Just randomly thinking, but it would nice if we had a system where anyone can write or send off electronically a request for a work to be entered into the public domain, and if in 30 days, the owner does not respond in the negative, it happens automatically.
(Obviously, only so many such requests would be allowed per year, in case people try to spam the system.)
A carnivore requires a much larger hunting area to sustain itself, compared to a herbivore. In a given area, there is only so much prey, and down the food chain biomass is lost. And that's not counting the energy cost of hunting. If you can get whatever you need from plants, then surely it makes good evolutionary sense to cut out the middleman.
Improved roads reduce fuel consumption, and also pollution. Maintaining bad roads is also costly, removing funds that can be used for other purposes, and can be itself polluting. In the long term, everyone gains, and cost is reduced. It's almost a free lunch.
So long as we are talking about upgrading existing roads, not building a massive new network of roads, I don't see how anyone can be displeased by this.
"After more than 30 years of bombarding fruit flies in the lab with radiation and other mutation inducing poisons, all they have been able to come up with is retarded fruit flies."
And fruit flies which live 70% longer than average.
http://whyfiles.org/shorties/070old_fly/
Those experiments were targetted at discovering how genetic mutations can go wrong. An analogy is that where normal mutations are like rain, these were like dropped buckets on people. Whole groups of genes were knocked out. And obviously, the chances of causing damage is high.
In any case, many of the mutations caused are neutral, even if they were radical. Eye-colour changes, and body colour changes have no effect on survivability. Mutation has also consistently produced new 'species' of virii and bacteria.
Losing organs is not 'loss of information'. There is no rigourous concept like you are thinking of in genetics. Turning a switch off is not very different from turning a switch on.
"evolution by natural selection produces new species by infintesimal increments of adaptation."
No. Not at all. Evolution works on the genetic structure, which is very much discrete. The reason for the occassional sudden shifts is that:
(a) Morphology does not correspond well to genetic change. Changing a gene may not change morphology at all - or it may change things drastically. The physical effects of certain genetic disorders appear very dramatic, even though they correspond to a small shift in the genetic makeup. Similarly, big changes in genetics may occur, and not show up in skeletal structure (which is what fossils are) at all.
(b) Fossil records hide detail. The process of fossilisation is incredibly difficult to make happen, and it certainly doesn't happen at regular intervals. Often, they correspond to a disaster, or sequences of events that see alot of fossils all corresponding to a single time frame, and then not alot more in between.
(c) Darwinian evolution is really kinda obselete as a theory. Modern evolutionary theory recognises that the rate of speciation may alter. For example, a sudden change in environment might spur some change. Other changes may help speed the rate of advancement. Some species may come to dominate their environment, decreasing competition and slowing their own evolution - for a while. Speciation can also be sudden - for example, models of speciation have shown an effect where if the genetic variation is quite uniform, interbreeding helps keep the species the same - until some threshold is crossed, in which case differences rapidly amplify.
(d) We do see such a gradual shift - in most cases. If we focus on looking for non-gradual shifts, since we don't have any reference changes to compare, obviously we will find 'sudden transitions'.
Either (a) we haven't reached an equilibrium, or (b) external factors, e.g. changes in climate, environment.
Evolution is very unstable. Because multiple factors have to be balanced, a small change can require a huge genetic change, or even change the landscape of ecology completely. Because organisms affect each other, influences are amplified instead of dampened. The original 'Darwinian' assumption was that evolution *never* reaches equilibrium - this is natural, if we assume perfect competition. But now, we do see that evolution can slow down, and speed up, because competition is not perfect. Small advantages become eventually less significant, causing periods of stagnation.
Yes, yes, tending to remain in an equlibrium is somewhat of a generalisation. Systems tend to remain in an equilibrium, or tend to infinity, generally. Most things don't tend to infinity, because they have to be driven by something finite. Evolution *might*, because of the way it affects itself, and because there is no physical law that states that 'complexity' must be conserved.
Your equipment would be imperfect. There would be a strong possibility that it is giving an anomalous reading. By repeating the experiment, and with different equipment, you can reduce this possibility, but there is always a definite, finite chance that your theory is wrong.
Ah. Contextual dating.
But that isn't used as evidence for evolution, but to relate different species to each other. If we found multiple fossils of different species close by in rock layers, then geology suggest that in most cases, this means they are close by temporally. This isn't an unreasonable assumption, given what we know about how sedimentary layers are built up - which again, has nothing to do with evolution. Now, if we find another fossil near a copy of the other, then we can assume transitivity.
Ie. A lived in the same time as B, and B lived in the same time as C, implies that A lived in the same time as C.
In fact, this doesn't need evolution at all. Evolution helps explain why this gives us useful results however - why species are actually separated temporally, that we cannot join up all the fossils into a single time era as an instantaneous creation would suggest.
The raw data for evolution, however, come from carbon dating. This, now, comes from our knowledge of radioactive decay, which comes from fundamental physics. Evolutionary theory neccessitates the assumption that decay rates are essentially constant - again, this is not an unreasonable assumption. From physics, and chemistry, we know that systems tend to remain in equilibrium, unless perturbed. Without evidence of perturbation, we have every reason to assume that the principles of carbon dating are valid.
In fact, we have evidence to back up carbon dating (and other more fundamental dating) interpretations, to reasonable accuracies. Eg. we can get samples of atmosphere from polar drillings, and check against our models of carbon decay. Because we can see the yearly cycles in these columns, this gives us a secondary source of data to confirm our primary.
The information we get is consistent, and backed up by independent, correlating data sources. The probability of this occuring by a series of coincidental systematic errors, and just happening to correspond to an incorrect theory, is very, very unlikely.
I mean, cells do not mutate for no reason. Mutation isn't magic. There's always causation - a lucky strike from a cosmic ray, for example. A buildup of certain chemicals. Failures in the replication process. In theory, given enough data, you can predict mutations, even explain them. In practice, this would require more information than can ever be gotten.
Evolution concerns the prediction that the simplest assumption - of a completely random and acausal series of mutations, we can still get observable effects.
ID as a framework, meanwhile, just doesn't work. It isn't the simplest assumption, but instead the most complicated possible one. It introduces the baggage of intelligence were it is not neccessary. And if we allow it as a framework, then it becomes impossible to do any additional work on it.
I mean, if ID is an acceptable explanation, then why investigate further? It boils down to nothing more than 'everything is the way it is, because the universe is just like that.' Which isn't a foundation, but a statement of defeat and resignation.
"By that logic, nothing can be proven, which makes no sense."
It makes plenty of sense. Consider the following thought experiment.
Theory: This ball is red.
I say this, because I'm looking at the ball, and it looks pretty red to me. So I suppose, it's proven? No.
Because maybe my eyes are bad. Maybe the light was wrong, for a moment. Maybe I'm drunk. For in a moment, a hundred other people all come in, and conclude that this ball is blue. You don't trust me more than the rest of them, so you suppose it's proven that the ball is blue.
And then, a thousand more people come in, and testify that the ball is in fact orange...
All theories, all evidence, are like that. There is always possibility of future contradictory evidence. That's why nothing can be absolutely proven.
Give me an example of a nonsensical idea in evolutionary theory, or of evolutionary theory influencing geological dating systems. (Instead of the other way round.)
...Which is that random processes aren't.
If you are already assuming that the universe is tailor suited for humanity, then it isn't a leap to say that the laws of the universe, including the rules of logic that underlie evolution are also tailor suited.
ID is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
So what? The whole point of science is that we refine it.
Punctuated equilibriums are chaos/nonlinear dynamical systems theory's contribution. Darwin assumed that genetic changes occur at a constant rate - because it was a good, simple model, not because there was any reason for it. Now, with more advanced maths and technology, we can start building up evolutionary theory from simple genetics, and deduce that the rate of evolution can vary. (And then, there is a real scientific debate about whether the slow, long term process or the quick leaps are more important.)
It's not like the Origin of Species is the Word of God, or something.
Nah.
ID parallels creationism's key flaws - it moves the action from that which can be examined to that which can not.
Philosophically, and scientifically, we don't know what intelligence is. The definition of it shifts from person to person. There is no way we can test for it, no way we can measure it, no way we can explain it. In fact, there is no way we can even prove that intelligence by any definition actually exists. (especially not in other people)
What ID does is to assume that certain aspects of life are tied up in the big black box of 'intelligent designer', and so can never be questioned. That's when the whole nontheory loses all scientific credibility.
Seriously, that's what the problem is. With most schools teaching science only as 'a body of facts', why should we be surprised how faith-based things like ID gain ground?
We need to be teaching kids about the scientific method, the scientific process. Popper etc. The importance of skepticism and falsifiability.
If they still have the impression that the fact that Evolution is a theory represent a weakness, not a decisive strength, then how can we win?
Fox news also considers itself to be fair and balanced. Does that mean it is actually fair and balanced? Self-recognition means nothing.
US news is right leaning because (a) there is no left wing analogue to Fox news, (b) government has far greater degrees of control (implicit and explicit) on what reports can say. It is further right leaning, because outspoken political criticism is taboo - it simply does exist in the mainstream media.
Of course, we need major qualifiers on this. Firstly, we need to work out how this lot translates from US politics to the international scene. The US 'centre' generally maps not to the international centre but to the centre right - many of Kerry's policies would have been unacceptable to the European left. The attack that the US media is right-leaning extends beyond the media itself to the way the US political scale is calibrated. Secondly, we may have to concede that the media's right-lean may not be a right lean, but a pro-government lean - a basic lack of the skepticism used by their non-american counterparts on the left, and on the right.
That's not really what I had in my. I was thinking of an unified internet identity system, which is based on (a) an one-time fee, and (b) some sort of test/training course. It won't be compulsary, but websites will be free to request it, and limit their services to people who can show that they possess such a license.
Add some sort of extension to the IMAP or HTTP protocols to send this encrypted license information to the server. I don't really have a clear picture of the technical aspect.
1983, surely. In 1783, they didn't even know what light was.
In any case, cosmic astrophysics is pretty much based entirely on Einstein's papers on General Relativity. The 'discovery' of the black hole is simply rereading his theories to find new consequences. The black hole concept was found by Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar.
I dunno. I might support some form of internet licensing.
We can use this to weed out spammers (if email access has to be tied to a specific license, and mail servers can be set to reject all 'anonymous' receipts), reduce advertising, and maybe enforce some sort of compulsary training scheme for internet newbies. (e.g. don't run email vbs scripts, you stupid, stupid boy....)
Obviously, there are technical questions that need to be answered, but maybe a little regulation isn't a bad thing, in the right hands.
Slashdot Mirror
Just randomly thinking, but it would nice if we had a system where anyone can write or send off electronically a request for a work to be entered into the public domain, and if in 30 days, the owner does not respond in the negative, it happens automatically.
(Obviously, only so many such requests would be allowed per year, in case people try to spam the system.)
That's the question we really should be answering...
Any ideas?
A carnivore requires a much larger hunting area to sustain itself, compared to a herbivore. In a given area, there is only so much prey, and down the food chain biomass is lost. And that's not counting the energy cost of hunting. If you can get whatever you need from plants, then surely it makes good evolutionary sense to cut out the middleman.
I don't quite understand.
Improved roads reduce fuel consumption, and also pollution. Maintaining bad roads is also costly, removing funds that can be used for other purposes, and can be itself polluting. In the long term, everyone gains, and cost is reduced. It's almost a free lunch.
So long as we are talking about upgrading existing roads, not building a massive new network of roads, I don't see how anyone can be displeased by this.
"After more than 30 years of bombarding fruit flies in the lab with radiation and other mutation inducing poisons, all they have been able to come up with is retarded fruit flies." And fruit flies which live 70% longer than average. http://whyfiles.org/shorties/070old_fly/ Those experiments were targetted at discovering how genetic mutations can go wrong. An analogy is that where normal mutations are like rain, these were like dropped buckets on people. Whole groups of genes were knocked out. And obviously, the chances of causing damage is high. In any case, many of the mutations caused are neutral, even if they were radical. Eye-colour changes, and body colour changes have no effect on survivability. Mutation has also consistently produced new 'species' of virii and bacteria. Losing organs is not 'loss of information'. There is no rigourous concept like you are thinking of in genetics. Turning a switch off is not very different from turning a switch on.
"evolution by natural selection produces new species by infintesimal increments of adaptation." No. Not at all. Evolution works on the genetic structure, which is very much discrete. The reason for the occassional sudden shifts is that: (a) Morphology does not correspond well to genetic change. Changing a gene may not change morphology at all - or it may change things drastically. The physical effects of certain genetic disorders appear very dramatic, even though they correspond to a small shift in the genetic makeup. Similarly, big changes in genetics may occur, and not show up in skeletal structure (which is what fossils are) at all. (b) Fossil records hide detail. The process of fossilisation is incredibly difficult to make happen, and it certainly doesn't happen at regular intervals. Often, they correspond to a disaster, or sequences of events that see alot of fossils all corresponding to a single time frame, and then not alot more in between. (c) Darwinian evolution is really kinda obselete as a theory. Modern evolutionary theory recognises that the rate of speciation may alter. For example, a sudden change in environment might spur some change. Other changes may help speed the rate of advancement. Some species may come to dominate their environment, decreasing competition and slowing their own evolution - for a while. Speciation can also be sudden - for example, models of speciation have shown an effect where if the genetic variation is quite uniform, interbreeding helps keep the species the same - until some threshold is crossed, in which case differences rapidly amplify. (d) We do see such a gradual shift - in most cases. If we focus on looking for non-gradual shifts, since we don't have any reference changes to compare, obviously we will find 'sudden transitions'.
Evolution is just natural selection. So what?
Either (a) we haven't reached an equilibrium, or (b) external factors, e.g. changes in climate, environment.
Evolution is very unstable. Because multiple factors have to be balanced, a small change can require a huge genetic change, or even change the landscape of ecology completely. Because organisms affect each other, influences are amplified instead of dampened. The original 'Darwinian' assumption was that evolution *never* reaches equilibrium - this is natural, if we assume perfect competition. But now, we do see that evolution can slow down, and speed up, because competition is not perfect. Small advantages become eventually less significant, causing periods of stagnation.
Yes, yes, tending to remain in an equlibrium is somewhat of a generalisation. Systems tend to remain in an equilibrium, or tend to infinity, generally. Most things don't tend to infinity, because they have to be driven by something finite. Evolution *might*, because of the way it affects itself, and because there is no physical law that states that 'complexity' must be conserved.
Your equipment would be imperfect. There would be a strong possibility that it is giving an anomalous reading. By repeating the experiment, and with different equipment, you can reduce this possibility, but there is always a definite, finite chance that your theory is wrong.
Ah. Contextual dating. But that isn't used as evidence for evolution, but to relate different species to each other. If we found multiple fossils of different species close by in rock layers, then geology suggest that in most cases, this means they are close by temporally. This isn't an unreasonable assumption, given what we know about how sedimentary layers are built up - which again, has nothing to do with evolution. Now, if we find another fossil near a copy of the other, then we can assume transitivity. Ie. A lived in the same time as B, and B lived in the same time as C, implies that A lived in the same time as C. In fact, this doesn't need evolution at all. Evolution helps explain why this gives us useful results however - why species are actually separated temporally, that we cannot join up all the fossils into a single time era as an instantaneous creation would suggest. The raw data for evolution, however, come from carbon dating. This, now, comes from our knowledge of radioactive decay, which comes from fundamental physics. Evolutionary theory neccessitates the assumption that decay rates are essentially constant - again, this is not an unreasonable assumption. From physics, and chemistry, we know that systems tend to remain in equilibrium, unless perturbed. Without evidence of perturbation, we have every reason to assume that the principles of carbon dating are valid. In fact, we have evidence to back up carbon dating (and other more fundamental dating) interpretations, to reasonable accuracies. Eg. we can get samples of atmosphere from polar drillings, and check against our models of carbon decay. Because we can see the yearly cycles in these columns, this gives us a secondary source of data to confirm our primary. The information we get is consistent, and backed up by independent, correlating data sources. The probability of this occuring by a series of coincidental systematic errors, and just happening to correspond to an incorrect theory, is very, very unlikely.
Well, mutation may, or may not be random.
I mean, cells do not mutate for no reason. Mutation isn't magic. There's always causation - a lucky strike from a cosmic ray, for example. A buildup of certain chemicals. Failures in the replication process. In theory, given enough data, you can predict mutations, even explain them. In practice, this would require more information than can ever be gotten.
Evolution concerns the prediction that the simplest assumption - of a completely random and acausal series of mutations, we can still get observable effects.
ID as a framework, meanwhile, just doesn't work. It isn't the simplest assumption, but instead the most complicated possible one. It introduces the baggage of intelligence were it is not neccessary. And if we allow it as a framework, then it becomes impossible to do any additional work on it.
I mean, if ID is an acceptable explanation, then why investigate further? It boils down to nothing more than 'everything is the way it is, because the universe is just like that.' Which isn't a foundation, but a statement of defeat and resignation.
"By that logic, nothing can be proven, which makes no sense."
It makes plenty of sense. Consider the following thought experiment.
Theory: This ball is red.
I say this, because I'm looking at the ball, and it looks pretty red to me. So I suppose, it's proven? No.
Because maybe my eyes are bad. Maybe the light was wrong, for a moment. Maybe I'm drunk. For in a moment, a hundred other people all come in, and conclude that this ball is blue. You don't trust me more than the rest of them, so you suppose it's proven that the ball is blue.
And then, a thousand more people come in, and testify that the ball is in fact orange...
All theories, all evidence, are like that. There is always possibility of future contradictory evidence. That's why nothing can be absolutely proven.
Ok, then. Justify that.
Give me an example of a nonsensical idea in evolutionary theory, or of evolutionary theory influencing geological dating systems. (Instead of the other way round.)
...Which is that random processes aren't. If you are already assuming that the universe is tailor suited for humanity, then it isn't a leap to say that the laws of the universe, including the rules of logic that underlie evolution are also tailor suited. ID is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
So what? The whole point of science is that we refine it.
Punctuated equilibriums are chaos/nonlinear dynamical systems theory's contribution. Darwin assumed that genetic changes occur at a constant rate - because it was a good, simple model, not because there was any reason for it. Now, with more advanced maths and technology, we can start building up evolutionary theory from simple genetics, and deduce that the rate of evolution can vary. (And then, there is a real scientific debate about whether the slow, long term process or the quick leaps are more important.)
It's not like the Origin of Species is the Word of God, or something.
Galileo had evidence for the copernican system, not just a todo list of 'problems' that scientists are actively working on.
Nah. ID parallels creationism's key flaws - it moves the action from that which can be examined to that which can not. Philosophically, and scientifically, we don't know what intelligence is. The definition of it shifts from person to person. There is no way we can test for it, no way we can measure it, no way we can explain it. In fact, there is no way we can even prove that intelligence by any definition actually exists. (especially not in other people) What ID does is to assume that certain aspects of life are tied up in the big black box of 'intelligent designer', and so can never be questioned. That's when the whole nontheory loses all scientific credibility.
Seriously, that's what the problem is. With most schools teaching science only as 'a body of facts', why should we be surprised how faith-based things like ID gain ground?
We need to be teaching kids about the scientific method, the scientific process. Popper etc. The importance of skepticism and falsifiability.
If they still have the impression that the fact that Evolution is a theory represent a weakness, not a decisive strength, then how can we win?
However, it is possible for diamonds to burn.
0 0202.htm
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem00/chem
Fox news also considers itself to be fair and balanced. Does that mean it is actually fair and balanced? Self-recognition means nothing.
US news is right leaning because (a) there is no left wing analogue to Fox news, (b) government has far greater degrees of control (implicit and explicit) on what reports can say. It is further right leaning, because outspoken political criticism is taboo - it simply does exist in the mainstream media.
Of course, we need major qualifiers on this. Firstly, we need to work out how this lot translates from US politics to the international scene. The US 'centre' generally maps not to the international centre but to the centre right - many of Kerry's policies would have been unacceptable to the European left. The attack that the US media is right-leaning extends beyond the media itself to the way the US political scale is calibrated. Secondly, we may have to concede that the media's right-lean may not be a right lean, but a pro-government lean - a basic lack of the skepticism used by their non-american counterparts on the left, and on the right.
That's not really what I had in my. I was thinking of an unified internet identity system, which is based on (a) an one-time fee, and (b) some sort of test/training course. It won't be compulsary, but websites will be free to request it, and limit their services to people who can show that they possess such a license.
Add some sort of extension to the IMAP or HTTP protocols to send this encrypted license information to the server. I don't really have a clear picture of the technical aspect.
Yeah. In my opinion, the news media in the UK covers a fair spectrum. TV news breaks down into: (Warning, ruthless stereotyping ahead)
Left: Channel 4
Centre: BBC
Right: Sky News, ITV news(?)
The broadsheet newspapers:
Right: Daily Telegraph
Centre-right: Times, Financial Times
Centre-left: Guardian
Left: Independent
The tabloid newspapers:
Erratic whackjobs: Sun
Far right: Daily Mail
Left: Daily Mirror
Don't care so long as we get big breasts: Daily Star
Oops, ignore previous comment for being utter rubbish. Sorry...
1983, surely. In 1783, they didn't even know what light was. In any case, cosmic astrophysics is pretty much based entirely on Einstein's papers on General Relativity. The 'discovery' of the black hole is simply rereading his theories to find new consequences. The black hole concept was found by Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar.
I dunno. I might support some form of internet licensing.
We can use this to weed out spammers (if email access has to be tied to a specific license, and mail servers can be set to reject all 'anonymous' receipts), reduce advertising, and maybe enforce some sort of compulsary training scheme for internet newbies. (e.g. don't run email vbs scripts, you stupid, stupid boy....)
Obviously, there are technical questions that need to be answered, but maybe a little regulation isn't a bad thing, in the right hands.