Yeah, it's a bloody stupid fallacy. I don't like unintuitive interfaces anymore than the next man. The only difference between me and the next man is that I'm more likely to be creating them. It's half-arsed development from the asthetically challenged that leads to poor interfaces, not being a freelancer.
1) It's saying String Theory is not a theory because there's nothing empirical behind it, it's basically a collection of hypotheses. To be a theory requires supporting data. Evolutionary Theory has this by the bucketload.
2) If the field of physics is being shoehorned into being more theoretical it is certainly not the case the field of biology is doing so. Evolutionary Theory is of *practical* use in biology and underpins much of the current understanding. This is not the case for String Theory.
3) Many testable predictions that relate biology to other fields of science have been made and shown.
String Theory may be a misnomer but anyone who claims to argue Evolutionary Theory is in the same league is just being wilfully ignorant.
If, in fact, we are simply observing what "God has set into motion," then there is no dichotomy, false or otherwise, between creation and science.
Sure, that's what the opinion of some of the fine Christian scientists you meantioned early was. Study nature, find their god.
It wasn't until science started to make the theologians uneasy that this attitude started to shift.
To suggest that the God of the Bible, however, has brought us to where we are via molecules-to-man evolution is to blatantly contradict His Word, the Bible.
And gentlement I cite this as proof of the above statement.
Either God is the Author of the universe, and has created everything we see, according to His Word, or Natural Selection is true. Both cannot be true.
Right, so you trust the Bible... why? I assume since you said you love science you are happy to accept its findings in other areas. Do you not even find a little problem with simply refusing to go where it leads if it doesn't conform to a set of ancient writings you have happened to emotionally invest in presumably because you were brought up in an environment where this is the done thing?
To me this sounds like 'La-La-La-I-Can't-Here-You' fingers in the ear time.
(And let's leave the numerous problems with the Bible for another day).
This would indicate a change or loss of genetic information, but never has there been an increase in genetic inforamtion or code that has taken place that resulted in a more complex organism developing.
This is so wrong on so many levels the question is where to start?
I think it's just best to ask you what would possibly constitute an information gain in your opinion and go from there. And not on anything as abstract as a limb, I mean at a DNA level. That is where the information is actually encoded after all.
But what about Creationist biologists?
What, all two of them? Seriously, you lose on numbers here I'm afraid.
It's that I disagree with their presupposition on the origins of life and how we got here. They start with their presupposition and I start with mine.
What is yours precisely? Are you a young earther? Do we also have to disregard non-biologcal science somehow? Are you of the mind that your god created Adam out of dust and Eve out of his rib? That there was a worldwide flood or not? Rainbows are not a natural phenomena but only existed after said flood? Snakes were punished by god?
I'm serious here: being a Christian rarely clarifies what one has actually gleemed from the Bible. There are others in Christendom who have no problem with evolution, not even with the evolution of man.
The neo-Darwinist and the Creationist just interpret that evidence differently.
But only ONE of these people have a forgone conclusion that CANNOT change. That my friend is not science and never will be. That is why asserting the man in the sky made you 'specially as an argument against any evolutionary theory on the evolution of humans will not fly.
Wow, what a constructive and intelligent response! Why is it that the supposed "science lovers" always resort (quickly, I might add) to name-calling and ad-hominem attacks here at slashdot? I love science, and, evidently, am a little more qualified to speak on the subject than you are.
As one respondent pointed out if you call it Neo-Darwinism you're already looking like an asshole.
Stupid made up terms don't sit well with me.
Did I propose an alternative? I don't think so.
Well your alternative seems to be Creationsim. It is one thing to criticise the original article in a scientific manner, completely another to through in the Creationism canard.
How about we just look at the evidence and go from there. LOL
Sure.
Well, you are assuming that microevolution "turns into" macroevolution which cannot be shown via the fossil record or via the scientific method.
What I'm assuming is not as such: I'm merely pointing out that these are artificial demarkactions created by unscientific Creationists. Since there's never been any explanation at exactly what point it's absolutely impossible for the so-called microevolution to just stop going too far I treat with the distain it diserves.
Nowhere (let me restate that for emphasis......NOWHERE) is there ever found any speciation that adds information.
UGH - and so we go to the next creationist canard. What does that mean to not add information? Are you saying DNA doesn't change? Are you saying DNA strands have never gained sequences despite this being shown? What of nylon digesting bacteria? More vaugeness.
This would be a necessary fact for the neo-Darwinist view of molecules-to-man evolution.
Woah! Another Creationist canard! We're not talking abiogenesis here.
Science wouldn't be where it is today if it weren't for the work of Christian/Creationist Scientists such as Copernicus, Kepler, Boyle, Newton, Gauss, Faraday, Maxwell, Lord Kelvin....I could go on and on if you like....
That's all very well but there are two problems here. The first being that these people were all different types of Christian - or did you not notice the fact that Christians are incredibly diverse in their views. The second would of course be that making some scientific discovery doesn't automatically make their theology sound. That is a complete non-sequitor.
I suppose I could point out the non-Christian scientific contributions, the non-science that some of the Christian scientists you meantioned engaged in (Newton was very much into alchemy) but breaking the 'scientific Christian != Christianity is scientific' link is never any easy task since cognative dissonance is such a powerful phenomena.
Microevolution has, obviously, been observed and validated.
So, just where does 'microevolution' stop and what stops it precisely? Does DNA know when to stop changing too much?
This isn't a blow to Creationists, it is a blow to Evolution, because, yet again, they've been proven wrong on a supposed human ancestor
If the fact that science is a dynamic process and biology is a highly dynamic field offends you please quit the Internet and go live in a cave. Science doesn't pretend to get the answers right the first time or even ever have the right answers ever.
What kind of alternative are you proposing exactly? We should give up and just shrug our shoulders and go, "phew, that's too difficult to grok, let's just stick to the first thing we come up with and go home."
I don't get you creationist. You obviously don't like science. Why even bother with the pretence of being scientific?
I don't know why you're modded flamebait. Seems like an insightful comment to me.
Clearly it is in the interests of manufacturers to make their older systems obsolete so they can sell the next generation. The only way to do this is to create wants rather than needs. And clearly anything that is not worth the effort to implement because it will not help the next generation of products to sell will not get the most attention.
So as you say security takes a back seat because it just doesn't drive consumer wants. Presumably some great security disaster in the future might change the consumers perspective but when people seem content to accept that reinstalling Windows is a way of life I'm not sure that's going to happen any time soon.
I wouldn't be surprised if few hundrend years from now we end up with "Bear Chernobilus" that hibernates only half the time and has double the mating seasons...
That wouldn't necessarially be a beneficial mutation. The whole point about species that hibernate is that hiberation conserves energy. In harsh climates such as those typically found in Russia there is no benefit to being active all the time if there is not the energy supplies to support that. Similarly this implies that increase mating activity would also not be desirable due to the fact that this is a high energy activity and also the environment may not be able to support such an increase in population.
Remember, evolution is about adapting to the environment you are in. What is a beneficial quality one day may be disasterous the next.
It's just not possible to give pro-creation examples. Supernatural creation theories rely on magic - science cannot accomodate this.
This is why you will never, ever, hear a IDer talking about their 'theory' that is not in the context of evolution. ID is the attempt to create a false dichtonomy and nothing more. Without evolution ID wouldn't exist.
I think what most linux advocates are doing is seeing the comment, "linux is ready for X", as implying linux is just about becoming a proper OS whilst Windows has been stomping all over its ass forever. What is forgotten is that there's a hump one must climb beyond your opponent if you want to overcome the inertia against change.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, it's a bloody stupid fallacy. I don't like unintuitive interfaces anymore than the next man. The only difference between me and the next man is that I'm more likely to be creating them. It's half-arsed development from the asthetically challenged that leads to poor interfaces, not being a freelancer.
1) It's saying String Theory is not a theory because there's nothing empirical behind it, it's basically a collection of hypotheses. To be a theory requires supporting data. Evolutionary Theory has this by the bucketload. 2) If the field of physics is being shoehorned into being more theoretical it is certainly not the case the field of biology is doing so. Evolutionary Theory is of *practical* use in biology and underpins much of the current understanding. This is not the case for String Theory. 3) Many testable predictions that relate biology to other fields of science have been made and shown. String Theory may be a misnomer but anyone who claims to argue Evolutionary Theory is in the same league is just being wilfully ignorant.
More that just because it's a blog don't assume it means the person who wrote it did so free of coersoion.
Thanks for the biggest laugh I've had in a while.
So is acupuncture but hey, when's the last time anyone let facts get in the way of a good story?
Oh please say it is! It's so entertaining to watch!
You know you may like to but entropy being what it is you may not get it.
If, in fact, we are simply observing what "God has set into motion," then there is no dichotomy, false or otherwise, between creation and science.
Sure, that's what the opinion of some of the fine Christian scientists you meantioned early was. Study nature, find their god.
It wasn't until science started to make the theologians uneasy that this attitude started to shift.
To suggest that the God of the Bible, however, has brought us to where we are via molecules-to-man evolution is to blatantly contradict His Word, the Bible.
And gentlement I cite this as proof of the above statement.
Either God is the Author of the universe, and has created everything we see, according to His Word, or Natural Selection is true. Both cannot be true.
Right, so you trust the Bible... why? I assume since you said you love science you are happy to accept its findings in other areas. Do you not even find a little problem with simply refusing to go where it leads if it doesn't conform to a set of ancient writings you have happened to emotionally invest in presumably because you were brought up in an environment where this is the done thing?
To me this sounds like 'La-La-La-I-Can't-Here-You' fingers in the ear time.
(And let's leave the numerous problems with the Bible for another day).
This would indicate a change or loss of genetic information, but never has there been an increase in genetic inforamtion or code that has taken place that resulted in a more complex organism developing.
This is so wrong on so many levels the question is where to start?
I think it's just best to ask you what would possibly constitute an information gain in your opinion and go from there. And not on anything as abstract as a limb, I mean at a DNA level. That is where the information is actually encoded after all.
But what about Creationist biologists?
What, all two of them? Seriously, you lose on numbers here I'm afraid.
It's that I disagree with their presupposition on the origins of life and how we got here. They start with their presupposition and I start with mine.
What is yours precisely? Are you a young earther? Do we also have to disregard non-biologcal science somehow? Are you of the mind that your god created Adam out of dust and Eve out of his rib? That there was a worldwide flood or not? Rainbows are not a natural phenomena but only existed after said flood? Snakes were punished by god?
I'm serious here: being a Christian rarely clarifies what one has actually gleemed from the Bible. There are others in Christendom who have no problem with evolution, not even with the evolution of man.
The neo-Darwinist and the Creationist just interpret that evidence differently.
But only ONE of these people have a forgone conclusion that CANNOT change. That my friend is not science and never will be. That is why asserting the man in the sky made you 'specially as an argument against any evolutionary theory on the evolution of humans will not fly.
Wow, what a constructive and intelligent response! Why is it that the supposed "science lovers" always resort (quickly, I might add) to name-calling and ad-hominem attacks here at slashdot? I love science, and, evidently, am a little more qualified to speak on the subject than you are.
As one respondent pointed out if you call it Neo-Darwinism you're already looking like an asshole.
Stupid made up terms don't sit well with me.
Did I propose an alternative? I don't think so.
Well your alternative seems to be Creationsim. It is one thing to criticise the original article in a scientific manner, completely another to through in the Creationism canard.
How about we just look at the evidence and go from there. LOL
Sure.
Well, you are assuming that microevolution "turns into" macroevolution which cannot be shown via the fossil record or via the scientific method.
What I'm assuming is not as such: I'm merely pointing out that these are artificial demarkactions created by unscientific Creationists. Since there's never been any explanation at exactly what point it's absolutely impossible for the so-called microevolution to just stop going too far I treat with the distain it diserves.
Nowhere (let me restate that for emphasis......NOWHERE) is there ever found any speciation that adds information.
UGH - and so we go to the next creationist canard. What does that mean to not add information? Are you saying DNA doesn't change? Are you saying DNA strands have never gained sequences despite this being shown? What of nylon digesting bacteria? More vaugeness.
This would be a necessary fact for the neo-Darwinist view of molecules-to-man evolution.
Woah! Another Creationist canard! We're not talking abiogenesis here.
Science wouldn't be where it is today if it weren't for the work of Christian/Creationist Scientists such as Copernicus, Kepler, Boyle, Newton, Gauss, Faraday, Maxwell, Lord Kelvin....I could go on and on if you like....
That's all very well but there are two problems here. The first being that these people were all different types of Christian - or did you not notice the fact that Christians are incredibly diverse in their views. The second would of course be that making some scientific discovery doesn't automatically make their theology sound. That is a complete non-sequitor.
I suppose I could point out the non-Christian scientific contributions, the non-science that some of the Christian scientists you meantioned engaged in (Newton was very much into alchemy) but breaking the 'scientific Christian != Christianity is scientific' link is never any easy task since cognative dissonance is such a powerful phenomena.
Microevolution has, obviously, been observed and validated.
So, just where does 'microevolution' stop and what stops it precisely? Does DNA know when to stop changing too much? This isn't a blow to Creationists, it is a blow to Evolution, because, yet again, they've been proven wrong on a supposed human ancestor
If the fact that science is a dynamic process and biology is a highly dynamic field offends you please quit the Internet and go live in a cave. Science doesn't pretend to get the answers right the first time or even ever have the right answers ever.
What kind of alternative are you proposing exactly? We should give up and just shrug our shoulders and go, "phew, that's too difficult to grok, let's just stick to the first thing we come up with and go home."
I don't get you creationist. You obviously don't like science. Why even bother with the pretence of being scientific?
Well there are two ways to acheive what you want.
You can use SessionSaver - it's a great little extension I use that saves your browser state and reloads it when opening.
Or you could organise your bookmarks and have the ones you want to open in a folder and then open the folder in a set of new tabs.
I don't know why you're modded flamebait. Seems like an insightful comment to me.
Clearly it is in the interests of manufacturers to make their older systems obsolete so they can sell the next generation. The only way to do this is to create wants rather than needs. And clearly anything that is not worth the effort to implement because it will not help the next generation of products to sell will not get the most attention.
So as you say security takes a back seat because it just doesn't drive consumer wants. Presumably some great security disaster in the future might change the consumers perspective but when people seem content to accept that reinstalling Windows is a way of life I'm not sure that's going to happen any time soon.
Well then it's only really you to blame if you take something as fact from the first resource you use without checking elsewhere.
Forget not trusting Wikipedia: don't automatically trust any source of information, Internet or not.
Or Welsh.
Why aren't they trying to hurry the end of the world? Why do Christians hate their god?
I wouldn't be surprised if few hundrend years from now we end up with "Bear Chernobilus" that hibernates only half the time and has double the mating seasons ...
That wouldn't necessarially be a beneficial mutation. The whole point about species that hibernate is that hiberation conserves energy. In harsh climates such as those typically found in Russia there is no benefit to being active all the time if there is not the energy supplies to support that. Similarly this implies that increase mating activity would also not be desirable due to the fact that this is a high energy activity and also the environment may not be able to support such an increase in population.
Remember, evolution is about adapting to the environment you are in. What is a beneficial quality one day may be disasterous the next.
Furthermore, lions tigers & bears might come back quickly enough, but wouldn't trees take a few more... centuries?
Sure it would for most temperate species of trees but tropical species tend to grow far quicker. There are pleanty of fast growing trees.
Not that I think dumping nuclear waste in order to discourage farming is the most sensible way to go about this.
Well there was that TNG episode where they had super-alcohol and Tasha Yar boned Data...
Well indeed, you might as well argue, "look over there, those pixies certainly know how to weave a beautiful fabric of reality!"
If one is predisposed to see a god in everything they WILL see a god in everything.
It's just not possible to give pro-creation examples. Supernatural creation theories rely on magic - science cannot accomodate this. This is why you will never, ever, hear a IDer talking about their 'theory' that is not in the context of evolution. ID is the attempt to create a false dichtonomy and nothing more. Without evolution ID wouldn't exist.
I think what most linux advocates are doing is seeing the comment, "linux is ready for X", as implying linux is just about becoming a proper OS whilst Windows has been stomping all over its ass forever. What is forgotten is that there's a hump one must climb beyond your opponent if you want to overcome the inertia against change.
Well the obvious question becomes: Do you not want your kids to see this material for their benefit or for your comfort?
It's an XX cpu and will only play games and search Google for pr0n. It's an XY cpu and is really only good for about one week out of the month.
If you're making gender references you've got your chromosomes mixed up - men are XY, women are XX.
You're asking a postmodernist question. Pretty much every type of game that could be made has been made so there's nothing much more to do other.
Damn straight, and I'm glad you meantioned the Spectrum otherwise I'd have to complain it's all seen through the eyes of AMERICAN console gamers ;)