A while ago, I was reading through the list of web services Microsoft are planning to create, thinking that they're all just places Google are at already, then I realised that while there's Gmail, there's no Gmessenger or similar as far as I'm aware.
How long do you reckon before Google launches such a thing, potentially pushing MSN Messenger out the market?:-)
"Is it worth dying to prevent what you could solve by just leaving on time?"
Nobody in this thread was talking about that. What everyone was concerned about was situations where it was necessary to go over an arbitrary limit - as explained elsewhere in the comments for this article, the limit can be entirely arbitrary to gather revenue - and where this ability would be dangerously curtailed. In those situations, it is more appropriate to ask "Is it worth dying to prevent what you could solve by _only restricting the rights of *dangerous* offenders_".
And for the record, you can be legally banned from drinking alcohol [most parole contracts have that for instance].
You may see it as a "nanny state" I just see it as the fact that individuals are not taking responsibility so it's time they're forced to.
You want this not to become law? Drive properly. It's a privilege not a right."
The problem is that those who don't take responsibility aren't going to be forced to by this proposed system. Instead, the system will take responsibility for them.
I'll say that again. The system doesn't make people take responsibility. It merely removes control so that they DON'T HAVE THE FREEDOM TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY.
This system will actually _prevent_ people from taking responsibility for their own actions and driving at a speed _they_ judge to be safe or even NECESSARY, not what an outdated database decides.
And furthermore, I doubt anyone would want to lose their iPod's controls merely to avoid being hit by a tazer.
On a serious note, it'll be interesting to see how tightly Apple integrate with this. I'm expecting that, like most of what they craft, it'll be pretty seamless. Eleksen seem like a reasonable enough company - I'm sure Apple will be able to get alongside them and partner with them.
(One other software company I know of would either buy Eleksen or give away free jackets with this technology incorporated until Eleksen went bust).
Wearable technology is not a new idea. eVest has been producing wired jackets for years, but we have yet to see technology integrated inside the fabric that makes up the jacket--until now.
Eleksen, a small UK-based firm is introducing electronic fabric, essentially carbon-embedded nylon sandwiched between layers of nylon mesh that, when a milliamps charge is passed through it, can recognize touch (and it's location), pressure and even the direction and path of a stroke. This thin, flexible, durable and washable fabric connects to a small 8-bit processor, which then can be connected to a standard electronic device like an iPod. The iPod, or whatever device you're using, delivers power to processor and fabric.
This is not just a technology demonstration; Eleksen has already integrated the electronic fabric with commercial products including ski-jackets from Spyder and Kenpo. The latter is available in CompUSA and Macy's for around $250. In the jackets, the fiber is embedded in the jacket arm and an electronic fabric tether runs up the sleeve into a breast pocket where the iPod is stored. The iPod is plugged into the microcontroller, which takes the touch information on the jacket arm and interprets it for the iPod. In this incarnation, the controller is programmed to read and mimic iPod control signals, but Eleksen does have an API manufacturers can use to create other device controllers. So smart phone and blue-tooth-based devices are already on the horizon.
Perhaps the most intriguing product we saw was the fabric keyboard that's designed to work with blue-tooth enabled smart phones and PDAs. About as thick as a quarter and attached to a Bluetooth transmitter, the full-size QWERTY keyboard offers printed keys and can be rolled up or squished into a ball and, Eleksen promises, holds up to the 10-million-key-press-test. It's being introduced at the 2006 Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas and should list for around $100.
Eleksen company executives said the washable fabric (the controller needs to be detached first) can also withstand extreme pressure; they've rolled a car over it without any ill effects. What's next? Device controls on handbags, briefcases, backpacks and maybe, if the technology is coupled with a flexible display, the first rollable laptop. Stay tuned.
"If you say that anything that is like a human will be a rule-based expert system, that would include real humans as well, wouldn't it?"
No. If you set out to mimic a human then you'll end up taking shortcuts - for example, an expert system. The whole idea is to have the intelligence grow _completetely_ by itself, not have pre-set rules as a basis, as that skews the final product.
LAS VEGAS, Dec. 2/PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- GTX Global Corporation (GTXC) (OTC: GTXC.PK - News), a leading provider of innovative IP multimedia technologies that enable profitable IP communications today announced that GTX Global Corporation has developed the first true artificial intelligence, so named Cognitive Robotics(TM), or more particularly, a human-like information management and delivery system.
In today's economic market, companies are seeking ways to streamline their work force operations. However, studies have shown that it is advantageous to have a live salesperson or customer serviceperson introduce a product, close the sale and provide customer service. Accordingly, there is a need for an information management and delivery system that is able to mimic the characteristics of a human, and in particular, a human sales or customer service person.
GTX Global Cognitive Robotics(TM) is an integrated software solution that mimics human behavior including a dialogue oriented knowledge database that contains static and dynamic data relating to human scenarios. The knowledge further includes translation, processing and analysis components that are responsible for processing of vocal and/or textual and/or video input, extracts emotional characteristics of the input and produces instructions on how to respond to the customer with the appropriate substantive response and emotion based on relevant information found in the knowledge base.
"GTX Global Cognitive Robotics(TM) product schedule includes interactive banner advertising utilizing Automated Intelligence Agents for website sales and customer service; entertainment education for tutoring; providing the intelligence for smart home automation systems; and later branching into traditional robotics by providing automated intelligence for robotic hardware," said Curtis Garth, President and CEO, GTX Global Corporation.
"Our computer scientists have been working on this project for over three years," said Garth. "We are excited that we are now able to demonstrate Cognitive Robotics(TM) and begin applying this advanced technology to a multitude of applications."
"I really don't want my kids to be exposed to religious preaching without my being there to explain the lack of objective fact that underlies it, as well as the various brands of greed, hypocracy, and political control that are being excercised, subtly or otherwise."
I won't address the "objective fact" attack, that's a sure way to get modbombed (I know this from experience). However, from personal experience as a Christian, my local church is not greedy. In fact, everyone I know is as selfless as you get. Hypocrisy does not occur - everyone practices what they preach. And nobody exerts political control over me. In fact, no political comment is passed and everyone makes their own mind up.
I'm aware that certain groups - e.g., the Catholic "Church", which teaches that the pope is a substitute (vicar, from vicarious) for Christ (where on earth did they get that? sounds like a form of control to me) - do not behave in such honourable manners, which is why, to me, they do not fit the definition of 'Christian'. It bothers me that the Catholic "church" causes other - real - Christians to be reviled so much because of certain decidedly non-Christian actions.
In fact, if you want a guideline as to what a real Christian should be like, I suggest you read the first 6 books of the New Testament. You can then compare that to any of the "Christians" you believe to be, from what I gather from your comment, essentially cultists. I'd be extremely surprised if any one of them matches.
> The best part is that he was proud that he was "immune" even though it indicates the beginnings of hearing loss.
No it doesn't; the upper frequency limit on human hearing naturally decreases from around the onset of adolescence. It doesn't mark the onset of hearing loss at all, at any normal frequency.
You said: "But I hope you can also make the distinction between a collection of dividing cells in a dish and a human being."
How do you make that distinction, personally? What are your criteria for 'human-ness'? I challenge you to give a definition of when something starts to be 'human' that isn't completely arbitrary.
You said: "The stem cell worriers aren't really worried about stem cells or their source, they're worried about how close we're getting to a comfortable understanding of cellular mechanics...[religion bashing here]"
Not true - "their source" is exactly what I'm worried about. If a method for procuring stem cells could be found that didn't require the deaths of fetuses, I'd be fine with that. If your definition of 'life' doesn't include unborn babies, that's your decision. I myself don't support methods of healing that require the deaths of what I call living humans. I'm not stupid though (I'm guessing all the religious people you've met/heard of are Catholic Americans...I won't go there); I have more of an understanding of biology than the average person (not the average American; as that isn't saying much.)
The parent post is a thinly-veiled anti-religion troll, not insightful. (Incidentally, despite my barbed comments about average Americans, I'm not French - I'm a Kiwi:D)
Unfortunately, this is becoming a pattern in the US, as far as I (a NZer) can see, and probably has been for some time. The court system in the US is increasingly encouraging a litigious society. I think part of the problem is that people are taking their "right to their day in court" too far when applying it to companies. As another post says, merely classifying software shouldn't violate anything. If they are going to sue, it should be for defamation, rather than for violating the EULA, which makes it even weirder, as you say, that a court found in their favour.
Yes, humour is fine, but the scary point about this is that Disclic are so afraid of Microsoft that they asked. In theory, IMO, purchasing a software licence should be similar to a 'debt': The buyer pays a fee for the assurance that the 'debt' (software assurance) will be honoured in future.
Either the agreement specifies that licenses aren't transferable, or it doesn't. If it does then Disclic have no grounds for doing this - Microsoft will not have to honour the 'debt'. In this case, even with Microsoft's permission, Microsoft are not obliged to honour the agreement.
If it doesn't then Disclic don't have to ask Microsoft's permission. Why did they bother? Because they were scared, I'll bet. Scared of mindless lawsuits - they'll run out of money before Microsoft do.
"Not anti-religion, just think that by highschool people should be making up their own minds about it." Christianity makes no mention of the idea that "Thou shalt ram thy religion down others' throats". Islam, etc, tend more that way. I happen to be a Christian, as are my parents. However, "bullying, parental decree, and a lack of exposure to alternate viewpoints" had nothing to do with it. Yes, I can see the humour, but it conceals a deeper misunderstanding.
Also, the "Doctorine[sic] of the Church" is a _very_ Catholic thing for them to say. In fact, much "Catholic Doctrine" goes against the Bible - e.g., the Eucharist and trans-substantiation. I really question anyone calling themself a Christian who doesn't believe the Bible.
"Europe has Austria, Australia has New Zealand, and the US has Kansas." Except that NZ is not a part of Australia, so that doesn't fit your other examples. Besides, we in NZ like to think of it as the other way around - after, all, ask any Australian to say "Quick Dick, skin this pig" and you'll see why.
NZ actually isn't full of yokels. Just the South Island.:D
Yes, you're probably right. One thing I would worry about then is parallel mutation of genes, i.e., an organism mutating but not passing on this mutation past several generations, followed by a subsequent organism re-developing the mutation, could accidentally be classed as 'descendancy' (is that even a word?:) when the second was not actually descended from the first. It is a good point, though; gene mapping would likely provide more accurate evidence either way.
I'm not sure I have an answer to your first question - that's a viewpoint I've heard of several times. A question for you: Could you elaborate on what of the Garden of Eden is a metaphor for?
If evolutionists claim millions of years (or more) for large-scale evolution to occur, what makes you think that "a couple millenium[sic]" would be enough? It sounds to me like your test isn't feasible, either.
I'm not - and have never been - arguing that ID should be taught as a science, merely pointing out that many people subject the two models to different criteria before they'll believe them.
You, on evolution: "We're following scientific theory to the tick, so what if we haven't found a way to falsify it?".
You, on ID: "According to almost every religion, god is always right, so if you say "god made it so", how can you falsify it?"
Why should ID be pressed to meet challenges (e.g., falsifiability) that evolution does not? This, to me, smacks of bias. You want ID advocates to show how ID is falsifiable, but of evolution, you say, "so what if we haven't found a way to falsify it?"
Different requirements for two models before you'll accept them == bias, in my mind.
"But you're employing sophistry when you say because our current knowledge of the mechanics of DNA mutation cannot predict exactly when "macro-evolution" (do you mean speciation?) will occur, therefore a 100% faith based theory is equivalent to one that provides an accurate statistical prediction in short-life-spanned creatures, and can be used to produce repeatable results and explain the rate of fossil change over time."
Could you please provide a quote from one of my comments where I said something like that? It seems to me that you're fabricating things I said. I didn't say ID can make the accurate predictions that evolution routinely does. I don't disagree with the fact that the theory of evolution can make accurate predictions for short-life-spanned creatures. What I do disagree with is the assertion that evolution is a _scientific_ theory. As one (evolutionist) poster said earlier, ID and evolution are both MODELS.
"I mean how do you explain things like the ~98% genetic similarity between human beings and chimps. We obviously aren't chimps and chimps clearly aren't humans. However once again this FITS with the idea that we would have a common genetic ancestor."
Or alternatively, it also "fits" with the idea that most of the genes, which we assume all have an effect of a species' phenotype, don't actually make a difference between two species. It may be that all the "similarities" in genes are to deal with very low-level stuff, for example respiration, which is a process that is virtually unchanged in most organisms.
Surely an intelligent designer would engage in modular code re-use where he/she/it could?
Your reason for your argument (that humans and apes share a common ancestor) is that it "FITS". How is that different to my argument, that we don't? My point is that neither argument is logically superior - they both rely on interpretations of the facts.
Exactly; the problem I have with that is in the "logical" extension to "macro-evolution". It's a bit like Newtonian gravitation versus Einsteinian gravitation: things may get different when the scale we're talking about changes. I'm not sure you can make that "logical" extension; after all, it doesn't work for something "simple" like gravity, so it may not work for something complex like life itself.
Your carbon-dating example is spurious; because what we can do is measure the half-life and show that it is a constant. If we show something to be a constant then yes, it is perfectly fair to make that simple extension to larger periods of time. However, we don't know that micro-evolution, a fact, can be extended: we don't know that things behave in the same way on larger scales. Something may act to discourage "macro-evolution"; the organism that first makes the jump from water to land will likely have a large disadvantage as it will only have small characteristics that make it capable of land-dwelling, and it may be safer for the species to stay in the water. This is the kind of "other influence" we don't know doesn't occur, so we can't be certain in extending micro-evolution to macro-evolution.
"That only makes sense if you're talking about trans-substantion from one species to another, like a fish turning into a dog. That's not evolution."
That sounds to me like you're disowning your own theory. Since that's likely how you believe humans came about, what do you call it then? You obviously have different terminology; "macro-evolution" seems to me to be a perfectly good label for it.
Actually, it's "Catholic" Christians that _don't_ have "this problem"; the Bible is clear that God created the physical bodies of humans from 'dust' and 'breathed life' into them. This would seem to conflict with evolution, so - for Christians to accept - that is certainly a weird interpretation of the Bible, assuming your claims are true - I wouldn't know, I'm not "Catholic" and haven't looked into it.
OK, and what are the two species that the Archaeopteryx is half-way between? "Dinosaurs and birds" isn't good enough; you'll need to show fossil evidence of two species that are clearly similar to Archaeopteryx, but of which one has more bird-like features and one has more dinosaur-like features. Give the species of the dinosaur, if possible.
I realise that this is nearly impossible, which is why evolution should not be taught as a strictly _scientific_ theory. It's almost impossible to strictly prove it or falsify it under the scientific method, so how can it be called _scientific_?
Slashdot Mirror
A while ago, I was reading through the list of web services Microsoft are planning to create, thinking that they're all just places Google are at already, then I realised that while there's Gmail, there's no Gmessenger or similar as far as I'm aware.
:-)
How long do you reckon before Google launches such a thing, potentially pushing MSN Messenger out the market?
Ashton
"Is it worth dying to prevent what you could solve by just leaving on time?"
Nobody in this thread was talking about that. What everyone was concerned about was situations where it was necessary to go over an arbitrary limit - as explained elsewhere in the comments for this article, the limit can be entirely arbitrary to gather revenue - and where this ability would be dangerously curtailed.
In those situations, it is more appropriate to ask "Is it worth dying to prevent what you could solve by _only restricting the rights of *dangerous* offenders_".
Ashton
"...Driving is not a right.
And for the record, you can be legally banned from drinking alcohol [most parole contracts have that for instance].
You may see it as a "nanny state" I just see it as the fact that individuals are not taking responsibility so it's time they're forced to.
You want this not to become law? Drive properly. It's a privilege not a right."
The problem is that those who don't take responsibility aren't going to be forced to by this proposed system. Instead, the system will take responsibility for them.
I'll say that again. The system doesn't make people take responsibility. It merely removes control so that they DON'T HAVE THE FREEDOM TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY.
This system will actually _prevent_ people from taking responsibility for their own actions and driving at a speed _they_ judge to be safe or even NECESSARY, not what an outdated database decides.
And furthermore, I doubt anyone would want to lose their iPod's controls merely to avoid being hit by a tazer.
On a serious note, it'll be interesting to see how tightly Apple integrate with this. I'm expecting that, like most of what they craft, it'll be pretty seamless. Eleksen seem like a reasonable enough company - I'm sure Apple will be able to get alongside them and partner with them.
(One other software company I know of would either buy Eleksen or give away free jackets with this technology incorporated until Eleksen went bust).
Ashton
Article text, for your convenience:
Wearable technology is not a new idea. eVest has been producing wired jackets for years, but we have yet to see technology integrated inside the fabric that makes up the jacket--until now.
Eleksen, a small UK-based firm is introducing electronic fabric, essentially carbon-embedded nylon sandwiched between layers of nylon mesh that, when a milliamps charge is passed through it, can recognize touch (and it's location), pressure and even the direction and path of a stroke. This thin, flexible, durable and washable fabric connects to a small 8-bit processor, which then can be connected to a standard electronic device like an iPod. The iPod, or whatever device you're using, delivers power to processor and fabric.
This is not just a technology demonstration; Eleksen has already integrated the electronic fabric with commercial products including ski-jackets from Spyder and Kenpo. The latter is available in CompUSA and Macy's for around $250. In the jackets, the fiber is embedded in the jacket arm and an electronic fabric tether runs up the sleeve into a breast pocket where the iPod is stored. The iPod is plugged into the microcontroller, which takes the touch information on the jacket arm and interprets it for the iPod. In this incarnation, the controller is programmed to read and mimic iPod control signals, but Eleksen does have an API manufacturers can use to create other device controllers. So smart phone and blue-tooth-based devices are already on the horizon.
Perhaps the most intriguing product we saw was the fabric keyboard that's designed to work with blue-tooth enabled smart phones and PDAs. About as thick as a quarter and attached to a Bluetooth transmitter, the full-size QWERTY keyboard offers printed keys and can be rolled up or squished into a ball and, Eleksen promises, holds up to the 10-million-key-press-test. It's being introduced at the 2006 Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas and should list for around $100.
Eleksen company executives said the washable fabric (the controller needs to be detached first) can also withstand extreme pressure; they've rolled a car over it without any ill effects. What's next? Device controls on handbags, briefcases, backpacks and maybe, if the technology is coupled with a flexible display, the first rollable laptop. Stay tuned.
"If you say that anything that is like a human will be a rule-based expert system, that would include real humans as well, wouldn't it?"
No. If you set out to mimic a human then you'll end up taking shortcuts - for example, an expert system. The whole idea is to have the intelligence grow _completetely_ by itself, not have pre-set rules as a basis, as that skews the final product.
Ashton
Article text for your convenience:
/PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- GTX Global Corporation (GTXC) (OTC: GTXC.PK - News), a leading provider of innovative IP multimedia technologies that enable profitable IP communications today announced that GTX Global Corporation has developed the first true artificial intelligence, so named Cognitive Robotics(TM), or more particularly, a human-like information management and delivery system.
LAS VEGAS, Dec. 2
In today's economic market, companies are seeking ways to streamline their work force operations. However, studies have shown that it is advantageous to have a live salesperson or customer serviceperson introduce a product, close the sale and provide customer service. Accordingly, there is a need for an information management and delivery system that is able to mimic the characteristics of a human, and in particular, a human sales or customer service person.
GTX Global Cognitive Robotics(TM) is an integrated software solution that mimics human behavior including a dialogue oriented knowledge database that contains static and dynamic data relating to human scenarios. The knowledge further includes translation, processing and analysis components that are responsible for processing of vocal and/or textual and/or video input, extracts emotional characteristics of the input and produces instructions on how to respond to the customer with the appropriate substantive response and emotion based on relevant information found in the knowledge base.
"GTX Global Cognitive Robotics(TM) product schedule includes interactive banner advertising utilizing Automated Intelligence Agents for website sales and customer service; entertainment education for tutoring; providing the intelligence for smart home automation systems; and later branching into traditional robotics by providing automated intelligence for robotic hardware," said Curtis Garth, President and CEO, GTX Global Corporation.
"Our computer scientists have been working on this project for over three years," said Garth. "We are excited that we are now able to demonstrate Cognitive Robotics(TM) and begin applying this advanced technology to a multitude of applications."
"I really don't want my kids to be exposed to religious preaching without my being there to explain the lack of objective fact that underlies it, as well as the various brands of greed, hypocracy, and political control that are being excercised, subtly or otherwise."
I won't address the "objective fact" attack, that's a sure way to get modbombed (I know this from experience).
However, from personal experience as a Christian, my local church is not greedy. In fact, everyone I know is as selfless as you get.
Hypocrisy does not occur - everyone practices what they preach.
And nobody exerts political control over me. In fact, no political comment is passed and everyone makes their own mind up.
I'm aware that certain groups - e.g., the Catholic "Church", which teaches that the pope is a substitute (vicar, from vicarious) for Christ (where on earth did they get that? sounds like a form of control to me) - do not behave in such honourable manners, which is why, to me, they do not fit the definition of 'Christian'.
It bothers me that the Catholic "church" causes other - real - Christians to be reviled so much because of certain decidedly non-Christian actions.
In fact, if you want a guideline as to what a real Christian should be like, I suggest you read the first 6 books of the New Testament. You can then compare that to any of the "Christians" you believe to be, from what I gather from your comment, essentially cultists. I'd be extremely surprised if any one of them matches.
Ashton
> The best part is that he was proud that he was "immune" even though it indicates the beginnings of hearing loss.
No it doesn't; the upper frequency limit on human hearing naturally decreases from around the onset of adolescence. It doesn't mark the onset of hearing loss at all, at any normal frequency.
Ashton
You said:
"But I hope you can also make the distinction between a collection of dividing cells in a dish and a human being."
How do you make that distinction, personally? What are your criteria for 'human-ness'?
I challenge you to give a definition of when something starts to be 'human' that isn't completely arbitrary.
Ashton
You said:
:D)
"The stem cell worriers aren't really worried about stem cells or their source, they're worried about how close we're getting to a comfortable understanding of cellular mechanics...[religion bashing here]"
Not true - "their source" is exactly what I'm worried about. If a method for procuring stem cells could be found that didn't require the deaths of fetuses, I'd be fine with that. If your definition of 'life' doesn't include unborn babies, that's your decision. I myself don't support methods of healing that require the deaths of what I call living humans. I'm not stupid though (I'm guessing all the religious people you've met/heard of are Catholic Americans...I won't go there); I have more of an understanding of biology than the average person (not the average American; as that isn't saying much.)
The parent post is a thinly-veiled anti-religion troll, not insightful.
(Incidentally, despite my barbed comments about average Americans, I'm not French - I'm a Kiwi
Ashton
Unfortunately, this is becoming a pattern in the US, as far as I (a NZer) can see, and probably has been for some time. The court system in the US is increasingly encouraging a litigious society.
I think part of the problem is that people are taking their "right to their day in court" too far when applying it to companies. As another post says, merely classifying software shouldn't violate anything.
If they are going to sue, it should be for defamation, rather than for violating the EULA, which makes it even weirder, as you say, that a court found in their favour.
Ashton
Yes, humour is fine, but the scary point about this is that Disclic are so afraid of Microsoft that they asked. In theory, IMO, purchasing a software licence should be similar to a 'debt': The buyer pays a fee for the assurance that the 'debt' (software assurance) will be honoured in future.
Either the agreement specifies that licenses aren't transferable, or it doesn't. If it does then Disclic have no grounds for doing this - Microsoft will not have to honour the 'debt'. In this case, even with Microsoft's permission, Microsoft are not obliged to honour the agreement.
If it doesn't then Disclic don't have to ask Microsoft's permission. Why did they bother? Because they were scared, I'll bet. Scared of mindless lawsuits - they'll run out of money before Microsoft do.
Ashton
"Not anti-religion, just think that by highschool people should be making up their own minds about it."
Christianity makes no mention of the idea that "Thou shalt ram thy religion down others' throats". Islam, etc, tend more that way.
I happen to be a Christian, as are my parents. However, "bullying, parental decree, and a lack of exposure to alternate viewpoints" had nothing to do with it.
Yes, I can see the humour, but it conceals a deeper misunderstanding.
Also, the "Doctorine[sic] of the Church" is a _very_ Catholic thing for them to say. In fact, much "Catholic Doctrine" goes against the Bible - e.g., the Eucharist and trans-substantiation. I really question anyone calling themself a Christian who doesn't believe the Bible.
Ashton
"Europe has Austria, Australia has New Zealand, and the US has Kansas."
:D
Except that NZ is not a part of Australia, so that doesn't fit your other examples.
Besides, we in NZ like to think of it as the other way around - after, all, ask any Australian to say "Quick Dick, skin this pig" and you'll see why.
NZ actually isn't full of yokels. Just the South Island.
Ashton
Yes, you're probably right. One thing I would worry about then is parallel mutation of genes, i.e., an organism mutating but not passing on this mutation past several generations, followed by a subsequent organism re-developing the mutation, could accidentally be classed as 'descendancy' (is that even a word? :) when the second was not actually descended from the first. It is a good point, though; gene mapping would likely provide more accurate evidence either way.
Ashton
I'm not sure I have an answer to your first question - that's a viewpoint I've heard of several times.
A question for you: Could you elaborate on what of the Garden of Eden is a metaphor for?
Ashton
If evolutionists claim millions of years (or more) for large-scale evolution to occur, what makes you think that "a couple millenium[sic]" would be enough? It sounds to me like your test isn't feasible, either.
I'm not - and have never been - arguing that ID should be taught as a science, merely pointing out that many people subject the two models to different criteria before they'll believe them.
Ashton
You, on evolution: "We're following scientific theory to the tick, so what if we haven't found a way to falsify it?".
You, on ID: "According to almost every religion, god is always right, so if you say "god made it so", how can you falsify it?"
Why should ID be pressed to meet challenges (e.g., falsifiability) that evolution does not? This, to me, smacks of bias. You want ID advocates to show how ID is falsifiable, but of evolution, you say, "so what if we haven't found a way to falsify it?"
Different requirements for two models before you'll accept them == bias, in my mind.
Ashton
"But you're employing sophistry when you say because our current knowledge of the mechanics of DNA mutation cannot predict exactly when "macro-evolution" (do you mean speciation?) will occur, therefore a 100% faith based theory is equivalent to one that provides an accurate statistical prediction in short-life-spanned creatures, and can be used to produce repeatable results and explain the rate of fossil change over time."
Could you please provide a quote from one of my comments where I said something like that? It seems to me that you're fabricating things I said. I didn't say ID can make the accurate predictions that evolution routinely does. I don't disagree with the fact that the theory of evolution can make accurate predictions for short-life-spanned creatures. What I do disagree with is the assertion that evolution is a _scientific_ theory. As one (evolutionist) poster said earlier, ID and evolution are both MODELS.
Ashton
"I mean how do you explain things like the ~98% genetic similarity between human beings and chimps. We obviously aren't chimps and chimps clearly aren't humans. However once again this FITS with the idea that we would have a common genetic ancestor."
Or alternatively, it also "fits" with the idea that most of the genes, which we assume all have an effect of a species' phenotype, don't actually make a difference between two species. It may be that all the "similarities" in genes are to deal with very low-level stuff, for example respiration, which is a process that is virtually unchanged in most organisms.
Surely an intelligent designer would engage in modular code re-use where he/she/it could?
Your reason for your argument (that humans and apes share a common ancestor) is that it "FITS". How is that different to my argument, that we don't?
My point is that neither argument is logically superior - they both rely on interpretations of the facts.
Ashton
Exactly; the problem I have with that is in the "logical" extension to "macro-evolution".
It's a bit like Newtonian gravitation versus Einsteinian gravitation: things may get different when the scale we're talking about changes. I'm not sure you can make that "logical" extension; after all, it doesn't work for something "simple" like gravity, so it may not work for something complex like life itself.
Your carbon-dating example is spurious; because what we can do is measure the half-life and show that it is a constant. If we show something to be a constant then yes, it is perfectly fair to make that simple extension to larger periods of time. However, we don't know that micro-evolution, a fact, can be extended: we don't know that things behave in the same way on larger scales. Something may act to discourage "macro-evolution"; the organism that first makes the jump from water to land will likely have a large disadvantage as it will only have small characteristics that make it capable of land-dwelling, and it may be safer for the species to stay in the water.
This is the kind of "other influence" we don't know doesn't occur, so we can't be certain in extending micro-evolution to macro-evolution.
Ashton
"That only makes sense if you're talking about trans-substantion from one species to another, like a fish turning into a dog. That's not evolution."
That sounds to me like you're disowning your own theory. Since that's likely how you believe humans came about, what do you call it then? You obviously have different terminology; "macro-evolution" seems to me to be a perfectly good label for it.
Ashton
Actually, it's "Catholic" Christians that _don't_ have "this problem"; the Bible is clear that God created the physical bodies of humans from 'dust' and 'breathed life' into them. This would seem to conflict with evolution, so - for Christians to accept - that is certainly a weird interpretation of the Bible, assuming your claims are true - I wouldn't know, I'm not "Catholic" and haven't looked into it.
Ashton
OK, and what are the two species that the Archaeopteryx is half-way between?
"Dinosaurs and birds" isn't good enough; you'll need to show fossil evidence of two species that are clearly similar to Archaeopteryx, but of which one has more bird-like features and one has more dinosaur-like features. Give the species of the dinosaur, if possible.
I realise that this is nearly impossible, which is why evolution should not be taught as a strictly _scientific_ theory. It's almost impossible to strictly prove it or falsify it under the scientific method, so how can it be called _scientific_?
Ashton