Well, I'd be screwed in any case; I have a static IP.
Just speaking for myself (which is really the only way I can speak), I obtain songs from people who are probably sharing them illegally; but I only go for stuff that I have owned in the past. For instance, I used to have the White Album pressed on white vinyl (rare!) as part of a very extensive and eclectic collection when I was a teenager but it was all confiscated when we got evicted due to financial hard times. I never saw the stuff again because we couldn't pay the extortionist fees they charged for forcibly moving us out and placing everything in storage. It was all eventually auctioned off as storage places frequently do. The way I see it, I've already bought the White Album once so it is not illegal for me to download the songs off of the White Album (even though I'll never recover the value that the album itself had as a collector's item, I still enjoy the music). Same with some of the early Styx, Journey, Kansas, Rush, Queen, ELO, etc. and other things some of you will no doubt flame me for liking.
The bad thing is, I have no proof that I ever owned those albums; just my word of honor which is worth dick in court.
Hey, Emperor; I've always wondered something. If you destroy all life on Arrakis, there won't be any worms left to make spice. So perhaps not the most brilliant move of your career. But then genocide isn't the destruction of all life, is it?
What the heck are they teaching in those empire schools these days?
Well, I don't know, but it seems the Founding Fathers had a similar difficulty. Too bad you were not around 200 years ago to set them straight. Ever hear of a little thing called the Federalist Papers? See Federalist No. 10 for James Madison's "misunderstanding" of the topic.
Actually, in the interests of context, you should probably start with No. 9 by Alexander Hamilton.
Yes, "democracy" has come to mean any form of government in which the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power (does this sound like the US in its current state?). In this sense, you could call the United States a democracy. However, there are many examples of "pure democracy" in the U. S. today that would probably trouble the Framers of the Constitution if they were still alive to see them. for example, many states allow for policy questions to be decided directly by the people by voting on initiatives or referendums. This idea was undesirable by the Founding Fathers, as shown by the fact that the Constitution does not provide for national ballot initiatives or referendums. They were not confident that the people had the time, wisdom or level-headedness to make complex decisions, such as those that are often presented on ballots on election day. The republican system was preferred over the democratic system in order to provide a layer of protection against factionism; this idea is very clear in both the Constitution and nearly every other document from the period that addresses this issue.
Are the American people today sufficiently better informed and otherwise better equipped to be wise and prudent democratic citizens than were American citizens in the late 1700s? Not judging by the large number of uninformed, ignorant, but nonetheless passionate folks that lurk about on/.
Wow! I wish I was as intuituve as you; you can determine a person's mental acuity from a single statement! "Clearly a moron," eh? Funny; you didn't mention your PhD in psychology in your bio (For those who don't know, "moron" is part of an archaic mental clasiffication system).
Anyone who knee-jerks a reaction like that is clearly too judgemental and ego-centric for any opinion of theirs to be worth a damn. That's why I'm not going to waste any time trying to reasonably argue my position; you're clearly not interested in being reasonable. Such discussion would obviously be wasted on you.
"Since the first antibiotics were developed in the 1940's, "
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The first antibiotics were *discovered* in the 1940's. Antibiotics are a naturally occuring chemical warfare mechanism evolved by microbial organisms themselves to compete within their evolutionary and ecological niches...."Nevertheless, the number of microbial species are relatively few"
WHAT THE F****????? How on earth did you get that impression?
Yeah, that's what I get for copying and pasting without thinking everything through myself, much like the guy I responded to.:)
It's true of course that we've chemically modified some antibiotics ourselves to tune for various properties, but to assume that we hav'nt done something that nature hasn't herself already done in the 3 billion years she's been working on the subject is arrogance in the extreme. Of course there's antibiotic resistance out their for modern antibiotics. This is simply *not* a problem for evolutionary theory, in fact it's quite a nice confirmation of it. I brought that up because evolutionists always trot it out to say "See??? They developed resistance! That proves evolution because they evolved!" You can't have both arguments.
Now, about that whole "species" argument: Paleontologists will take any minor variation and declare it a new species. I wonder what future paleontologists will say when they dig up our bones, or our dogs' bones? "Wow; look at all the different human and canine species!"
A few thoughts on your response; another long post, then I'm done. We've both made the error of simply asserting without citing.
Regarding the quotes: fair enough. Quoting someone else's opinion on a subject is not proof of anything. We could both come up with quotes all day long that support our respective positions.
Regarding the primary source of your information: yes, I am familiar with the Talk Origins archive; your first two citations came directly from the same page, and the second two involve topics from that same page (I didn't look at all the bacterial flagellum articles to find the other specific articles you cited).
...the appearance of a totally new metabolic pathway for sugar metabolism in the genus Klebsiella is misleading; the pathway was not totally new and no mutation was shown to have occurred. At no time did the researcher point to a new gene and say "this was not here before." A previously unobserved trait was expressed and enhanced by "unnatural selection" in the artificial environment but in no way did the study show that the "new" ability to metabolize D-arabinose was the result of a beneficial mutation. It is against all reason that the one "beneficial mutation" that the researcher was looking for just happened by "faulty repair of genetic damage" or "copying errors," especially since bateria do not reproduce sexually.
...There are plenty of intermediate forms preserved in the fossil record. To name but a few; there are some beautifully preserved fossils of ammonites that show a progression of structures (the curved shells unwinding over millions of years), there are clear stages preserved in the development of flowers, and best of all, there is the evolution of mankind over the past few millions years - plenty of clear intermediate stages. A good website for the convinced skeptic is http://home.entouch.net/dmd/transit.htm, which shows the transition from fish to amphibian.
Wrong. it shows a creature that has some morphological similarities to fish and amphibians, quite a large difference. Taking a few similar forms and artificially arranging them to look like a transition does not mean they are transitional forms. The "progression of forms" you mention has another small problem; the "progression" is in many cases out of order in the fossil record. And the "transitional forms" of man were in many cases contemporaries of each other. The whole idea that organisms that are morphologically similar are therefore related is misleading in any case; is a platypus a transitional form between reptiles and mammals because it shares some morphological features with both? Of course not, and no biologist will tell you otherwise. Similar morphology does not indicate that any two species are related. As an example, a recent analysis of the genetic structure of different species of water fowl has revealed that the flamingo, while morphologically similar to the heron, crane, and spoonbill, is actually most closely related to the grebe (a small duck) than it is to any of the other wading birds.
By the way; the title of the page you referenced is "TRANITIONAL FORMS." Makes one call into question the thoroughness of the author, don't you think?
Then you say...There is no such thing as a 'nascent' organ in 'pre-functional form', and there never has been. At each stage, the change has to be of increased benefit to the organism. Evolution does not have the ability to look into the future and plan the construction of an organ.
I agree. However, the same page you cite categorizes the fins of Acanthostega as "half-evolved legs;" this shows his misunderstanding of the very theory he is espousing; as though evolution had legs in mind but was only halfway there. As for the heat-sensing pits of vipers; talk about a straw man! "Maybe" "someday" it "could" evolve into an eye; how is this a tr
Evolution is not scientific because it has never been observed or reproduced. A great deal of evolutionary theory is dedicated to making excuses why there are NO intermediate forms of any organism.
Bacteria recovered from the bodies of the members of the Franklin expedition, frozen in the Canadian arctic in 1845 have been found to be resistant to modern antibiotics. Since the first antibiotics were developed in the 1940's, this resistance is not, as some claim, evidence of evolution in action but shows that the propensity for resistance was already present in the organism [See Rick McGuire, "Eerie: Human Arctic Fossils Yield Resistant Bacteria," Medical Tribune, 29 December 1988, p. 1.]. Organisms that occupy the most diverse environments in the greatest numbers for the longest times should, according to evolution, have the greatest potential for evolving new features and species. Microbial organisms show that this is false; their numbers per species are astronomical, and they are dispersed throughout practically all the world's environments. Nevertheless, the number of microbial species are relatively few. New features apparently don't evolve.
An offspring of a plant or animal has characteristics that vary, often in subtle ways, from its "parents." Because of the environment, genetics, and chance circumstances, some of these offspring will reproduce more than others. So a species with certain characteristics will tend, on average, to have more "children." In this sense, nature "selects" genetic characteristics suited to an environment and, more importantly, eliminates unsuitable genetic variations. Therefore, an organism?s gene pool is actually constantly decreasing by means of natural selection.
Notice, natural selection cannot produce new genes; it only selects among preexisting characteristics. As the word "selection" implies, variations are reduced, not increased. While natural selection occurs, nothing evolves and, in fact, some biological diversity is lost.
While natural selection sometimes explains the survival of the fittest, it does not explain the origin of the fittest. Today, some people think that because natural selection occurs, evolution must be correct. Actually, natural selection prevents major evolutionary changes by reducing genetic diversity.
In 1980, the "Macroevolution Conference" was held in Chicago. Roger Lewin, writing for Science, described it as a "turning point in the history of evolutionary theory." He went on to say:
"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution...the answer can be given as a clear, No." "In a generous admission Francisco Ayala, a major figure in propounding the Modern Synthesis [neo-Darwinism] in the United States, said 'We would not have predicted stasis [the stability of species over time] from population genetics, but I am now convinced from what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate.'" [Roger Lewin, "Evolution Theory under Fire," Science, Vol. 210, 21 November 1980, p. 883, 884.]
"Those who argue from microevolution to macroevolution may be guilty, then, of employing a false analogy; especially when one considers that microevolution may be a force of stasis [stability], not transformation.... For those who must describe the history of life as a purely natural phenomenon, the winnowing action of natural selection is truly a difficult problem to overcome. For scientists who are content to describe accurately those processes and phenomena which occur in nature (in particular, stasis), natural selection acts to prevent major evolutionary change." Michael Thomas, "Stasis Considered," Origins Research, Vol. 12, Fall/Winter 1989, p. 11.
No nascent organ has ever been observed emerging, though their origin in pre-functional form is basic to evolutionary theory. Some should be visible today, occu
You know, in Old Testament times, if someone made a prediction that turned out to be wrong, the people were supposed to drag that person outside of town and stone him (or her) to death. Makes me long for the good old days...
BTW, that's "throw big rocks at them until they die," not "pump them full of dope until they die."
Re:Sounds like FUD to me.
on
Out of Gas
·
· Score: 1
I just find it a problem that we still don't even know where the heck it came from, fossil fuel? WTF, who actually thinks this makes any friggin sense? Your telling me millions of dinosours crawled up into a hole an died, which subsequentially turned their decaying organic bodies into hydrocarbons? Not to say this couldn't happen, but it's an unnacceptable answer to this question.
Yeah, I agree. When you consider the fact that Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune are all made mostly of hydrocarbons, suddenly it makes sense that we have oil here on earth, and no dinosaurs required for the explanation.
Instead of "fossil fuels," we should call them "solar system formation fuels."
Re:We will never run out of gas
on
Out of Gas
·
· Score: 2, Funny
I'll remember you said that when you are standing before me on Judgement Day.
Too volatile
on
Out of Gas
·
· Score: 2, Informative
First, let me say that no pun was intended with the "volatile" comment. This industry is in too great a state of flux for anyone to be putting out a book on the subject. Yes, oil is near $40/barrel but Saudi Arabia just last week encouraged the other OPEC nations to increase production in order to lower the per barrel price back down around $25. They are looking at their long-term viability.
Let's face it; high oil prices are bad for them because it encourages the US to seek alternatives. For all you anti-US trolls who are now foaming at the mouth, if you are honest with yourselves, you will admin that we are seriously the only ones who will 1) come up with a viable solution and 2) implement that solution.
Do we need an alternative solution? Damn straight. Burning petrochemicals is bad all the way around. To paraphrase the Late, Great Douglas Adams, we took all this poisonous stuff that was safely buried far underground, pumped it up to the surface and turned it into asphalt to coat the ground with, smoke to fill the air with, and the rest we dumped into the sea.
Are solar energy and/or fusion the answer? Solar in its current earth-based form is too erratic and takes up too much land to be workable. As for fusion, the technology is just not there yet either. And the same environmental shills that are screaming about oil will scream even louder about anything "nuculer." Perhaps space-based solar energy will be a better answer, but it will be extremely expensive to implement unless we break NASA's currentl monopoly on launches ($40,000 per pound of payload is a bit pricey).
Speaking of guest stars, anybody elses catch Casey Biggs (who played Cardassian Damar, Gul Dukat's right-hand man in DS9) as the alien captain that Archer stole the warp drive from a couple of weeks ago?
I thought the premier was stupid. At the end you have a couple of giant space jellyfish having a tender moment (when they zoomed in to show the tentacles touching I screamed, "Aw, come on!"), and Counsellor Troi (Counsellor? An official post on a starship?) standing there crying in her miniskirt/tunic telling us what to feel ("Love! And great joy!" ). It was the worst attempt at emotional manipulation I had ever seen.
Then came The Naked Now. The first regular show after the premier, and they ripped off a TOS episode?!? Come on, Gene; at least give us something original to start with! Things didn't look good for the franchise.
I, personally, don't own equipment in order to "impress anyone." I own equipment that works and impresses me. It doesn't make sense for me to buy a "decent" PVR system which requires a monthly subscription cost (or you can drop a grand or two and make your own, but you lose a lot of the functionality of the subscription-based services) when I can get a VCR for 20 bucks. As for quality, unless you drop another several grand for HDTV, it makes no difference.
Point of order: You're right; Rod Stewart has nothing to do with Star Trek. He also has nothing to do with Enterprise's theme song.
The song was written by Diane Warren. It is performed at the beginning of Enterprise each week by Russel Watson. It was only performed by Rod Stewart on the Pach Adams soundtrack. Russell Watson sounds a bit like Rod Stewart because he is nothing but a mimic. He got famous singing opera by mimicking opera singers. Whatever song he sings, he imitates the person who sung it first and critics think he is great. Ooo, such talent.
Slashdot Mirror
Just speaking for myself (which is really the only way I can speak), I obtain songs from people who are probably sharing them illegally; but I only go for stuff that I have owned in the past. For instance, I used to have the White Album pressed on white vinyl (rare!) as part of a very extensive and eclectic collection when I was a teenager but it was all confiscated when we got evicted due to financial hard times. I never saw the stuff again because we couldn't pay the extortionist fees they charged for forcibly moving us out and placing everything in storage. It was all eventually auctioned off as storage places frequently do. The way I see it, I've already bought the White Album once so it is not illegal for me to download the songs off of the White Album (even though I'll never recover the value that the album itself had as a collector's item, I still enjoy the music). Same with some of the early Styx, Journey, Kansas, Rush, Queen, ELO, etc. and other things some of you will no doubt flame me for liking.
The bad thing is, I have no proof that I ever owned those albums; just my word of honor which is worth dick in court.
What the heck are they teaching in those empire schools these days?
Actually, in the interests of context, you should probably start with No. 9 by Alexander Hamilton.
Yes, "democracy" has come to mean any form of government in which the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power (does this sound like the US in its current state?). In this sense, you could call the United States a democracy. However, there are many examples of "pure democracy" in the U. S. today that would probably trouble the Framers of the Constitution if they were still alive to see them. for example, many states allow for policy questions to be decided directly by the people by voting on initiatives or referendums. This idea was undesirable by the Founding Fathers, as shown by the fact that the Constitution does not provide for national ballot initiatives or referendums. They were not confident that the people had the time, wisdom or level-headedness to make complex decisions, such as those that are often presented on ballots on election day. The republican system was preferred over the democratic system in order to provide a layer of protection against factionism; this idea is very clear in both the Constitution and nearly every other document from the period that addresses this issue.
Are the American people today sufficiently better informed and otherwise better equipped to be wise and prudent democratic citizens than were American citizens in the late 1700s? Not judging by the large number of uninformed, ignorant, but nonetheless passionate folks that lurk about on /.
Anyone who knee-jerks a reaction like that is clearly too judgemental and ego-centric for any opinion of theirs to be worth a damn. That's why I'm not going to waste any time trying to reasonably argue my position; you're clearly not interested in being reasonable. Such discussion would obviously be wasted on you.
You are wrong, Keebler Elf-breath. The US is not a democracy; it is a representative republic.
Special thanks to Carnac the Magnificent for the Keebler Elf thing. Cheers.
Yeah, that's what I get for copying and pasting without thinking everything through myself, much like the guy I responded to. :)
It's true of course that we've chemically modified some antibiotics ourselves to tune for various properties, but to assume that we hav'nt done something that nature hasn't herself already done in the 3 billion years she's been working on the subject is arrogance in the extreme. Of course there's antibiotic resistance out their for modern antibiotics. This is simply *not* a problem for evolutionary theory, in fact it's quite a nice confirmation of it. I brought that up because evolutionists always trot it out to say "See??? They developed resistance! That proves evolution because they evolved!" You can't have both arguments.
Now, about that whole "species" argument: Paleontologists will take any minor variation and declare it a new species. I wonder what future paleontologists will say when they dig up our bones, or our dogs' bones? "Wow; look at all the different human and canine species!"
Regarding the quotes: fair enough. Quoting someone else's opinion on a subject is not proof of anything. We could both come up with quotes all day long that support our respective positions.
Regarding the primary source of your information: yes, I am familiar with the Talk Origins archive; your first two citations came directly from the same page, and the second two involve topics from that same page (I didn't look at all the bacterial flagellum articles to find the other specific articles you cited).
Wrong. it shows a creature that has some morphological similarities to fish and amphibians, quite a large difference. Taking a few similar forms and artificially arranging them to look like a transition does not mean they are transitional forms. The "progression of forms" you mention has another small problem; the "progression" is in many cases out of order in the fossil record. And the "transitional forms" of man were in many cases contemporaries of each other. The whole idea that organisms that are morphologically similar are therefore related is misleading in any case; is a platypus a transitional form between reptiles and mammals because it shares some morphological features with both? Of course not, and no biologist will tell you otherwise. Similar morphology does not indicate that any two species are related. As an example, a recent analysis of the genetic structure of different species of water fowl has revealed that the flamingo, while morphologically similar to the heron, crane, and spoonbill, is actually most closely related to the grebe (a small duck) than it is to any of the other wading birds.
By the way; the title of the page you referenced is "TRANITIONAL FORMS." Makes one call into question the thoroughness of the author, don't you think?
Then you say...There is no such thing as a 'nascent' organ in 'pre-functional form', and there never has been. At each stage, the change has to be of increased benefit to the organism. Evolution does not have the ability to look into the future and plan the construction of an organ.
I agree. However, the same page you cite categorizes the fins of Acanthostega as "half-evolved legs;" this shows his misunderstanding of the very theory he is espousing; as though evolution had legs in mind but was only halfway there. As for the heat-sensing pits of vipers; talk about a straw man! "Maybe" "someday" it "could" evolve into an eye; how is this a tr
Evolution is not scientific because it has never been observed or reproduced. A great deal of evolutionary theory is dedicated to making excuses why there are NO intermediate forms of any organism.
Bacteria recovered from the bodies of the members of the Franklin expedition, frozen in the Canadian arctic in 1845 have been found to be resistant to modern antibiotics. Since the first antibiotics were developed in the 1940's, this resistance is not, as some claim, evidence of evolution in action but shows that the propensity for resistance was already present in the organism [See Rick McGuire, "Eerie: Human Arctic Fossils Yield Resistant Bacteria," Medical Tribune, 29 December 1988, p. 1.]. Organisms that occupy the most diverse environments in the greatest numbers for the longest times should, according to evolution, have the greatest potential for evolving new features and species. Microbial organisms show that this is false; their numbers per species are astronomical, and they are dispersed throughout practically all the world's environments. Nevertheless, the number of microbial species are relatively few. New features apparently don't evolve.
An offspring of a plant or animal has characteristics that vary, often in subtle ways, from its "parents." Because of the environment, genetics, and chance circumstances, some of these offspring will reproduce more than others. So a species with certain characteristics will tend, on average, to have more "children." In this sense, nature "selects" genetic characteristics suited to an environment and, more importantly, eliminates unsuitable genetic variations. Therefore, an organism?s gene pool is actually constantly decreasing by means of natural selection.
Notice, natural selection cannot produce new genes; it only selects among preexisting characteristics. As the word "selection" implies, variations are reduced, not increased. While natural selection occurs, nothing evolves and, in fact, some biological diversity is lost.
While natural selection sometimes explains the survival of the fittest, it does not explain the origin of the fittest. Today, some people think that because natural selection occurs, evolution must be correct. Actually, natural selection prevents major evolutionary changes by reducing genetic diversity.
In 1980, the "Macroevolution Conference" was held in Chicago. Roger Lewin, writing for Science, described it as a "turning point in the history of evolutionary theory." He went on to say: "The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution...the answer can be given as a clear, No." "In a generous admission Francisco Ayala, a major figure in propounding the Modern Synthesis [neo-Darwinism] in the United States, said 'We would not have predicted stasis [the stability of species over time] from population genetics, but I am now convinced from what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate.'" [Roger Lewin, "Evolution Theory under Fire," Science, Vol. 210, 21 November 1980, p. 883, 884.]
"Those who argue from microevolution to macroevolution may be guilty, then, of employing a false analogy; especially when one considers that microevolution may be a force of stasis [stability], not transformation. ... For those who must describe the history of life as a purely natural phenomenon, the winnowing action of natural selection is truly a difficult problem to overcome. For scientists who are content to describe accurately those processes and phenomena which occur in nature (in particular, stasis), natural selection acts to prevent major evolutionary change." Michael Thomas, "Stasis Considered," Origins Research, Vol. 12, Fall/Winter 1989, p. 11.
No nascent organ has ever been observed emerging, though their origin in pre-functional form is basic to evolutionary theory. Some should be visible today, occu
You know, in Old Testament times, if someone made a prediction that turned out to be wrong, the people were supposed to drag that person outside of town and stone him (or her) to death. Makes me long for the good old days...
BTW, that's "throw big rocks at them until they die," not "pump them full of dope until they die."
Yeah, I agree. When you consider the fact that Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune are all made mostly of hydrocarbons, suddenly it makes sense that we have oil here on earth, and no dinosaurs required for the explanation.
Instead of "fossil fuels," we should call them "solar system formation fuels."
I'll remember you said that when you are standing before me on Judgement Day.
Let's face it; high oil prices are bad for them because it encourages the US to seek alternatives. For all you anti-US trolls who are now foaming at the mouth, if you are honest with yourselves, you will admin that we are seriously the only ones who will 1) come up with a viable solution and 2) implement that solution.
Do we need an alternative solution? Damn straight. Burning petrochemicals is bad all the way around. To paraphrase the Late, Great Douglas Adams, we took all this poisonous stuff that was safely buried far underground, pumped it up to the surface and turned it into asphalt to coat the ground with, smoke to fill the air with, and the rest we dumped into the sea.
Are solar energy and/or fusion the answer? Solar in its current earth-based form is too erratic and takes up too much land to be workable. As for fusion, the technology is just not there yet either. And the same environmental shills that are screaming about oil will scream even louder about anything "nuculer." Perhaps space-based solar energy will be a better answer, but it will be extremely expensive to implement unless we break NASA's currentl monopoly on launches ($40,000 per pound of payload is a bit pricey).
Then came The Naked Now. The first regular show after the premier, and they ripped off a TOS episode?!? Come on, Gene; at least give us something original to start with! Things didn't look good for the franchise.
But it did get better. Much better.
The song was written by Diane Warren. It is performed at the beginning of Enterprise each week by Russel Watson. It was only performed by Rod Stewart on the Pach Adams soundtrack. Russell Watson sounds a bit like Rod Stewart because he is nothing but a mimic. He got famous singing opera by mimicking opera singers. Whatever song he sings, he imitates the person who sung it first and critics think he is great. Ooo, such talent.
Russell want a cracker?