The panspermia folks soooo want this rock to contain evidence of life.
They should have followed the scientific process _first_, which they preach about so much, before jumping to conclusions and puting the public in a tizzy.
You're weak. You're one of those little boys in school that always goes with the flow, even though it might lead you off a cliff. You're afraid of being laughed at by people on/., so you take the usual 'I'll bash creationists to look cool' approach.
Darwinian Evolution goes against every law of probability, statistics, and physics. There are many reasons to reject it. A lot of scientists, who are not creationists, do.
And in none of my statements have I mentioned I was a creationist.
I just posed a simple question and have yet to get an answer.
Hmmm, are you saying we should no longer teach engineering design in college since the environment can just build stuff.
All of my Electrical Engineering courses (from about 16 years ago) taught design. In fact, here are some titles I see on my bookshelf that I haven't cracked open for years: "The Art of Digital Design" "Microprocessors and Microcomputer Based System Design" "Computer Engineering Hardware Design"
Nowhere in engineering is there a book called "The Art of Shooting X-Rays at Silicon and Expecting Things to Work Better" or "The Evolution of Computer Hardware by Blasting The Son of a Bitch with Gamma Rays to Improve System Quality"
Books like that would be something to laugh at, because everyone in engineering knows things don't design themselves. (Don't even get started with genetic algorithms. The deck is stacked to produce the _desired_ optimal outcome.)
You can laugh at Newton, Maxwell, Kelvin and other great scientists that rejected evolution all day long since they're dead. Maybe they were ignorant. Or maybe, since the theory of evolution dates back to the ancient Greeks, these scientists just didn't buy evolution either.
Everyone knows the existence of God can't be proven unless God shows up on the doorstep someday.
The same goes for mutations; unless mutations are _directly observed_ to be 'positive' by _randomly_ mutating DNA, they can't be proven to cause a 'positive' outcome.
Why do I have 'positive' in quotes? Because it's all relative. Flippers work great for swimming in water, but suck for running on land.
But I can prove mutations are beneficial or not if I mutate an organism and see what happens.
So, since I can directly observe the outcome of a mutation, I can prove mutations are beneficial, neutral, or bad.
The elephant example is not proof. I cannot prove a random mutation happened unless I take DNA from one of the elphant types, mutate it _randomly_ and get different ear size.
The elephant example is _assuming_ a mutation happened and that the DNA change was not intentional.
Elephant ears are a bad example. More impressive would be mutating an elephant and getting a cat. Your elephant example is more like the dog breeds we have MUTated today.
Do it then. Find a mutation that's 'positive'. Let us know what you find.
While you're at it, let us know if the creature has become more or less specialized to live in their environment. In other words, did the mutation allow them to survive better under the current circumstances or make them less vulnerable to change?
I agree. I've been programming 'non-stop' for 23 years with no problems. However, I get quite a bit of physical activity in as well and used to body build, so that may have helped.
I've also read that carpal tunnel could be a genetic thing.
"What happened was that a glitch produced two copies of the receptor gene in the animal's DNA, a not-uncommon occurrence in evolution. Then, for reasons not understood, two major mutations made one receptor sensitive just to cortisol, leading to the modern version of the stress hormone receptor."
So we have a glitch, then a couple of big glitches, and then walla! "evolution 'takes advantage of lucky circumstances and builds upon them.' "
With all the machinery in cells to correct and prevent glitches, evolution is a real lucky guy (and funny how he always takes advantage of something without knowing what he's taking advantage of).
It's a nice fairytale, but the only thing processes without a vision build upon is taking a pile-o-shit and making it a bigger pile-o-shit.
What we are really seeing here is similar chemicals being used for different functions in different situations. This does not mean one thing let to another. The "glitch" and "two major mutations" are a major re-design.
Every fossil 'link' always makes sense from a functionality perspective.
For instance, why don't we find fossils of creatures with developed hind legs and not front legs? One would think some of these failures would be found. (or can only workable configurations get fossilized)
Obviously a mudskipper wouldn't work very well will rear fins/legs... and this creature probably wouldn't either.
Maybe this will free up some store shelf space for applications that actually do something. Now if we could just clear the shelves of anti-virus software...
1) Pass references into functions/methods as much as possible (since they can't be null... in theory) There is very little need to pass pointers into methods _if_ you take the time to think about things.
2) Properly using const will help a lot.
3) At the cost of speed, bounds check all operator [] overloads. Use pure arrays as little as possible.
4) Don't use loops that don't have a determined stop/abort condition.
5) Check and handle all return codes from standard library calls or other function/method calls for that matter.
6) You could put a global try/catch block around everthing for good measure, but there isn't much difference between this and just bombing unless you can actually handle the global error condition and somehow recover.
".NET/C# is a language for programmers who are at least mediocre.... So, why would any programmer who was any good bother to learn some language that's going to enslave them to one company's technology forever"
For work, you go where the money is. For personal gratification, you program with whatever you want.
I've been programming in C++ for over 14 years on both Windoze and Unix, non-stop... and I'd consider myself a C++ expert (if there is such a thing).
When C#/.NET was in Beta 1, I started learning that and programmed in Java as well. It never hurts to learn multiple languages... gives you flexibility in the market place.
C++ is still my favorite language, but I'm not giving up $100K+ per year just because of my religious affiliation with the church of C++.
Are there C++ jobs out there that pay $100K+? Yes. But the reality is that there are more.NET jobs out there.
C# really, is pretty decent, at least v2.0. I don't believe the generics are as expressive as C++ templates, but they're a welcomed addition from v1.x.
Sharpening up images is one thing if it's needed to highlite a point (but in a scientific journal, there needs to be text explaining the manipulation).
However, if there are major manipulations to an image that border fraud, one has to wonder how many of the numbers are pretend.
They flap their wings, but it would be nice to see some video with superimposed wingtip position and wing orientation traces in slow-mo and corresponding air fluid motion cartoons, etc.
Stephen J. Gould/Niles Eldredge didn't think gradulism was correct.
So, your statement should be rephrased as: "Sadly nobody but IDers, Stephen J. Gould, and Niles Eldredge claim a difference between micro and macro evolution."
I _probably_ evolved from some common ancestor or frogs _could have_ evolved from fish. Fine. Prove it. Prove it to a 99.9% level of certainty.
Prove to me that a light detecting eye evolved into a camera eye. Don't show me different types of eyes. Show me, with 99.9% certainty, the exact path/steps that a light detecting eye evolved into a camera eye.
Do this without using words such as 'probably' or 'could have'. Do it using 100% observation and nothing else; faith is not allowed, only observation.
Also, the fact that this thread has so many responses is an maybe an indication that, perhaps, there is a little double that some people have in their own theory.
Any reasonable person has to admit, it's hard to swallow evolution as the source of molecular machines such as ATP Synthase (can be both a rotary motor and generator), Helicase, and protein chaperones.
Yes, it's possible to contrive ways these molecules randomly came to be, but do it without using words such as 'probably' or 'could have'; anything else is wishful thinking and doesn't prove a thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Take a carbon and attach 4 hydrogen. Perhaps enough of a deal for more grant money though.
This looks like a case of a developmental problem.
What normally gets suppressed during embryonic development (hind fins), didn't happen in this case.
Nothing new created here. Notice that it didn't have 6 fins.
"Is it too hard to believe that we may not be alone?
Yes, because mathematically, we shouldn't even be here.
The panspermia folks soooo want this rock to contain evidence of life.
They should have followed the scientific process _first_, which they preach about so much, before jumping to conclusions and puting the public in a tizzy.
How come all the cool animals are extinct?
"The fossils even reveal impressions of feathers, webbed feet and other rare details, though none of the remains include a skull."
These were ducks ready to be butchered, but ran and hid after getting their heads chopped off.
You're weak. You're one of those little boys in school that always goes with the flow, even though it might lead you off a cliff. You're afraid of being laughed at by people on /., so you take the usual 'I'll bash creationists to look cool' approach.
Darwinian Evolution goes against every law of probability, statistics, and physics. There are many reasons to reject it. A lot of scientists, who are not creationists, do.
And in none of my statements have I mentioned I was a creationist.
I just posed a simple question and have yet to get an answer.
Hmmm, are you saying we should no longer teach engineering design in college since the environment can just build stuff.
All of my Electrical Engineering courses (from about 16 years ago) taught design. In fact, here are some titles I see on my bookshelf that I haven't cracked open for years:
"The Art of Digital Design"
"Microprocessors and Microcomputer Based System Design"
"Computer Engineering Hardware Design"
Nowhere in engineering is there a book called "The Art of Shooting X-Rays at Silicon and Expecting Things to Work Better" or "The Evolution of Computer Hardware by Blasting The Son of a Bitch with Gamma Rays to Improve System Quality"
Books like that would be something to laugh at, because everyone in engineering knows things don't design themselves. (Don't even get started with genetic algorithms. The deck is stacked to produce the _desired_ optimal outcome.)
You can laugh at Newton, Maxwell, Kelvin and other great scientists that rejected evolution all day long since they're dead. Maybe they were ignorant. Or maybe, since the theory of evolution dates back to the ancient Greeks, these scientists just didn't buy evolution either.
Listen Dipshit MuthaFucka,
Everyone knows the existence of God can't be proven unless God shows up on the doorstep someday.
The same goes for mutations; unless mutations are _directly observed_ to be 'positive' by _randomly_ mutating DNA, they can't be proven to cause a 'positive' outcome.
Why do I have 'positive' in quotes? Because it's all relative. Flippers work great for swimming in water, but suck for running on land.
I can't prove there's a God.
But I can prove mutations are beneficial or not if I mutate an organism and see what happens.
So, since I can directly observe the outcome of a mutation, I can prove mutations are beneficial, neutral, or bad.
The elephant example is not proof. I cannot prove a random mutation happened unless I take DNA from one of the elphant types, mutate it _randomly_ and get different ear size.
The elephant example is _assuming_ a mutation happened and that the DNA change was not intentional.
Elephant ears are a bad example. More impressive would be mutating an elephant and getting a cat.
Your elephant example is more like the dog breeds we have MUTated today.
Do it then. Find a mutation that's 'positive'. Let us know what you find.
While you're at it, let us know if the creature has become more or less specialized to live in their environment. In other words, did the mutation allow them to survive better under the current circumstances or make them less vulnerable to change?
Thanks.
I agree. I've been programming 'non-stop' for 23 years with no problems.
However, I get quite a bit of physical activity in as well and used to body build, so that may have helped.
I've also read that carpal tunnel could be a genetic thing.
"What happened was that a glitch produced two copies of the receptor gene in the animal's DNA, a not-uncommon occurrence in evolution. Then, for reasons not understood, two major mutations made one receptor sensitive just to cortisol, leading to the modern version of the stress hormone receptor."
So we have a glitch, then a couple of big glitches, and then walla! "evolution 'takes advantage of lucky circumstances and builds upon them.' "
With all the machinery in cells to correct and prevent glitches, evolution is a real lucky guy (and funny how he always takes advantage of something without knowing what he's taking advantage of).
It's a nice fairytale, but the only thing processes without a vision build upon is taking a pile-o-shit and making it a bigger pile-o-shit.
What we are really seeing here is similar chemicals being used for different functions in different situations. This does not mean one thing let to another. The "glitch" and "two major mutations" are a major re-design.
Due to the ample proof for evolution, he should have no problem coming up with the necessary information to get the grant, right?
He has nothing to worry about, right?
There is proof, right?
Every fossil 'link' always makes sense from a functionality perspective.
For instance, why don't we find fossils of creatures with developed hind legs and not front legs? One would think some of these failures would be found. (or can only workable configurations get fossilized)
Obviously a mudskipper wouldn't work very well will rear fins/legs... and this creature probably wouldn't either.
Did they even get 1.0 working yet?
Maybe this will free up some store shelf space for applications that actually do something.
Now if we could just clear the shelves of anti-virus software...
Have you correctly designed an eye before? If so, get that patent application sent in!
a ss14-2.html
Animals with inverted retinas can have amazing vision (raptors for example) and it's hard to argue that their eyes are poorly 'designed'.
Anyhow, if you need some tools to help you get started implementing a proof of concept for your design, this link might help:
http://mcdb.colorado.edu/courses/3280/lectures/cl
1) Pass references into functions/methods as much as possible (since they can't be null... in theory) There is very little need to pass pointers into methods _if_ you take the time to think about things.
2) Properly using const will help a lot.
3) At the cost of speed, bounds check all operator [] overloads. Use pure arrays as little as possible.
4) Don't use loops that don't have a determined stop/abort condition.
5) Check and handle all return codes from standard library calls or other function/method calls for that matter.
6) You could put a global try/catch block around everthing for good measure, but there isn't much difference between this and just bombing unless you can actually handle the global error condition and somehow recover.
7) Don't throw from a destructor.
8) Actually use destructors.
9) The list goes on and on...
".NET/C# is a language for programmers who are at least mediocre. ... So, why would any programmer who was any good bother to learn some language that's going to enslave them to one company's technology forever"
.NET jobs out there.
For work, you go where the money is. For personal gratification, you program with whatever you want.
I've been programming in C++ for over 14 years on both Windoze and Unix, non-stop... and I'd consider myself a C++ expert (if there is such a thing).
When C#/.NET was in Beta 1, I started learning that and programmed in Java as well. It never hurts to learn multiple languages... gives you flexibility in the market place.
C++ is still my favorite language, but I'm not giving up $100K+ per year just because of my religious affiliation with the church of C++.
Are there C++ jobs out there that pay $100K+? Yes. But the reality is that there are more
C# really, is pretty decent, at least v2.0. I don't believe the generics are as expressive as C++ templates, but they're a welcomed addition from v1.x.
Sharpening up images is one thing if it's needed to highlite a point (but in a scientific journal, there needs to be text explaining the manipulation).
However, if there are major manipulations to an image that border fraud, one has to wonder how many of the numbers are pretend.
That really was bigfoot in the photo.
They flap their wings, but it would be nice to see some video with superimposed wingtip position and wing orientation traces in slow-mo and corresponding air fluid motion cartoons, etc.
Stephen J. Gould/Niles Eldredge didn't think gradulism was correct.
So, your statement should be rephrased as: "Sadly nobody but IDers, Stephen J. Gould, and Niles Eldredge claim a difference between micro and macro evolution."
You didn't take my challenge. You just spewed out the normal bullshit.
10 year expert in what topic?
"This is grown-up stuff. If you want to play, it's going to take a little more than your pathetic little uninformed conjectures"
Like what? You don't even have an intelligent comeback for little uninformed conjuctures.
I _probably_ evolved from some common ancestor or frogs _could have_ evolved from fish. Fine. Prove it. Prove it to a 99.9% level of certainty.
Prove to me that a light detecting eye evolved into a camera eye. Don't show me different types of eyes. Show me, with 99.9% certainty, the exact path/steps that a light detecting eye evolved into a camera eye.
Do this without using words such as 'probably' or 'could have'. Do it using 100% observation and nothing else; faith is not allowed, only observation.
Also, the fact that this thread has so many responses is an maybe an indication that, perhaps, there is a little double that some people have in their own theory.
Any reasonable person has to admit, it's hard to swallow evolution as the source of molecular machines such as ATP Synthase (can be both a rotary motor and generator), Helicase, and protein chaperones.
Yes, it's possible to contrive ways these molecules randomly came to be, but do it without using words such as 'probably' or 'could have'; anything else is wishful thinking and doesn't prove a thing.