Oh
please. There are examples of intermediary steps in eye development
throughout the animal kingdom, from simple eye spots all the way to
mammalian eyes. Each step is fully functional and does what the
organism possessing it requires it to do.
Congratulations. You have just demonstrated that evolution is a fact.
What you have not
demonstrated is that this has anything to do the Neo-Darwinism.
Here's a couple of questions
for you:
If the eye is in fact designed, why does it suffer from the
imperfection of the blind spot?
These are called design constraints. They are found in just
about every design activity you can think of.
BTW, did you know that the gene that controls eye development in both
vertebrates and insects is 94% identical. That's not just two
different species. That's two different phyla. 94%
the same.
So, the design constraint is that you must use more or less the same
gene controller for the development of the insect eye and the
vertebrate eye. How's that for a design challenge?
"because I lack the ability to understand an evolutionary system of a grand scale, I have therefore conclusive proof that God must have created the world... After all, everything too complicated for me to understand is just God's miracles"
A good scientific theory is both coherent and elegant. Did you ever stop and wonder why the universe is both coherent and elegant?
Why?
All that needs to happen is for a change not to cause the organism to
die before it can pass its genes on.
Wrong. Let's say you have a son who has six fingers. Does that mean
that the whole human population will suddenly have six fingers? No.
Does it even mean that any of his descendants will have six fingers?
Maybe. Maybe not. It depends on how the mutation was introduced and
what the survival rate is.
He may mate with someone and the mutation could disappear
altogether since a mutation is by definition a
"non-standard" part of the chromosome.
Did you ever notice what happens when a horse and a donkey
mate? What you get is sterile offspring. So a
mutation by itself is not enough. You need a mutation whose
carrier will survive into the next generation.
A steady state population means that overall, the total number of
members of the population remains about the same. That means
that for every two parents, about two offspring will survive.
If the parents have six offspring, during the course of their
lives (extremely conservative for animals in the wild) that means that
four of them will die before reproducing. So, right off the
bat, the chances are 4-to-2 that any mutation will not survive.
"Survival advantage" means that of all the surviving
and reproducing
offspring in the population, some "substantial/statistically
significant number" will have the mutation. So, by
definition, to have "survival advantage", the mutation must already be
present in some statistically significant portion of the population.
And to get this far, it must overcome the 4-to-2 death rate.
And even if it survives one generation, the odds get worse
and worse that it will survive multiple generations. Do the
math. First generation.33 chance of survival.
Second generation:.11. Third:.04. etc.
So, basically, the occasional
infrequent mutation, unless it is radical
in its effects, is not likely to spread into the population as a whole.
In fact, the mutation rate would have to be dangerously high
in order for a mutation to be able to spread to the whole population.
And why is this dangerous? Because then the very
life of the species is in danger. Check out these
frogs from Minnesota. That's
what happens when your mutation rate is too high.
So study up on your population genetics and learn why it is not so easy
for a "useful" mutation to survive and spread out in to the rest of the
population.
Zoologist
Dan-Erik Nilsson
demonstrates how the complex human eye could
have evolved through natural selection acting on small variations.
Notice the word *could*. Since
when does wishful speculation replace the need for real live
E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E?
Here's
how some
scientists
think some eyes may
have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some
ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage
First of all, where did this
"simple light-sensitive spot" on the skin come from? Are you kidding
me? Even this much is non-trivial. Second, how would it provide some
"tiny survival advantage"? Oh, you mean not only was it light
sensitive, but there were already nerves running from it to whatever
type of nervous system this creature had, such that it could modify its
behavior according to the light level and gain a survival advantage?
How convenient. Well, why don't
we just stop right here and you can explain to me how all of *this*
happened. No need to go any further.
And finally, just because some
feature has some tiny survival advantage does not mean that this trait
will be spread throughout the population. Let's say that you have a son
that has six fingers which gives him a tiny survival advantage (boy,
he's a real wiz at those video games!). How does this trait suddenly
get propagated to the rest of the population?? Not so easily.
Not every random trait gets propagated
to the rest of a
population.
In
fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been
found in existing living species.
Congratulations, you have just
added to the proof that evolution is a fact. What you have NOT done is
shown that Neo-Darwinian evolution is a fact.
by the early 1800's, when Darwin was sailing on the Bugle, it was already widely accepted that biological evolution was a historical fact, thoroughly documented in the fossil record. What was missing was a good explanation of this fact. People examining fossils could see the general outline of the evolutionary process; they just didn't understand how it worked.
No, here is what Darwin really said about how poorly his theory stood up against the fossil record, and how many gaps there were in the record:
"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."
What you describe about the general understanding of evolution in the 1800 is pure fiction.
Damn it, what's wrong with the
Intelligent Design theory?
I am not a fan of
Neo-Darwinism. In fact,
there are many scientists who are not fans of Neo-Darwinism.
According to Thomas Kuhn, in The
Structure of
Scientific Revolutions,
scientists for the most part adhere to the prevailing
paradigm. In fact, lacking a paradigm -- a framework or model
of the way things are -- scientific activity doesn't make much
sense. So what if light bends when it goes by the
Sun? If you don't have a model of mass and gravity (general
relativity) that makes sense of that particular piece of information,
you are likely to chalk it up to a fluke of the measurement. Only when
there is a meaningful paradigm in which information can be
interpreted will it be given any validity. Studies have
repeatedly shown that when a person perceives something
which does not fit in with their current world view, it is largely
ignored. And this occurs with scientists as well.
Data which does not conform to the current paradigm is largely
explained away. (And certainly, you would not be able to get
a
sizable research grant which does not expand upon or bring greater
precision to the current paradigm -- working outside of the paradigm is
just not profitable!)
That is, until a serious anomaly arises with respect to the current
paradigm. The classic example
is of a single photon of light passing through two slits to "interfere
with itself" and produce an interference pattern on the other
side. This serious anomaly could just not be tossed
aside. When confronted with a serious anomaly, the scientific
community (those who
were dependent on the validity of the previous paradigm) are thrown
into "crisis". During the period of crisis, many, often
conflicting, suggestions (they are perhaps not fully formed hypotheses)
are put forth to explain the anomalous phenomenon. Eventually, the
community selects one of these suggestions (or a hybrid
thereof) as the best one with which to go
forward. And this sometimes happens with meager
evidence. In fact, it is not unusual for some scientists from
the "old school" to never be
converted to the new paradigm.
With respect to evolution, there are plenty of people who have various
questions with respect to the theory of evolution. Under
ordinary circumstances, this may have already led to a "crisis" in the
evolution community. But this has not happened.
Here are some possible reasons:
Evolution is a theory which
touches a deep nerve in people. It is hard to be objective
about
it. Most people have strong feelings about it one way or
anothert. Compare the reaction on Slashdot when people are
discussing Evolution versus when they are discussing Dark
Matter. There is very little direct evidence in support of
Dark
Matter. It is still very hypothetical. But even
though it is leading theory, most people are willing to discuss its
strengths
and weaknesses dispassionately. Likewise, there
is not a lot of direct solid evidence in support of
Neo-Darwinism.
However, this theory touches on peoples fundamental world views making
it difficult or impossible to discuss dispassionately. As
they say, more
heat than light is usually generated by these discussions.
And not only on Slashdot. So little progress is made, and the
crisis point is not reached,
even though it is well over due in my opinion.
A related issue is the
"chilling effects" that people in power in the scientific community
produce with respect to alternatives to Neo-Darwinism. Take,
for example, the case of
Richard Sternberg. He is an evolutionist who holds two
Ph.D.’s. He was also managing editor of Proceedings
of the Biological Society of Washington, a peer-reviewed journal from
the Smithsonian Institute. Richard appears to have been a even-headed
editor who was open to having an occasional provocative article in his
journal. Unfortunately for Richard, he seems to have been
unaware of the extremely violent reaction (just like on Slashdot) that
can
occur when ideas challenging
evolution are put forth, no matter how good t
Evolution
we know happens
(see the changing patterns of moths around pollution, etc).
There are two kinds of
evolution: micro-evolution (changes within a species) and
macro-evolution (changes from one species to another).
Micro-evolution has never been shown to lead to
macro-evolution. Your example of the changing patterns of
moths is micro-evolution. This proves absolutely nothing
about macro-evolution. Which is what Neo-Darwinism is all
about.
However, the Theory of
Evolution as originally put forth by Darwin is
based on the idea of "survival of the fittest": those species who have
a mutation that enables them to survive better than their competitors
will breed and pass along that mutation to their descendants, who will
then continue the process.
Natural selection is a negative force. It removes
variety. It you can't survive in a particular environment,
you die. Nothing shocking there. I don't know anyone who
disagrees with that.
How
did Darwin come up with this theory?
1.
He observed the various species on the islands, and how they were all
similar (birds, I believe) and how each was best fit to his environment.
2.
He hypothesized that this condition arose because of his theory (see
above).
So is this how he came up
with his theory? Then how is it that his theory already
existed before he came up with it? Oh never mind. I
am amazed that this post got modded up.
3.
The experiment (mainly
carried out by other folks looking at fossils): See if similar species
have changed over time due to environment and had mutations that
allowed them to survive.
It is very easy to read too
much into fossils. Have
you heard the tail of two
pandas? In China there are two panda bears: the Giant
Panda and the Red
Panda.
they
look similar
they
live near each
other
the
muzzle or snout of each
has a similar shape and is shorter than that of bears
their
upper jaws are similar
the
jaw bones of both widen
sharply toward the back of the head
both
have massive pre-molar
teeth and enlarged chewing muscles
both
have an enlarged radial
sesamoid bone in their wrists, although this is greater in the Giant
panda
neither
one hibernates
there
are even some unique
similarities in their stomachs and livers
Biochemical
studies have revealed that the Giant Panda is part of the
bear family and the Red Panda is part of the raccoon family. (And no,
there aren't any other raccoons in China. They are otherwise
exclusively from North America.)
If it is that difficult to figure out the relationships between two
living creatures, how can we be sure that our guesses about the
connections between fossils are correct? If we only had
fossil evidence of these two creatures, we would surely have decided
that they were related.
Usually
this "experiment" involves saying "All right, we have Fossil A which we
know to be 100,000,000 years old, and we have Fossil C which is
25,000,000 years old. Fossil C shows a better ability to survive the
environment, and is the same kind of creature as A except for the
mutations observed.
Neo-Darwinists have this very
bad habit: (1) they make an observation, (2) they conclude
that this observation suggests that evolution took place, (3) they
offer this as supporting proof that Neo-Darwinism is true.
Hey, guess
what? Just because evolution is a fact does not make
Neo-Darwinism true.
Neo-Darwinism states that ever since the first primordial organisms,
tiny changes have been accumulating which over time have resulted in
the vast variety of organisms that we see today. The
problem is that this suggests that we should see fossils fanning out
like a continuous cone from the initial primordial organisms. The
(big) problem here is that there are both vertical and horizontal
discontinuities that Neo-Darwinism doesn't predict.
Mea culpa. I guess even when they lay down the law, I still don't obey.
But puh-lease: "do this(tm) because I said so" ?? Somehow I would not call that caricature of religion "mature".
I didn't become Catholic until I was 29. No one else in my family is a Christian, let alone a Catholic. I made my own choice. Before I became a Catholic I spent some time in India and exposed myself to a broad array of religious and spiritual opinions and experiences. And by the time I was 29, I felt that I was finally mature enough and experienced enough to figure out where "home" was. And that was the Catholic Church.
But you should really take a look at that encyclical. It's really quite astounding.
It's what religion is. Do this because I(tm) said so.
Maybe you should take a gander at Pope John Paul II's FIDES ET RATIO (Faith and Reason) to see if you can get beyond your "mature" notion of religion. It's written from a philosophically sophisticated point of view, but I'm sure that with your maturity you'll be able to get through it.
I think Apple's Front Row is an excellent example.
What they did was create a completely revolutionary interface which is absolutely effortless for the user to use. Apple seems to have talented folk who know how to successfully engineer an elegant and simple and powerful user experience.
It seems that GNOME needs a little bit of that kind of talent.
Spend all you want, the governments will print more.
What's this BS about the goverment printing up more money? Who do they give it to? How do they account for it? Since when is the government giving away free money?
If you are teaching in the name of the Catholic Church, then guess what? If you teach heresy, then the Church may very well get upset. And in terms of Oscar Romero, I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about. Priests are supposed to save souls, not get involved in politics. Pope John Paul II, being a bishop of Poland during times of extreme oppression and occupation by foreign powers, knew a little bit about the subject.
You cannot copyright an idea. You can only copyright a particular expression of an idea.
If your work is derived from the idea rather than the expression of it, then you should not be in violation of any copyrights.
IANAL
Christianity is steadily dying out in the United States.
Hmm, according to your link, in 1990 there were 151,496,000 Christinas in the United States. In 2001 there were 159,506,000 Christians. That's an increase in 8 million Christians. Yeah, it sure looks like its dying out to me. Let's see, if Christians increase by 8 million every decade, how long before they die out? Uh, never?
Interesting discussion. You might also take a look at Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions for other reasons why falsifiability does not pull much weight in practice: namely, anomolous data that does not fit the current paradigm is typically ignored (consciously or unconsciously) because there is no framework in which to place it. Great book!
Nobody from the ID camp has proposed a testable hypothesis, i.e., one that can be falsified by experiment, and it is highly unlikely that such a hypothesis can be found at all.
How is that different than Dark Matter? How is Dark Matter falsifiable?
However, to say that "both sides are equally irrational" about evolution is a stretch. The intelligent design persons are completely outside of the realm of science. Completely.
What is it about the intelligent design folks that causes you to think that they are completely outside the realm of science?
If one party started to explain the difference in theory and observation of galaxy rotation with "Duh, God did it", then the rational discussion would quickly end.
Except that it seem to me that when discussing evolution both side are equally irrational.
I've never seen a post supporting evolution begin with several alternatives that account for observed evidence which use the phrase "our understanding of xxx is flawed" as the grand-parent of this post does.
It is refreshing to see humble objectivity at work rather than arrogant certitude -- which both side of the evolution debate seem to possess.
I heard that someone actually had the audacity to put a small piece of tape on the outer edge of one of those DRM'ed Sony CD's to disable the copy protection. What brazen defiance of the DMCA! I'm waiting for the lauch of the ??AA's program of lawsuits to put such vile criminals behind bars where they belong!
It's amazing how we can have a rational, civilized discussion about various hypotheses in astromony here on Slashdot, but the same is not possible with respect to evolution. I suppose these astronomical hypotheses don't challege people's fundamental world views, but they do when discussing evolution. This would explain the incredible emotional knee-jerk reactions when even mentioning evolution.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh please. There are examples of intermediary steps in eye development throughout the animal kingdom, from simple eye spots all the way to mammalian eyes. Each step is fully functional and does what the organism possessing it requires it to do.
Congratulations. You have just demonstrated that evolution is a fact. What you have not demonstrated is that this has anything to do the Neo-Darwinism.
Here's a couple of questions for you: If the eye is in fact designed, why does it suffer from the imperfection of the blind spot?
These are called design constraints. They are found in just about every design activity you can think of.
BTW, did you know that the gene that controls eye development in both vertebrates and insects is 94% identical. That's not just two different species. That's two different phyla. 94% the same.
So, the design constraint is that you must use more or less the same gene controller for the development of the insect eye and the vertebrate eye. How's that for a design challenge?
A good scientific theory is both coherent and elegant. Did you ever stop and wonder why the universe is both coherent and elegant?
Every change had to confer a survival advantage
.33 chance of survival.
Second generation: .11. Third: .04. etc.
Why? All that needs to happen is for a change not to cause the organism to die before it can pass its genes on.
Wrong. Let's say you have a son who has six fingers. Does that mean that the whole human population will suddenly have six fingers? No.
Does it even mean that any of his descendants will have six fingers? Maybe. Maybe not. It depends on how the mutation was introduced and what the survival rate is.
He may mate with someone and the mutation could disappear altogether since a mutation is by definition a "non-standard" part of the chromosome. Did you ever notice what happens when a horse and a donkey mate? What you get is sterile offspring. So a mutation by itself is not enough. You need a mutation whose carrier will survive into the next generation.
A steady state population means that overall, the total number of members of the population remains about the same. That means that for every two parents, about two offspring will survive. If the parents have six offspring, during the course of their lives (extremely conservative for animals in the wild) that means that four of them will die before reproducing. So, right off the bat, the chances are 4-to-2 that any mutation will not survive.
"Survival advantage" means that of all the surviving and reproducing offspring in the population, some "substantial/statistically significant number" will have the mutation. So, by definition, to have "survival advantage", the mutation must already be present in some statistically significant portion of the population. And to get this far, it must overcome the 4-to-2 death rate. And even if it survives one generation, the odds get worse and worse that it will survive multiple generations. Do the math. First generation
So, basically, the occasional infrequent mutation, unless it is radical in its effects, is not likely to spread into the population as a whole. In fact, the mutation rate would have to be dangerously high in order for a mutation to be able to spread to the whole population. And why is this dangerous? Because then the very life of the species is in danger. Check out these frogs from Minnesota. That's what happens when your mutation rate is too high.
So study up on your population genetics and learn why it is not so easy for a "useful" mutation to survive and spread out in to the rest of the population.
Notice the word *could*. Since when does wishful speculation replace the need for real live E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E?
Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage
First of all, where did this "simple light-sensitive spot" on the skin come from? Are you kidding me? Even this much is non-trivial. Second, how would it provide some "tiny survival advantage"? Oh, you mean not only was it light sensitive, but there were already nerves running from it to whatever type of nervous system this creature had, such that it could modify its behavior according to the light level and gain a survival advantage? How convenient. Well, why don't we just stop right here and you can explain to me how all of *this* happened. No need to go any further.
And finally, just because some feature has some tiny survival advantage does not mean that this trait will be spread throughout the population. Let's say that you have a son that has six fingers which gives him a tiny survival advantage (boy, he's a real wiz at those video games!). How does this trait suddenly get propagated to the rest of the population?? Not so easily. Not every random trait gets propagated to the rest of a population.
In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species.
Congratulations, you have just added to the proof that evolution is a fact. What you have NOT done is shown that Neo-Darwinian evolution is a fact.
No, here is what Darwin really said about how poorly his theory stood up against the fossil record, and how many gaps there were in the record:
"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."
What you describe about the general understanding of evolution in the 1800 is pure fiction.
I am not a fan of Neo-Darwinism. In fact, there are many scientists who are not fans of Neo-Darwinism.
According to Thomas Kuhn, in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, scientists for the most part adhere to the prevailing paradigm. In fact, lacking a paradigm -- a framework or model of the way things are -- scientific activity doesn't make much sense. So what if light bends when it goes by the Sun? If you don't have a model of mass and gravity (general relativity) that makes sense of that particular piece of information, you are likely to chalk it up to a fluke of the measurement. Only when there is a meaningful paradigm in which information can be interpreted will it be given any validity. Studies have repeatedly shown that when a person perceives something which does not fit in with their current world view, it is largely ignored. And this occurs with scientists as well. Data which does not conform to the current paradigm is largely explained away. (And certainly, you would not be able to get a sizable research grant which does not expand upon or bring greater precision to the current paradigm -- working outside of the paradigm is just not profitable!)
That is, until a serious anomaly arises with respect to the current paradigm. The classic example is of a single photon of light passing through two slits to "interfere with itself" and produce an interference pattern on the other side. This serious anomaly could just not be tossed aside. When confronted with a serious anomaly, the scientific community (those who were dependent on the validity of the previous paradigm) are thrown into "crisis". During the period of crisis, many, often conflicting, suggestions (they are perhaps not fully formed hypotheses) are put forth to explain the anomalous phenomenon. Eventually, the community selects one of these suggestions (or a hybrid thereof) as the best one with which to go forward. And this sometimes happens with meager evidence. In fact, it is not unusual for some scientists from the "old school" to never be converted to the new paradigm.
With respect to evolution, there are plenty of people who have various questions with respect to the theory of evolution. Under ordinary circumstances, this may have already led to a "crisis" in the evolution community. But this has not happened. Here are some possible reasons:
And being a *judge*, he should know!
There are two kinds of evolution: micro-evolution (changes within a species) and macro-evolution (changes from one species to another). Micro-evolution has never been shown to lead to macro-evolution. Your example of the changing patterns of moths is micro-evolution. This proves absolutely nothing about macro-evolution. Which is what Neo-Darwinism is all about.
However, the Theory of Evolution as originally put forth by Darwin is based on the idea of "survival of the fittest": those species who have a mutation that enables them to survive better than their competitors will breed and pass along that mutation to their descendants, who will then continue the process.
Natural selection is a negative force. It removes variety. It you can't survive in a particular environment, you die. Nothing shocking there. I don't know anyone who disagrees with that.
How did Darwin come up with this theory?
1. He observed the various species on the islands, and how they were all similar (birds, I believe) and how each was best fit to his environment.
2. He hypothesized that this condition arose because of his theory (see above).
So is this how he came up with his theory? Then how is it that his theory already existed before he came up with it? Oh never mind. I am amazed that this post got modded up.
3. The experiment (mainly carried out by other folks looking at fossils): See if similar species have changed over time due to environment and had mutations that allowed them to survive.
It is very easy to read too much into fossils. Have you heard the tail of two pandas? In China there are two panda bears: the Giant Panda and the Red Panda.
Biochemical studies have revealed that the Giant Panda is part of the bear family and the Red Panda is part of the raccoon family. (And no, there aren't any other raccoons in China. They are otherwise exclusively from North America.)
If it is that difficult to figure out the relationships between two living creatures, how can we be sure that our guesses about the connections between fossils are correct? If we only had fossil evidence of these two creatures, we would surely have decided that they were related.
Usually this "experiment" involves saying "All right, we have Fossil A which we know to be 100,000,000 years old, and we have Fossil C which is 25,000,000 years old. Fossil C shows a better ability to survive the environment, and is the same kind of creature as A except for the mutations observed.
Neo-Darwinists have this very bad habit: (1) they make an observation, (2) they conclude that this observation suggests that evolution took place, (3) they offer this as supporting proof that Neo-Darwinism is true. Hey, guess what? Just because evolution is a fact does not make Neo-Darwinism true.
Neo-Darwinism states that ever since the first primordial organisms, tiny changes have been accumulating which over time have resulted in the vast variety of organisms that we see today. The problem is that this suggests that we should see fossils fanning out like a continuous cone from the initial primordial organisms. The (big) problem here is that there are both vertical and horizontal discontinuities that Neo-Darwinism doesn't predict.
The "horizontal" discontinuities ar
Now, if each user of the "real" internet had highly focussed Pringles cans pointing to three other users, we could achieve world coverage in no time!
But puh-lease: "do this(tm) because I said so" ?? Somehow I would not call that caricature of religion "mature".
I didn't become Catholic until I was 29. No one else in my family is a Christian, let alone a Catholic. I made my own choice. Before I became a Catholic I spent some time in India and exposed myself to a broad array of religious and spiritual opinions and experiences. And by the time I was 29, I felt that I was finally mature enough and experienced enough to figure out where "home" was. And that was the Catholic Church.
But you should really take a look at that encyclical. It's really quite astounding.
Maybe you should take a gander at Pope John Paul II's FIDES ET RATIO (Faith and Reason) to see if you can get beyond your "mature" notion of religion. It's written from a philosophically sophisticated point of view, but I'm sure that with your maturity you'll be able to get through it.
What they did was create a completely revolutionary interface which is absolutely effortless for the user to use. Apple seems to have talented folk who know how to successfully engineer an elegant and simple and powerful user experience.
It seems that GNOME needs a little bit of that kind of talent.
What's this BS about the goverment printing up more money? Who do they give it to? How do they account for it? Since when is the government giving away free money?
Oh, and where do I get in line?
If you are teaching in the name of the Catholic Church, then guess what? If you teach heresy, then the Church may very well get upset. And in terms of Oscar Romero, I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about. Priests are supposed to save souls, not get involved in politics. Pope John Paul II, being a bishop of Poland during times of extreme oppression and occupation by foreign powers, knew a little bit about the subject.
You cannot copyright an idea. You can only copyright a particular expression of an idea. If your work is derived from the idea rather than the expression of it, then you should not be in violation of any copyrights. IANAL
Oh, you mean like Cliff's Notes? I'm not aware that they have ever run into any copyright problems.
Hmm, according to your link, in 1990 there were 151,496,000 Christinas in the United States. In 2001 there were 159,506,000 Christians. That's an increase in 8 million Christians. Yeah, it sure looks like its dying out to me. Let's see, if Christians increase by 8 million every decade, how long before they die out? Uh, never?
Interesting discussion. You might also take a look at Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions for other reasons why falsifiability does not pull much weight in practice: namely, anomolous data that does not fit the current paradigm is typically ignored (consciously or unconsciously) because there is no framework in which to place it. Great book!
How is that different than Dark Matter? How is Dark Matter falsifiable?
How much does the Globe make each month from Microsoft contributions? How many times more than is beings discussed here?
And much has Microsoft contributed to the good Senator's coffers? Why isn't that in the news?
What is it about the intelligent design folks that causes you to think that they are completely outside the realm of science?
Except that it seem to me that when discussing evolution both side are equally irrational.
I've never seen a post supporting evolution begin with several alternatives that account for observed evidence which use the phrase "our understanding of xxx is flawed" as the grand-parent of this post does.
It is refreshing to see humble objectivity at work rather than arrogant certitude -- which both side of the evolution debate seem to possess.
I heard that someone actually had the audacity to put a small piece of tape on the outer edge of one of those DRM'ed Sony CD's to disable the copy protection. What brazen defiance of the DMCA! I'm waiting for the lauch of the ??AA's program of lawsuits to put such vile criminals behind bars where they belong!
It's amazing how we can have a rational, civilized discussion about various hypotheses in astromony here on Slashdot, but the same is not possible with respect to evolution. I suppose these astronomical hypotheses don't challege people's fundamental world views, but they do when discussing evolution. This would explain the incredible emotional knee-jerk reactions when even mentioning evolution.
Yes, but that's a DMCA violation.