Next time I throw up, I'll remember that all that burning smelly stuff coming out is just water.
Quite right. I had forgotten about all that HCl, etc.
However, I'm afraid that doesn't change the fact--yes, fact--that "water in any case inhibits the growth of more complex molecules." -- The Neck of the Giraffe, by Francis Hitching
Chemist Richard E. Dickerson elaborates in Scientific American: "It is therefore hard to see how polymerization [linking smaller molecules to form bigger ones] could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primitive ocean, since the presence of water favors depolymerization [breaking up big molecules] rather than polymerization."
"Hobbits"? Very tiny people, that's all, assuming the fossils are real (see below). Look at the basketball players of today. Is it unreasonable to think that very small people came to exist? In our time, we have the pygmies in Africa. The Bible, incidentally, mentions a race of 9-foot-tall people in the city of Gath in ancient Philistia. And our good friend Gul Mohammed was measured to be 22.5 inches in 1990. The human species has an incredible amount of diversity capability preloaded into our own DNA. So finding a bunch of little people in a cave does not a 'missing link' make.
the theory of evolution cannot explain alone why we are here, today. It can, however, explain...
This is why many people on both sides of the debate make a distinction between microevolution and macroevolution. They are two different things. The variety of different breeds of dog is an excellent example of microevolution. Macroevolution is tantamount to saying you can breed a dog into a cat or an ape or a snake or a bug or a plant if you try hard enough. Unfortunately, most (if not all) evolutionists like to equate the two, when in reality macroevolution has yet to be proven in a single case. A lot of the fundamentalists don't want to acknowledge that microevolution exists. And thus the flamewar continues...
Using mutation to survive even explains sudden explosions of wildly variating plants and animals
Well, no, it doesn't, because mutations can only result in a variation of a preexisting trait. It provides variety, but never anything new. A quote from The World Book Encyclopedia gives an example of a beneficial mutation: "A plant in a dry area might have a mutant gene that causes it to grow larger and stronger roots. The plant would have a better chance of survival than others of its species because its roots could absorb more water." But do we have anything new here? No, it's still the same plant. It's not evolving into something else; humans with mutant genes making them 7 feet tall are humans just as are humans with mutant genes making them 4 feet tall or 2 feet tall. And even the 'punctuated equilibrium' ideas posit at the very least many thousands of years of gradual changes, which must be documented in the fossil record if it happened, and it has not been seen, even with all the thousands of diggers, digging in tens of thousands of places, spending millions of hours and billions of dollars. Where is the evidence?
Don't even get me started on the fake fossils and the incredible amount of money being put into them. Suffice it to say that there's enough of a demand for them that there is at least one factory in China churning them out daily.
Scientists have used the facts incorrectly, claiming that if little changes are possible within x kind of animal, and x is known to have come from something similar (say, tumbler pigeon from rock dove, for example), then Yay! It all reduces down to nothing and life brought ITSELF to life!!!1!
[the idea that life poofed itself into existence] hasn't been disproven
Then again, the idea that someone who knew what they were doing poofed life into existence hasn't been disproven either. As you say, The only way to disprove the idea would be to travel back in time and observe the origin of life yourself. If you believe in what the Bible calls the God of Good Luck, then you can easily have enough faith in him to convince yourself that the dice rolled 12, a billion billion billion times in a row. Or, you can have faith in what the Bible *really* says. You can thereby eliminate all the mess of what the Fundies claim (I for one welcome Genesis 2:4, where it says, "This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day that [he] made earth and heaven", thus showing for a fact that the term day was symbolic), and the mess of how in heaven's name the universe spontaneously came to exist (which is no mean feat in itself) with *every* *single* *parameter* *perfect* for hosting life, and Earth itself *perfectly* suited to life. Not close, like Mars, Perfect. That's before we get to the good ones, like how do you form a membrane to protect the cell without the DNA instructions, and how do you stabilize DNA in this incredibly reactive primordeal soup (really, they have no clue what it was like because the eons have changed the earth so much the only evidence still around doesn't tell a lot about things soooo long ago) long enough to get it to form a membrane, and how to get around the astronomical odds of getting the DNA just right so it actually will *do* something.
I could go on about how proteins don't remain stable in such a soup long enough to form DNA, the incredible complexity of the transport systems of the simplest cell, how evolutionists have yet to come up with ANY kind of explanation for the sudden and unexpected appearance of complex plants in the fossil record, the glaring and conspicuous absence of intermediate species (what, do they expect us to believe we just JUMPED from ape to human in one step?!), but you probably don't have the patience;-)
Maybe someone should try using the actual solar wind to push it, instead of sunlight. Where this planet is located, it'll accelerate a craft a lot faster than sunlight.
Intelligent Design can explain it too, in fact, as well as the existence of its creator. Your point?
No, neither the theory nor the scientists who study it have any such delusions.
No, they just say, 'every intelligent person knows it to be a fact'.
It is not up to me to prove Evolution to you. It is up to you to describe and conduct an experiment whose results are inconsistent with the Theory.
So you're saying it--oh, 'scuse me--ahem, The Theory, is self-evident. There are enough truths in that (hard to grasp, takes much study) idea that some experiments will naturally fall within its boundaries. Doesn't mean it's all true. Anyone can attach some truth to a lie. For example:
1^2 = 1; (-1)^2 = 1; 1^2 = (-1)^2; 1 = -1
Yes, even the numbers can lie. Why not a bunch of elitists who think they know it all? And yes, I'm aware that the vast majority (all?) of the fundamentalists are exactly the same way. (They're one reason for the whole evolutionist movement anyway, but that's another story.) But that only demonstrates that evolutionism is just another religion. But it's not up to me to prove that to you. It's up to you to prove me wrong;-)
Whoops. Not really, because water, once it allows them to join, quickly forces them apart again. Good thing, too, or we wouldn't be able to digest much of those massive polymers called protein.
Clay doesn't reproduce.
Oh, yeah, change the subject real quick, lest someone actually think about what you said, and see right through your dogma.
...on second thought, was your post sarcastic? Maybe the tongue was a bit too far in the cheek.
ID is falsifiable by showing how undirected, natural means can form a complex structure.For example, rapidly generate multiple generations of unflaggellated bacteria within an environmental pressure--a current--and see if the bacteria creates flaggella for itself.
Not-so-good logic, with a not-so-good example. Tell me, How on earth would you know that the bacterium strain (I'll assume you aren't making the ridiculous suggestion that one individual could just turn into a new species without reproducing) didn't already have flagellum capability in its DNA? After all, according to both ID and evolutionism, some variation in kinds of life forms is to be expected. Witness the incredible evolution of dogs, for example.
Oh, you wanted to sequence and decode the entire genome? And you wanted to be able to prove it was all decoded flawlessly? You wonder why such a test hasn't been done...
500 terabytes -- would take about 250 years to download using a typical 512 kilobit per second household broadband connection
Well, I've got a 3 megabit connection! It'd only take...uh...well, 42 years or so...but I'd upgrade to that 1 gigabit connection they have in Asia before it finished...
From: Advertising Department
To: Ivan S.
Cc: Slashdot
Re: Your Recent Interview
Dear Sir,
Recently we've been spending a lot of money on a good campaign to convince America we have good coverage. We think we've been doing a good job of it.
Unfortunately, it has come to our attention that you made certain comments about Verizon's coverage, namely, 'Why in the world would you think your (cell) phone would work in your house?'
To keep our image from suffering in the eyes of the public, our response (i.e. damage control) will need to be quick, bulletproof, and all-encompassing. Thus, our final words:
AHH HAH HAH HA HA HA HAHAHAHAHAAAAH! LET THE MONEY FLOOD INTO OUR DEPARTMENT, FOOL!!!!
cause I think you just hit the nail on the head. Even if there is a revolution brewing, it's not the Holy Grail or anything, because LED'S DO NOT LAST FOREVER.
Although what you say may in fact be true, McVeigh doesn't really prove anything about 'the terrorists' because he's an American. Lots of Americans are stupid. 'The terrorists', on the other hand, are almost universally thought of as being from another country/ethnic origin.
If you watch the video, you can see it walking around (very slowly), and I think shooting as well. The framerate is so low, I think I saw a ball shot from it, and what appeared to be multiple recoils, but I can't be sure. (I didn't get sound from it, but that might just be my setup.)
they've overhyped the Pentium 4 for 4+ years, and underhyped the Pentium III. The P3 was a far better chip, and still is. That's why they re-released it as the M.
Oh, wait. I get it. They axed the front (back?) door to Microsoft's Office and threatened to axe a few more, and *then* M$ 'found' the documents. That's about right.
There is no "extracting the energy directly from the hydrogen." The hydrogen still goes thru redox reactions
Well of course. You know what I meant. Instead of extracting energy from the chemical reaction between the hydrogen and the metals, it extracts the energy from the hydrogen, because it is the hydrogen whose electrons are forced to go around the circuit while its protons go through the semi-permeable membrane in order to connect with waiting oxygen atoms. Whew! Should I have to go into that much detail every time? *shrug*
7% maximum achievable
For NiMH batteries, anyway. Supposing they ground the powder more finely, and made the container out of, say, carbon fiber?
Quite understandable. Unfortunately, the parent seemed to believe that because I mentioned that it uses practically the exact same tech. Well, fine and good, but it's using that tech veeery differently, and in very different proportions.
Slashdot Mirror
Next time I throw up, I'll remember that all that burning smelly stuff coming out is just water.
Quite right. I had forgotten about all that HCl, etc.
However, I'm afraid that doesn't change the fact--yes, fact--that "water in any case inhibits the growth of more complex molecules." -- The Neck of the Giraffe, by Francis Hitching
Chemist Richard E. Dickerson elaborates in Scientific American: "It is therefore hard to see how polymerization [linking smaller molecules to form bigger ones] could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primitive ocean, since the presence of water favors depolymerization [breaking up big molecules] rather than polymerization."
Remember, water is a solvent.
"Hobbits"? Very tiny people, that's all, assuming the fossils are real (see below). Look at the basketball players of today. Is it unreasonable to think that very small people came to exist? In our time, we have the pygmies in Africa. The Bible, incidentally, mentions a race of 9-foot-tall people in the city of Gath in ancient Philistia. And our good friend Gul Mohammed was measured to be 22.5 inches in 1990. The human species has an incredible amount of diversity capability preloaded into our own DNA. So finding a bunch of little people in a cave does not a 'missing link' make.
the theory of evolution cannot explain alone why we are here, today. It can, however, explain...
This is why many people on both sides of the debate make a distinction between microevolution and macroevolution. They are two different things. The variety of different breeds of dog is an excellent example of microevolution. Macroevolution is tantamount to saying you can breed a dog into a cat or an ape or a snake or a bug or a plant if you try hard enough. Unfortunately, most (if not all) evolutionists like to equate the two, when in reality macroevolution has yet to be proven in a single case. A lot of the fundamentalists don't want to acknowledge that microevolution exists. And thus the flamewar continues...
Using mutation to survive even explains sudden explosions of wildly variating plants and animals
Well, no, it doesn't, because mutations can only result in a variation of a preexisting trait. It provides variety, but never anything new. A quote from The World Book Encyclopedia gives an example of a beneficial mutation: "A plant in a dry area might have a mutant gene that causes it to grow larger and stronger roots. The plant would have a better chance of survival than others of its species because its roots could absorb more water." But do we have anything new here? No, it's still the same plant. It's not evolving into something else; humans with mutant genes making them 7 feet tall are humans just as are humans with mutant genes making them 4 feet tall or 2 feet tall. And even the 'punctuated equilibrium' ideas posit at the very least many thousands of years of gradual changes, which must be documented in the fossil record if it happened, and it has not been seen, even with all the thousands of diggers, digging in tens of thousands of places, spending millions of hours and billions of dollars. Where is the evidence?
Don't even get me started on the fake fossils and the incredible amount of money being put into them. Suffice it to say that there's enough of a demand for them that there is at least one factory in China churning them out daily.
Only if you use them incorrectly.
;-)
Scientists have used the facts incorrectly, claiming that if little changes are possible within x kind of animal, and x is known to have come from something similar (say, tumbler pigeon from rock dove, for example), then Yay! It all reduces down to nothing and life brought ITSELF to life!!!1!
[the idea that life poofed itself into existence] hasn't been disproven
Then again, the idea that someone who knew what they were doing poofed life into existence hasn't been disproven either. As you say, The only way to disprove the idea would be to travel back in time and observe the origin of life yourself. If you believe in what the Bible calls the God of Good Luck, then you can easily have enough faith in him to convince yourself that the dice rolled 12, a billion billion billion times in a row. Or, you can have faith in what the Bible *really* says. You can thereby eliminate all the mess of what the Fundies claim (I for one welcome Genesis 2:4, where it says, "This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day that [he] made earth and heaven", thus showing for a fact that the term day was symbolic), and the mess of how in heaven's name the universe spontaneously came to exist (which is no mean feat in itself) with *every* *single* *parameter* *perfect* for hosting life, and Earth itself *perfectly* suited to life. Not close, like Mars, Perfect. That's before we get to the good ones, like how do you form a membrane to protect the cell without the DNA instructions, and how do you stabilize DNA in this incredibly reactive primordeal soup (really, they have no clue what it was like because the eons have changed the earth so much the only evidence still around doesn't tell a lot about things soooo long ago) long enough to get it to form a membrane, and how to get around the astronomical odds of getting the DNA just right so it actually will *do* something.
I could go on about how proteins don't remain stable in such a soup long enough to form DNA, the incredible complexity of the transport systems of the simplest cell, how evolutionists have yet to come up with ANY kind of explanation for the sudden and unexpected appearance of complex plants in the fossil record, the glaring and conspicuous absence of intermediate species (what, do they expect us to believe we just JUMPED from ape to human in one step?!), but you probably don't have the patience
Maybe someone should try using the actual solar wind to push it, instead of sunlight. Where this planet is located, it'll accelerate a craft a lot faster than sunlight.
Evolution can, in fact, explain that complexity.
;-)
Intelligent Design can explain it too, in fact, as well as the existence of its creator. Your point?
No, neither the theory nor the scientists who study it have any such delusions.
No, they just say, 'every intelligent person knows it to be a fact'.
It is not up to me to prove Evolution to you. It is up to you to describe and conduct an experiment whose results are inconsistent with the Theory.
So you're saying it--oh, 'scuse me--ahem, The Theory, is self-evident. There are enough truths in that (hard to grasp, takes much study) idea that some experiments will naturally fall within its boundaries. Doesn't mean it's all true. Anyone can attach some truth to a lie. For example:
1^2 = 1; (-1)^2 = 1; 1^2 = (-1)^2; 1 = -1
Yes, even the numbers can lie. Why not a bunch of elitists who think they know it all? And yes, I'm aware that the vast majority (all?) of the fundamentalists are exactly the same way. (They're one reason for the whole evolutionist movement anyway, but that's another story.) But that only demonstrates that evolutionism is just another religion. But it's not up to me to prove that to you. It's up to you to prove me wrong
amino acids -> polymers
Whoops. Not really, because water, once it allows them to join, quickly forces them apart again. Good thing, too, or we wouldn't be able to digest much of those massive polymers called protein.
Clay doesn't reproduce.
Oh, yeah, change the subject real quick, lest someone actually think about what you said, and see right through your dogma.
...on second thought, was your post sarcastic? Maybe the tongue was a bit too far in the cheek.
ID is falsifiable by showing how undirected, natural means can form a complex structure.For example, rapidly generate multiple generations of unflaggellated bacteria within an environmental pressure--a current--and see if the bacteria creates flaggella for itself.
Not-so-good logic, with a not-so-good example. Tell me, How on earth would you know that the bacterium strain (I'll assume you aren't making the ridiculous suggestion that one individual could just turn into a new species without reproducing) didn't already have flagellum capability in its DNA? After all, according to both ID and evolutionism, some variation in kinds of life forms is to be expected. Witness the incredible evolution of dogs, for example.
Oh, you wanted to sequence and decode the entire genome? And you wanted to be able to prove it was all decoded flawlessly? You wonder why such a test hasn't been done...
where do the evolutionists think the duck-billed platypus came from? Or the echidna (spiny anteater), for that matter?
Re your sig: shouldn't that be ipsem?
500 terabytes -- would take about 250 years to download using a typical 512 kilobit per second household broadband connection
Well, I've got a 3 megabit connection! It'd only take...uh...well, 42 years or so...but I'd upgrade to that 1 gigabit connection they have in Asia before it finished...
From: Advertising Department
To: Ivan S.
Cc: Slashdot
Re: Your Recent Interview
Dear Sir,
Recently we've been spending a lot of money on a good campaign to convince America we have good coverage. We think we've been doing a good job of it.
Unfortunately, it has come to our attention that you made certain comments about Verizon's coverage, namely, 'Why in the world would you think your (cell) phone would work in your house?'
To keep our image from suffering in the eyes of the public, our response (i.e. damage control) will need to be quick, bulletproof, and all-encompassing. Thus, our final words:
AHH HAH HAH HA HA HA HAHAHAHAHAAAAH! LET THE MONEY FLOOD INTO OUR DEPARTMENT, FOOL!!!!
Many Thanks,
the Advertising Dept.
cause I think you just hit the nail on the head. Even if there is a revolution brewing, it's not the Holy Grail or anything, because LED'S DO NOT LAST FOREVER.
MOD PARENT UP!
1. Imitate what is obviously an excellent encyclopedia system.
2. Patent it under some dumb name.
3. ???
4. Profit! In Soviet Microsoft, software patents edit YOU!!!
Seriously, though, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, etc...
Somehow, I just knew Windows was at the root of the whole thing...
Isn't that the same as Dihydrogen Monoxide?
Although what you say may in fact be true, McVeigh doesn't really prove anything about 'the terrorists' because he's an American. Lots of Americans are stupid. 'The terrorists', on the other hand, are almost universally thought of as being from another country/ethnic origin.
If you watch the video, you can see it walking around (very slowly), and I think shooting as well. The framerate is so low, I think I saw a ball shot from it, and what appeared to be multiple recoils, but I can't be sure. (I didn't get sound from it, but that might just be my setup.)
I was wondering if anyone had the guts|brains|imagination to think of/say this.
As we can see here...
The Pentium M is basically a "boosted" Pentium !!! : more cache, new optimisation-oriented features.
Add SSE2, and clock the FSB to 400MHz, and vee-olah! Pentium M!
It's a tweaked P3, and there's no denying it.
The Pentium M is basically a "boosted" Pentium !!! : more cache, new optimisation-oriented features
Plus SSE2, 400MHz FSB. other than that, it's a P3.
they've overhyped the Pentium 4 for 4+ years, and underhyped the Pentium III. The P3 was a far better chip, and still is. That's why they re-released it as the M.
I thought people only pronounced it that way...
Oh, wait. I get it. They axed the front (back?) door to Microsoft's Office and threatened to axe a few more, and *then* M$ 'found' the documents. That's about right.
and we deleted![/strongbad]
There is no "extracting the energy directly from the hydrogen." The hydrogen still goes thru redox reactions
Well of course. You know what I meant. Instead of extracting energy from the chemical reaction between the hydrogen and the metals, it extracts the energy from the hydrogen, because it is the hydrogen whose electrons are forced to go around the circuit while its protons go through the semi-permeable membrane in order to connect with waiting oxygen atoms. Whew! Should I have to go into that much detail every time? *shrug*
7% maximum achievable
For NiMH batteries, anyway. Supposing they ground the powder more finely, and made the container out of, say, carbon fiber?
Quite understandable. Unfortunately, the parent seemed to believe that because I mentioned that it uses practically the exact same tech. Well, fine and good, but it's using that tech veeery differently, and in very different proportions.