'Even in those jurisdictions where there are legal distribution channels, pricing renders many products unaffordable for the vast majority of the population.
Most, if not all, Western nations completely invalidate such studies given that music is extremely affordable and reasonably priced - and much cheaper than capitalistic pricing would otherwise allow.
Its a societal failure, not an economic failure. Period.
Android 3.0 is not closed source. Android 3.0+, just as with all previous versions of Android, is part of a closed development process. Those are two entirely different things. Google has made it clear once they finish with their targeted 3.x features, it will be released from their closed development model.
Closed development is in no way the same as closed source. To suggest they are one in the same is to validate one as either an idiot or a troll; whereby they are not mutually exclusive possibilities.
So yes, absolutely, your statement is a straw-man because your statement means ALL versions of Android are closed source and factually we know your assertion to be full of shit.
Not true. The "GPL code base" actually isn't. I have no idea why you believe that factually incorrect statement.. The code base is BSD and/or Apache based. Largely, only the kernel is GPLed. So good luck taking just a Linux kernel and recreating the Android platform. Google is literally entirely free to lock down the entire platform tomorrow. Of course, I doubt they'll do that, but the option is always on the table.
Honestly, at this point I can't tell if we are in violent agreement, talking two sides of the same coin, or are talking around each other in disagreement.:/
Regardless, a civil and respectful exchange is certainly an enjoyable change from most days on slashdot these days. So regardless of where we are, thanks.
First you need to establish how they are "locking down" the platform? You are free to branch the available source any time you want. How is that even remotely close to Apple's platform where the source isn't even available? One is open with a closed door development model plus tiny proprietary components (device drivers) while the other is completely closed and proprietary. They are as different as night and day. One is open sourced while the later absolutely is not.
I have no idea why so many seem to get off telling half truths in an attempt to disenfranchise android developers and would-be users, but time and time again, that's all these stories are - lame attempts with half truths without a legitimate complaint.
I mean, holy shit, how stupid do many of these slashdotters have to be? Google is well on record announcing Honeycomb was a forced march to create a tablet competitor at manufacturer demand and that it was only ever half a solution for a very targeted niche. Why would they want to damage the community and ecosystem just so people can play and damage the ecosystem. The complaint is completely illogical and squarely rooted in selfishness.
Its always been pretty obvious to anyone who wants to read between Google's lines that once 3.x and 2.x are merged again, the result will be made public. Seriously, people take a step back and stop being so closed minded and selfish. How is it to the advantage of anyone to further a platform which is incompatible with the majority of devices, which will further alienate users and most importantly, developers? Its not. Basically the whining is coming from people who are too stupid to realize they've been done a favor. Either that, or they are coming from the Apple camp and are looking to capitalize on the ignorance of the masses to the benefit of their championed platform.
Actually, its to Google's own advantage to encourage devices to become upgradable. They've already suffered as a result of manufacturers and carriers dragging their feet. It hurts Google, it hurts developers, it hurts the the platform, and ultimately their revenue by falling behind in competition. Having said that, pragmatically, they do not make up the entire ecosystem. That means fighting the good fight but picking your battles. You can't alienate your jockeys on an unproven horse, right out of the gate. Assuming that's even possible is silly.
Like it or not, Google must make concessions, especially right out of the gate, to allow for the platform's adoption; especially early on when it was completely unproven. Exactly what the tug-of-war will look like tomorrow, while I suspect Google has plans, I seriously doubt even they know. Regardless, it is shaking up the market to varying degrees for everyone's benefit.
The only way Google can change the market is to work within the market. And doing so means working with the established players (carriers). Attempting to change the market from within doesn't automatically make them the enemy. I wish people would stop being so narrow minded and turn off their black and white vision and understand, the world is complex and they are very much attempting to change the status quo from very anti-competitive and entrenched players. In what way are these concessions and struggles not all but demanded?
Not that I'm directly aware of. I've heard rumblings of cheap Chinese knockoffs but that's its own ecosystem with problems.
I seem to recall hearing some place that post-Honeycomb, that is to say, whatever the 2.x+3.x merge becomes, there will finally be an OHA (with market a gapps) tablet/pda, non-phone series available but its been a while since I've read that and I no longer remember the source. As such, I don't remember if that was unofficial-official talk (much of what is learned about Android before releases), general rumor and speculation, or some guy talking from his ass.
That's an easy one. You want to root for Google. Google wants a kind of openness which is good for everyone, especially including Google. The manufacturers want an openness which is only good for them and bad for everyone else; basically attempting to reshape Android back into the status quo.
With Google's solution, everyone wins to some degree except the manufacturers. With the manufacturers, only the manufacturers win and everyone else loses.
Ya, but the solution was easy and trivial. Simply re-install the originally provided and licensed applications to those who install Cyanogen. Installs copy the originally applications, install, and then copy back those same applications. Basically, its not even worth mentioning so long as your device was originally licensed to run such applications; which is the vast, vast majority of devices.
Yes, but the failing isn't with Google, rather its the fact a failed idea has been used to punish a user by preventing them from then moving to something which actually works.
Such breeding normally results in inability to impregnate the egg, sterility (as in a liger or mule), loss of pregnancy (can't go full term), etc.. That means the genetics are saying there is an incompatible combination of genes, but it does not suggest the genes have changes outside of their common ancestry (not to say there isn't a possible intersection). We also see this happen in the wild. Pandas (inability to carry full term or become impregnated) and mules (sterile) are such examples and is the single largest reason why Pandas are dying out and extremely difficult to breed in captivity (which wasn't always possible).
Such issues are thought to be the cause of many a natural species extinction. Remember, species dying out is also part of the natural order of evolution. Sometimes a genetic divergence just doesn't prove successful in the long the run; resulting in these types of breeding problems.
Yes, the blackouts came from massive market fraud from the likes of Enron. Power was always available. The power problems came from periods where supplies were unwilling to purchase massively inflated and artificially manipulated price as a result of illegal practices.
But, as you say yourself, the problem is not cheese, so "cheese culture" is probably irrelevant. The example paper above, researches the correlation between the lactase genes and the history of animal domestication.
The problem with that is cheese has been around somewhere between 10,000 and 5,000 years, which squarely fits within that study's 7,000 year window; which overlaps with animal husbandry and domestication of lactating animals. Which suggests, any such study which fails to account for cheese within such cultures, likely isn't seeing the whole picture. That really sounds like half a study.
I did some quick checking, and lactose intolerance, at its worst, can interfere with nutritional uptake as well as hinder water absorption but it appears lactose intolerance to such a degree is fairly rare. I suppose you can argue that validates the bias (in that it may not have always been so rare), but then again, the window for such selection bias is likely to be extremely small given the adoption of cheese in so many cultures (less large expanses of Africa, again IIRC) within the same time span.
Basically, the creation of cheese is the antithesis of lactose intolerance genetic bias. In fact, I would argue it would encourage lactose intolerance selection, or at least mask it.
I agree this may be touching on philosophical boundaries, but I believe most agree, turning on and off genes (basically, making use of what's already there in the genome) are in a different category from splicing different genes without a common ancestor. In other words, I don't find it very easy to accept grass and jelly fish are likely to breed and create jellyfish-grass in nature. Again, the former is part of evolution, the later is not.
in societies where dairy products were consumed regulardly, mutations that allowed adults to produce the required lactase to process lactose were favored
Just out of curiosity, how do you envision the root of such a bias to become genetically favored? "Oh, he's so dreamy, and he doesn't fart after drinking the goat milk?", therefore that created more breeding opportunities? Perhaps I don't fully appreciate the possible severity of lactose intolerance?
As an aside, since cheese is well know to contain little or no lactose, and is almost universally tolerated by lactose intolerant humans, wouldn't it seem more likely a culture would discover and embrace cheese rather than create a selective bias against the lactose intolerant?
AFAIK, isn't Africa one of the few places on earth where cheese didn't become a primary food ingredient? Any idea what a map of cheese culture vs lactose intolerance would look like?
The difference is environmental selection vs intellectual selection.
Because of crazy hippies, people forget mankind IS part of the environment. Selective breeding, generally to enhance a symbiotic relationship is part of natural selection. Symbiotic relationships are well known to exist throughout nature, in many, many environments without man. For example, some species of groupers and eels are known to have developed a symbiotic relationship and body language which initiates a group hunt for other food sources. In this case, if the good source bolts upward, the grouper gets it. If it stays down low, the eel gets it. Without such symbiosis, the food would have likely escaped.
Selective breeding to bias specific genes (such as to avoid birth defects, genetic diseases, or larger milk production) is not the same thing as entirely new variants created by splicing in entirely new genes; such as those used to create jellyfish-grass, etc., etc., etc...
I love how we can discuss this rationally, yet as soon as someone mentions the FSM tweaking our DNA a few billion years ago to cultivate us out of the primordial soup of Earth, people call him a blasphemer and accuse him of that most dreadful of sins: Creationism.
Much of what you describe actually is part of their genetics. These types of things have happened in nature. Frequently, this is why we see highly specialized variants which are unable to survive when the environment changes. There are many, many parallels in nature (as in without the hand of man) where such specializations are known to exist.
Certainly the crops and animals we eat today are not the result of "natural evolution."
I disagree. For much of the examples you give, these examples of symbiosis which is known to exists in many forms in nature (as in, without man). The same is also true for dogs, cats, horses, mules, corn (maze), etc., etc., etc. In fact, dogs, cats, corn, and horses are all wonderful example of symbiosis. Without man, they would still be wolves, a tiger (or leopard, or whatever), maize, or a small number of smaller horses. Are you arguing dogs, cats, corn, and horses are unnatural too? Keep in mind, in each of these cases, their existing genetic composition remained unchanged (change was in natural variance rather than introduction of new), as they all share a common ancestor. The traits which make them distinct are the same traits which enhance their symbiosis with man, as it fits a specific need.
My point being, while many of these species would simply not exist without man (based on selective breeding), due to their symbiotic relationship with man, they have evolved to become highly specialized with common ancestry. Its not like we're talking about dog-cows and elephant-cats, and banana-corn. After all, they are still very much, dogs, cats, corn, and horses.
As for the size of some of these animals, much of that has as much to do with their genetics as it does their environment, including hormone levels and lack of predatory pressures. Environments without predatory pressures and an abundance of food are fully expected to create larger, slower animals. That's even dictated by evolution and something we can verify via recent history and even the fossil record.
The difference though, is that we don't call our tweaking "Evolution" as we ought to.:|
Not even close to accurate. Evolution takes place because of natural selection. There is nothing natural or fittest in selection to what man does via most generic engineering. In fact, much of the GE man does is actually contrary to what nature is likely to create - which is exactly why man is doing it.
While its true, some GE is simply turning on dormant genes, much of it is actively removing and splicing in new genes which have never before been part of the recipient's genetic structure. Such concepts are the exact opposite of evolution.
That's not to say its bad, only that its not evolution and calling it as such is dishonest to say the least.
My initial reaction is I agree with that. I think some have started to make an effort here, but I have no idea about their level of funding, the types of equipment in use, or the credibility of said organizations and/or individuals. Though ignoring that, if what he said was true, that 25% (or whatever the number was) of the non-premo land has never been foot surveyed, that alone makes we wonder what else is out there; and that's completely ignoring hominid or homo anything.
- and back on my soap box -
One of the biggest problems with cryptozoology in general, is much like what you find in physics forums, there are a lot of crackpots which cling to it to support the wildest of harebrained fantasy. Its one of the hypocritical reasons many scientists believe cryptozoology is a pseudo-science. I say, hypocritically, because using that bar, physics is also a pseudo-science. And the only thing which makes me not want to completely dismiss this guy is he tries hard to put forward a credible, if strained, presentation within the bounds of plausibility. Of course, plausibility doesn't make it true. Of course, over the last several hundred years, there has been long parade of people mocked as he who were proved correct.
But hell, science knows full well a lot of established edicts of science are full of shit - despite meeting extremely strong resistance from the entrenched scientists. For example, we know its extremely unlikely dinosaurs were the plan gray/green animals as constantly presented. Its factually, far more likely to reflect the color variance spectrum of birds. We know some of the armored dinosaurs were in fact, not armored; unless massive blood loss from minor injury is the purpose of armor. Rather than armor, its understood these served strictly a mating ritual and attraction role; as is common in the bird kingdom. We know T-rexes were scavengers (like, say, a hyena) rather than hunters. We know they too were family creators, likely stayed in family-unit packs (at least to some exist), and did have a concept of coherent family. And that's just the tip of the ice berg. Likewise, there are literally tens of thousands of objects in storerooms which violate established timeline throughout most of the fossil record, and despite them being fairly consistent in their dating, they are completely ignored because it violates established models. And when questioned about this, scientists acknowledge this and simply state they will always be ignored until a new theory can not only account for these massive aberrations, but successfully displace existing theories which are known to have massive holes; all the while taught of gospel. Which brings us full circle - he is absolutely right in that there is a lot of fraud and active misrepresentation in scientific circles, contrary to popular notions of noble science.
That in a nutshell, is likely one of the reasons I'm willing to at least entertain the notion he may at least be in the ballpark.
The bigfoot claims turned by stomach too but its not paranormal. Specifically, that qualifiers as cryptozoology. That doesn't validate his theory, but his suggestion of bigfoot is far from the paranormal. Traditional paranormal is odd things such as ghosts and trolls under bridges, esp, so on and so on. Basically areas of study which are in no way supported by modern science. To suggest his theory qualifies as the paranormal, as hey painfully points out, is to suggest pandas, giant squid, giant octopi, and tends of thousands of other species don't exist.
But contrary to wikipedia's incorrectness on the subject matter, hardly surprising wikipedia is wrong, cryptozoology is a valid science and has led to discovery and many new animals and species, including Pandas and extremely rare fish (to which many documentaries have been made for channels like Discovery and Animal Planet). The idiotic spin on Wikipedia seems to ignore its real discoveries and seems to strictly focus on things like big foot and the lockness monster. So factually, contrary to the idiocy of the wikipedia article, cryptozoology is absolutely not a pseudo science. Using their criteria, almost all science is a pseudo science - which is dumb.
Worse yet, he actually has a theory that somehow connects crypto-zoology with ufology and throws in a big serving of paranormality.
I didn't see any paranormality in the account. In fact, he goes to great pains to explain why his theory is supported by established sciences. Regardless, the theory you are talking about is called the Ancient Astronaut Theory. The History or Discovery Channel has a documentary on it and dozens and dozens of books have been printed on this material to date. Documentaries dating back to the fifties and sixties on the topic can still be found. In fact, these theories are the entire basis for the Stargate movie, which spawned several scifi TV series.
Really? Do a simple search on "UFO+bible". There's a lot of crap to wade through but the results are massive (10.6 million results on Google).
The bible actually makes reference to lots of really, readlly odd things, including giants. In fact, giants are specifically mentioned multiple times in multiple places by multiple people.
Another interesting tidbit about the bible is that the people who created official cannon (meaning those who actually created the bible), in irony of ironies, consider Jesus himself to be an untrustworthy source. Jesus specifically quotes from the book of Enoch but when the bible is created, they consider the content far too bizarre (which it is) and remove most references. Unfortunately, there still remains several references to this book, one or two of which actually belong to Jesus. Furthermore, other texts actually have Jesus make many, many references to this book, saying it was commonly discussed between the disciples, thereby quoting directly from this book. So what we wind up with, is Jesus and others making reference to a seemingly fairly well known text of the time and "wise elders", at a much later date, deciding Jesus and others really didn't know what they were talking about.
Interestingly enough, later generations went to a fair effort to discredit the Book of Enoch (and others which didn't become cannon), by among other things, saying it was an all but unknown text. But contrary to this, many of the references to the book, including by Jesus, are in conversation with groups of laymen where the context of the references would only be understood if the book was well circulated. So its rather interesting how a seemingly well circulated book, seemingly understood and read by multitudes of laymen, is considered an unknown and poorly circulate text in some circles. Its a disparity I've never been able to resolve or understand.
As it pertains to your original question, the book of Enoch actually describes leaving earth, relativistic travel (assuming you're reading with a modern eye for what is described), so on and so on. Which brings us full circle, UFO references actually occur both directly and indirectly in both the bible and other books referenced by the bible and Jesus himself. Not to mention, many other scripts make references back to these books.
You'll find Wikipedia has a surprising number of articles on various directly and loosely related topics.
Literally, you can spend months reading about UFOs (and other oddities) in the bible; both directly and indirectly referenced. If you care to do some honest reading and research, you will likely be amazed just how many UFOs are documented from those days. Needless to say, once you start researching, what's frequently taught in church bares little resemblance of what once was widely believed and taught.
And in case you don't know, Enoch is said to be related to Methuselah and Noah. IIRC (been a while since I read), Enoch is the father of Methuselah and the great grandfather of Noah, but my memory may be failing me there.
Lastly, please note, I'm not advocating...I'm simply informing. I find the topic fairly interesting so it makes for some bizarre and obtuse rainy day reading.
I will warn you, if you're of the religious type, you may be completely shocked and/or disgusted with what you find.
Slashdot Mirror
'Even in those jurisdictions where there are legal distribution channels, pricing renders many products unaffordable for the vast majority of the population.
Most, if not all, Western nations completely invalidate such studies given that music is extremely affordable and reasonably priced - and much cheaper than capitalistic pricing would otherwise allow.
Its a societal failure, not an economic failure. Period.
Its a straw man because you're full of shit.
Android 3.0 is not closed source. Android 3.0+, just as with all previous versions of Android, is part of a closed development process. Those are two entirely different things. Google has made it clear once they finish with their targeted 3.x features, it will be released from their closed development model.
Closed development is in no way the same as closed source. To suggest they are one in the same is to validate one as either an idiot or a troll; whereby they are not mutually exclusive possibilities.
So yes, absolutely, your statement is a straw-man because your statement means ALL versions of Android are closed source and factually we know your assertion to be full of shit.
Not true. The "GPL code base" actually isn't. I have no idea why you believe that factually incorrect statement.. The code base is BSD and/or Apache based. Largely, only the kernel is GPLed. So good luck taking just a Linux kernel and recreating the Android platform. Google is literally entirely free to lock down the entire platform tomorrow. Of course, I doubt they'll do that, but the option is always on the table.
Honestly, at this point I can't tell if we are in violent agreement, talking two sides of the same coin, or are talking around each other in disagreement. :/
Regardless, a civil and respectful exchange is certainly an enjoyable change from most days on slashdot these days. So regardless of where we are, thanks.
First you need to establish how they are "locking down" the platform? You are free to branch the available source any time you want. How is that even remotely close to Apple's platform where the source isn't even available? One is open with a closed door development model plus tiny proprietary components (device drivers) while the other is completely closed and proprietary. They are as different as night and day. One is open sourced while the later absolutely is not.
I have no idea why so many seem to get off telling half truths in an attempt to disenfranchise android developers and would-be users, but time and time again, that's all these stories are - lame attempts with half truths without a legitimate complaint.
I mean, holy shit, how stupid do many of these slashdotters have to be? Google is well on record announcing Honeycomb was a forced march to create a tablet competitor at manufacturer demand and that it was only ever half a solution for a very targeted niche. Why would they want to damage the community and ecosystem just so people can play and damage the ecosystem. The complaint is completely illogical and squarely rooted in selfishness.
Its always been pretty obvious to anyone who wants to read between Google's lines that once 3.x and 2.x are merged again, the result will be made public. Seriously, people take a step back and stop being so closed minded and selfish. How is it to the advantage of anyone to further a platform which is incompatible with the majority of devices, which will further alienate users and most importantly, developers? Its not. Basically the whining is coming from people who are too stupid to realize they've been done a favor. Either that, or they are coming from the Apple camp and are looking to capitalize on the ignorance of the masses to the benefit of their championed platform.
Actually, its to Google's own advantage to encourage devices to become upgradable. They've already suffered as a result of manufacturers and carriers dragging their feet. It hurts Google, it hurts developers, it hurts the the platform, and ultimately their revenue by falling behind in competition. Having said that, pragmatically, they do not make up the entire ecosystem. That means fighting the good fight but picking your battles. You can't alienate your jockeys on an unproven horse, right out of the gate. Assuming that's even possible is silly.
Like it or not, Google must make concessions, especially right out of the gate, to allow for the platform's adoption; especially early on when it was completely unproven. Exactly what the tug-of-war will look like tomorrow, while I suspect Google has plans, I seriously doubt even they know. Regardless, it is shaking up the market to varying degrees for everyone's benefit.
The only way Google can change the market is to work within the market. And doing so means working with the established players (carriers). Attempting to change the market from within doesn't automatically make them the enemy. I wish people would stop being so narrow minded and turn off their black and white vision and understand, the world is complex and they are very much attempting to change the status quo from very anti-competitive and entrenched players. In what way are these concessions and struggles not all but demanded?
Not that I'm directly aware of. I've heard rumblings of cheap Chinese knockoffs but that's its own ecosystem with problems.
I seem to recall hearing some place that post-Honeycomb, that is to say, whatever the 2.x+3.x merge becomes, there will finally be an OHA (with market a gapps) tablet/pda, non-phone series available but its been a while since I've read that and I no longer remember the source. As such, I don't remember if that was unofficial-official talk (much of what is learned about Android before releases), general rumor and speculation, or some guy talking from his ass.
That's an easy one. You want to root for Google. Google wants a kind of openness which is good for everyone, especially including Google. The manufacturers want an openness which is only good for them and bad for everyone else; basically attempting to reshape Android back into the status quo.
With Google's solution, everyone wins to some degree except the manufacturers. With the manufacturers, only the manufacturers win and everyone else loses.
Ya, but the solution was easy and trivial. Simply re-install the originally provided and licensed applications to those who install Cyanogen. Installs copy the originally applications, install, and then copy back those same applications. Basically, its not even worth mentioning so long as your device was originally licensed to run such applications; which is the vast, vast majority of devices.
Yes, but the failing isn't with Google, rather its the fact a failed idea has been used to punish a user by preventing them from then moving to something which actually works.
Such breeding normally results in inability to impregnate the egg, sterility (as in a liger or mule), loss of pregnancy (can't go full term), etc.. That means the genetics are saying there is an incompatible combination of genes, but it does not suggest the genes have changes outside of their common ancestry (not to say there isn't a possible intersection). We also see this happen in the wild. Pandas (inability to carry full term or become impregnated) and mules (sterile) are such examples and is the single largest reason why Pandas are dying out and extremely difficult to breed in captivity (which wasn't always possible).
Such issues are thought to be the cause of many a natural species extinction. Remember, species dying out is also part of the natural order of evolution. Sometimes a genetic divergence just doesn't prove successful in the long the run; resulting in these types of breeding problems.
Yes, the blackouts came from massive market fraud from the likes of Enron. Power was always available. The power problems came from periods where supplies were unwilling to purchase massively inflated and artificially manipulated price as a result of illegal practices.
But, as you say yourself, the problem is not cheese, so "cheese culture" is probably irrelevant. The example paper above, researches the correlation between the lactase genes and the history of animal domestication.
The problem with that is cheese has been around somewhere between 10,000 and 5,000 years, which squarely fits within that study's 7,000 year window; which overlaps with animal husbandry and domestication of lactating animals. Which suggests, any such study which fails to account for cheese within such cultures, likely isn't seeing the whole picture. That really sounds like half a study.
I did some quick checking, and lactose intolerance, at its worst, can interfere with nutritional uptake as well as hinder water absorption but it appears lactose intolerance to such a degree is fairly rare. I suppose you can argue that validates the bias (in that it may not have always been so rare), but then again, the window for such selection bias is likely to be extremely small given the adoption of cheese in so many cultures (less large expanses of Africa, again IIRC) within the same time span.
Basically, the creation of cheese is the antithesis of lactose intolerance genetic bias. In fact, I would argue it would encourage lactose intolerance selection, or at least mask it.
Ya but, those women get really pissed when you try to brand 'em.
I agree this may be touching on philosophical boundaries, but I believe most agree, turning on and off genes (basically, making use of what's already there in the genome) are in a different category from splicing different genes without a common ancestor. In other words, I don't find it very easy to accept grass and jelly fish are likely to breed and create jellyfish-grass in nature. Again, the former is part of evolution, the later is not.
in societies where dairy products were consumed regulardly, mutations that allowed adults to produce the required lactase to process lactose were favored
Just out of curiosity, how do you envision the root of such a bias to become genetically favored? "Oh, he's so dreamy, and he doesn't fart after drinking the goat milk?", therefore that created more breeding opportunities? Perhaps I don't fully appreciate the possible severity of lactose intolerance?
As an aside, since cheese is well know to contain little or no lactose, and is almost universally tolerated by lactose intolerant humans, wouldn't it seem more likely a culture would discover and embrace cheese rather than create a selective bias against the lactose intolerant?
AFAIK, isn't Africa one of the few places on earth where cheese didn't become a primary food ingredient? Any idea what a map of cheese culture vs lactose intolerance would look like?
The difference is environmental selection vs intellectual selection.
Because of crazy hippies, people forget mankind IS part of the environment. Selective breeding, generally to enhance a symbiotic relationship is part of natural selection. Symbiotic relationships are well known to exist throughout nature, in many, many environments without man. For example, some species of groupers and eels are known to have developed a symbiotic relationship and body language which initiates a group hunt for other food sources. In this case, if the good source bolts upward, the grouper gets it. If it stays down low, the eel gets it. Without such symbiosis, the food would have likely escaped.
Selective breeding to bias specific genes (such as to avoid birth defects, genetic diseases, or larger milk production) is not the same thing as entirely new variants created by splicing in entirely new genes; such as those used to create jellyfish-grass, etc., etc., etc...
I love how we can discuss this rationally, yet as soon as someone mentions the FSM tweaking our DNA a few billion years ago to cultivate us out of the primordial soup of Earth, people call him a blasphemer and accuse him of that most dreadful of sins: Creationism.
I don't guess I follow what your point was there.
Much of what you describe actually is part of their genetics. These types of things have happened in nature. Frequently, this is why we see highly specialized variants which are unable to survive when the environment changes. There are many, many parallels in nature (as in without the hand of man) where such specializations are known to exist.
Certainly the crops and animals we eat today are not the result of "natural evolution."
I disagree. For much of the examples you give, these examples of symbiosis which is known to exists in many forms in nature (as in, without man). The same is also true for dogs, cats, horses, mules, corn (maze), etc., etc., etc. In fact, dogs, cats, corn, and horses are all wonderful example of symbiosis. Without man, they would still be wolves, a tiger (or leopard, or whatever), maize, or a small number of smaller horses. Are you arguing dogs, cats, corn, and horses are unnatural too? Keep in mind, in each of these cases, their existing genetic composition remained unchanged (change was in natural variance rather than introduction of new), as they all share a common ancestor. The traits which make them distinct are the same traits which enhance their symbiosis with man, as it fits a specific need.
My point being, while many of these species would simply not exist without man (based on selective breeding), due to their symbiotic relationship with man, they have evolved to become highly specialized with common ancestry. Its not like we're talking about dog-cows and elephant-cats, and banana-corn. After all, they are still very much, dogs, cats, corn, and horses.
As for the size of some of these animals, much of that has as much to do with their genetics as it does their environment, including hormone levels and lack of predatory pressures. Environments without predatory pressures and an abundance of food are fully expected to create larger, slower animals. That's even dictated by evolution and something we can verify via recent history and even the fossil record.
The difference though, is that we don't call our tweaking "Evolution" as we ought to. :|
Not even close to accurate. Evolution takes place because of natural selection. There is nothing natural or fittest in selection to what man does via most generic engineering. In fact, much of the GE man does is actually contrary to what nature is likely to create - which is exactly why man is doing it.
While its true, some GE is simply turning on dormant genes, much of it is actively removing and splicing in new genes which have never before been part of the recipient's genetic structure. Such concepts are the exact opposite of evolution.
That's not to say its bad, only that its not evolution and calling it as such is dishonest to say the least.
My initial reaction is I agree with that. I think some have started to make an effort here, but I have no idea about their level of funding, the types of equipment in use, or the credibility of said organizations and/or individuals. Though ignoring that, if what he said was true, that 25% (or whatever the number was) of the non-premo land has never been foot surveyed, that alone makes we wonder what else is out there; and that's completely ignoring hominid or homo anything.
- and back on my soap box -
One of the biggest problems with cryptozoology in general, is much like what you find in physics forums, there are a lot of crackpots which cling to it to support the wildest of harebrained fantasy. Its one of the hypocritical reasons many scientists believe cryptozoology is a pseudo-science. I say, hypocritically, because using that bar, physics is also a pseudo-science. And the only thing which makes me not want to completely dismiss this guy is he tries hard to put forward a credible, if strained, presentation within the bounds of plausibility. Of course, plausibility doesn't make it true. Of course, over the last several hundred years, there has been long parade of people mocked as he who were proved correct.
But hell, science knows full well a lot of established edicts of science are full of shit - despite meeting extremely strong resistance from the entrenched scientists. For example, we know its extremely unlikely dinosaurs were the plan gray/green animals as constantly presented. Its factually, far more likely to reflect the color variance spectrum of birds. We know some of the armored dinosaurs were in fact, not armored; unless massive blood loss from minor injury is the purpose of armor. Rather than armor, its understood these served strictly a mating ritual and attraction role; as is common in the bird kingdom. We know T-rexes were scavengers (like, say, a hyena) rather than hunters. We know they too were family creators, likely stayed in family-unit packs (at least to some exist), and did have a concept of coherent family. And that's just the tip of the ice berg. Likewise, there are literally tens of thousands of objects in storerooms which violate established timeline throughout most of the fossil record, and despite them being fairly consistent in their dating, they are completely ignored because it violates established models. And when questioned about this, scientists acknowledge this and simply state they will always be ignored until a new theory can not only account for these massive aberrations, but successfully displace existing theories which are known to have massive holes; all the while taught of gospel. Which brings us full circle - he is absolutely right in that there is a lot of fraud and active misrepresentation in scientific circles, contrary to popular notions of noble science.
That in a nutshell, is likely one of the reasons I'm willing to at least entertain the notion he may at least be in the ballpark.
The sad thing is, I'm sure the masses were all going, "Ohhh burn! Take that!", before you replied.
The bigfoot claims turned by stomach too but its not paranormal. Specifically, that qualifiers as cryptozoology. That doesn't validate his theory, but his suggestion of bigfoot is far from the paranormal. Traditional paranormal is odd things such as ghosts and trolls under bridges, esp, so on and so on. Basically areas of study which are in no way supported by modern science. To suggest his theory qualifies as the paranormal, as hey painfully points out, is to suggest pandas, giant squid, giant octopi, and tends of thousands of other species don't exist.
But contrary to wikipedia's incorrectness on the subject matter, hardly surprising wikipedia is wrong, cryptozoology is a valid science and has led to discovery and many new animals and species, including Pandas and extremely rare fish (to which many documentaries have been made for channels like Discovery and Animal Planet). The idiotic spin on Wikipedia seems to ignore its real discoveries and seems to strictly focus on things like big foot and the lockness monster. So factually, contrary to the idiocy of the wikipedia article, cryptozoology is absolutely not a pseudo science. Using their criteria, almost all science is a pseudo science - which is dumb.
Worse yet, he actually has a theory that somehow connects crypto-zoology with ufology and throws in a big serving of paranormality.
I didn't see any paranormality in the account. In fact, he goes to great pains to explain why his theory is supported by established sciences. Regardless, the theory you are talking about is called the Ancient Astronaut Theory. The History or Discovery Channel has a documentary on it and dozens and dozens of books have been printed on this material to date. Documentaries dating back to the fifties and sixties on the topic can still be found. In fact, these theories are the entire basis for the Stargate movie, which spawned several scifi TV series.
Really? Do a simple search on "UFO+bible". There's a lot of crap to wade through but the results are massive (10.6 million results on Google).
The bible actually makes reference to lots of really, readlly odd things, including giants. In fact, giants are specifically mentioned multiple times in multiple places by multiple people.
Another interesting tidbit about the bible is that the people who created official cannon (meaning those who actually created the bible), in irony of ironies, consider Jesus himself to be an untrustworthy source. Jesus specifically quotes from the book of Enoch but when the bible is created, they consider the content far too bizarre (which it is) and remove most references. Unfortunately, there still remains several references to this book, one or two of which actually belong to Jesus. Furthermore, other texts actually have Jesus make many, many references to this book, saying it was commonly discussed between the disciples, thereby quoting directly from this book. So what we wind up with, is Jesus and others making reference to a seemingly fairly well known text of the time and "wise elders", at a much later date, deciding Jesus and others really didn't know what they were talking about.
Interestingly enough, later generations went to a fair effort to discredit the Book of Enoch (and others which didn't become cannon), by among other things, saying it was an all but unknown text. But contrary to this, many of the references to the book, including by Jesus, are in conversation with groups of laymen where the context of the references would only be understood if the book was well circulated. So its rather interesting how a seemingly well circulated book, seemingly understood and read by multitudes of laymen, is considered an unknown and poorly circulate text in some circles. Its a disparity I've never been able to resolve or understand.
As it pertains to your original question, the book of Enoch actually describes leaving earth, relativistic travel (assuming you're reading with a modern eye for what is described), so on and so on. Which brings us full circle, UFO references actually occur both directly and indirectly in both the bible and other books referenced by the bible and Jesus himself. Not to mention, many other scripts make references back to these books.
You'll find Wikipedia has a surprising number of articles on various directly and loosely related topics.
Literally, you can spend months reading about UFOs (and other oddities) in the bible; both directly and indirectly referenced. If you care to do some honest reading and research, you will likely be amazed just how many UFOs are documented from those days. Needless to say, once you start researching, what's frequently taught in church bares little resemblance of what once was widely believed and taught.
And in case you don't know, Enoch is said to be related to Methuselah and Noah. IIRC (been a while since I read), Enoch is the father of Methuselah and the great grandfather of Noah, but my memory may be failing me there.
Lastly, please note, I'm not advocating...I'm simply informing. I find the topic fairly interesting so it makes for some bizarre and obtuse rainy day reading.
I will warn you, if you're of the religious type, you may be completely shocked and/or disgusted with what you find.
If you wear two of them, you see in six dimensions* instead of just three.
* LSD not included.