operates, evolution of microbes to man is still in dispute.
time and the changes in the environment over time are quite sufficient to account for all the forms we see today.
Again, this has never been shown to be true.
There's no reason to hang on to your creation myths any more
I need feel the need to make derogatory comments about your beliefs... so I don't see why you need to do the same about mine. I don't hold on to belief in creation in spite of the evidence... I hold on to it because the evidence supports at (as a hypothesis) better than it supports microbes to man evolution.
I'd disagree... I think the theory of evolution contains billions of years + molecule to man, upward genetic progression etc.
I believe in speciation, but not evolution.
I don't know why we have an obsession with having our robots look human! In terms of usefulness they would be better off being built in a manner that best suits their purpose, not trying to pretend they're something they're not.
Consider movies like Toy Story, where they have animated humans that they've tried to make look real... of course it's easy to tell that they are not real, and in fact they have an element of unreality and unbelievability about them. I would connect more with a straight cartoon character, where there is no attempt to make them look real then I would with something that is trying to be real, but isn't quite.
I wouldn't describe it as a defect however... it's just a difference. In fact if the whole world had aspergers, we wouldn't really lack anything as a society... in fact we'd probably be more productive.
If I was to have a surgeon operate on me, I would prefer him to have aspergers as I know he would pay close attention to the detail and not be readily distracted from the task at hand... he would likely take higher pride in getting the job done exactly right than the non-aspergers.
In fact, I wouldn't give up my Aspergers for anything, because now that I've learnt a lot of the social cues from an intellectual point of view, I find that I can cope easier than others in many situations as I don't get so easily swayed by the emotional aspects.
Perhaps you misunderstand the position of anti-evolutionists (or creationists). As a creationist, I don't disagree with variation within or without of a species (speciation); that would be intellectual suicide and I'd be foolish to hold to a belief for which scientific evidence proves to be wrong...
But rather, creationists believe that rather than all living organisms having evolved from a single organelle, that in the beginning there was created a number of discrete organisms (kind's). Since then these organisms have changed, been bread into 'purebreads' with specific features, and in some cases speciated to become separate species that can't interbreed with their original 'kind'. So in this model, rather than believing in the upward process of evolution that pushes towards better and better species, we see the organisms in the world degrading (from a genetic point of view) to more 'refined' species. i.e. once a new species how sprung out of it's original 'kind', it no longer has the genetic information in it to climb up the genetic ladder and produce new variation.
I hope this helps explains the creationist position as I find it is something that is often misunderstood. I know that a lot of people will argue that they simply can't accept that there was a number of organisms originally created, but this is an assumption on creationists behalf that we can't prove; just an evolutionists assumption that in the beginning there was nothing is an assumption that they can never prove. All we can do now is scientifically test our hypothesise against observable evidence to see which one seems more correct.
Actually, its not a fact that can be demonstrated. We can see changes happening within species occurring and we can see speciation occurring, however we cannot 'demonstrate' something that may have happened once, some time in the past. The same applies to dark matter, we can't 'prove' that it exists, but only propose a hypothesis and then test that hypothesis, however unless we actually touch some dark matter, we've never proven it exists.
A proof is only obtained through demonstrable, repeatable experiments, something that we're never going to be able to do for evolution and something we're not going to be able to do for dark matter for a long time.
BTW: I am a creationist. But admit that I'm not able to prove creation happened, just as you can't prove evolution happened, we can both only test our hypothesis against observed evidence.
The fact that the county is considering not telling them shows what sort of a priority they place on the peoples privacy!
I'd love to see a Beowolf cluster of those... Oh damn... it is =:-)
Yeh, ok fair enough and I could argue things about inside our atmosphere etc... but that's not the point. The point is that there has already been an operational scramjet flight.
Ahhh... actually, no they don't go all that fast. Ever heard of terminal velocity
You don't get to Mach 7.6 using just the force of gravity!!!
Been there done that.
It's not the size of your pipeline that counts... its how you use it.
It's illegal in my country (Australia)... if I were you, I'd be sure to check for sure that its legal elsewhere.
Although I do concede that you'd likely never be prosecuted for it.
You can't use any music the way you want to. Just because you buy a CD that doesn't entitle to rip it to mp3 for example.
Errmmm... no. You're wrong. Have you actually read the bulletin... it's called "Vulnerability in Microsoft Internet Security and Acceleration Server 2000 H.323 Filter Could Allow Remote Code Execution".
In Cisco products - they are also vulnerable - and particularly when used as firewalls or edge devices.
But then again it's more fun to blame MS isn't it ;-)
As the computer programs provide a similar type of activity (teaching the brain how to work properly) I believe it would work as well.
People, please don't discount mental disorders (including ADHD) as being just made up.. for those who are suffering from them and those around them they are very real conditions.
When planetarion used to exist I was online 24 hours a day...
What... it's back again... no-one told me that... oh well... sleep is over-rated anyway!
Acutally I predict that it will be developed quite easily... see you don't need to train the computer to understand the signals the brain is sending. Instead you simply hook it up and then let the person get used to it.
The brain is actually very good at working out how to use things it is connected to. A similar thing happens with bionic prosthetics; once hooked up the brain sort of just 'fiddles' with the nerves until it gets it right.
I remember reading about a guy years ago who connected a radio transmitter/receiver to a set of nerve bundles into his arm and the other end into a bundle in his wife's arm. After a while they learnt to feel each others emotions even though they didn't know exactly how they did it.
Better.. a remote-controlled controlled quadraplegic!