Yes, I know all about Punctuated Equilibrium. I think that is the first time in the history of science that a hypothesis was put forth to explain the LACK of evidence. Specifically, the glaring lack of intermediate fossils in the fossil record.
Facinating. I didn't know the non-existence of evidence could validate a hypothesis.
Now if you would, show me something that has E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E to back it up.
Evolutionists have a habit of using the argument: 1) in nature we observer X; 2) X must have evolved; 3) therefore, X proves that the neo-Darwinian hypothesis of evolution is correct.
For all you ID'ers out there I pose this question (based upon my understanding of ID): if ID were proved to be true, not by the existence of a God or somesuch, but by the fact that all forms of life on this planet were seeded with genetic material from some extra-terrestrial agent (presumably intelligent life forms), would that be vindication of your "theory" or would it cause some religious indigestion and encourage some evangelicals to leap off of tall structures (we can hope!) ?
I think seeding of life from an alien intelligence would do a better job of explaining evolution the the current neo-Darwinian hypothesis.
Also, video probably assumes the purchase of a newer (video) iPod, since I doubt many people are downloading these to watch on their computer/tv.
I do not own an iPod. Nor do I plan on ever owning an iPod (at least, not until it supports Ogg). However, I have downloaded TV video to watch on my iBook. When we travel, the iBook becomes the in-car music and DVD player for the kids. Now it can also become the in-car TV.
I already own a TV out adapter for my iBook. I haven't used it much lately, but should I want or need to, I could hook my iBook up to the family TV (again) and watch iTunes videos on TV.
The problem is not the content of the philosophy of Intelligent Design. The problem is including that content in the science curriculum.
I tell you what. I you remove the philosophy of scientific materialism from the science curriculum, I'll do everything I can to remove the philosophy of Intelligent Design from the science curriculum.
So I'm preaching to the choir,
in some respects, except that rather than preaching I'm really saying:
we've failed, failed the American people and in some regard the world,
for at least one entire generation. What are we going to do about it?
I've agreed that we've failed.
But not for the reasons you're stating.
I am not a creationist. And I'm
not sure that ID is the best response to the evolution issue. But here
are the reasons why I am skeptical about the evolution
hypothesis:
Many scientists are people
of faith. A relevant example is Gregor Mendel. He was the monk
whose scientific research founded the science of genetics. Darwin's hypothesis, and especially the neo-Darwinian synthesis, had as an implicit goal of removing a Creator from the evolutionary hypothesis Please. Is this really necessary? Many people of faith have made substantial contributions to the advancement of science. And science, based on its own limitations, can say nothing about the presence or absence of the divine in the universe. It should be agnostic about the issue. Let the evidence lead us. But certain scientists (especially those who speak up about evolution) subscribe to the philosophy of materialism. This philosophy basically claims that the universe is purely material with no spiritual component whatsoever. This may be so. It might not be so. But this philosophical bias is not necessary for scientific advancement.
The fundamental mechanisms
of neo-Darwinian evolution are natural selection and random variation.
Well, natural selection is a purely negative process.
It cannot introduce variety, but it can eliminate variety.
I don't know anyone who has any problem
with it.
A fish does not live in the desert. An elephant
does not live in the sea. Dinosaurs do not live in
meteor-impacted areas. Natural selection basically says:
"If you are not fit for your environment, you will not
survive." Not a problem: natural selection
eliminates variety.
Then where does variety come
from? That leaves random
variation. It is interesting to note that the idea that variation arises from random mutation was not put forth by
Darwin himself, but was introduced by the neo-Darwinists
in the 1940s. This was well before Watson and Crick published
their landmark paper in the 1950s describing the structure of
DNA. But somehow, in the 1940s, the neo-Darwinists "knew"
that random
variation was the driving force for evolution before they even knew
what DNA looked like or how it worked.
Three-quarters of a
century later, we have
seen a lot of slicing and dicing of DNA at the molecular level.
However, these are not the kinds of mutations that
would support the gradual building up of the genome over time.
In other
words, staring with "nothing", how would the genome
gradually be
"built up"? Not with slicing and dicing, because that pre-supposes the existence of useful genes. If we are starting with "nothing" then those genes don't exist. The type of mutation
that could build up information in the genome is a "real" mutation --
an actual random event that has
the potential of introducing new, meaningful survival-enhancing
information into the genome. This is called a "point mutation". But, unfortunately for the neo-Darwinists, a point mutation that adds
survival-enhancing information to the genome has never been observed.
Even with all the billions of fruit flys that have been
bombarded with X-rays, this type of mutation, which is the only kind
that could fulfill the requirements of macro-evolution, has never
been observed by science.
Neo-Darwinists
are fond of presenting hypothetical scenarios which are compatible with
their hypothesis, but lack direct evidence. For example,
Punctuated Equilibrium was invented to explain away the lack of
evidence in the fossil record. A hypothesis based on LACK OF
EVIDENCE?? That's a new one. Now show me the
evidence which forces me to accept this interpretation? Oh,
there is none? That's very interesting. But your
hypothetical scen
Why is mankind created with a spine that is perfectly designed for waking on all fours when we walk on two?
You sound like a whiner in a code review. Just because you can't see why the code was designed and written the way it was doesn't mean there wasn't a good reason for it. And I've seen plenty of new coders who think they know everything criticize very well established code. "I could rewrite this and it would be a lot better." Right.
Sophistry, again. How do you prove a given fossil is not half-way mutated? Oh, and if you'd like a living beastie, how about the duck-billed platypus?
As a matter of fact, Darwin's theory of evolution is falsifiable. And here is one reason why it is false:
Darwinian evolution asserts that evolution occurs through the accumulation of minuscule random changes to the genome. If this were the case, there would be so many connecting species that the fossil record would be virtually a continuum.
What the E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E shows, is that the fossil record is nothing like a continuum. Of the millions upon million of fossils which have been recovered, all of them fit nicely within a handful of phyla. Even fossils from Cambrian times already are separated into distinct phyla.
For Darwinian evolution to be true, the fossil record should resemble a conic section, starting from a point and spreading out evenly in all directions. There should literally be thousands upon thousands of connecting fossils which connect fossils to a whole host of predecessors and successors.
The real fossil record is nothing like that. Virtually fossils from the earliest times are segregated into phyla. Not only are there no connections between phyla, there are virtually no connections (links) supporting the major asserted jumps in evolution. Fishes eventually became amphibians, right? How many fossils support this conclusion? Tens of thousands? Thousands? Hundreds? None of the above. A single questionable fossil is the only link between fish and amphibians.
Men evolved from primates, right? How many fossils support this assertion? Tens of thousands? Thousands? Hundreds? None of the above. Less than a dozen fossils (fragments is a better term) support the assertion that primates evolved into men.
Evolutionists live in a fantasy world all their own where the lack of millions of connecting fossils is not an important issue. And the presence of a single questionable fossil establishes the "fact" that fishes evolved into amphibians. And less than a dozen fragments "proves" that primates evolved into man.
Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions stated that "that enterprise [of science within an established paradigm] seems an attempt to force nature into the preformed and relatively inflexible box that the paradigm supplies."
Evolutionists have fashioned for themselves a fantasy box in which they force nature into their inflexible fantasy, irrespective of the E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E. They are so scared that their precious box is about to split open that they can't even engage in rational discussions and acknowlegde the incredible weaknesses of their theory which is driving many to look more deeply and question (scientifically) all that is assumed to be true.
There is a scientific revolution coming, and the evolutionists are going to be on the wrong side of history.
This is a (supposedly witty) reference to a recent news item of a Catholic (high?) school principle that stated that he doesn't want his students to blog.
Doesn't sound like a particularly good idea to me, but Catholics have done far worse.
(More evidence that God runs the Catholic Church -- because if He didn't, it would have collapsed long, long ago.)
Last time I checked, there is no clause in the Constitution saying anything about how old you have to be to qualify for the First Amendment.
Last time I checked, the first ammendment restricts the activities of exactly one body: the US Congress.
For those who may not be brushed up on their political history, here is the first ammendment in it's entirety:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Gee, I don't see anything in there about what a school may or may not require of its students!
I do feel though that the price needs to be slightly adjusted. Take a 22 episode TV season... that's almost $44 in iTunes. I could buy the DVD (if it was available) for less. TPTB need to keep that in mind.
The 25-episode first season of LOST sells for $34.99. That's $1.40 per episode.
In fact, the first 4 episodes of season two of LOST go for $5.97 for the bunch. That's $1.50 per episode.
So volume purchases are discounted. It looks like they are playing around with the price to see what the right price point is.
I don't think the price is too bad, but the resolution needs to get better.
"Regular people" use Windows. Therefore, yes, for the short term, if you want more regular people to use Linux, it will have to become more like Window. That's the Embrace phase.
The next phase is the one that is much more interesting...
Since when did scientists start behaving like fundies?
Well, certainly ever since the neo-Darwinists claimed that all questions about evolution have been settled. I guess there is more than one branch of science where questions are not allowed.
But over all, I think that astronomy is doing a better job at it than evolution.
Many saints lived lives of incredible suffering. The mystery is that somewhere in that suffering is joy. The joy comes from uniting oneself with Christ, who lived in poverty and offered his suffering and death to "take away" the sins of the world. Happines is incompatible with suffering, but joy is not. On can joyfully offer one's sufferings for poor sinners.
Blu-ray lost my vote when they decided to build in functionality to allow the movie industry to actually disable your player if they chose.
Hmm, I have a hard time imagining that this would play out successfully for the manufacturers. Once the (cr|h)ackers start getting to work to disable the DRM and "breaking" all the players, there would be a public outcry if suddenly 90% of the players on the market stopped working.
I think it would actually be a big mistake for them to actually play this card. But I suppose they could be stupid enought to do it.
As for me, I'm not buying anything with DRM attached, thank you very much.
As others have pointed out, the fatal problem with (any) DRM is that all keys have to be accessible from the same host. Which means, sooner or later (probably sooner) it will be cracked.
"Even if the relationship between sequence and structure were simple and known (and it isn't, yet), you still have the issue of relating structure to function.
Which isn't known. And of course, even knowing the structure and function of a single protein doesn't mean you know what it's going to do in a complicated environment such as a cell, where there are thousands of things to interact with.
It's a step forward, nonetheless."
Things are not "simple and elegant" in the way you believe.
Re:Can someone please explain to me...
on
Opera Free as in Beer
·
· Score: 5, Informative
One Opera feature that I'm addicted to: Undo on tab close.
After having drilled ten levels deep into a web site I accidently close the tab. With Opera, just Undo and you're back where you were.
On Firefox, well, lets hope you remember how you got to that tenth level.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I know all about Punctuated Equilibrium. I think that is the first time in the history of science that a hypothesis was put forth to explain the LACK of evidence. Specifically, the glaring lack of intermediate fossils in the fossil record.
Facinating. I didn't know the non-existence of evidence could validate a hypothesis.
Now if you would, show me something that has E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E to back it up.
Evolutionists have a habit of using the argument: 1) in nature we observer X; 2) X must have evolved; 3) therefore, X proves that the neo-Darwinian hypothesis of evolution is correct.
Circular logic at its best.
I think seeding of life from an alien intelligence would do a better job of explaining evolution the the current neo-Darwinian hypothesis.
I do not own an iPod. Nor do I plan on ever owning an iPod (at least, not until it supports Ogg). However, I have downloaded TV video to watch on my iBook. When we travel, the iBook becomes the in-car music and DVD player for the kids. Now it can also become the in-car TV.
I already own a TV out adapter for my iBook. I haven't used it much lately, but should I want or need to, I could hook my iBook up to the family TV (again) and watch iTunes videos on TV.
I tell you what. I you remove the philosophy of scientific materialism from the science curriculum, I'll do everything I can to remove the philosophy of Intelligent Design from the science curriculum.
I've agreed that we've failed. But not for the reasons you're stating.
I am not a creationist. And I'm not sure that ID is the best response to the evolution issue. But here are the reasons why I am skeptical about the evolution hypothesis:
You sound like a whiner in a code review. Just because you can't see why the code was designed and written the way it was doesn't mean there wasn't a good reason for it. And I've seen plenty of new coders who think they know everything criticize very well established code. "I could rewrite this and it would be a lot better." Right.
As a matter of fact, Darwin's theory of evolution is falsifiable. And here is one reason why it is false:
Darwinian evolution asserts that evolution occurs through the accumulation of minuscule random changes to the genome. If this were the case, there would be so many connecting species that the fossil record would be virtually a continuum.
What the E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E shows, is that the fossil record is nothing like a continuum. Of the millions upon million of fossils which have been recovered, all of them fit nicely within a handful of phyla. Even fossils from Cambrian times already are separated into distinct phyla.
For Darwinian evolution to be true, the fossil record should resemble a conic section, starting from a point and spreading out evenly in all directions. There should literally be thousands upon thousands of connecting fossils which connect fossils to a whole host of predecessors and successors.
The real fossil record is nothing like that. Virtually fossils from the earliest times are segregated into phyla. Not only are there no connections between phyla, there are virtually no connections (links) supporting the major asserted jumps in evolution. Fishes eventually became amphibians, right? How many fossils support this conclusion? Tens of thousands? Thousands? Hundreds? None of the above. A single questionable fossil is the only link between fish and amphibians.
Men evolved from primates, right? How many fossils support this assertion? Tens of thousands? Thousands? Hundreds? None of the above. Less than a dozen fossils (fragments is a better term) support the assertion that primates evolved into men.
Evolutionists live in a fantasy world all their own where the lack of millions of connecting fossils is not an important issue. And the presence of a single questionable fossil establishes the "fact" that fishes evolved into amphibians. And less than a dozen fragments "proves" that primates evolved into man.
Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions stated that "that enterprise [of science within an established paradigm] seems an attempt to force nature into the preformed and relatively inflexible box that the paradigm supplies."
Evolutionists have fashioned for themselves a fantasy box in which they force nature into their inflexible fantasy, irrespective of the E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E. They are so scared that their precious box is about to split open that they can't even engage in rational discussions and acknowlegde the incredible weaknesses of their theory which is driving many to look more deeply and question (scientifically) all that is assumed to be true.
There is a scientific revolution coming, and the evolutionists are going to be on the wrong side of history.
Yeah, those ID folks are just not trustworthy, but no one on the Darwinian side of the fence has any ulterior motives.
Dream on.
Because I don't think the richest man on earth really needs a single penny of my hard-earned income.
Doesn't sound like a particularly good idea to me, but Catholics have done far worse.
(More evidence that God runs the Catholic Church -- because if He didn't, it would have collapsed long, long ago.)
Catholic's don't have Sunday school. Repeat after me: Catholics are not Protestants. Sheesh!
Last time I checked, the first ammendment restricts the activities of exactly one body: the US Congress.
For those who may not be brushed up on their political history, here is the first ammendment in it's entirety:
Gee, I don't see anything in there about what a school may or may not require of its students!Still, if you want to keep up with the series each week, that would still be $2 a pop.
The 25-episode first season of LOST sells for $34.99. That's $1.40 per episode.
In fact, the first 4 episodes of season two of LOST go for $5.97 for the bunch. That's $1.50 per episode.
So volume purchases are discounted. It looks like they are playing around with the price to see what the right price point is.
I don't think the price is too bad, but the resolution needs to get better.
"Regular people" use Windows. Therefore, yes, for the short term, if you want more regular people to use Linux, it will have to become more like Window. That's the Embrace phase.
The next phase is the one that is much more interesting...
Well, certainly ever since the neo-Darwinists claimed that all questions about evolution have been settled. I guess there is more than one branch of science where questions are not allowed.
But over all, I think that astronomy is doing a better job at it than evolution.
I don't understand. Does Half.com have it's own CD format and in-built player? Or is this a CD format that you might pick up at any old store?
And here is where you have been able to get PC's without OS's at Walmart for some time: http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product_listing.gsp ?cat=231791&path=0%3A3944%3A3951%3A41937%3A231785% 3A231791
Many saints lived lives of incredible suffering. The mystery is that somewhere in that suffering is joy. The joy comes from uniting oneself with Christ, who lived in poverty and offered his suffering and death to "take away" the sins of the world. Happines is incompatible with suffering, but joy is not. On can joyfully offer one's sufferings for poor sinners.
Hmm, I have a hard time imagining that this would play out successfully for the manufacturers. Once the (cr|h)ackers start getting to work to disable the DRM and "breaking" all the players, there would be a public outcry if suddenly 90% of the players on the market stopped working.
I think it would actually be a big mistake for them to actually play this card. But I suppose they could be stupid enought to do it.
As for me, I'm not buying anything with DRM attached, thank you very much.
As others have pointed out, the fatal problem with (any) DRM is that all keys have to be accessible from the same host. Which means, sooner or later (probably sooner) it will be cracked.
I'm confused. I thought HDCP (High Definition Content Protection) was evil, as in DRM. These three definitely have HDCP:
Panasonic TH-42PHD7UY - has HDCP
Westinghouse LVM-37W1 - has HDCP
InFocus 7205 - has HDCP
These I'm not sure about.
Samsung LT-P326W - not sure
Sony KD-34XBR960 - not sure
Samsung HL-P5085W - not sure
Hitachi 50VS810 - not sure
The review for the Westinghouse LVM-37W1 is the only one that mentions HDCP and it lists it as a feature.
Hmm, I'm not sure I would trust these reviews. They don't seem to consider those issues that might be important to your typical slashdot nerd.
"Even if the relationship between sequence and structure were simple and known (and it isn't, yet), you still have the issue of relating structure to function.
Which isn't known. And of course, even knowing the structure and function of a single protein doesn't mean you know what it's going to do in a complicated environment such as a cell, where there are thousands of things to interact with.
It's a step forward, nonetheless."
Things are not "simple and elegant" in the way you believe.
After having drilled ten levels deep into a web site I accidently close the tab. With Opera, just Undo and you're back where you were.
On Firefox, well, lets hope you remember how you got to that tenth level.