No, we are not humanoid because it is efficient, we are humanoid because that's just the way it turned out, and it wasn't detrimental to breeding. People ascribe far too much purpose and design to evolution.
It defies reason to not ascribe purpose and design to evolution. Breeding and survival is done far more successfully and in unimaginably greater numbers by our common ancestors the bacteria. And yet for some reason, here we are anyway... contemplating evolution, of all things, when biology would supposedly have us breeding instead.
OTOH, if these people really thought they could predict mass behavior, they wouldn't be building systems for the military, they'd be predicting the stock market, and raking in the cash.
Yes, every unusual event can be safely assumed to be caused by global warming until there is evidence to the contrary. Who can deny that logic?
"Evidence to the contrary" is too vague. Anyone can claim evidence to the contrary. I think if we really want to protect humanity from false logic, we our motto should be "Every unusual event can be safely assumed to be caused by global warming until the IPCC publishes a report stating otherwise."
When all kinds of vendors were marketing fake cheese as cheese, the dairy industry got together and made up the 'Real' mark. I don't see this as anything different.
The difference is that "open source" already has a meaning (or rather multiple meanings) specifically pertaining to the licensing of software. It doesn't matter who originally coined the term -- it now a widely-used term with a specific range of meanings in the software community. Therefore no one has the right to regulate its use. If OSI wants to coin a new term, and trademark and regulate that one, it's free to do so.
That would be because the Republicans don't have a hippy-nerd contingency to worry about alienating by accepting donations from an organization that most non-hippy-nerds have either never heard of or don't care about.
While the Peacock's tail is an impediment to personal survival, the extravagance of it tells females that the male is healthy, strong, has good genes and would make a good choice as a father to their offspring.
That explanation doesn't hold water, because many, if not most, male birds have bright colors that are attractive to the females of their species, yet their bright colors are no hinderance to their survival. Furthermore, the gene that makes peahens attracted to extravagant impediments to survival would have been selected against from the moment it appeared.
The common explanation that the various species of male birds evolved bright colors because the females are attracted to those colors is a copout, as it presume the females were attracted to bright colors before the bright colors existed in the males, and doesn't explain how they came to be thus attracted before the objects of attraction even existed. More than that, it doesn't explain why this process has apparently happened over and over in many different species of birds, whose different colors require different molecular pathways, but hasn't happened in any species outside the bird class. Anything resembling a complete theory would need to do those things.
What is constantly being reevaluated is the actual mechanisms that drive this change......They are not reevaluating the means of evolution, just the details of the timetables of when things happened.
These statements seem contradictory. The second one is true. Evidence can, and constantly has, improved our understanding of the history of evolution. There is no forseeable evidence that can improve -- or disprove -- the accepted theory of the mechanism of evolution. Until we can make a full mathmatical model of how DNA encodes organisms, and simulate a complete organism in a future supercomputer, it is an untestable and unfalisifiable theory, and therefore no has greater basis in science than saying that God directly and arbitrarily split each species into subspecies at various points in time. While science isn't interested in theories that don't have factual basis, religions such as Christianity and Atheism often are.
According to a CBS poll, only 13% of American adults believe humans evolved without divine guidance.
A CBS survey said there's no evolution! If 87% of people say there's no evolution then this article is a sham sir!
There is no 87% saying there's no evolution. They are saying there's no MATERIALISTIC evolution. It's probably the 87% of us who believe that life itself has divine guidance. Whether evolution or anything else is random/mechanical or divine-influenced is a purely philosophical one, not a scientific one (at this point at least). That includes the arguement for "random mutation". There is obviously no evidence that the mutations which gave rise to speciations were "random" and not in some way directed, naturally or supernaturally, or otherwise forced in some particular direction. Once we arrive at a better understanding of how DNA works, perhaps it will be possible to form mathematical models to determine whether or not the "random mutation" theory is feasible. Maybe it's only feasible during intermittant radiation events that decimate populations by causing widespread mutations, leaving a few individuals with improvements, who go on to reproduce and build up populations again. Maybe it's not possible at all.
If it wasn't the dinosaurs stopping the evolution of mammals (i.e. dinosaurs dominating the habitat), then what did? Could it be that the available habitats were just better suited to dinosaurs vs. mammals?
But that supposes that this event was an inevitablity just waiting to happen. If you're going to ask that, you might as well ask what was stopping single-celled organisms from evolving into multi-celled organisms for 2 BILLION years. Awaiting an extremely unlikely series of random events? Awaiting a global radiation event? Awaiting divine influx? I don't know.
But a harsh environment doesn't stop evolution, it enables it. If a species has plenty of food and no significant predators, then a lot more will survive than just the fittest, and there will probably be many thousands of disadvantageous-but-not-fatal mutations passed on to the species for every advantageous one that comes along. Sex selection could mitigate this a little, maybe, but not much.
Requiring an.edu address is arbitrary and stupid. Every freshman script kiddie has an.edu address, whereas experts actually working in their industry do not.
What I don't get is why wikipedia doesn't require even require a registration with a verified email address to edit an article! Most blog comments even require that (or at least a registration). Makes no sense.
I'm filing an applicaiton for "Process and method for posting an article on an a patent when it is issued, then posting the substantially same article a year later, and calling it news both times." Your ass is mine,/.
The point I was trying to make was that "might be wrong" is not by itself grounds for rejection or loss of confidence in a theory because every theory might be wrong.
When people appeal to the imaginable future scientists laughing at us they never seem to make the argument that future future scientists might laugh at them, and so on.
The arguments that "they might be wrong" and "future scientists will laugh at us" are not good arguments against conclusions grounded in evidence. However, they are good arguments against the argument that "most scientists believe this, so it must be true."
The latter is, for the most part, the only argument usually heard for AGW. You'd think at least on slash-dot someone would be capable of presenting a scientific argument for it.
I was going to make a vaguely sarcastic comment about your "putting on shorts" for global warming, and then you played the booby-trapped card.
This always comes up; the global cooling theories during the 1970s were *nowhere* near as widely-accepted and publicised in the scientific community/press. Even the popular press, who were responsible for promoting these theories didn't carry anywhere near as much on "global cooling" than they do now on warming. See this and this. And people were considering global warming even back then.
BANG! YOU'RE wrong. The only difference between then and now is that there are now billions upon billions of dollars being funneled by governments into global warming research. There's no scientific difference between then and now. Scientists are still studying the next ice age and when it will come. Linking an environmentalist site and a pro-AGW site doesn't change reality.
What scares me is the prospect that a Dem gets elected just in time for us to notice the effects of the decreasing solar cycle, and then John Q. Nitwit concludes that the Democrats ended Global Warming just by being in office -- and maybe levying a few new cripling taxes on American industry. Don't laugh. This is already how John Q. Nitwit reasons about cause and effect in the economy.
Someone needs to produce a study that plots over the last 50 years, the government grants for climate study versus the average and maximum predicted temperatures for 50 years out from the date of the grant.
We must remove skepticism from science and restore it to it's former purity!!!
**THUNDEROUS APPLAUSE**
The Deniars hate science, and they want to kill the poor and destroy the earth. We must kill them before they kill us!!!
**THUNDEROUS APPLAUSE**
Whenever you hear someone ask for evidence to support the state-specified Scientific Consensus, you must report them immediately to the Central Office for Scientific Purity. Children, you must report even your teachers and your parents! Then Earth is in the balance!!!
Desertification is improving dramatically. The grasslands of the Sahel are expanding, pushing back the south edge of the Sahara Desert all over North Africa.
In fact, increased atmospheric CO2 is very likely responsible for that. Increased CO2 dramatically reduces the amount of water necessary for any plant life to survive. It is also likely responsible for the increased crop yields. But the effect of CO2 is much more dramatic in places where plant survival would otherwise be questionable, such as deserts.
Tell it to the IPCC. They claim to predict based on the averaged results of computer models which regions will get more rain and which will get less in 2050. As plainly absurd as this IPCC claim is, it's the only way they can equate global warming with droughts, since global warming must on average increase global precipitation.
As I point out almost every time this topic comes up, there is still no meaningful debate amongst the scientists. There are always a few crackpots (Flat-Earth Society anyone?), but amongst real scientists publishing in quality peer-reviewed journals, the debate is not whether anthropomorphic global warming is happening, but how much and how quickly.
While there is little debate in the scientific community, because of the hostile political atmosphere that prevents it, there is little or no consensus either. I read all the peer-reviewed climate articles that are made available -- it is true, that many of the pay lips service to the AGW theory in their closing remarks. Many of them do not -- many of them state that their findings are not compatible with the AGW theory. When the theory is addressed in the positive, it is usually based upon the politically mandated assumption that the theory is true. It is rarely claimed in terms of "the evidence I've provided here bolsters the theory of AGW". When it's cited in the negative it is always because of exactly that, i.e. the evidence undermines the theory.
The only tangible evidence that is ever provided for AGW is the computer models. But computer models are computer versions of the theory itself -- not evidence! This circular argument runs amonk throughout the pro-AGW "scientific" community. It is literaly the only way to defend the theory.
The only sentient beings are us flesh & blood humans. There's a reason I, Robot is a science fiction novel. All a robot is is just a bunch of metal parts with a CPU just like my computer. No computer can "think" for themselves - we program the input and output. There is no such thing as a computer program "becoming sentient."
So far. There's nothing that proves that it's impossible to create sentient beings using computational devices.
There's also nothing that proves that it's impossible to create a sentient being from a severed hog's head drenched in virgin blood, with a voodoo incantation carved into the tongue.
I only care what purpose I give myself. Even should the universe have a purpose for me and I learn what that purpose is, if it turns out to be something that I don't agree with, too bad for the universe. And yes, if God exists this applies to Him/Her/It as well.
Oh, REAALLYY? So if you disagree with what God has in mind, it's just TOO BAD FOR GOD? Good luck with that. If you see an ant in the house and decide to squish it, and the ant disagrees, is that too bad for you or too bad for the ant?
In other words, if God exists and he created humanity for no purpose other than to have someone to worship Him, would you accept that purpose, or would you attempt make your life have a meaning beyond that?
If God exists and created humanity, then your conceptions of purpose and meaning are from nowhere but Him. Your conceptions of them may be diluted or perverted versions, perhaps, but the idea that you can add something independent to God's purpose is non-sensical.
That's actually very easy to answer. In that case, we're just complex machines abiding by the laws of physics and any ideas of morality are illusory. Robot rights, therefore, do not matter a whit. Nor, possibly, do human rights. It all ends in a big, dead, cold universe, so it's all for nothing anyway.
I know (but don't care if) it's unpopular on Slashdot, but personally I very much like the notion of a God beyond the reach of science. It makes more sense to me than so much mud dreaming impossible dreams of self-awareness.
Of course, you'll forgive me for holding such a belief, since if I'm just a cog in a deterministic universe, I have no choice but to be here, right now, typing exactly these words...:)
Yeah, but the mud that randomly developed impossible dreams of self-awareness was more fit for reproduction........right?...I'm so confused.
Slashdot Mirror
It may just be me, but I would attribute the propensity toward crashing on the lack of windows rather than the egg shape.
It defies reason to not ascribe purpose and design to evolution. Breeding and survival is done far more successfully and in unimaginably greater numbers by our common ancestors the bacteria. And yet for some reason, here we are anyway... contemplating evolution, of all things, when biology would supposedly have us breeding instead.
OTOH, if these people really thought they could predict mass behavior, they wouldn't be building systems for the military, they'd be predicting the stock market, and raking in the cash.
Sounds nifty. Do you think it can tell me if it's gonna rain this weekend?
"Evidence to the contrary" is too vague. Anyone can claim evidence to the contrary. I think if we really want to protect humanity from false logic, we our motto should be "Every unusual event can be safely assumed to be caused by global warming until the IPCC publishes a report stating otherwise."
The difference is that "open source" already has a meaning (or rather multiple meanings) specifically pertaining to the licensing of software. It doesn't matter who originally coined the term -- it now a widely-used term with a specific range of meanings in the software community. Therefore no one has the right to regulate its use. If OSI wants to coin a new term, and trademark and regulate that one, it's free to do so.
Dude... water.& size=o
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=536615119
This is a common misconception. "2 girls for every boy" was a Jan & Dean song, not Beach Boys.
That would be because the Republicans don't have a hippy-nerd contingency to worry about alienating by accepting donations from an organization that most non-hippy-nerds have either never heard of or don't care about.
That explanation doesn't hold water, because many, if not most, male birds have bright colors that are attractive to the females of their species, yet their bright colors are no hinderance to their survival. Furthermore, the gene that makes peahens attracted to extravagant impediments to survival would have been selected against from the moment it appeared.
The common explanation that the various species of male birds evolved bright colors because the females are attracted to those colors is a copout, as it presume the females were attracted to bright colors before the bright colors existed in the males, and doesn't explain how they came to be thus attracted before the objects of attraction even existed. More than that, it doesn't explain why this process has apparently happened over and over in many different species of birds, whose different colors require different molecular pathways, but hasn't happened in any species outside the bird class. Anything resembling a complete theory would need to do those things.
These statements seem contradictory. The second one is true. Evidence can, and constantly has, improved our understanding of the history of evolution. There is no forseeable evidence that can improve -- or disprove -- the accepted theory of the mechanism of evolution. Until we can make a full mathmatical model of how DNA encodes organisms, and simulate a complete organism in a future supercomputer, it is an untestable and unfalisifiable theory, and therefore no has greater basis in science than saying that God directly and arbitrarily split each species into subspecies at various points in time. While science isn't interested in theories that don't have factual basis, religions such as Christianity and Atheism often are.
There is no 87% saying there's no evolution. They are saying there's no MATERIALISTIC evolution. It's probably the 87% of us who believe that life itself has divine guidance. Whether evolution or anything else is random/mechanical or divine-influenced is a purely philosophical one, not a scientific one (at this point at least). That includes the arguement for "random mutation". There is obviously no evidence that the mutations which gave rise to speciations were "random" and not in some way directed, naturally or supernaturally, or otherwise forced in some particular direction. Once we arrive at a better understanding of how DNA works, perhaps it will be possible to form mathematical models to determine whether or not the "random mutation" theory is feasible. Maybe it's only feasible during intermittant radiation events that decimate populations by causing widespread mutations, leaving a few individuals with improvements, who go on to reproduce and build up populations again. Maybe it's not possible at all.
But that supposes that this event was an inevitablity just waiting to happen. If you're going to ask that, you might as well ask what was stopping single-celled organisms from evolving into multi-celled organisms for 2 BILLION years. Awaiting an extremely unlikely series of random events? Awaiting a global radiation event? Awaiting divine influx? I don't know.
But a harsh environment doesn't stop evolution, it enables it. If a species has plenty of food and no significant predators, then a lot more will survive than just the fittest, and there will probably be many thousands of disadvantageous-but-not-fatal mutations passed on to the species for every advantageous one that comes along. Sex selection could mitigate this a little, maybe, but not much.
Requiring an .edu address is arbitrary and stupid. Every freshman script kiddie has an .edu address, whereas experts actually working in their industry do not.
What I don't get is why wikipedia doesn't require even require a registration with a verified email address to edit an article! Most blog comments even require that (or at least a registration). Makes no sense.
I'm filing an applicaiton for "Process and method for posting an article on an a patent when it is issued, then posting the substantially same article a year later, and calling it news both times." Your ass is mine, /.
The arguments that "they might be wrong" and "future scientists will laugh at us" are not good arguments against conclusions grounded in evidence. However, they are good arguments against the argument that "most scientists believe this, so it must be true."
The latter is, for the most part, the only argument usually heard for AGW. You'd think at least on slash-dot someone would be capable of presenting a scientific argument for it.
BANG! YOU'RE wrong. The only difference between then and now is that there are now billions upon billions of dollars being funneled by governments into global warming research. There's no scientific difference between then and now. Scientists are still studying the next ice age and when it will come. Linking an environmentalist site and a pro-AGW site doesn't change reality.
What scares me is the prospect that a Dem gets elected just in time for us to notice the effects of the decreasing solar cycle, and then John Q. Nitwit concludes that the Democrats ended Global Warming just by being in office -- and maybe levying a few new cripling taxes on American industry. Don't laugh. This is already how John Q. Nitwit reasons about cause and effect in the economy.
Someone needs to produce a study that plots over the last 50 years, the government grants for climate study versus the average and maximum predicted temperatures for 50 years out from the date of the grant.
We must remove skepticism from science and restore it to it's former purity!!!
**THUNDEROUS APPLAUSE**
The Deniars hate science, and they want to kill the poor and destroy the earth. We must kill them before they kill us!!!
**THUNDEROUS APPLAUSE**
Whenever you hear someone ask for evidence to support the state-specified Scientific Consensus, you must report them immediately to the Central Office for Scientific Purity. Children, you must report even your teachers and your parents! Then Earth is in the balance!!!
**THUNDEROUS APPLAUSE**
In fact, increased atmospheric CO2 is very likely responsible for that. Increased CO2 dramatically reduces the amount of water necessary for any plant life to survive. It is also likely responsible for the increased crop yields. But the effect of CO2 is much more dramatic in places where plant survival would otherwise be questionable, such as deserts.
Tell it to the IPCC. They claim to predict based on the averaged results of computer models which regions will get more rain and which will get less in 2050. As plainly absurd as this IPCC claim is, it's the only way they can equate global warming with droughts, since global warming must on average increase global precipitation.
While there is little debate in the scientific community, because of the hostile political atmosphere that prevents it, there is little or no consensus either. I read all the peer-reviewed climate articles that are made available -- it is true, that many of the pay lips service to the AGW theory in their closing remarks. Many of them do not -- many of them state that their findings are not compatible with the AGW theory. When the theory is addressed in the positive, it is usually based upon the politically mandated assumption that the theory is true. It is rarely claimed in terms of "the evidence I've provided here bolsters the theory of AGW". When it's cited in the negative it is always because of exactly that, i.e. the evidence undermines the theory.
The only tangible evidence that is ever provided for AGW is the computer models. But computer models are computer versions of the theory itself -- not evidence! This circular argument runs amonk throughout the pro-AGW "scientific" community. It is literaly the only way to defend the theory.
There's also nothing that proves that it's impossible to create a sentient being from a severed hog's head drenched in virgin blood, with a voodoo incantation carved into the tongue.
Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, there is no correlation or comparison between human cognition and computation.
Oh, REAALLYY? So if you disagree with what God has in mind, it's just TOO BAD FOR GOD? Good luck with that. If you see an ant in the house and decide to squish it, and the ant disagrees, is that too bad for you or too bad for the ant?
If God exists and created humanity, then your conceptions of purpose and meaning are from nowhere but Him. Your conceptions of them may be diluted or perverted versions, perhaps, but the idea that you can add something independent to God's purpose is non-sensical.
Yeah, but the mud that randomly developed impossible dreams of self-awareness was more fit for reproduction....