The robots took out insurance policies on the blind men, and they're using every excuse they can to lead them to the bathroom where they can "accidentally fall" and be left unconcious in a running sink.
It's like the I-Robot movie, only worse! Well... it's like the moive, at least.
Same black-suited guys emerging from black vans. Where they take you and what they do to you/treat you is a whole, 'nother thing.
Yeah, I can see it now...
CHINESE SURVEILLANCE AGENT: Captain! We have a red alert! Somebody has been accessing Slashdot to read about something called "World of Warcraft". CAPTAIN: He must be a spy! Send out a torture squad to ruff him up a little bit. (Reading the monitor) What the Hell is a muhmorpeg?
Hey, man. Fucking bees can differentiate between colors. This shouldn't be required for the human species. Why the Hell is is the norm to be tricked into believing that something with the words "sponsored link" is not an advertisement? This is, in my opinion, not excusable for the human race. I blame the Fox Network.
I'm sorry but how does this change the fact that evolution can technically be observed? My point had nothing to do with the "bigger picture" or how much it matters to other scientists, etc. etc., but it fucking exists and it's called micro-evolution and it's still observable so I'm right.
"The debate is about whether the theory of the origin of species is correct," nope. It was MY post that you replied to, and my point had nothing to do with the origin of species, so you're just plain wrong. All your fancy education and degrees and magazine articles don't mean shit when you don't even pay attention to what I say until 3 or so replies in when you have to pull some crap like "Okay, you were right but it doesn't even matter!"
If you had paid attention to what I said the first time you could've said something like "sure, 'micro-evolution' is observable but most scientists don't even care about that, and it's only a small part of the theory of evolution." And even then it wouldn't matter because I'm still technically right.
I don't contend that you know a lot about evolution, probably a lot more than me about biology in general, but you're still a dipshit for missing my fucking point and trying to correct me when I wasn't wrong.
Oh look, I outwitted a professor! Maybe with all the time you spent studying biology you forgot how not to be a jackass.
To adress a number of things:
"And "adaptation" is not caused by natural selection." True, an adaptation or a mutation in itself is not "caused" by it, but natural selection determines whether or not the paticular adaptation survives and spreads, therefore it leads to the adaptation of the species as a whole. No need to recite the generic "natural selection 101", here. We both know what it is. Mutations happen "serendipitously" (great superfluous use of the word, now I'm convinced you're a genius) but evolution on a broader scale can't happen without natural selection. You know this, so shut up.
"About emergence of new species. I know all about Talk.origins. (You do, unfortunately, talk like them.) Irregardless of what you read there, we have never seen the emergence of a new species. Not in the natural." Once again, if you had checked any of the sources that are not talkoriginis.com you might have noticed some things like this: "2) A naturally occurring speciation of a plant species, Stephanomeria
malheurensis, was observed in Burns County, Oregon." Oops! Guess they didn't teach you that one in all the colleges you brag about going to. Not to mention (again) the fact that micro-evolution does not require speciation.
"Regarding your question: "as us not being sure what a species is, what the hell are you talking about". If you were a biologist, chances are you would know..." See, here's where you're missing the point. Micro-evolution does not require speciation, and thus does not require the definition of species. A species does not need to be defined for evolution to be observed. That's the point. I think the problem is, you automatically lump everyone who isn't on your side into an atheistic "evolution created all life" dogma. It doesn't matter how life got here, evolution is still observable.
"As for me and my knowledge, I don't really need your recognition or agreement or approval, but I spent a number of years teaching it in a couple of universities, including the U of California. I've written about it, presented papers to some pretty esteemed groups and conferences, etc. You might think I'm an "idiot", but I think you're in a very tiny minority, there. Actually, though I see you think you are an expert, you obviously have more zealousness than scientific training or expertise. Nevertheless, I have accorded you enough respect to answer (with politeness) in hopes you might open your mind to the possibility you don't know it all, yet." You can just shove this whole passage up your ass. Regardless of the fact that you could easily make this all up, just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I think I know more than you.
You seem to be the one who keeps disregarding my whole point. Once again, MICRO-EVOLUTION DOES NOT REQUIRE SPECIATION, GOD DAMNIT. That's basically all I was saying. I'm sorry, but it's incorrect to say that "evolution is not observable", and that's all I'm trying to explain. So don't jump on me with your stupid "zealous atheist" bullshit. You don't even know what religion I am. Do you? For your information I'm not an atheist and I don't deny creationism any more than evolution being the source for life on Earth, so fuck off, professor. They may have taught you about biolgoy but nobody ever taught you how not to miss the fucking point.
Actually, my religion can't be debunked by any theory, in that my religion is non-comittal. I specifically said in that post that "the parent, however, didn't say anything about the origin of life,". I didn't say that it's how life was created, but he's right in that evolution is observable.
On another note, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Seriously.
#1. "Adaptation is NOT evolution." adaptation: Biology. An alteration or adjustment in structure or habits, often hereditary, by which a species or individual improves its condition in relationship to its environment.
Apparently you do not understand the biolgical definition of "adaptation." An adaptation is some change an organism has made to fit it's environment. It's not a process. It's caused by the process "natural selection" which is the mechanism for evolution.
Adaptation, evolution, and natural selection are not several distinct phenomena, like you seem to think. You're mistaking "evolution" for the term "macro-evolution" which involves speciation. Evolution does not have to create new species to be evolution.
Also, about us "never absolutely seen the emergenceofanewspecies"... good job, idiot. I found that all in about 2 minutes. Not that I didn't already know you were wrong, I'm just saying, do a little research before you make these ridiculous claims.
Not to mention the fact that it doesn't matter, as evolution does not have to entail speciation, as you wrongly believe.
And about whatever the Bible says: that's great! I don't care! Didn't I just say to leave your religion out of this? This has nothing to do with the Bible, or the origin of life for that matter.
It just has to do with my point, and the point of the original parent that evolution is observable and going on right now. It is. Accept it. Your religion will not come crashing to its feet, I promise, just stop making these ridiculous claims.
Dipshit: if shit can mutate and mutations can get passed on to offspring evolution fucking works. The reasoning behind evolution is far less contrived than most physics that's accepted without question. You can't argue that mutations don't occur. You can't argue that they can be passed on to offspring. You can't argue that a beneficial mutation could cause the muatant to reproduce more. And you can't argue that it wouldn't result in the mutation gettin spread around.
The above poster said that evolution is an observable fact. We have vestigal organs, we have selective breeding, etc. and all of those support the mechanism for evolution.
The parent, however, didn't say anything about the origin of life, so if you're not just some zealous jerk setting out to debunk any theories that might call into question the validity of your religion, you're just stupid. Wait, you're stupid either way, my bad.
Tsk, tsk. Bringing religion to a scientific discussion...
Well, once again, adding a few shots is not making a remake. The remake and the original are two different movies, not one being a modified version of the other.
Bearing that in mind, I may have not explained my reasoning fully. For things like modifying a game, (say Doom) adding a few levels is cool to me. Then it's still Doom, and such.
The thing I was more concerned about was reapplying things like stories, art, characters, etc. Like, if I'm making a new game, I could use textures (to me textures are not art, but that's another debate) the engine, etc. But borrowing the story of another game would be kind of dumb. That's what I'm talking about by editing another game a little bit and then renaming it.
I don't think it'd be bad to modify a game slightly, but taking things like story, and graphics would be kind of lame. Reusing anything characteristic of my game into your game, I do not feel is taking advantage of the Open Source License. Well, not in a good way, anyway. If you want to release a mod of my game, go ahead.
First of all: I don't know if it's a British thing or not, but quit saying "remaked" you ass.
Secondly, give me a break. Some texture files are not the same as a fucking movie. And remaking a movie is not the same as putting out a new version of Firefox. If I was going to remake a movie I wouldn't just add a few more shots in and re-edit it. I'd start from the beginning, cast new actors, re-do the script, etc. You should know that so quit being a dick.
That's a fucking text editor. Let me point out something quickly:
In terms of my analogy, a text editor is not analogous to a movie. A text editor is not an expression of art, like music or a movie. A text editor is used to create things like books, and is therefore analogous to the technology used to make a movie, which I would say should be free.
People, a book, song, or movie is not the same as software. Software is an active, functional, device that people can use. That's where the difference comes in.
Let's see: next stop is that there simply is no right or wrong of any kind, right?
Yes, dumbass. Some societies believe it's okay to kill your wife for cheating on you. I realize you're extremely stupid, so it may come as a shock to you, but not everything that you think is wrong is wrong to everyone else.
What the fuck difference does it make if someone takes my money? I may believe that it's wrong, but the person who did it may not.
No, I give up. I'm just going to confuse you. Here's my new response: Get a vasectomy immediately.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, genius, you're forgetting about a whole other hemisphere there. Hindusim is commonly considered the oldest surviving religion.
I thought it was the word of God. Are you trying to tell me that God had a lacking scientific understanding? I thought he was omniscient.
The robots took out insurance policies on the blind men, and they're using every excuse they can to lead them to the bathroom where they can "accidentally fall" and be left unconcious in a running sink.
It's like the I-Robot movie, only worse! Well... it's like the moive, at least.
Yeah, I can see it now...
CHINESE SURVEILLANCE AGENT: Captain! We have a red alert! Somebody has been accessing Slashdot to read about something called "World of Warcraft".CAPTAIN: He must be a spy! Send out a torture squad to ruff him up a little bit. (Reading the monitor) What the Hell is a muhmorpeg?
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one, buddy... LOL!
Hey, man. Fucking bees can differentiate between colors. This shouldn't be required for the human species. Why the Hell is is the norm to be tricked into believing that something with the words "sponsored link" is not an advertisement? This is, in my opinion, not excusable for the human race. I blame the Fox Network.
Hahaha! I do now.
Puns: always awesome! Note: I'm not being sarcastic either. I modded that comment up.
Troll? Genius, I'm not the one who posted that link. Is it really a troll to warn people of a potential shock site? Thanks a lot!
Then it will be the worst day of the year for her.
"here and finally..."
Quit trying to show off your personal photos on Slashdot!
PS: Nobody click that link.
If this case goes the right way, there's a ton of message boards that I can make a fortune off of.
I'm sorry but how does this change the fact that evolution can technically be observed? My point had nothing to do with the "bigger picture" or how much it matters to other scientists, etc. etc., but it fucking exists and it's called micro-evolution and it's still observable so I'm right.
"The debate is about whether the theory of the origin of species is correct," nope. It was MY post that you replied to, and my point had nothing to do with the origin of species, so you're just plain wrong. All your fancy education and degrees and magazine articles don't mean shit when you don't even pay attention to what I say until 3 or so replies in when you have to pull some crap like "Okay, you were right but it doesn't even matter!"
If you had paid attention to what I said the first time you could've said something like "sure, 'micro-evolution' is observable but most scientists don't even care about that, and it's only a small part of the theory of evolution." And even then it wouldn't matter because I'm still technically right.
I don't contend that you know a lot about evolution, probably a lot more than me about biology in general, but you're still a dipshit for missing my fucking point and trying to correct me when I wasn't wrong.
Oh look, I outwitted a professor! Maybe with all the time you spent studying biology you forgot how not to be a jackass.
First of all, what exactly makes me zealous?
To adress a number of things:
"And "adaptation" is not caused by natural selection." True, an adaptation or a mutation in itself is not "caused" by it, but natural selection determines whether or not the paticular adaptation survives and spreads, therefore it leads to the adaptation of the species as a whole. No need to recite the generic "natural selection 101", here. We both know what it is. Mutations happen "serendipitously" (great superfluous use of the word, now I'm convinced you're a genius) but evolution on a broader scale can't happen without natural selection. You know this, so shut up.
"About emergence of new species. I know all about Talk.origins. (You do, unfortunately, talk like them.) Irregardless of what you read there, we have never seen the emergence of a new species. Not in the natural." Once again, if you had checked any of the sources that are not talkoriginis.com you might have noticed some things like this: "2) A naturally occurring speciation of a plant species, Stephanomeria malheurensis, was observed in Burns County, Oregon." Oops! Guess they didn't teach you that one in all the colleges you brag about going to. Not to mention (again) the fact that micro-evolution does not require speciation.
"Regarding your question: "as us not being sure what a species is, what the hell are you talking about". If you were a biologist, chances are you would know..." See, here's where you're missing the point. Micro-evolution does not require speciation, and thus does not require the definition of species. A species does not need to be defined for evolution to be observed. That's the point. I think the problem is, you automatically lump everyone who isn't on your side into an atheistic "evolution created all life" dogma. It doesn't matter how life got here, evolution is still observable.
"As for me and my knowledge, I don't really need your recognition or agreement or approval, but I spent a number of years teaching it in a couple of universities, including the U of California. I've written about it, presented papers to some pretty esteemed groups and conferences, etc. You might think I'm an "idiot", but I think you're in a very tiny minority, there. Actually, though I see you think you are an expert, you obviously have more zealousness than scientific training or expertise. Nevertheless, I have accorded you enough respect to answer (with politeness) in hopes you might open your mind to the possibility you don't know it all, yet." You can just shove this whole passage up your ass. Regardless of the fact that you could easily make this all up, just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I think I know more than you.
You seem to be the one who keeps disregarding my whole point. Once again, MICRO-EVOLUTION DOES NOT REQUIRE SPECIATION, GOD DAMNIT. That's basically all I was saying. I'm sorry, but it's incorrect to say that "evolution is not observable", and that's all I'm trying to explain. So don't jump on me with your stupid "zealous atheist" bullshit. You don't even know what religion I am. Do you? For your information I'm not an atheist and I don't deny creationism any more than evolution being the source for life on Earth, so fuck off, professor. They may have taught you about biolgoy but nobody ever taught you how not to miss the fucking point.
Actually, my religion can't be debunked by any theory, in that my religion is non-comittal. I specifically said in that post that "the parent, however, didn't say anything about the origin of life,". I didn't say that it's how life was created, but he's right in that evolution is observable.
On another note, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Seriously.
#1. "Adaptation is NOT evolution." adaptation: Biology. An alteration or adjustment in structure or habits, often hereditary, by which a species or individual improves its condition in relationship to its environment.
Apparently you do not understand the biolgical definition of "adaptation." An adaptation is some change an organism has made to fit it's environment. It's not a process. It's caused by the process "natural selection" which is the mechanism for evolution.
Adaptation, evolution, and natural selection are not several distinct phenomena, like you seem to think. You're mistaking "evolution" for the term "macro-evolution" which involves speciation. Evolution does not have to create new species to be evolution.
Also, about us "never absolutely seen the emergence of a new species"... good job, idiot. I found that all in about 2 minutes. Not that I didn't already know you were wrong, I'm just saying, do a little research before you make these ridiculous claims.
As well as us not being sure what a species is, what the hell are you talking about? Biology. A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding. I think we're pretty sure what a species is. Even given various exceptions, it's not like we can't tell what's in a species with ease.
Not to mention the fact that it doesn't matter, as evolution does not have to entail speciation, as you wrongly believe.
And about whatever the Bible says: that's great! I don't care! Didn't I just say to leave your religion out of this? This has nothing to do with the Bible, or the origin of life for that matter.
It just has to do with my point, and the point of the original parent that evolution is observable and going on right now. It is. Accept it. Your religion will not come crashing to its feet, I promise, just stop making these ridiculous claims.
Dipshit: if shit can mutate and mutations can get passed on to offspring evolution fucking works. The reasoning behind evolution is far less contrived than most physics that's accepted without question. You can't argue that mutations don't occur. You can't argue that they can be passed on to offspring. You can't argue that a beneficial mutation could cause the muatant to reproduce more. And you can't argue that it wouldn't result in the mutation gettin spread around.
The above poster said that evolution is an observable fact. We have vestigal organs, we have selective breeding, etc. and all of those support the mechanism for evolution.
The parent, however, didn't say anything about the origin of life, so if you're not just some zealous jerk setting out to debunk any theories that might call into question the validity of your religion, you're just stupid. Wait, you're stupid either way, my bad.
Tsk, tsk. Bringing religion to a scientific discussion...
Human cells did it first. I knew that Morse guy was a fraud all along.
Not hard to choose? I think if I had to choose between the mall and King of Fighters I'd go back to masturbating pretty quickly.
King of Fighters?
Well, once again, adding a few shots is not making a remake. The remake and the original are two different movies, not one being a modified version of the other.
Bearing that in mind, I may have not explained my reasoning fully. For things like modifying a game, (say Doom) adding a few levels is cool to me. Then it's still Doom, and such.
The thing I was more concerned about was reapplying things like stories, art, characters, etc. Like, if I'm making a new game, I could use textures (to me textures are not art, but that's another debate) the engine, etc. But borrowing the story of another game would be kind of dumb. That's what I'm talking about by editing another game a little bit and then renaming it.
I don't think it'd be bad to modify a game slightly, but taking things like story, and graphics would be kind of lame. Reusing anything characteristic of my game into your game, I do not feel is taking advantage of the Open Source License. Well, not in a good way, anyway. If you want to release a mod of my game, go ahead.
That's what I was trying to say.
Sure.
First of all: I don't know if it's a British thing or not, but quit saying "remaked" you ass.
Secondly, give me a break. Some texture files are not the same as a fucking movie. And remaking a movie is not the same as putting out a new version of Firefox. If I was going to remake a movie I wouldn't just add a few more shots in and re-edit it. I'd start from the beginning, cast new actors, re-do the script, etc. You should know that so quit being a dick.
That's a fucking text editor. Let me point out something quickly:
In terms of my analogy, a text editor is not analogous to a movie. A text editor is not an expression of art, like music or a movie. A text editor is used to create things like books, and is therefore analogous to the technology used to make a movie, which I would say should be free.
People, a book, song, or movie is not the same as software. Software is an active, functional, device that people can use. That's where the difference comes in.
I'm sorry. About half way through this reply blood started squirting from my eyes and covered the monitor so that I couldn't read the rest.
What in the blind fuck are you talking about, man?!
Let's see: next stop is that there simply is no right or wrong of any kind, right?
Yes, dumbass. Some societies believe it's okay to kill your wife for cheating on you. I realize you're extremely stupid, so it may come as a shock to you, but not everything that you think is wrong is wrong to everyone else.
What the fuck difference does it make if someone takes my money? I may believe that it's wrong, but the person who did it may not.
No, I give up. I'm just going to confuse you. Here's my new response: Get a vasectomy immediately.
Thus I will asume you are not.
Is that your final answer?
OMG I made a dated allusion, 733t. I should write for Family Guy.