This won't work for those who have mental issues and actually believe they are telling the truth. When they scan your brain all the 'sectors' will still show up as true. However, this would still be useful after it has undergone some extended testing to ensure accuracy.
sooo... It won't work on Bush, but it will work on Rove?
"We are all doomed."
Whee! someone who realizes the truth. Welcome, friend.
when both sides present no realistic answers, who do you turn to?
Viva la Revolution!!
"3. Up until the massive inflation of the 1970's, Social Security benefits were indexed against inflation. Unfortunately this overpromised benefits, so they moved to the slower growing wage index.
Inflation index: Checks grew to provide the same buying power. Wage Index: Checks grow to keep up with wages.
At this point, wages are outpacing inflation (but god knows that current policy could lead to trying to "inflate" our way out of the debt) and it is reasonable to move to inflation index since it guarantees that seniors have the same buying power.. even if they will get fewer benefits in the future"
some corrections to the above, and things that need a bit of history, IMHO:
Note- all of what i am saying here is based on watching an economics expert testifying before congress on CSPAN just last week on the very issue of SS privatization.
1. The decision to move to wage based index (in the late 70's) was based on the prediction (by Alan Greenspan, no less) that wages would rise by approximately 2.3% per annum for at least the next 30 years. In fact, it has risen by less than half that since 1980.
2. The result of the above is the basis for the current contention that there is a "crisis".
3. wages are NOT outpacing inflation over the long term, hence the issue. if they were, there would not be a problem.
just a minor detail, i guess, but it seemed important if the discussion is to continue in this vein.
ahh. we evolutionary theorists are making progress with the creationists i see. there is now a schism in their thought that allows for natural selection, provided you don't accept darwin using it to explain the origin of species. muhahahaha! we'll have you in hell yet!!!
now that we have them using the right jargon, I even see a weak attempt to formulate a testable [sic] hypothesis...it is one more step to getting them to use proper logic to refute their own theories. come on everybody! PUSSSSSHHHHHH.
p.s. @tyreth: would you like me to show you how to refute your own hypothesis, or would you like to show me how smart you are by doing it yourself?
actually, it is; living biological tissue, with cells that reproduce, etc. it is not an entity in and of itself, perhaps, and may not have a current biological function. but, it is most certainly a living thing.
"I used to not understand at all how we humans can have actively and conciously practiced evolution in dogs, cats, horses, pigeons, plants,... "
that is artificial selection, not evolution. as a tool, artificial selection can be used as a mechanism to show how genotypes can be selected for, but it's not really support for evolutionary theory per se, it is more support for mechanism, not general theory.
Yet they ignore Intelligent Design which seems far more rational than believing in the incredibly slim odds of evolution occuring as fast as (or at all) it is described.
one: belief is ascribed to faith is ascribed to religion. acceptance is ascribe to theory is ascribed to science. what you currently accept as a SCIENTIST can always be challenged, what you believe as a disciple cannot.
two: plz calculate for me the odds. i have never actually seen the numbers myself. while your at it, plz calculate the odds of an omnipresent, omniscient, being that could be responsible for same.
oh my god. you really do have a very limited understanding of science. i weep if that is what u learned science is in the british university system. *sigh* I will be happy to refute any and all points in "your" [sic] post if u wish. however, suffice in general to say that your initial statement of these "discoveries" and early theories of homonid evolution as total "fraud" indicates your lack of knowledge of how science advances its understanding. Anthropology is a great place to start, as i would consider many anthroplogists to be the poorest type of scientists anyway (lot's of theories put forward as "facts", with riduculous suppositions; but to their credit, they are getting better). However, putting forward bad examples of science is no way to logically support your theory of creation. You sound like George Bush calling Kerry a "liberal" as a slur. Man this is too easy.
so... which is it? do you want me to go point by point and bash this totally illogical and innapropriate (wrt comparing evolutionary theory and creationism) analysis and your conclusions, or do you want me to point out well done studies in anthropology? both?
your last comment scares me the most. by your logic, if animals showed human-like behavior, would they become more "civilized"???
BTW, wasn't it English schooling that produced the mind that proposed natural selection to begin with? so which is the perfect case study?
BTW, as far as the other poster's point about creation theorists having no advanced degrees; i'd unfortunately have to agree that many DO in fact, have advanced degrees and serious publications to their names. Creation theory has a much longer history than evolutionary theory does.
more's the pity. It was because of creation theorists that Darwin feared for his life if he published his theories too soon. The pity is, the same level of forcing one's personal beliefs into a form of "science" still exists today, and is not limited evidently by one's level of education, but rather one's true level of logical thought processes. One literally, logically and by definition, cannot proclaim oneself a scientist and a creationist in the same breath.
Bring it on!! I am a biologist who has studied evolutionary theory extensively (masters from UC Berkeley). I have usually (always, in fact) found those that support creation theory have very weak logic skills. plz, prove me wrong! and no, i never tire of making creation theorists look very illogical.
what form of debate would you like? point-counterpoint; or would you like to develop a creation theory to explain a specific event and have me expose the illogic in it?
Plz tell me you are kidding! you use that link to provide support for creation theory (note: it cannot, by definition, be called science)??? that is an insult to even creation theorists!! It is so ridiculous it is hard for me to comment on without laughing, but i'll take a shot at one of them:
"4 - HOW THE GIRAFFE GOT ITS LONG NECK
The giraffe used to look just like other grazing animals in Africa. But while the other animals were content to eat the grasses growing in the field and the leaves on the lower branches, the giraffe felt that the survival of his fittest depended on reaching up and plucking leaves from still higher branches. This went on for a time, as he and his brothers and sisters kept reaching ever higher. Only those that reached the highest branches of leaves survived.
All the other giraffes in the meadow died from starvation (all because they were too proud to bend down and eat the lush vegetation that all the other short-necked animals were eating). So only the longest-necked giraffes had enough food to eat while all their brother and sister giraffes died from lack of food. Sad story; don't you think? But that is the story of how the giraffe grew its long neck.
Picture the tragic tale: Dead giraffes lying about in the grass while the short-necked grazers, such as the antelope and gazelle, walked by them, having plenty to eat. So there is a lesson for us: Do not be too proud to bend your neck down and eat. Oh, you say, but their necks were by that time too long to bend down to eat grass! Not so; every giraffe has to bend its neck down to get water to drink. *Darwin's giraffes died of starvation, not thirst.
So that is how the giraffe acquired its long neck, according to the pioneer thinkers of a century ago, the men who gave us our basic evolutionary theories."
man, so many errors, so little time. for one, this little diddy simply ignores the whole idea of competion between species. it is not necessary for shorter-necked giraffes to actually die on the spot (ROFL), all that is necessary is for a slightly longer necked giraffe to have slightly better access to food resources (as simply one of the many selective pressures that might affect neck length) than shorter necked giraffes. Result: better strength, more energy for reproduction, more offspring. lather, rinse, repeat over hundreds of generations, viola: Long necked giraffes are all that are left.
really, i hope you aren't truly that ignorant, or here's me hoping natural selection acts against you!
One of the things that bipedalism gave us was the ability to carry a larger brain. Rather than having to hold the head up, we just sortof balance it on the top of the spine.
*buzz* wrong, but thanks for playing. by that logic, anything that would contribute to a heavier head/skull would favor bipedalism...
*WARNING* *WARNING*!!!
danger will robinson! Gould's ideas, while popular and eloquently stated, often fly in the face of good evolutionary theory. they may be a good starting point, but for god's sake (no pun intended), don't stop there!
if you read gould, read Dawkin's "The Blind Watchmaker" too.
not necessarily; if something is propagated thru social evolution, it does not de-facto gain a genetic component to it. it depends on if there are external selective pressures that would disfavor those who do not adapt the trait via learning or mimicry, and if there is a corresponding mutation in the genome that can then be inherited. otherwise, behvioral traits can successfully be propagated over many generations without ANY genetic component whatsoever.
Although it is unlikely the behavior would have ever been displayed in the first place without at least a partial genetic component, that "component" could be tied to several other pheonotypic or behavioral traits that DO have severe selective pressures on them.
bottom line, complex behaviors can be socially transmitted, and provided there are significant selective pressures AGAINST the behavior, it may flourish.
carefull, you are confusing your evolutionary models. one is natural selection (which acts on genotypes thru phentotypes) and the other is social evolution (the passing of behavior via learning or mimicry from one generation to the next.
washing and swimming behavior in japanese macaques is an example of social evolution. their thick fur in response to cold winter condtions would be favored by natural selection.
aside from the fact that there are not enough examples of "feral" children to support or refute any theory, you would really need to see children raised without any external influences as a control group.
as with most behaviors, there is likely both a enviromental and genetic component that affects the final outward appearance of the behavior.
i could as easily say that the monkeys/animals the children lived with "taught" them how to walk. so you can't say that is "natural" behavior either.
different locomotory pressures, most likely. not knowing myself, i can only postulate that the escape response for rabbits favors a quick "burst mode" with the ability to change directions rapidly, while that for humans was more likely related to being able to spot a predator ahead of time, then climb a tree (hence the height advantage provided by standing tall on two legs).
also, predatory pressures are likely higher on rabbits than humans, and patchy food (so you have to move long distances to get to it) would be a higher selective difference to humans.
others have speculated that bipedal walking is energy efficient (haven't seen data on this), so it could be selection pressure based on energy concerns were more important for humans.
if environment is relatively constant (i.e., predation pressure, food availablity, temeperature, etc.) then selection favors "hardwired" (instictive) behavior. sharks are a great example; relatively unchanged for over 300 million years ("modern" sharks for about 140 million). not very adaptable to new situations, per say, but still have enough brains to be trainable.
i find that most creation theorists who try to use the fossil record to "support" their theory end up chagrined when they find out it is just their own ignorance that bolstered their support.
Evolutionary theory can't prophetically predict future speciation or adaptation, because there are so many random or chaotic factors in play, namely unpredictable environmental changes and the inherent randomness of mutation.
so then why not choose a population for experimentation that does not have so many random variables? answer: it's already been done many times, and results show models CAN predict both degree and type of phenotypic variation induced by known selective pressures.
do google search for work done by Dr. John Endler. several good examples of this very thing.
If a mutation doesn't arise by chance, it can't be selected for, no matter how advantageous it would be for that organism.
There are other ways for mutations to occur; didn't you take microbiology in college?
Slashdot Mirror
This won't work for those who have mental issues and actually believe they are telling the truth. When they scan your brain all the 'sectors' will still show up as true. However, this would still be useful after it has undergone some extended testing to ensure accuracy. sooo... It won't work on Bush, but it will work on Rove?
"We are all doomed." Whee! someone who realizes the truth. Welcome, friend. when both sides present no realistic answers, who do you turn to? Viva la Revolution!!
"3. Up until the massive inflation of the 1970's, Social Security benefits were indexed against inflation. Unfortunately this overpromised benefits, so they moved to the slower growing wage index.
.. even if they will get fewer benefits in the future"
Inflation index: Checks grew to provide the same buying power.
Wage Index: Checks grow to keep up with wages.
At this point, wages are outpacing inflation (but god knows that current policy could lead to trying to "inflate" our way out of the debt) and it is reasonable to move to inflation index since it guarantees that seniors have the same buying power
some corrections to the above, and things that need a bit of history, IMHO:
Note- all of what i am saying here is based on watching an economics expert testifying before congress on CSPAN just last week on the very issue of SS privatization.
1. The decision to move to wage based index (in the late 70's) was based on the prediction (by Alan Greenspan, no less) that wages would rise by approximately 2.3% per annum for at least the next 30 years. In fact, it has risen by less than half that since 1980.
2. The result of the above is the basis for the current contention that there is a "crisis".
3. wages are NOT outpacing inflation over the long term, hence the issue. if they were, there would not be a problem.
just a minor detail, i guess, but it seemed important if the discussion is to continue in this vein.
cheers
ooh. yes that lemur study is indeed a good one, and more recent than the kanga studies.
now that we have them using the right jargon, I even see a weak attempt to formulate a testable [sic] hypothesis...it is one more step to getting them to use proper logic to refute their own theories. come on everybody! PUSSSSSHHHHHH.
p.s. @tyreth: would you like me to show you how to refute your own hypothesis, or would you like to show me how smart you are by doing it yourself?
actually, it is; living biological tissue, with cells that reproduce, etc. it is not an entity in and of itself, perhaps, and may not have a current biological function. but, it is most certainly a living thing.
end technical troll
that is artificial selection, not evolution. as a tool, artificial selection can be used as a mechanism to show how genotypes can be selected for, but it's not really support for evolutionary theory per se, it is more support for mechanism, not general theory.
troll finished. plz continue.
two: plz calculate for me the odds. i have never actually seen the numbers myself. while your at it, plz calculate the odds of an omnipresent, omniscient, being that could be responsible for same.
... or less poop on their fur.
so... which is it? do you want me to go point by point and bash this totally illogical and innapropriate (wrt comparing evolutionary theory and creationism) analysis and your conclusions, or do you want me to point out well done studies in anthropology? both?
your last comment scares me the most. by your logic, if animals showed human-like behavior, would they become more "civilized"???
BTW, wasn't it English schooling that produced the mind that proposed natural selection to begin with? so which is the perfect case study?
more's the pity. It was because of creation theorists that Darwin feared for his life if he published his theories too soon. The pity is, the same level of forcing one's personal beliefs into a form of "science" still exists today, and is not limited evidently by one's level of education, but rather one's true level of logical thought processes. One literally, logically and by definition, cannot proclaim oneself a scientist and a creationist in the same breath.
Bring it on!! I am a biologist who has studied evolutionary theory extensively (masters from UC Berkeley). I have usually (always, in fact) found those that support creation theory have very weak logic skills. plz, prove me wrong! and no, i never tire of making creation theorists look very illogical.
what form of debate would you like? point-counterpoint; or would you like to develop a creation theory to explain a specific event and have me expose the illogic in it?
choose the form of the destructor!
*smacks with leather glove*
kindly show me evidence of the creator of which you speak! now that would be worth a post on /.
"4 - HOW THE GIRAFFE GOT ITS LONG NECK The giraffe used to look just like other grazing animals in Africa. But while the other animals were content to eat the grasses growing in the field and the leaves on the lower branches, the giraffe felt that the survival of his fittest depended on reaching up and plucking leaves from still higher branches. This went on for a time, as he and his brothers and sisters kept reaching ever higher. Only those that reached the highest branches of leaves survived. All the other giraffes in the meadow died from starvation (all because they were too proud to bend down and eat the lush vegetation that all the other short-necked animals were eating). So only the longest-necked giraffes had enough food to eat while all their brother and sister giraffes died from lack of food. Sad story; don't you think? But that is the story of how the giraffe grew its long neck. Picture the tragic tale: Dead giraffes lying about in the grass while the short-necked grazers, such as the antelope and gazelle, walked by them, having plenty to eat. So there is a lesson for us: Do not be too proud to bend your neck down and eat. Oh, you say, but their necks were by that time too long to bend down to eat grass! Not so; every giraffe has to bend its neck down to get water to drink. *Darwin's giraffes died of starvation, not thirst. So that is how the giraffe acquired its long neck, according to the pioneer thinkers of a century ago, the men who gave us our basic evolutionary theories."
man, so many errors, so little time. for one, this little diddy simply ignores the whole idea of competion between species. it is not necessary for shorter-necked giraffes to actually die on the spot (ROFL), all that is necessary is for a slightly longer necked giraffe to have slightly better access to food resources (as simply one of the many selective pressures that might affect neck length) than shorter necked giraffes. Result: better strength, more energy for reproduction, more offspring. lather, rinse, repeat over hundreds of generations, viola: Long necked giraffes are all that are left.
really, i hope you aren't truly that ignorant, or here's me hoping natural selection acts against you!
then again, there is bullwinkle moose...
yeah, there are litteraly hundreds; but it's better to rely on at least TESTED theories as opposed to armchair theories.
if you read gould, read Dawkin's "The Blind Watchmaker" too.
Although it is unlikely the behavior would have ever been displayed in the first place without at least a partial genetic component, that "component" could be tied to several other pheonotypic or behavioral traits that DO have severe selective pressures on them.
bottom line, complex behaviors can be socially transmitted, and provided there are significant selective pressures AGAINST the behavior, it may flourish.
washing and swimming behavior in japanese macaques is an example of social evolution. their thick fur in response to cold winter condtions would be favored by natural selection.
as with most behaviors, there is likely both a enviromental and genetic component that affects the final outward appearance of the behavior.
i could as easily say that the monkeys/animals the children lived with "taught" them how to walk. so you can't say that is "natural" behavior either.
would be a good species to compare.
also, predatory pressures are likely higher on rabbits than humans, and patchy food (so you have to move long distances to get to it) would be a higher selective difference to humans.
others have speculated that bipedal walking is energy efficient (haven't seen data on this), so it could be selection pressure based on energy concerns were more important for humans.
how's that?
interesting.
i find that most creation theorists who try to use the fossil record to "support" their theory end up chagrined when they find out it is just their own ignorance that bolstered their support.
so then why not choose a population for experimentation that does not have so many random variables? answer: it's already been done many times, and results show models CAN predict both degree and type of phenotypic variation induced by known selective pressures.
do google search for work done by Dr. John Endler. several good examples of this very thing.
There are other ways for mutations to occur; didn't you take microbiology in college?