Are you looking for a fossil for every creature which lived between bacteria and humans? You do understand that fossil creation is rare, right? Anyway, I'd suggest "The Ancestor's Tale" by Dawkins. Sure it's dry and slow to read but it's a step by step journey back to the beginning of life from humans to the first forms of life. He also lays out a lot of the evidence. As for the argument, "that people claim to have found 'absolute proof' of some 'missing link'" which turns out to be bogus...well the argument seems bogus. I've never heard of a 'real' scientist who claims absolute proof for anything. Hell, I can't prove absolutely that I exist as a brain in a body, I could just be software in some big computer. I can't prove that god didn't create me & the universe 20 seconds ago with this post half written and my memories already in place (a la Blade Runner). The thing is, I don't worry about such things, since non-disprovable assertions are useless. Scientists don't typically claim that any theory is absolutely correct. Instead, they point out that it's the best fit for the evidence at hand, and that predictions it has made for events in the future have come to pass.
As for more evidence of speciation, you might want to look up "ring species", such as the salamanders of the Central Valley of California. And learn about the evidence in 'junk dna'.
Also, I love how anyone who actually forms their opinions based on facts and observations gets modded down on slashdot
Can you point me at a post (perhaps one of yours) where this has happened?
It's the other way around. The sunlight relies on being generated by the nuclear reactions going on within the stars which are shining and then the heavy elements are created & dispersed during supernovae.
Are you a christian? Do you then take god's command in Deuteronomy 13:12-16 to heart and kill people 'who have led their fellow-citizens astray, saying 'Let us go and server other gods'"? And when there are others who believe as you do, but are too squeamish to take part in such a religious killing, do you kill them as well, as commanded in Deuteronomy 17:12-13?
Or are you just a New Testament believer? If so, what about Jesus's demand that we fulfill every "jot" and "tittle" of the Old Testament law? (Matt 5:18), or do you burn them as Jesus suggests in John 15:6?
So you hold that the bible is the literal word of god? Which version? King James or otherwise? You believe that you cannot rightly discard parts of the bible? What about Deuteronomy 13:12-16? Do you defy god's command that you put non-believers to the sword and burn all their loot? I imagine that doing that these days could keep you pretty busy...
What's the point of postulating a god which created everything in the manner you suggest? What problem would such an explanation solve? Would it help you predict that giving certain drugs might cure polio? Also, if god is the creator of all, how did god come into existence? If god existed forever, being out of time, why not the universe? The problem with an explanation that can never be tested ("the faries on the hill did it") is that it's USELESS. If it doesn't predict anything, if there's no way to ever prove it false, then there's no difference between that and any other similar explanation ("it's the faries on the hill again").
The "races" aren't "favored", certain individuals, possessing certain heritable traits, are better at surviving and reproducing in a given environment. That says nothing about whether the survivors are more 'desirable'.
As for what Hitler, Stalin, etc. used to justify their bad actions, they had numerous reasons, both religious and secular. There's certainly a _long_ history of people using religion to justify their actions: The inquisition, the Salem Witch Hunts, and more.
You might also look into the evolutionary theory for altruism and consider that destroying the environment isn't usually in any organism's best interest.
As for my friends, I prefer people who can think rationally.
Spend a little time and effort and educate yourself. People who have done so are convinced that evolution is the correct explanation for all the forms of life on the earth. There are small questions about the rates of evolution at different points in history, and the question of how life got started is still open. Basically however, it's well understood that once DNA & RNA were around, all life could evolve from the earliest, simplest forms. Dawkins has some good books. I liked 'Climbing Mount Improbable' and 'The Selfish Gene' best so far. I still have a few to go though, like 'The God Delusion', The Extended Phenotype' and 'River out of Eden'
Hell, not only that, but for an old married guy, he's got the right idea. You're better off putting the earbud in the girl's ear, then you're tied intimately to her, than geeking out and spending 3 minutes waiting for the song to transfer that she can walk away with...
They can't break Harmony or DVD-Jon's code without breaking old versions of iTunes and forcing them to upgrade. That wouldn't go over well with Apple's customers.
Right, the way I think of it is that I had to be interested enough to watch the movie to see that it was a 1-star. 'Not interested' means that just based on what I heard about it, I knew I didn't want to see it. I could be a fantastically done movie, say 'Remains of the Day' or something, but it's not something I'm interested in. It's more indicitative of the kind of movies I'm interested in than a 1-star rating. After all, it could be that the premise/plot-line of movie that I wanted to see, but the writing/direction/acting sucked. That's less likely to match up between two movies than premise/plot-line.
Sure, I prefer open solutions, but to say that Skype will drain your system's resources is just crap. A simple consumer firewall between your skype-running PC and the internet will prevent Skype from using your PC as a 'supernode'.
Well, I did think that it was unfortunate that Clinton's administration had made that mistake and killed that one single person and injured the 10 others. But again, to compare the evidence you need to blow up a factory you think might be manufacturing VX to give to terrorists with the likely death toll being less than 20 versus the level of evidence you need to invade a country, putting thousands of lives at risk (and as it turns out costing many thousands).
Well, if you're generally afraid and you don't even know what you're afraid of, then the terrorists, (aided greatly by the administration advising everyone to have plastic wrap and duct-tape on hand, and the media for greatly inflating the risks to the average american), have already won.
But if you can think with your fore-brain instead of the hind-brain, do a little math you'll see that the likelyhood of terrorists getting you or even anyone you know directly are so low that it's certainly not giving up all your rights to protect yourself. Even if it was an effective measure, which it's not.
Well, Clinton acted on bad intelligence that the plant was supplying WMDs to Bin Laden. He sent some cruise missiles to destroy the plant. That seems reasonable, certainly in comparison to invading a foreign country based on intelligence of the same sort...
Slashdot Mirror
Are you looking for a fossil for every creature which lived between bacteria and humans? You do understand that fossil creation is rare, right?
Anyway, I'd suggest "The Ancestor's Tale" by Dawkins. Sure it's dry and slow to read but it's a step by step journey back to the beginning of life from humans to the first forms of life. He also lays out a lot of the evidence.
As for the argument, "that people claim to have found 'absolute proof' of some 'missing link'" which turns out to be bogus...well the argument seems bogus. I've never heard of a 'real' scientist who claims absolute proof for anything. Hell, I can't prove absolutely that I exist as a brain in a body, I could just be software in some big computer. I can't prove that god didn't create me & the universe 20 seconds ago with this post half written and my memories already in place (a la Blade Runner). The thing is, I don't worry about such things, since non-disprovable assertions are useless.
Scientists don't typically claim that any theory is absolutely correct. Instead, they point out that it's the best fit for the evidence at hand, and that predictions it has made for events in the future have come to pass.
As for more evidence of speciation, you might want to look up "ring species", such as the salamanders of the Central Valley of California. And learn about the evidence in 'junk dna'.
Also, I love how anyone who actually forms their opinions based on facts and observations gets modded down on slashdot
Can you point me at a post (perhaps one of yours) where this has happened?
It's the other way around. The sunlight relies on being generated by the nuclear reactions going on within the stars which are shining and then the heavy elements are created & dispersed during supernovae.
brado77 needs to have all his posts moderated "-5 willfully ignorant and intellectual dishonest"
Either he's a moron, or a pretty smart troll. I'm guessing moron myself.
Are you a christian? Do you then take god's command in Deuteronomy 13:12-16 to heart and kill people 'who have led their fellow-citizens astray, saying 'Let us go and server other gods'"? And when there are others who believe as you do, but are too squeamish to take part in such a religious killing, do you kill them as well, as commanded in Deuteronomy 17:12-13?
Or are you just a New Testament believer? If so, what about Jesus's demand that we fulfill every "jot" and "tittle" of the Old Testament law? (Matt 5:18), or do you burn them as Jesus suggests in John 15:6?
So you hold that the bible is the literal word of god? Which version? King James or otherwise?
You believe that you cannot rightly discard parts of the bible? What about Deuteronomy 13:12-16?
Do you defy god's command that you put non-believers to the sword and burn all their loot? I imagine that doing that these days could keep you pretty busy...
What's the point of postulating a god which created everything in the manner you suggest? What problem would such an explanation solve? Would it help you predict that giving certain drugs might cure polio? Also, if god is the creator of all, how did god come into existence? If god existed forever, being out of time, why not the universe? The problem with an explanation that can never be tested ("the faries on the hill did it") is that it's USELESS. If it doesn't predict anything, if there's no way to ever prove it false, then there's no difference between that and any other similar explanation ("it's the faries on the hill again").
The "races" aren't "favored", certain individuals, possessing certain heritable traits, are better at surviving and reproducing in a given environment. That says nothing about whether the survivors are more 'desirable'.
As for what Hitler, Stalin, etc. used to justify their bad actions, they had numerous reasons, both religious and secular. There's certainly a _long_ history of people using religion to justify their actions: The inquisition, the Salem Witch Hunts, and more.
You might also look into the evolutionary theory for altruism and consider that destroying the environment isn't usually in any organism's best interest.
As for my friends, I prefer people who can think rationally.
Perhaps because this site is correct?
If you visit the site, don't miss the picture of just a small part of the result of "god's" actions....
I want to mod the parent 'sad but true' , but I'm not sure whether it'd be +1 or -1 :-)
:-O
I wonder though with the whole praying thing, is got so clueless that he doesn't realize there's a problem?
Spend a little time and effort and educate yourself. People who have done so are convinced that evolution is the correct explanation for all the forms of life on the earth. There are small questions about the rates of evolution at different points in history, and the question of how life got started is still open. Basically however, it's well understood that once DNA & RNA were around, all life could evolve from the earliest, simplest forms.
Dawkins has some good books. I liked 'Climbing Mount Improbable' and 'The Selfish Gene' best so far. I still have a few to go though, like 'The God Delusion', The Extended Phenotype' and 'River out of Eden'
Doesn't that just lead to group-think?
Part of why I read slashdot is for the (slightly) alternate viewpoints.
Hell, not only that, but for an old married guy, he's got the right idea. You're better off putting the earbud in the girl's ear, then you're tied intimately to her, than geeking out and spending 3 minutes waiting for the song to transfer that she can walk away with...
Hey, I commute, and I take exception to you calling me a tool!
Well, I'd love to see the national election end up electing all libertarians. _THAT_ would get some attention...
Yeah, I'll wait too, especially since it seems every time I upgrade I spend all my time fighting with driver issues for the new hardware...
Sorry the mods' sarcasm detectors are on the fritz this morning...
could be changed to fnord...
There's no rocket in the round. It's launched with a big 'boom' and experiences the same initial high-G forces.
They can't break Harmony or DVD-Jon's code without breaking old versions of iTunes and forcing them to upgrade. That wouldn't go over well with Apple's customers.
News Flash. There are cheaper and more expensive parts of the country/world...
Right, the way I think of it is that I had to be interested enough to watch the movie to see that it was a 1-star. 'Not interested' means that just based on what I heard about it, I knew I didn't want to see it. I could be a fantastically done movie, say 'Remains of the Day' or something, but it's not something I'm interested in. It's more indicitative of the kind of movies I'm interested in than a 1-star rating. After all, it could be that the premise/plot-line of movie that I wanted to see, but the writing/direction/acting sucked. That's less likely to match up between two movies than premise/plot-line.
Sure, I prefer open solutions, but to say that Skype will drain your system's resources is just crap. A simple consumer firewall between your skype-running PC and the internet will prevent Skype from using your PC as a 'supernode'.
Well, I did think that it was unfortunate that Clinton's administration had made that mistake and killed that one single person and injured the 10 others. But again, to compare the evidence you need to blow up a factory you think might be manufacturing VX to give to terrorists with the likely death toll being less than 20 versus the level of evidence you need to invade a country, putting thousands of lives at risk (and as it turns out costing many thousands).
Well, if you're generally afraid and you don't even know what you're afraid of, then the terrorists, (aided greatly by the administration advising everyone to have plastic wrap and duct-tape on hand, and the media for greatly inflating the risks to the average american), have already won.
But if you can think with your fore-brain instead of the hind-brain, do a little math you'll see that the likelyhood of terrorists getting you or even anyone you know directly are so low that it's certainly not giving up all your rights to protect yourself. Even if it was an effective measure, which it's not.
Well, Clinton acted on bad intelligence that the plant was supplying WMDs to Bin Laden. He sent some cruise missiles to destroy the plant. That seems reasonable, certainly in comparison to invading a foreign country based on intelligence of the same sort...