Perhaps we should use "natural selection" to distinquish from artificial selection and artificial manipulation.
Perhaps you missed the point where I noted that what one considers natural and artificial is mainly a matter of worldview?
Perhaps, but a smart brain experiment is more interesting and useful to us as humans because reverse-engineering intelligence stumps us the most.
You are mixing up two different things here. Understanding how the brain evolved is not analogous to understanding how the brain formulates intelligence - which is why your objection earlier that AI is an example of unreasonable extrapolations misses the point.
Different theories may share *some* steps among each other.
Assuming they're talking about the same reality it should be contingent they share all the same steps.
It appeared that you dropped your technology analogy and were *replacing* it with an agri analogy. If that was not the case, then please clarify.
In what sense could I possibly be using agriculture itself as an evolutionary analogy? I think it was quite clear that the point I was making is that agriculture is a technological development that had a profound effect - namely agriculture led to the increase in the free-time available for many other technologies to be developed. Not every technological development will have such substantial revolutionary properties and we should expect very few such ones to exist.
Where did I allegedly lay this out as a requirement?
This is not about your requirements - this is about pointing out the nature of inference. Namely if one is not going to allow inference then it is entirely a waste of time trying to persuade them of anything which can only be inferred.
In some cases it may be in some cases it may not. I would have to look at a specific instance. I couldn't say that *all* cases of allele changes in such a way is evo.
That, I would say, rather depends on what one considers to be natural or not. I would tend to say that when dealing with evolutionary theory as it is then one could make a strong case that one can say man is essentially natural and as such manipulating populations of species in order to drive the evolution of that species towards an end that is beneficial for man could easily be considered a natural process and hence evolutionary.
The Monsanto statement was *not* meant as a case of evo, but rather showing that something can have step one of evo (gene change) without having step two (filtering).
The filtering is still there because Monsanto is still selecting their products based on a design criterion; they are not simply changing the genes and then accepting any old product that comes of it. This is not really that different to other engineering industries - prototyping is hard to avoid because producing a successful product without prototyping it is just a lot harder to engineer.
In other words, there are multiple known mechanisms that can change genes. Do you agree with that statement?
Yes, but again I fail to see how one can make a case for radiation being a non-evolutionary factor since radiation permeates our environment; the case is slightly stronger in the case of Monsanto. I think you are making the mistake of assuming the mutation itself must be selected for; the mutation is not wanted, shaped or directed by the organism that incurs it - it is simply an inevitable fact. It is really quite irrelevant how the mutation occurred, it is simply the fact that genomes change over time that drives the evolutionary search for new organism phenotypes.
I beleive several replies ago I suggested using the same techniques used to test animal intelligence, such as mazes and pattern recognition (been used on octopuses and rats at least).
That assumes a more intelligent brain is a better brain. Less intelligent organisms can thrive just as easily as more intelligent ones. This is another common mistake people make about evolution - an assumption of some sort of upwards trend in 'better' when the reality is that being the most complex organism on the block does not guarantee your survival. So again I say: in some cases no brain is a better brain. It all depends on the environment.
I am focusing on evo proponent exaggeration, *regardless* of how creationists interpret their material.
Would you be focused on such an apparent exaggeration if you were not being told that there are serious alternatives to consider? My point is simply that the proposed alternatives have little merit to them regardless of whether or not some people may feel the need to exaggerate or not - in my mind that is really rather irrelevant because it doesn't strengthen the alternatives at all.
You've indeed pointed out that I'm wrong, that creationists are wrong, that religious premises are wrong, and that all atheistic science that doesn't agree with your understanding are also similarly unhelpful
If you will insist on reading what I haven't written. I should point out that I meant that all non-scientific methods are unhelpful, not anything that I don't agree with. They are unhelpful not because I have decreed them unhelpful - they are unhelpful because they simply don't have any utility. As far as I know there are no scientific alternatives to evolution that are being studied - by anyone.
Other than high-level generalizations, you haven't pointed out anything about science that everyone didn't already expect or understand.
So...?
Your point isn't to help anyone understand.
No, my point is that people having religious experiences and then generating pontifications about the state of the universe based upon them does not a reliable conclusion make.
If they are wrong, then they and any information they might provide are dismissed or they are fucking idiots
Wrong information is wrong information - exactly what reason would there be for me not to dismiss it? Either these people can produce quality information or they cannot! It is not I who chose to avoid doing that by creating a museum enshrining the ignorance of generations past.
What would help other people understand the truth that you have (apparently), aside from making it clear that you intend on dismissing what they might think or believe (assuming they disagree with you presently)?
My point has been entirely straightforward despite your attempts to obfuscate: the process by which one arrives at a conclusion must be open to scrutiny in order for one to make a reasonable attempt at discerning whether or not a conclusion is sound. That is quite simply why religious truths fail - they preclude such examination by their nature - and as such can be safely dismissed until such time those proposing any such truth steps up to the plate and decides he's going to pony up the readies. It is quite simple: if you accept science then you accept that this is the way it is done. If you do not you do not. If you do not then do not pretend you are being scientific. It is about that simple.
Um, it's the APIs that are the real problem, not the ISA.
Since most development code NOT going to be assembler changing the choice of ISA is in most cases going to be a (relatively) simple case of compiling your code to a different compiler architecture. It becomes significantly harder if you have to deal with API changes if you have to use different libraries for different architectures - it just screams 'fragile code' at you. I don't think most developers are going to be too bothered what hardware dongle the API eventually connects to.
That is not a valid excuse. You are essentially arguing, "There is no evidence because there is no evidence".
Jesus Christ no I am not saying this. I am merely pointing out the simple facts about what can and can't be directly observed. We cannot directly observe the past - ever.
Evolution is the combination of mutation (and recomb.) along with some selection mechanism (survivle of the fittest). It is possible that something changes genes without the secondary requirement of fitness filtering (at least not on a major scale). For example, an alien or Monsanto may alter the genes to get the shape/behavior that they want. Monsanto has done such so we know it happened at least once.
Here's a quandary for you: is it still evolution if the action of a population of species A on an unrelated population of species B affects the frequencies of certain alleles in species B?
If not then the above you present is not the result of evolution - but then again neither is something like the symbiotic relationship between flowering plants and bees.
No no no. You are getting off track. Take an example of a space capsule or hollow asteroid being used as an experiment in evolution. Or even take a "dumb" worm in a closed nursery on earth and see if and how selection could make it have a much better brain. (I am not saying these are practical, but practicality is not the point.)
Last I checked we've been manipulating various species of animal for thousands of years - from the domestication of the dog to breeding better farm animals and the banana. The obvious question here is how do you determine what a 'better' brain is. Sometimes no brains is better.
I meant the same process, not the same instance.
Well now you get why I have a problem with what the Creationists are demanding - they don't want to know about the process, they literally would not be happy unless there was unequivocal proof about the instances and even then they'd probably find something to bitch about. You need to stop assuming these people are honest.
My point is that your technology analogy fails (no lone mega-bursts)
Last I checked agriculture would fit that bill. Without excess food supplies you can pretty much forget about having the time to develop anything else at all.
I think that it is ridiculous to dismiss a source of information because one disagrees with the beliefs of the people who are making light of it.
Again I must point out that this is not what I said.
IT IS *NOT* THE PEOPLE, IT IS THE *PROCESS*.
You pick out traits you know you can knock down, then generalize the whole lot in that same manner.
Again: if a someone claims something based on some sort of religious grounds and then goes ahead and demonstrates his flash of inspiration via science it does not mean that religious flashes of inspiration should then be considered reliable because the reliability cannot be established until a reliable process is used. Divine knowledge has not exactly got a great track record on reliability.
Simply put religion and the beliefs thereof become entirely irrelevant - either the person can demonstrate what they claim or they cannot and one cannot make any hard statements about the validity of what that person claims allowed him to formulate his initial hypothesis.
And another fallacy of association. I never said that I agreed with them, but you are clearly attacking me by association.
I never said you agreed with them but that you think there is some legitimate philosophical point means that they are successfully achieving their aims of trying to make religion scientifically valid.
If you did, perhaps you would be able to listen for long enough for them to substantiate them.
I am more than happy enough to let these people give themselves enough rope for a hanging.
They read a different story concerning humanity's origin, and in an attempt to reconcile what they are reading with what consensus science postulates about our origin, they investigate other possible conclusions.
I.e. they want science to agree with the Bible and they will make it do so whether or not it actually does.
This is no different from the other completely non-religious studies of origin that disagree with evolution, or ones that disagree with big-bang, etc. etc.
Indeed - they are all similarly unhelpful in attaining any real answers.
Like the magic of abiogenesis? Or the magic of left-handed amino acids? Nope, no blind faith or magic necessary in evolution. But I believe them anyway.
When the people who 'believe' in evolution make the same errors about what it is as the Creationists I wonder what hope there really is. Abiogenesis is not evolution. Abiogenesis is a separate theory which deals with the origins of organic chemistry and is significantly less well developed than evolutionary theory but the truth of evolutionary theory is not dependant on any particular abiogenentic theory. I have no idea what magic you think there is in left-handed amino acids. However clearly you do not get what magic is here - magic is the abdication of an explanation. Abiogenesis is certainly being investigated so there's no sense in which one can say biologists and organic chemists have thrown their arms up in the air and declared a deity came along and made it all possible.
Even though consensus is technically also a fallacy concerning truth. Your point is just simply unjustified, and should be dismissed because you have to employ fallacies to make the assertion. (This is where you run out looking for a book on logical fallacies and create ad hominems against me for pointing yours out.)
Okay then. You're a fucking idiot and wrong!
Does that satisfy you in the ad hom department?
There is no fallacy in pointing out how science works no matter how many times you use the word fallacy in your replies to me.
Remember that I DIDN'T disagree with you that the science used and displayed at the Creation Museum was poor or outright incorrect.
Irrelevant.
The 'facts' changed, which means that one wasn't really a fact.
No, it was a conclusion. The facts didn't change, the conclusion did. For one who likes to bitch about fallacies you sure do like the equivocation fallacy.
I'd love to hear your rationale for that statement. I thought alot of companies used linux because of the flexibility it offered. The flexibilty to base a product on it and save alot of effort of developing from scratch.
Indeed but I think the point is that Linux would not have reached that point if it were not for the GPL because it would seem that those who wish to contribute to the idea of producing a free OS prefer the GPL for that end - otherwise one might expect something like OpenBSD to be more popular.
I was merely commented on lack of direct observation and known specifics of the formation of certain life structures, such as an immune system and brains.
And I am merely pointing out that direct observation as a criticism fails because there is no direct observation of any life structures developing, let along immune systems and brains. Evolutionary theory is only 150 years old for cripes sakes!
Things that can change genetic structure: radiation,
Which would cause: mutation. In what sense is radiation not something considered in evolutionary theory?
entropy
Eh?
viruses
Which do what? Ah yes, they cause mutation. The action of retroviruses in affecting our genetics is well studied in evolutionary theory. How is this not related to evolutionary theory?
meteors
Does not change genetic structure - unless you are claiming very small meteors can knock out a base pair or something. That would affect a population. Again, how does this fail to relate to evolutionary theory?
chemicals
See radiation.
aliens
The weakest claim possible - only slightly better than gods.
collisions
See meteors.
These are all agents of change.
And which one of them undermine evolutionary theory at all? Even aliens only posits the question of where the aliens came from.
One can create a closed experiment to avoid outside contamination, if that is what you mean.
No I literally mean that if one is happy with interjecting magic into science then I can freely claim that no matter what experiment you might perform in order to produce a causal link between phenomena I can claim that any past phenomena you claim acts under the same rules acts under special rules that only applied in the past. As such this is the problem with positing great hands swooping down in the past and manipulating things in special ways; if you accept it once you cannot prevent it from being applied unilaterally. And as such the usefulness of science suddenly becomes an exercise in arbitrary effects.
In other words it is REPEATABLE and OBSERVABLE and has ACTUALLY been repeated and observed.
Irrelevant - show me ancestor porn for all your ancestors.
We have not seen a Cambrian-Explosion scale of change (based on fossil record) before nor after the C.E. There is NO known multi-phylum-level burst that is even close.
AGAIN I do not see why one should expect every revolution to change the entire world on such a scale. In fact one should reasonably conclude that there will be very few things that can affect such large scale changes. That such an event may be unique does not mean that such an event must necessarily involve some mechanism evolution cannot account for. We are talking about a phenomenally huge design space here.
You asserted: one should not dismiss a religious source out of hand.
I assert: one should dismiss a religious source out of hand.
and the notion that you have claimed I've said is incorrect, so the burden of proof is on you. Though I keep requesting specifics, you keep not giving them.
Ugh. How many times must I point out that the process is paramount? The only way one is going to be sure about the validity of a religious claim is once it becomes a scientific one and once it becomes a scientific claim there is no reason to suppose the attributed mechanism by which the religious claim was formulated, i.e. divine inspiration, has any validity to it at all, especially given the very low reliability rate of such religious claims.
As such I am going to reject religious claims out of hand because they are basically useless.
Your notion of the approach the Creation Museum is advocating is incorrect too.
No, it really isn't, but it's good to see their message is effectively eroding intelligence as they would hope.
Again, I never claimed they were getting all their science right, as apparently you think that I do.
No, you claimed there there may be some merit there beyond the obvious propaganda front that it is that one should seriously consider it. I simply say that I don't give a crap about people's beliefs - only whether or not they can substantiate them.
Regardless of their source of inspiration for looking into an issue, some of their findings may be reasonable hypotheses.
And again it is irrelevant to me if someone is going to go ahead and do science because they think it will help them understand their god (as was the historical case; science never bothered anyone until it started undermining their belief systems) - they still have to perform the process.
And claiming magic was involved in some process will never be a scientific hypothesis - the method simply doesn't allow such unfalsifiable hypotheses and the Creationists can bitch about that all they like but either they accept it or they can go ahead and denounce the relevancy of science as a whole; as stupid as that would make them look.
There is no baby in the bath - the Creationists just scream that they really want one to be there.
do you want to examine the points that I've asked for numerous times but as of yet you haven't provided?
Yet again it is quite simple: there is only one point and that point is that Creation science is inherently unscientific. There is no getting around that. Again it is not my problem and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the current scientific consensus on any issues at all.
The problem with you statement, as I already pointed out is that you had to invalidate 'old facts' to have 'new facts',
Wrong.
FACT: the sun crosses the sky.
CONCLUSION: the Sun revolves around the Earth.
NEW FACT: the motion of Mars across the sky has a retrograde path.
NEW CONCLUSION: the observed motions of the planets is better explained by a heliocentric solar system; the Earth revolves around the Sun.
The old fact is still a fact, the Sun still rises.
I am not denying it. You are just claiming that any change equals all change, it seems.
No, the claim made by the evolution deniers is that mutation CANNOT account for what is observed. Unfortunately the evidence says it can and none of their counter-arguments stand up.
But again, other forces also result in change.
And those relevant to the genetic structure of an organism would be...?
Change alone via process X does not prove without doubt that process X causes all changes or "interesting" changes (like brains and immune system formation).
And those relevant to the genetic structure of an organism would be...? If you want to argue that recombination, translocations and the like are not mutations like point mutation then go ahead but then that is hardly a non-evolutionary process is it?
Horsewash. Who locks the gate and shuts down evo? A diety?
Can I borrow your time machine in that case?
WE CANNOT OBSERVE THE FORMATION OF THE STRUCTURES THAT ALREADY EXIST. My billion year old ancestors are all dead - what about yours?
You are creating a strawman.
Since it is their actual argument it is not a strawman.
Oh really? Evolution-driven? Like what?
That would be the totality of everything.
And the known data about the causes of the Cambrian Explosion is sparse.
The known data for which two people fucked each other 10,000 years ago in order to eventually end up with you is also sparse - that does not mean that I have to be expected to reasonably take the idea that space aliens interjected their DNA into your lineage at around that time seriously.
It's pretty simple: there are many competing scientific explanations here. God-dun-it is not one of them. It is quite irrelevant to me whether or not the great unwashed with their general ignorance of science and their desire for easy and quick answers fails to comprehend this or not.
The things that give technology the properties you seek are not necessarily found in evo.
Again, I do not think you get what an analogy is. Apples and oranges are analogous when you say something like: eating an apple is much like eating an orange - they are both fruits. The analogy itself is a poor analogy because the validity of the comparison is dependant on the properties one has chosen to compare.
Now the points I wanted to analogise about technology and evolution were:
1)Technological progression and evolution both occur via a series of incremental steps where old designs are gradually improved. In the case of technology the selection of which new designs are considered best is determined by humans via the utility that particular implementation gives. In the case of evolution the genetic template that determines the design of the organism is selected by whether or not the organism is able to replicate its genetic code or not.
2) In both technology and evolution the formation of a novel property, although it may be initially crude, can still wield massive advantages for those who have it such that the technology will have a profound effect on the environment.
And you still are not listing specific discussion points,
Nothing specific is required.
And if you knew what ID really was, you would understand that young-earth theories are very different from ID theories.
No - they are all ID theories, it's just the young-earthers insist that intelligence is trying to trick us more than the other lot.
As of yet, you have demonstrated that you don't really know what the Creation Museum specifically is advocating, much less the specifics of the theory involved.
They are advocating that we forget about science for a minute and pick up a Bible and read Genesis.
Then conclude that Genesis is true.
I will remind you that this discussion started when you said one should not judge the ideas because they have a religious source. As of yet I have not seen a singular point from you that has given any reason why I should not continuing being biased against religious sources.
If the Creation Museum were producing real science then the fact that they are Christian would be irrelevant to me - again I feel I must point out it is not WHO produces the idea it is the PROCESS of how the idea was produced. The process used by the Creation Museum is: take Genesis, fact-mine to make science appear to support Genesis. That is not a scientific process. I have no reason to trust anything concluded from that process.
Where you have misunderstood what 'facts' are is here: "New facts = new conclusions."
Not even slightly.
As I pointed out, science often figures out that it was flat out wrong about numbers of conclusions that it draws from observation.
I.e. new facts = new conclusions.
New facts, new conclusions.
No new facts, no new conclusions.
It cannot get more simple than that.
Now, if you believe that said assertions, theories, and hypotheses are actually facts...then you've already made science your blind faith religion.
Since I have not in fact done so I have not in fact done so.
No, that is not sufficient to conclude it is a fact.
There is evolutionary fact and there is evolutionary theory. Only complete morons deny genetic variation. The ID crowd deny that genetic variation can produce all the various structures you have listed.
We have not abserved the formation of brains, immune systems, digestive tracks, etc.
Again I do not think you get the point. We can never observe the formation of these structures as they already exist - which is basically what the ID crowd is demanding. That is they are demanding something that the smart ones at least know is impossible to deliver. As such it doesn't matter how many new genetic changes one can observe in a population they can always say it's irrelevant.
Nodoby disputes mere changing, but lots of forces produce mere change.
I don't think you get the point that if they're genetic they're evolutionary. What the ID crowd wants to say is effectively there are genetic changes which are not evolutionary - that is genetic changes that have been purposefully inserted into a organism. They have as yet not produced anything that actually would suggest such a conclusion is reasonable but they do keep trying.
The observation of minor changes is not sufficient observation to close the book.
You state this as if this is all the evidence evolutionary theory has for it.
If any change X can make any change Y, then there are other forces besides Evo that we would have to explore and consider.
*Sigh* If one wants to one can generate a infinite amount of alternative hypotheses for any such X -> Y. Scientifically you don't get to say all of them are worth exploring and considering. Scientifically a great number of them simply fail at the first hurdle. If you want to tell me I should seriously think about exploring non-scientific explanations then I'm simply going to have to say I don't see why I should.
Arguing over whether a boat uses paddles or propellers doesn't matter much if its a poor standin for cars to begin with.
Since I made no such argument I can only conclude you do not understand the analogy.
Mutation has not been observed creating the kind of complex systems already observed.
Again I refer to my earlier point - if one is determined to one can make all kinds of special rules for what is already here.
Extrapolating a beak growing longer to the creation of brains and immune systems is too big a leap to rely on alone.
Since no such extrapolation is being made your objection is void.
Direct and repeated observability of large-scale changes would certainly help the cause.
We have direct and repeated observations of large-scale changes - that would be the history of biodiversity on life.
AI has fooled us before on complexity scaling issues.
Now that's a poor analogy. This ain't about 'complexity scaling issues'; this is about formulating explanations for the known data.
Being "probably right" is not license to act like you are completely done in front of creationists.
It's not about evolutionary theory being 'completely done' - it's simply that the Creationists aren't even slightly started. The serious controversies in evolutionary theory do not include whether or not god-dun-it. This may upset the Creationists but I couldn't give too much of a fuck. Wanting science to prop up their belief systems will not make science prop them up - it is not my problem that every thinking person can recognise the ability for science to produce more effective results than listening to voices in one's head. Either it matters to them or it doesn't and if it doesn't then I'd be much happier if they just denounce science as a tool of the Devil and go about their business.
Okay, your turn. What is needed in order to show a process happening in full, without leaving doubt and gaps? The only way I know is direct full observation and repeatability. If you have a nother technique, let's hear it.
*Sigh* You do not understand - the experiment you proposed simply is simply flawed. For a start you are making the classic error of requiring a goal for the organism in order for you to have been satisfied it has 'evolved'. Evolution is an observable fact because variations in the frequency of different alleles in a population are quite observable. The strawman you and the ID crowd have set up against evolution is an argument from incredulity that this is what had happened in the past and that this can really explain the diversity of life - i.e. the magic barrier that means that new species cannot occur due to this genetic fact.
Now if you want to deal with philosophical problems with knowing what happened in the past then we can sit here and argue if the laws of physics were the same yesterday as they are today. I am going to go out on a limb and assume they were.
Otherwise you're just going to have to deal with the fact that all the prerequisites have been observed - including speciation - and as such any argument that goes along the line of, "show me man to monkey in the lab," is missing the point by a long shot.
If you go with the technology analagy, there are *other* inventions that are equally important to the wheel: movable type, telegraph, steam and gas engines, radio, bow-and-arrow, etc. The bow-and-arrow was probably more important to the people of the time than the wheel because it was a major battle and hunting advantage, for dragging stuff on two angled logs still worked in place of wheels, just took more energy out of the ox (and was easier to repair). The wheel was not any kind of lone and unique explosion in technology. Again, your analogy fails.
*Sigh*
Again: how many times does one need to invent the wheel?
You appear to be changing your story. First you were selling technology analogies that allegedly showed fast-paced change. Now you are selling its gradualism.
*Sigh*
Do you get the difference between a technology enabling a fast-paced change and a technology changing at a fast pace or not?
What is "it"?
We're talking about technological revolutions last I checked.
But it does not describe where the "inventions" come from
You have heard of mutation right? Where do you think *ANY* genetic benefit comes from?
Nor does it explain why something similar or slightly lessor to it didn't happen before.
Triangular wheels aren't much help. I do not understand why explaining non-events is so important to you.
Why would HOXness have to be sudden?
It is not the hox-ness that is sudden - it is merely that the advantages conferred to such organisms with the hox gene mean that they determine the genetic landscape and not some other organism.
Tell me - if I were to kill you today what influence would you be able to assert tomorrow?
There are other interesting ideas also, such as a new kind of virus that spread "good ideas" across species such that the eye could come from species A, digestive track from B, immune system from C, etc. But this is still just theory and/or speculation.
It's never going to be more than theory - but calling it 'just' a theory misses the point. What do you want from science? Certainty? Not going to happen.
No that's basically what everyone who says, "it's not fair," doesn't grasp - it ain't supposed to be fair. The whole point is that anyone who grasps economics realises that the free market is not a panacea and as such it would really rather be better if monopolies were not allowed to undermine the advantages the market system is supposed to bring.
I meant showing large-scale evolution in the lab with cameras rolling, etc., not building the thing from scratch.
Again you do not know what it is you think one would need to show!
Why would it only happen once?
How many times does one need to invent the wheel?
As far as your technology analogy, I still cannot bring myself to accept the comparison. They are two very different kinds of things. Technology change patterns are actually closer to the Creationist view of things. Things can happen fast if some *being* wills it (humans deciding to make something or God deciding to make a planet.)
Go out and actually observe the history of design. You will observe a history of incremental change.
The Wright Brothers did not build a 747 on their second day of work.
Intel did not build 64 bit processors in the 70s.
The wheel did not get rubber tires until a few thousand years after its initial invention in Asia.
The only type of design we're any good at is small, incremental changes. Prototype after prototype. Creationists posit a perfect designer. We are not perfect. Will does not come into it - you may think if you have enough will you can simply achieve anything, reality tends to show that kind of thinking leads to failure.
That is what I find most ironic about this whole debate - iterative design is evolutionary and iterative design is the only kind that produces any reliable success.
But we don't know what the Cambrian trigger was. In other words, it is still a mystery, which was my original point. And that such a massive trigger only happend once is odd.
If it happened multiple times I would find that odd - happening rarely is to be expected.
There are minor points of new "ideas" spreading, such as jawed fish, and flowers using insects for reproduction help, but nothing that crosses nearly a dozen phylums at the SAME TIME.
Like I've told you several times- if you don't want to believe, feel free. You'd be ignoring loads of contrary evidence, continue a life without reason, but that's your choice.
Again WheelDweller the first thing you provided in the way of 'evidence' for your beliefs is chock full of the usual argumentative fallacies and circular reasoning I have come to expect. I am not ignoring 'the contrary evidence' (as if atheism required evidence) - I am merely pointing out that I find your religious claims as compelling as the religious claims of every other believer on this planet - that is I do not. Again I will point out that if you are unhappy with this then point me to an article on that site that you think is devastating and I will point out why it is flawed. (Most of the articles appear to be quite ancient as well).
And again I must point out because I feel that you are quite unable to comprehend this: telling me to believe because if I believe it will be nice WILL NOT PERSUADE ME. This is not about feeling warm and fuzzy - this is about what is true.
Every retort you've sent my way is right out of the same old playbook.
Wow. The irony.
It's the playbook handed out by the culture- not your fault.
I live in a Christian culture - I guess if you are arguing that Christians have persuaded me that Christianity is wrong then you'd be right!
But understand that mankind by it's very nature is prone to assume more than it controls; you're free to group-think with the scientists or you can research on your own.
Again the irony is stunning - joining a religion is the very epitome of group-think. It always amazes me just how many people on a technical site can nonchalantly claim that scientists are engaged in a mass circle-jerk as if they've never come into contact with any real scientists.
But don't expect that spewing their programmed propaganda helps the issue.
Again the irony is killing me. Black is white. Up is down. Freedom is slavery. War is peace. Ignorance is strength.
We may very well both be programmed but only one of us is programmed to realise it.
And the hate is very shiny, either.
Hate? You've got to be kidding. You are not that important in my world I'm afraid for hate. When I say fuck you it's because you need to be told it - not because I hate you.
Notice it isn't the Christian that said "Fuck you"?
You are referring to consensus theories and calling them facts, which isn't at all the same thing.
Since I have not done so I have in fact not.
The facts in support of the 'consensus theory' of evolution are numerous whilst the ID proponents cannot even produce a hypothesis that is scientific. That is not my problem - that is the ID proponents' problem.
Ideally a theory is observable in full and repeatable. We don't have either of these right now, at least not "in the large". Maybe it is not possible to get those, but if that's the case then it is what it is. Tough problems are tough problems.
You do not get my point - what you proposed as an experiment would not validate evolution - it would only demonstrate one's ability for genetic engineering.
Perhaps, but why hasn't it happened on such a large scale *after* the Cambrian, involving multiple phyla?
Why should one expect there to be a revolution in genetic design at regular intervals especially if there is nothing which might indicate there should be a genetic template that would have a similarly profound advantage for the organisms using it?
It is not like such huge changes are unprecedented by the arrival of a new technology that is vastly superior to an old one - be it genetic or manufactured.
I find it a poor analogy because our *bodies* changed very little during that time.
They didn't have to - that is why it is in fact an apt analogy! Homo sapiens has undergone very little genetic change in the last hundred thousand years but the effect the species has had on the environment has been profound. The problem if you will recall is that the Cambrian explosion is too 'quick' - my point is that we have quite a concrete example of how the genetic benefits one organism was lucky enough to accrue has given it the ability to profoundly alter the environmental landscape in a short space of time. The analogy is as such: some genetic changes simply give the organism a massive advantage. One should hardly be surprised when that organism then starts to dictate the genetic landscape.
A sudden change in culture or technology says very little about selection-based evolution. Changes in technology are a different animal than changes in biology form.
That's why they're called 'analogies'. Culture and technology clearly do not have genetic selectors but if I have a gun and you have a bow and arrow one of us is in a position to dictate whose culture will prevail with a little more success.
No your point is that there is bickering between people who disagree and you propose a diplomatic view that this as pig-headiness all round and we should all realise this for some reason. I'm just pointing out that only one side is appealing to the facts.
Then I will again have to wonder why on Earth you think your proposed experiment would demonstrate anything of the kind?
If you have counter-evidence, you are welcome to present it. Summary judgements like this do nobody any good. It is essentially authoritarian evidence.
Eh? I said it appears you do not appear to understand what evolution is about - I base this on your proposed experiment. Once you explain why you think it is a valid experiment then I will provide the counter-evidence.
If they get sloppy or careless or become overzealous cheer-leaders, regular Joe's will not trust their judgement.
You've got to be kidding me right? Regular Joe's eat that shit up!
There are now plenty of precambrian specimens (Spriggina, Dickonsonia, Kimberella, etc.) with soft or semi-soft bodies. The soft-body argument is generally dismissed now. But these don't seem to relate to cambrian forms very well. It is as if a different kind of life pattern replaced another entire set within about 5-20 million years, a relative "blink".
Wait, you started off by saying the suddenness of the Cambrian explosion is downplayed but the point is that we should not be surprised that we find more fossils of organisms that fossilise better, not that fossilisation is impossible for soft-bodied organisms - that is clearly going to exaggerate the extent of the 'explosion' because if we simply won't have such a complete record of the life prior to the evolution of hard-bodied organisms.
Also we should not be surprised if one kind of life pattern replaces another entire set if the new set of life has genetic advantages that give them a far superior edge to their competitors. 5-20 million years may be a geological blink but in a couple of hundred thousand homo sapiens has managed to colonise the entire planet and reach a population of billions. It certainly sets a precedent for how profound a new evolutionary discovery can be for the evolutionary landscape - in our case it is tool building and language - in the Cambrian case it would seem that the evolution of the Hox genes could have opened up a profoundly powerful way for diversification to occur.
I mean what's the alternative here supposed to be? The suddenness is downplayed because evo-religonists don't want to admit god came down from on high and sped it up?
No, it was an example. (You didn't give any counter-example, I would note.)
So you're basically saying by induction that because one wiki you've read has possibly dogmatic populace occupying it then the situation is similarly replicated by all sources of information on evolution?
I guarantee they are both wrong - one is far more wrong than the other however.
If you want certainty but not reality go with the dogmatic approach. I am quite comfortable with the limits of what we can know and how certain we can be about things however. Despite the shit stirring by those of us who cannot let go of ancient belief systems evolution is not a theory with any significant doubt to it.
If that's true, then create a new animal phylum in the lab that is equiv to at least a lab rat on intelligent tests.
I cannot quite fathom what you think that would have to do with evolution.
Smushed fossils in rocks is a poor substitute for that level of evidence.
It would appear you don't even understand what the evidence is nor what the claims actually are.
Because dedicated creationists keep track of evo-fans screwing up and broadcast their missteps all over the place.
So in other words my assertion that Creationists are shit-stirrers who having nothing to substantiate their claims is totally and utterly right.
If the Cambrian Explosion is a stumper, then they should simply say so; don't make twisted waffly excuses. A stumper is a stumper.
I guess no-one has made note of the fact that an 'explosion' in the fossil record only relates to the suitability of any particular organism to become fossilised not to the actual number of species in existence? People seem to forget all too readily that not every single organism that dies is going to become a fossil...
I don't see evo fans policing their own. They tied their ego to the outcome, just like the creationists.
On one wiki. Which I've never read. But you're telling me formulates the entire sum of the face of what the great unwashed think about evolution. You're shitting me right?
If science only answers things in a factual manner, then it should never change. However it does.
New facts = new conclusions. No new facts = no new conclusions.
It is therefore only if there are no new facts that science should never change. It doesn't seem like that's going to happen any time soon.
And I'm arguing not for science or for 'religion'. I'm arguing that people in BOTH camps are often just presumptuous and judgmental, just assuming they are right and the other is stupid.
Only one camp has the potential to back up such assertions with facts... otherwise your point is that people who disagree, um, disagree?
Sure; delusional. Why, again? Just because it's not unique? Is it unique to visit Rally's for a burger, while McDonalds is in existance. Sorry- just too easy to pass.
Eh? Are you comparing different deities to having different burger choices? So you've decided everyone is seeing YOUR god if they claim to be divinely touched? How arrogant.
This that I have found is larger than all the musings of your pseudo-scientific friends.
What the hell are you talking about?
I get revelations...an idea that pops into my head that is *waay* too complete and correct to be my own.
Yep - must be a god. That's sealed it.
But there are millions of people (thousands that actually MET Jesus Christ in the flesh and died rather than deny his existance).
Next fallacy on the list: martyr fallacy. Because obviously no-one has ever died for a false belief - nope, never happened ever. Never mind the facts! People died! That makes it true!
Is it so hard for you to believe that a book, found in so many continents, with an error-rate of "an occasional typo", with internal consistancy, with another copy coming from 1,000 years before could actually BE RIGHT?
Found in so many continents? What, so the invention of the printing press and global distribution of Bibles by people who believe they have to get the Bible out to everyone so they can 'save' them is proof of the truth of the Bible? You've got to be shitting me! Not to mention this internal consistency everyone says the Bible has is mightily lacking in my analysis.
Is that possible?
Is it possible that you are being jerked around by the Olympian gods for their own sick games?
A long time ago a scientist tied a string onto a junebug, calculated the speed of his flight, and declared the "speed of light" to be about 30 miles an hour. And the standard stuck.
I cannot find any references to this charming story so assuming it's not bullshit: please tell me - did the Christians tell these scientists they were stupid because the Bible tells us the speed of light is 3x10^8 m/s? What's that? They didn't? So your point would be then that the religious did nothing to advance scientific knowledge and when someone came along and demonstrated the junebug man was full of shit using science actually your god had something to do with it? What's your point? Science gets the chance to correct itself whilst the Bible will be as wrong today as it was when it was first written down?
Not long ago a great deal of scientist believed that the Ozone Hole (a hole in an invisible thing in the sky, to be healed by money) would kill us all if we didn't change freon. Before the litigation had settled, the hole was healing- turns out it rebuilds from lighting. Now, we pay more money for replaing freon for no good reason.
So again was it a bunch of Christians thumping the Bible who discovered the lightning creates Ozone? No? It wasn't? You mean the Bible says nothing about Ozone whatsoever? What is your point exactly?
Oh and it should be noted that CFCs still cause ozone depletion - that fact has never changed. Pumping enough CFCs into the atmosphere and the rate of destruction will be greater than the rate of replenishment.
Your "religion" has been wrong a great many more times than my "religion".
That's really easy when your religion hasn't made any new predictions in the last 2000 years.
Of course what you don't get is that science thrives on being wrong because that's how it grows. Your religion doesn't thrive on being wrong because it is static - if it's wrong yesterday it'll be wrong tomorrow.
Any mine has had millions of people trying to throw rocks at it for centuries, many skeptics dedicating their lives and learning multiple languages. But
The context was judging the possibility of their conclusions in a poor light merely because the source is 'religious'.
And, as I argued, that is perfectly sound because dogmatic claims have been shown to be highly fallible.
One cannot possibly argue for the merit of religious claims when they have to become scientific ones before we can say whether or not the original claim had merit! We cannot just ignore how many, many claims are so wrong! One should not be surprised that occasionally there might be a claim that stands up to scrutiny but one cannot then go onto claim that the framework the claim was made in is reliable if the vast majority of its claims do not stand up to scrutiny!
It doesn't mean that science answers all things in a factual manner. So, take everything with a grain of salt, and don't make 'science' (especially pop-science) into its own religion.
On the contrary - science can only answer things in a factual manner. If you want to claim something provide facts. If you want to nullify a previous claim show the facts. It's really quite irrelevant to me if there are some who want to argue without being bothered to gather sufficient facts for their case.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, it's the APIs that are the real problem, not the ISA.
Since most development code NOT going to be assembler changing the choice of ISA is in most cases going to be a (relatively) simple case of compiling your code to a different compiler architecture. It becomes significantly harder if you have to deal with API changes if you have to use different libraries for different architectures - it just screams 'fragile code' at you. I don't think most developers are going to be too bothered what hardware dongle the API eventually connects to.
If not then the above you present is not the result of evolution - but then again neither is something like the symbiotic relationship between flowering plants and bees. Last I checked we've been manipulating various species of animal for thousands of years - from the domestication of the dog to breeding better farm animals and the banana. The obvious question here is how do you determine what a 'better' brain is. Sometimes no brains is better. Well now you get why I have a problem with what the Creationists are demanding - they don't want to know about the process, they literally would not be happy unless there was unequivocal proof about the instances and even then they'd probably find something to bitch about. You need to stop assuming these people are honest. Last I checked agriculture would fit that bill. Without excess food supplies you can pretty much forget about having the time to develop anything else at all.
IT IS *NOT* THE PEOPLE, IT IS THE *PROCESS*. Again: if a someone claims something based on some sort of religious grounds and then goes ahead and demonstrates his flash of inspiration via science it does not mean that religious flashes of inspiration should then be considered reliable because the reliability cannot be established until a reliable process is used. Divine knowledge has not exactly got a great track record on reliability.
Simply put religion and the beliefs thereof become entirely irrelevant - either the person can demonstrate what they claim or they cannot and one cannot make any hard statements about the validity of what that person claims allowed him to formulate his initial hypothesis. I never said you agreed with them but that you think there is some legitimate philosophical point means that they are successfully achieving their aims of trying to make religion scientifically valid. I am more than happy enough to let these people give themselves enough rope for a hanging. I.e. they want science to agree with the Bible and they will make it do so whether or not it actually does. Indeed - they are all similarly unhelpful in attaining any real answers. When the people who 'believe' in evolution make the same errors about what it is as the Creationists I wonder what hope there really is. Abiogenesis is not evolution. Abiogenesis is a separate theory which deals with the origins of organic chemistry and is significantly less well developed than evolutionary theory but the truth of evolutionary theory is not dependant on any particular abiogenentic theory. I have no idea what magic you think there is in left-handed amino acids. However clearly you do not get what magic is here - magic is the abdication of an explanation. Abiogenesis is certainly being investigated so there's no sense in which one can say biologists and organic chemists have thrown their arms up in the air and declared a deity came along and made it all possible. Okay then. You're a fucking idiot and wrong!
Does that satisfy you in the ad hom department?
There is no fallacy in pointing out how science works no matter how many times you use the word fallacy in your replies to me. Irrelevant. No, it was a conclusion. The facts didn't change, the conclusion did. For one who likes to bitch about fallacies you sure do like the equivocation fallacy.
As such I am going to reject religious claims out of hand because they are basically useless. No, it really isn't, but it's good to see their message is effectively eroding intelligence as they would hope. No, you claimed there there may be some merit there beyond the obvious propaganda front that it is that one should seriously consider it. I simply say that I don't give a crap about people's beliefs - only whether or not they can substantiate them. And again it is irrelevant to me if someone is going to go ahead and do science because they think it will help them understand their god (as was the historical case; science never bothered anyone until it started undermining their belief systems) - they still have to perform the process.
And claiming magic was involved in some process will never be a scientific hypothesis - the method simply doesn't allow such unfalsifiable hypotheses and the Creationists can bitch about that all they like but either they accept it or they can go ahead and denounce the relevancy of science as a whole; as stupid as that would make them look.
There is no baby in the bath - the Creationists just scream that they really want one to be there. Yet again it is quite simple: there is only one point and that point is that Creation science is inherently unscientific. There is no getting around that. Again it is not my problem and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the current scientific consensus on any issues at all. Wrong.
FACT: the sun crosses the sky.
CONCLUSION: the Sun revolves around the Earth.
NEW FACT: the motion of Mars across the sky has a retrograde path.
NEW CONCLUSION: the observed motions of the planets is better explained by a heliocentric solar system; the Earth revolves around the Sun.
The old fact is still a fact, the Sun still rises.
WE CANNOT OBSERVE THE FORMATION OF THE STRUCTURES THAT ALREADY EXIST. My billion year old ancestors are all dead - what about yours? Since it is their actual argument it is not a strawman. That would be the totality of everything. The known data for which two people fucked each other 10,000 years ago in order to eventually end up with you is also sparse - that does not mean that I have to be expected to reasonably take the idea that space aliens interjected their DNA into your lineage at around that time seriously.
It's pretty simple: there are many competing scientific explanations here. God-dun-it is not one of them. It is quite irrelevant to me whether or not the great unwashed with their general ignorance of science and their desire for easy and quick answers fails to comprehend this or not. Again, I do not think you get what an analogy is. Apples and oranges are analogous when you say something like: eating an apple is much like eating an orange - they are both fruits. The analogy itself is a poor analogy because the validity of the comparison is dependant on the properties one has chosen to compare.
Now the points I wanted to analogise about technology and evolution were:
1)Technological progression and evolution both occur via a series of incremental steps where old designs are gradually improved. In the case of technology the selection of which new designs are considered best is determined by humans via the utility that particular implementation gives. In the case of evolution the genetic template that determines the design of the organism is selected by whether or not the organism is able to replicate its genetic code or not.
2) In both technology and evolution the formation of a novel property, although it may be initially crude, can still wield massive advantages for those who have it such that the technology will have a profound effect on the environment.
Then conclude that Genesis is true.
I will remind you that this discussion started when you said one should not judge the ideas because they have a religious source. As of yet I have not seen a singular point from you that has given any reason why I should not continuing being biased against religious sources.
If the Creation Museum were producing real science then the fact that they are Christian would be irrelevant to me - again I feel I must point out it is not WHO produces the idea it is the PROCESS of how the idea was produced. The process used by the Creation Museum is: take Genesis, fact-mine to make science appear to support Genesis. That is not a scientific process. I have no reason to trust anything concluded from that process. Not even slightly. I.e. new facts = new conclusions. New facts, new conclusions. No new facts, no new conclusions. It cannot get more simple than that. Since I have not in fact done so I have not in fact done so.
Now if you want to deal with philosophical problems with knowing what happened in the past then we can sit here and argue if the laws of physics were the same yesterday as they are today. I am going to go out on a limb and assume they were.
Otherwise you're just going to have to deal with the fact that all the prerequisites have been observed - including speciation - and as such any argument that goes along the line of, "show me man to monkey in the lab," is missing the point by a long shot. *Sigh*
Again: how many times does one need to invent the wheel? *Sigh*
Do you get the difference between a technology enabling a fast-paced change and a technology changing at a fast pace or not? We're talking about technological revolutions last I checked. You have heard of mutation right? Where do you think *ANY* genetic benefit comes from? Triangular wheels aren't much help. I do not understand why explaining non-events is so important to you. It is not the hox-ness that is sudden - it is merely that the advantages conferred to such organisms with the hox gene mean that they determine the genetic landscape and not some other organism.
Tell me - if I were to kill you today what influence would you be able to assert tomorrow? It's never going to be more than theory - but calling it 'just' a theory misses the point. What do you want from science? Certainty? Not going to happen.
No that's basically what everyone who says, "it's not fair," doesn't grasp - it ain't supposed to be fair. The whole point is that anyone who grasps economics realises that the free market is not a panacea and as such it would really rather be better if monopolies were not allowed to undermine the advantages the market system is supposed to bring.
The Wright Brothers did not build a 747 on their second day of work.
Intel did not build 64 bit processors in the 70s.
The wheel did not get rubber tires until a few thousand years after its initial invention in Asia.
The only type of design we're any good at is small, incremental changes. Prototype after prototype. Creationists posit a perfect designer. We are not perfect. Will does not come into it - you may think if you have enough will you can simply achieve anything, reality tends to show that kind of thinking leads to failure.
That is what I find most ironic about this whole debate - iterative design is evolutionary and iterative design is the only kind that produces any reliable success. If it happened multiple times I would find that odd - happening rarely is to be expected. Hox genes.
And again I must point out because I feel that you are quite unable to comprehend this: telling me to believe because if I believe it will be nice WILL NOT PERSUADE ME. This is not about feeling warm and fuzzy - this is about what is true. Wow. The irony. I live in a Christian culture - I guess if you are arguing that Christians have persuaded me that Christianity is wrong then you'd be right! Again the irony is stunning - joining a religion is the very epitome of group-think. It always amazes me just how many people on a technical site can nonchalantly claim that scientists are engaged in a mass circle-jerk as if they've never come into contact with any real scientists. Again the irony is killing me. Black is white. Up is down. Freedom is slavery. War is peace. Ignorance is strength.
We may very well both be programmed but only one of us is programmed to realise it. Hate? You've got to be kidding. You are not that important in my world I'm afraid for hate. When I say fuck you it's because you need to be told it - not because I hate you. No shit - your point?
The facts in support of the 'consensus theory' of evolution are numerous whilst the ID proponents cannot even produce a hypothesis that is scientific. That is not my problem - that is the ID proponents' problem.
It is not like such huge changes are unprecedented by the arrival of a new technology that is vastly superior to an old one - be it genetic or manufactured. They didn't have to - that is why it is in fact an apt analogy! Homo sapiens has undergone very little genetic change in the last hundred thousand years but the effect the species has had on the environment has been profound. The problem if you will recall is that the Cambrian explosion is too 'quick' - my point is that we have quite a concrete example of how the genetic benefits one organism was lucky enough to accrue has given it the ability to profoundly alter the environmental landscape in a short space of time. The analogy is as such: some genetic changes simply give the organism a massive advantage. One should hardly be surprised when that organism then starts to dictate the genetic landscape. That's why they're called 'analogies'. Culture and technology clearly do not have genetic selectors but if I have a gun and you have a bow and arrow one of us is in a position to dictate whose culture will prevail with a little more success.
No your point is that there is bickering between people who disagree and you propose a diplomatic view that this as pig-headiness all round and we should all realise this for some reason. I'm just pointing out that only one side is appealing to the facts.
I guarantee they are both wrong - one is far more wrong than the other however.
If you want certainty but not reality go with the dogmatic approach. I am quite comfortable with the limits of what we can know and how certain we can be about things however. Despite the shit stirring by those of us who cannot let go of ancient belief systems evolution is not a theory with any significant doubt to it.
It is therefore only if there are no new facts that science should never change. It doesn't seem like that's going to happen any time soon. Only one camp has the potential to back up such assertions with facts... otherwise your point is that people who disagree, um, disagree?
Eh? Are you comparing different deities to having different burger choices? So you've decided everyone is seeing YOUR god if they claim to be divinely touched? How arrogant.
What the hell are you talking about?
Yep - must be a god. That's sealed it.
Next fallacy on the list: martyr fallacy. Because obviously no-one has ever died for a false belief - nope, never happened ever. Never mind the facts! People died! That makes it true!
Found in so many continents? What, so the invention of the printing press and global distribution of Bibles by people who believe they have to get the Bible out to everyone so they can 'save' them is proof of the truth of the Bible? You've got to be shitting me! Not to mention this internal consistency everyone says the Bible has is mightily lacking in my analysis.
Is it possible that you are being jerked around by the Olympian gods for their own sick games?
I cannot find any references to this charming story so assuming it's not bullshit: please tell me - did the Christians tell these scientists they were stupid because the Bible tells us the speed of light is 3x10^8 m/s? What's that? They didn't? So your point would be then that the religious did nothing to advance scientific knowledge and when someone came along and demonstrated the junebug man was full of shit using science actually your god had something to do with it? What's your point? Science gets the chance to correct itself whilst the Bible will be as wrong today as it was when it was first written down?
So again was it a bunch of Christians thumping the Bible who discovered the lightning creates Ozone? No? It wasn't? You mean the Bible says nothing about Ozone whatsoever? What is your point exactly?
Oh and it should be noted that CFCs still cause ozone depletion - that fact has never changed. Pumping enough CFCs into the atmosphere and the rate of destruction will be greater than the rate of replenishment.
That's really easy when your religion hasn't made any new predictions in the last 2000 years.
Of course what you don't get is that science thrives on being wrong because that's how it grows. Your religion doesn't thrive on being wrong because it is static - if it's wrong yesterday it'll be wrong tomorrow.
One cannot possibly argue for the merit of religious claims when they have to become scientific ones before we can say whether or not the original claim had merit! We cannot just ignore how many, many claims are so wrong! One should not be surprised that occasionally there might be a claim that stands up to scrutiny but one cannot then go onto claim that the framework the claim was made in is reliable if the vast majority of its claims do not stand up to scrutiny! On the contrary - science can only answer things in a factual manner. If you want to claim something provide facts. If you want to nullify a previous claim show the facts. It's really quite irrelevant to me if there are some who want to argue without being bothered to gather sufficient facts for their case.