eg.: Why the heck would a bacteria have a flagellum that is missing the few cells to make it move? It would be a waste of tissue and be discarded by natural selection. And why would it, inversely, have spinning cells unless there was a flagellum to spin?
Natural selection does not select against "wastes of tissue"; it selects against attributes that create a competitive disadvantage against the other organisms within the environment. In other words if a structure is useless but not disadvantageous, it stays.
"Either Newton or Einstein is right about gravity; it can't be both and it can't be piecemeal." Of course they can....oh wait...I get it...that's why you can't comprehend my argument. My argument is evolution and intelligent design can both be true.
Perhaps in your head they can. But scientifically they cannot. Scientifically, general relativity is the (currently most) correct theory of gravity. It completely replaced Newtonian gravity.
Yes, we still use Newtonian gravity as a good approximation in everyday life. BUT that is not the same as saying "both theories are true." To a physicist, general relavity is accurate, Newtonian gravity is a limited approximation.
Put another way, each new theory replaces and "contains" the old. General relativity doesn't just describe the things that Newtonion gravity doesn't...it ALSO describes everything that Newtonian gravity already did. We use Newtonian gravity for high school physics and for terrestrial engineering because it is "close enough." But ultimately, scientifically, it is wrong.
Likewise genetics/natural selection is currently "true" to a biologist. If you assert that supernatural forces can trump natural forces, it would effect a complete replacement of natural selection. Let's say that natural selection remains a good approximation for 99.9999% of all cases. That doesn't mean it's "correct" for those cases, just that it is a good approximation.
So let's can the "both are right" BS, and acknowledge what ID proponents are truly after--complete replacement of objective science with supernatural belief in school classrooms around the nation. What a great idea! After all, the U.S. is falling behind in science and engineering, which only happen to be the source of our military and economic strength, while all of Asia is rocketing ahead. What better solution than to compromise our science education programs to satisfy a vocal religious minority.
One of us is confused, and I'm not too arrogrant to admit that it could be me.
Confused is probably not the best word. I would just say that you probably have not followed the ID arguments to their logical conclusions in the scientific context.
But my understanding of ID is as stated above, that they embrace evolution by design (ignoring all the other absurdities for the moment). One other poster below this thread has noted the same distinction. I believe you are confusing "them" with "us", which was the reason for my initial post. Have a look at what they say again... at what the ID official stance is. I will happily admit if I'm wrong, but I think you'll find that's what they say.
Actually what most of them say is that they believe in some natural selection, but irreducibly complex systems show evidence of being designed by an intelligence.
See, science is based on some ultra-basic theories. One of those is that the natural laws of our universe have not changed over time and don't change from place to place. It says that an electron had a charge of 1.60217646 × 10^19 coulombs 600 million years ago, that it does now both here and 100 million light years away, and that it will 100 million years from now. General relativity, quantum mechanics, the strong and weak forces--these elementary processes and forces are inherent, constant attributes of space time. So far this theory has not been disproven. We continue to refine our understanding of these attributes, and who know, maybe new ones will be discovered. But we haven't see evidence that they shift over time.
Biology is no different. The base principles of genetic heredity and natural selection are held to be the same for a virus and for a human. The only difference is the complexity of the system; obviously the simpler system is easier to study and model, just as it's easier to study the properties of elementary particles by smashing them into each other a few at a time. BUT, the processes are the same when there are 10 trillion atoms as when there are 2.
In other words, scientifically, it's all or nothing. Either a theory explains a fundamental process, or it is wrong. Either life is shaped by natural forces or by supernatural forces; both cannot be true simultaneously. If you believe that supernatural forces over-rode natural force to shape life, then scientifically what you are asserting is that supernatural forces are capable of trumping any natural phenomena...in other words, supernatural omnipotence.
Intelligent design is a Creationist argument because by intelligently designing life structures, the omnipotent intelligent being (whoever he is!) is in effect bringing about its creation in a supernatural way.
I'm not arguing that YOU yourself believe in ID just because you believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis. Rather I'm saying that those who are promoting ID believe the same thing you do--they just hide it. They do not have the courage of their convictions to speak up honestly, and wrap their belief in the blanket of science to try to pass it off among the unwary.
This is not just based on their "theory" too...there is a sizable online paper trail that documents the development of ID...try here to start, if you're interested.
This is a ridiculous, even laughable perversion of the entire Bible. Obviously you've never read it or else you wouldn't reduce yourself to such error. You needn't step beyond th
Punctuated equilibrium is a proposed refinement of natural selection, not a replacement. It still relies on the natural mechanisms of mutation and survival of the fittest to explain changes in life--the difference in mainly in the timing.
All the fossil evidence known to man supports the current theories of genetic inheritance and natural selection. There is no contradictory evidence, only incomplete evidence. Evidence that contradicts would be things like homo sapiens human skeletons mixed in with dinosaurs, modern whale bones found in 200 million year old sediments, etc. AFAIK none of that has been found yet; if you know of any please do point me in the right direction.
This whole idea of "macroevolution" vs. "microevolution" is ludicrous. It's like acting like there's some fundamental difference between "macrogravity" that controls planetary orbits, and "microgravity" that controls a hammer dropped on your foot. Maybe to a layperson or some ancient civilzation it seems like those are two totally different processes. Of course we now know that they are the same.
Likewise the processes of genetic inheritance and natural selection act the same way on viruses that they do on dinosaurs and duck-billed platypuses. And until there's strong evidence that contradicts that model, that's the way it is.
Is how poorly you understand what you're talking about.
Here you arrive, unintended I'm sure, at the reason why Evolution is more an ideology than a scientific theory, just as Intelligent Design is. Namely, none of this is repeatable.
Laughably wrong. In fact every college with a biology department performs the same genetic and selective experiments every year in a class called (wait for it) "Genetics."
With good starting info and simple organisms, it's possible to make extremely accurate predictions of the statistical distribution of phenotypes after a certain number of generations and under certain conditions. Thousands of students do it every year.
Like many, you've assumed the foundation of modern biology rests on stories about the past. Wrong. Science is not a collection of stories that contain facts, it is a collection of descriptions of processes. Processes are effectively timeless.
Modern genetics and natural selection are theories that explain the processes of biology, both right now and in any time in the past or future of life. Stories about past life flow from this understanding, but (this is important) they flow from the theory--they are not the basis for the theory.
Of course no one can repeat the evolution of the horse. No one can "repeat" the orbit of Mercury either (it's just a tad too big). BUT, using incremental hypotheses and achievable tests, we can develop an understanding of the processes that control it. Then we can test our understanding by making quantitative predictions of what the orbit of Mercury will be in the future. Yay! We were right. And until the observations don't match the predictions, we'll stick with the theory. The same thing is possible in the study of genetics and natural selection; it's what students learn in Genetics and Evolutionary Biology classes.
You can't setup an experiment to show what did happen.
No, but you can set up experiments that can falsify your model of the processes by which it happened. Note that this is not possible in ID.
Even if one could show conclusively that a designer could exist, it would still not prove that one/did/ exist, or that one actually took part int he design of the universe.
This makes no sense. You can't prove "conclusively" that something "could" exist.
Look, the fact is the word "prove" doesn't even belong around a concept of a being that is supposedly powerful enough to shape the course of every detail of the entire biosphere in intelligent ways, whenever it wants, without any apparent physical mechanism. In the face of omnipotence, the human concept of "prove" holds no meaning.
And, I'm sad to say, none of it seems to be willing to consider falsifying evidence. This is the precise reason why Popper (more or less father of modern Philosophy of Science) rejected the notion that history could be scientific.
I totally do not understand this leap. Please explain how Popper's opinions on history bear on the study of phenomena and facts that are observable in the present.
ID only says that some systems, such as blood cloting, cannot evolve in small steps with modern understanding and must have been evolved in a unexplainable "leap" to it's current state.
No, that is what ID *proponents* say. It is the marketing they use to sell their "theory."
But irreducibly complex structures are not a theory, they are evidence, i.e. "facts" (or at least they would be if they in fact existed).
Theories describe processes, not facts. The "theory" of ID is that the process by which life develops is controlled by some "intelligence" rather than natural phenomena. "Irreducible structures" are one set of supposed "facts" that supposedly support the "theory" of ID.
In much the same way, damage from falling 10 meters is not what the theory of gravity "says." But when accurately and precisely measured, and compared against theoretical prediction, it can be evidence in support or contradiction of a specific theory of gravitation.
And thus we reach the fail point of ID. There is no way to objectively, accurately, and precisely measure "irreducible"--it is an interpretation not an observation. Put grammatically, it is an adjective not a noun.
If a metal ball deforms 3.56 cm upon impact from 10 m height--that is an observation. Calling a structure "irreducible" is not, in that further evidence could invalidate such a conclusion. There is no further evidence that can invalidate a measurement of 3.56 cm--it is what it is, and thus it is scientifically valid evidence.
True ID involves modern genetics, natural selection, and yes, fossils. It even allows evolution of modern humans over the ages. There are only a few systems affected by this irreducible complexity. Other than that, it has no issues or differences with evolution and modern science.
This shows such a fundamental misunderstanding of science I'm sure I can't correct it here. Let's just suffice to say that if you postulate any kind of intelligent designer you are NOT "involving" either modern genetics or natural selection--you are misinterpretting and bastardizing them for your own ends. Natural selection is the theory that the traits we observe in species today were both or either selected for or not selected against, by natural phenomena. Natural phenomena are those that can be incrementally and repeatably observed--i.e. birth, death, mutation, disease, etc. Further, they are reducable to base physical processes--cells don't just die, there are certain chemical reactions that fall out of balance and cease. Chemical reactions are controlled by quantum mechanics. A mysterious and unquantifiable intelligence is not observable, not repeatable, not incremental, and not reducable to any base physical processes. Effectively is sits outside observable nature--thus it is "supernatural" not natural.
Further, because science is a study of processes, not facts, you cannot "involve" theories. You can't pick and choose which "systems" are affected by your ID "theory." Either the process is wholly natural or it is not--all facts must conform to one or the other theories--theories cannot coexist. Science is not politics--contradictory ideologies cannot be logically tolerated. Either Newton or Einstein is right about gravity; it can't be both and it can't be piecemeal. One theory must explain the range of related phenomena--not some here and some there. It literally makes no scientific sense to say that that only "some" systems are "affected" by ID, or that ID "involves" genetics and natural selection.
Evolution and intelligent design are NOT mutually exclusive.
You can yell all you want, but you obviously don't understand what you're shouting about.
Great! If you could just bolt this 40kg ball of high-temp stainless steel to your comm/maneuvering package, we should be all set. Just let me know the sequence for deorbit; I'll take care of the targetting myself.
Intelligent design argues (or attempts to argue) from scientific evidence, that evolution is not a sufficient explanation for different species without some sort of guiding force.
Until you can describe, in precise, technical, repeatable detail, HOW such force guided evolution, ID is at its base no different than creationism. Both require the pre-existence of an all-powerful being, who through some all-powerful but mysterious mechanism (noodly appendage?) shaped (i.e. created) life as we know it today.
Whether it took 6 days, 6000 years, or 600 million years, if some all-powerful force shaped the development of life, it is a creationist story, as it involves a Creator. How long it took is simply an attribute of the main story.
I said it before and I'll say it again--ID and fundamentalist proponents would like NOTHING MORE than for the nation to think they are two separate schools of thought. Why? Because the nation has thoroughly and completely rejected the literal interpretation of the Bible, and the only way ID has any chance is if it is completely disassociated from the failure of fundamentalist literalism. Sorry, but we see through the sheep's clothing of science lingo, to the same old tired wolf within.
The fundamentalist belief (to which I hold) is not compatible with ID. These are two entirely separate paradigms.
Boy the ID folks would really, really, really like the nation to believe that, but sorry, we can see a pig, smell a pig, and know a pig even if the farmer calls it a chicken.
For reference, ID embraces pretty much the same things as the so-called independent thinking scientists, except for having a cause.
No, what ID says is that species we see today were designed into their current shape by an intelligent force. This is functionally the same message as Genesis, and about as far from modern theories of genetics and natural selection as you can get. The only thing ID has in common with real biological science is one slice of the data set--current life. ID proponents don't even recognize the validity of the fossil record.
Fundamentalists (again, that's me) hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis.
That is truly amazing, I had no idea so many Americans had developed the skill to read and understand ancient Hebrew. Or didn't you know that when you read an English Bible you're holding to a literal interpretation of some other human's translation and interpretation of the Bible? Didn't you know that the Bible was culled, edited, and assembled from source texts by humans?
If you want to lambaste one of the causes, please choose the appropriate one. Or at least make a distinction. Thanks.
Nope, not going to take that bait. It doesn't take a whole lot of critical thinking to see that that is exactly what the fondest dreams of the ID and fundamentalist communities are.
ID is being pushed now simply because the fundamentalist belief in the literal Bible has so thoroughly been rejected by American society. It's never taken hold and it never will--science is too important to America's success and power.
Even those who claim to hew the closest to the belief undercut themselves on a daily basis...how many fundamentalists in this country have ever taken an antibiotic? Received a flu shot? Received treatment for cancer? Answered a doctor's questions about their family medical history?
True fundamentalism demands avoidance of modern medicine and treatments; for did not the Lord create us in his image, and will he not provide for us when we are in need?
ID is nothing more that the fundamentalist belief in a literal act of designed creation by God, prettied up in the wrapper of scientific lingo.
Widescreen provides more room for palettes and sidebars, which are major part of the UI in pretty much any creative program. They were originally designed to sit on top of the canvas, and some people still use them that way. But more often they are just stuck to one edge of the screen, and on a normal-aspect monitor they can limit the width of the canvas.
As an example, my 14" iBook, at its highest resolution setting, cannot fit both an 800 pixel-width canvas and the Photoshop or Dreamweaver sidebars on the monitor at the same time. There is a small but annoying side-scroll bar for the canvas in both programs.
On the Mac, even Word uses palettes, so a wider screen view would benefit most everyone.
The lesson here, is that the constitution is no guarantee of our liberty.
The Constitution has never promised perfect preemptive protection of our liberties. It sets out what the government can and cannot do, but it's up to the citizens of the nation to apply that.
Freedom ultimately depends on the will of people to demand and enforce limits on government's continuous attempts to expand its power.
Exactly. The U.S. is the land of freedom and responsbility, not nanny protection. If we don't like something about our government, it's up to us to challenge it. The Constitution and the U.S. Code sets the structure and processes by which we do it. Think of it as codified revolution--you're changing the government but instead of guns the weapons are communication and lawyers.
If you do this, then you are deliberately disabling a copy protection system, which is illegal under the DMCA. So Sony can sue you.
Wrong. You are not disabling it, you are removing it.
The DMCA prohibits breaking digital encryption or protections that are in place to protect data from being freely accessed and distributed.
Software on your computer is neither encryption nor protection; it is a program. As long as you don't break or alter that program, you can add or remove it from your computer all you want. Adding or removing a program is not breaking it, as the capabilities the program provides are added or removed at the same time.
It's only when you alter the program, or design a new program that circumvents its protections to gain free access to the content that you tread on the DMCA.
My computer has a DVD player program that it shipped with. Do you really think it is a violation of the DMCA for me to remove this program from my computer?? Hint: it's not.
In a free market system the consumer chooses what they will pay for, and the onus is on the company to make the numbers work. If they cannot, they go under.
I can't emphasize this enough--uncompetitive companies must go under for the free market to operate efficiently. Propping up an aging, uncompetitive company hurts consumers--through poor service, high prices, and slowed economic growth.
In point of fact there might not BE any way for SBC to reconcile their fixed costs and the new consumer expectations of fixed connectivity pricing. So be it--that's life.
SBC/AT&T could go under tomorrow and the world would go on. Either: they would declare bankruptcy and write off debt and renegotiate union contracts, thereby lowering fixed costs, OR some other more competitive company would purchase their assets, employees, and customer lists, and provide service more efficiently. It would messy for a while, but when is any change neat, even if it's badly needed?
SBC/AT&T is welcome to do their best to get return on their investment. But the burden is on them to make it work, not on us.
Jobs is just a guy that has a decent eye for design (according to many people) who also quite fortuitously happened to be rich. As a result he runs a company that pays a lot of attention to design (which is rare in the US, for some reason). This is all very nice, but do not expect the next new thing in technology to come from him.
You're either poorly informed or willfully avoiding the facts of the story...Jobs wasn't always rich. He got rich because the company he helped start, and that he ran for years (Apple Computer), actually did usher in the next new thing in technology--the home computer.
Not to mention the whole Pixar thing...anyone remember the movie that kicked computer animation over the top? Toy Story, by Pixar--CEO Steve Jobs.
Jobs is not the second coming of Christ, but he's not some schlub either. He's one of the few people in the country whose start-up has survived for over 30 years and grown into one of the largest and most influential companies in the world in their market segment. Apple is a success story along the lines of FedEx (another startup gone huge).
Now his company is the second to successfully transition from computer to consumer electronics, with the iPod. This is what every computer maker wants to do, but only Apple and one other has done it with such success...how many people are buying Gateway or Dell TVs, stereos, or personal music players?
That's right, the second...who can guess the first? Sorry Jobs, it was Microsoft, with the X-box.
That is the whole point of "2001," in particular the final section, "Beyond the Infinite."
Kubrick is the only filmmaker who really got the concept of alien contact--ALIEN contact--in his gut. Contact with an alien intelligence, particularly a more advanced one, would be utterly confusing to us. Even the concept and structure of "intelligence" or "technology" is likely to be so alien as to be completely incomprehensible.
2001 is a brilliant movie because it is the only movie in which the audience experiences that first-hand...the movie watcher is thrust into the same overwhelming experience the characters are, with the same utter lack of explanation or exposition. In that respect it is probably the MOST realistic alien encounter movie made.
It is a movie about an alien experience that is, itself, an alien experience. It's the ultimate expression of the "show don't tell" maxim of story making. Its supreme achievement is that it makes such an experience watchable and enjoyable.
In his version of the story, the book "2001", Clarke was hampered by the limits of the medium...he had to tell--it's writing. The only science fiction novel I've read that compares to the movie experience of "2001" is another Clarke book: the original "Rendezvous with Rama." Again the entire experience is detailed, with no explanation forthcoming or even possible (this is why the subsequent books were such a huge dissappointment).
Too many movie fans want to be *told* amazing things. That's why "Contact" was so popular, and is consistently held up as a good science fiction movie. It tells you in clear exposition all the amazing things that are happening, and it wraps it all neatly up in the end.
Ultimately most movie are deeply plot driven--they get you to empathize with a character, then they explain what happens to that character in the course of the story. Most filmmakers do not like to keep the audience in the dark, unless it is to set them up for a big "reveal."
Kubrick was so great because he simply put the viewer into the experience and didn't bother to explain it. That's why his movies are often considered disturbing, and why they stick with you. And 2001 was his best, as it tackles a completely unknown and utterly foreign subject matter that way, and still succeeds.
How will Google keep people from uploading spam and flooding the system? Give people that much power over what lives in your system and see what happens. The status of Blogger is instructive.
Very low frequency, actually. It doesn't ping, it booms. It is for very long-range detection, so it is low-frequency, and it is very very loud. This is not about pinging for a final firing solution. It is sonar that they hope can find subs hundreds of miles away. It is a strategic, not a tactical, tool, and it is new...unless you are still actively involved with sonar development you likely did not work with the technology that is the subject of the suit.
Puppeteers were unavailable for comment
on
Deep in the Core
·
· Score: 1
Calls to the General Products Corporation have not been returned.
Maybe tech writers use Macs because they are attuned to the details of technology, and they have a budget to buy them.
Apple gets a lot of coverage right now because a) they have new products to cover right now, b) they have a history of important innovation, c) they are one of the largest computer makers in the world, and d) they are succeeding at a strategy that all computer makers are trying--transitioning to a large consumer electronics company.
Slashdot Mirror
Engineers so good they had to steal their pipeline control software. And, apparently, a ton of other Western engineering too.
eg.: Why the heck would a bacteria have a flagellum that is missing the few cells to make it move? It would be a waste of tissue and be discarded by natural selection. And why would it, inversely, have spinning cells unless there was a flagellum to spin?
Natural selection does not select against "wastes of tissue"; it selects against attributes that create a competitive disadvantage against the other organisms within the environment. In other words if a structure is useless but not disadvantageous, it stays.
"Either Newton or Einstein is right about gravity; it can't be both and it can't be piecemeal."
Of course they can....oh wait...I get it...that's why you can't comprehend my argument. My argument is evolution and intelligent design can both be true.
Perhaps in your head they can. But scientifically they cannot. Scientifically, general relativity is the (currently most) correct theory of gravity. It completely replaced Newtonian gravity.
Yes, we still use Newtonian gravity as a good approximation in everyday life. BUT that is not the same as saying "both theories are true." To a physicist, general relavity is accurate, Newtonian gravity is a limited approximation.
Put another way, each new theory replaces and "contains" the old. General relativity doesn't just describe the things that Newtonion gravity doesn't...it ALSO describes everything that Newtonian gravity already did. We use Newtonian gravity for high school physics and for terrestrial engineering because it is "close enough." But ultimately, scientifically, it is wrong.
Likewise genetics/natural selection is currently "true" to a biologist. If you assert that supernatural forces can trump natural forces, it would effect a complete replacement of natural selection. Let's say that natural selection remains a good approximation for 99.9999% of all cases. That doesn't mean it's "correct" for those cases, just that it is a good approximation.
So let's can the "both are right" BS, and acknowledge what ID proponents are truly after--complete replacement of objective science with supernatural belief in school classrooms around the nation. What a great idea! After all, the U.S. is falling behind in science and engineering, which only happen to be the source of our military and economic strength, while all of Asia is rocketing ahead. What better solution than to compromise our science education programs to satisfy a vocal religious minority.
One of us is confused, and I'm not too arrogrant to admit that it could be me.
Confused is probably not the best word. I would just say that you probably have not followed the ID arguments to their logical conclusions in the scientific context.
But my understanding of ID is as stated above, that they embrace evolution by design (ignoring all the other absurdities for the moment). One other poster below this thread has noted the same distinction. I believe you are confusing "them" with "us", which was the reason for my initial post. Have a look at what they say again... at what the ID official stance is. I will happily admit if I'm wrong, but I think you'll find that's what they say.
Actually what most of them say is that they believe in some natural selection, but irreducibly complex systems show evidence of being designed by an intelligence.
The problem is, what they are saying is meaningless in a scientific context. If a piece of evidence contradicts an existing theory, the entire theory is wrong. For example if there was incontrovertible evidence that an "intelligent designer" had affected the development of life (if, say, we found a ©God symbol imprinted on the optic nerve), it would not just invalidate natural selection with respect to the eye, it would invalidate the theory of natural selection completely.
See, science is based on some ultra-basic theories. One of those is that the natural laws of our universe have not changed over time and don't change from place to place. It says that an electron had a charge of 1.60217646 × 10^19 coulombs 600 million years ago, that it does now both here and 100 million light years away, and that it will 100 million years from now. General relativity, quantum mechanics, the strong and weak forces--these elementary processes and forces are inherent, constant attributes of space time. So far this theory has not been disproven. We continue to refine our understanding of these attributes, and who know, maybe new ones will be discovered. But we haven't see evidence that they shift over time.
Biology is no different. The base principles of genetic heredity and natural selection are held to be the same for a virus and for a human. The only difference is the complexity of the system; obviously the simpler system is easier to study and model, just as it's easier to study the properties of elementary particles by smashing them into each other a few at a time. BUT, the processes are the same when there are 10 trillion atoms as when there are 2.
In other words, scientifically, it's all or nothing. Either a theory explains a fundamental process, or it is wrong. Either life is shaped by natural forces or by supernatural forces; both cannot be true simultaneously. If you believe that supernatural forces over-rode natural force to shape life, then scientifically what you are asserting is that supernatural forces are capable of trumping any natural phenomena...in other words, supernatural omnipotence.
Intelligent design is a Creationist argument because by intelligently designing life structures, the omnipotent intelligent being (whoever he is!) is in effect bringing about its creation in a supernatural way.
I'm not arguing that YOU yourself believe in ID just because you believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis. Rather I'm saying that those who are promoting ID believe the same thing you do--they just hide it. They do not have the courage of their convictions to speak up honestly, and wrap their belief in the blanket of science to try to pass it off among the unwary.
This is not just based on their "theory" too...there is a sizable online paper trail that documents the development of ID...try here to start, if you're interested.
This is a ridiculous, even laughable perversion of the entire Bible. Obviously you've never read it or else you wouldn't reduce yourself to such error. You needn't step beyond th
Punctuated equilibrium is a proposed refinement of natural selection, not a replacement. It still relies on the natural mechanisms of mutation and survival of the fittest to explain changes in life--the difference in mainly in the timing.
I love those pictures every time I see them.
All the fossil evidence known to man supports the current theories of genetic inheritance and natural selection. There is no contradictory evidence, only incomplete evidence. Evidence that contradicts would be things like homo sapiens human skeletons mixed in with dinosaurs, modern whale bones found in 200 million year old sediments, etc. AFAIK none of that has been found yet; if you know of any please do point me in the right direction.
This whole idea of "macroevolution" vs. "microevolution" is ludicrous. It's like acting like there's some fundamental difference between "macrogravity" that controls planetary orbits, and "microgravity" that controls a hammer dropped on your foot. Maybe to a layperson or some ancient civilzation it seems like those are two totally different processes. Of course we now know that they are the same.
Likewise the processes of genetic inheritance and natural selection act the same way on viruses that they do on dinosaurs and duck-billed platypuses. And until there's strong evidence that contradicts that model, that's the way it is.
Is how poorly you understand what you're talking about.
/did/ exist, or that one actually took part int he design of the universe.
Here you arrive, unintended I'm sure, at the reason why Evolution is more an ideology than a scientific theory, just as Intelligent Design is. Namely, none of this is repeatable.
Laughably wrong. In fact every college with a biology department performs the same genetic and selective experiments every year in a class called (wait for it) "Genetics."
With good starting info and simple organisms, it's possible to make extremely accurate predictions of the statistical distribution of phenotypes after a certain number of generations and under certain conditions. Thousands of students do it every year.
Like many, you've assumed the foundation of modern biology rests on stories about the past. Wrong. Science is not a collection of stories that contain facts, it is a collection of descriptions of processes. Processes are effectively timeless.
Modern genetics and natural selection are theories that explain the processes of biology, both right now and in any time in the past or future of life. Stories about past life flow from this understanding, but (this is important) they flow from the theory--they are not the basis for the theory.
Of course no one can repeat the evolution of the horse. No one can "repeat" the orbit of Mercury either (it's just a tad too big). BUT, using incremental hypotheses and achievable tests, we can develop an understanding of the processes that control it. Then we can test our understanding by making quantitative predictions of what the orbit of Mercury will be in the future. Yay! We were right. And until the observations don't match the predictions, we'll stick with the theory. The same thing is possible in the study of genetics and natural selection; it's what students learn in Genetics and Evolutionary Biology classes.
You can't setup an experiment to show what did happen.
No, but you can set up experiments that can falsify your model of the processes by which it happened. Note that this is not possible in ID.
Even if one could show conclusively that a designer could exist, it would still not prove that one
This makes no sense. You can't prove "conclusively" that something "could" exist.
Look, the fact is the word "prove" doesn't even belong around a concept of a being that is supposedly powerful enough to shape the course of every detail of the entire biosphere in intelligent ways, whenever it wants, without any apparent physical mechanism. In the face of omnipotence, the human concept of "prove" holds no meaning.
And, I'm sad to say, none of it seems to be willing to consider falsifying evidence. This is the precise reason why Popper (more or less father of modern Philosophy of Science) rejected the notion that history could be scientific.
I totally do not understand this leap. Please explain how Popper's opinions on history bear on the study of phenomena and facts that are observable in the present.
ID only says that some systems, such as blood cloting, cannot evolve in small steps with modern understanding and must have been evolved in a unexplainable "leap" to it's current state.
No, that is what ID *proponents* say. It is the marketing they use to sell their "theory."
But irreducibly complex structures are not a theory, they are evidence, i.e. "facts" (or at least they would be if they in fact existed).
Theories describe processes, not facts. The "theory" of ID is that the process by which life develops is controlled by some "intelligence" rather than natural phenomena. "Irreducible structures" are one set of supposed "facts" that supposedly support the "theory" of ID.
In much the same way, damage from falling 10 meters is not what the theory of gravity "says." But when accurately and precisely measured, and compared against theoretical prediction, it can be evidence in support or contradiction of a specific theory of gravitation.
And thus we reach the fail point of ID. There is no way to objectively, accurately, and precisely measure "irreducible"--it is an interpretation not an observation. Put grammatically, it is an adjective not a noun.
If a metal ball deforms 3.56 cm upon impact from 10 m height--that is an observation. Calling a structure "irreducible" is not, in that further evidence could invalidate such a conclusion. There is no further evidence that can invalidate a measurement of 3.56 cm--it is what it is, and thus it is scientifically valid evidence.
True ID involves modern genetics, natural selection, and yes, fossils. It even allows evolution of modern humans over the ages. There are only a few systems affected by this irreducible complexity. Other than that, it has no issues or differences with evolution and modern science.
This shows such a fundamental misunderstanding of science I'm sure I can't correct it here. Let's just suffice to say that if you postulate any kind of intelligent designer you are NOT "involving" either modern genetics or natural selection--you are misinterpretting and bastardizing them for your own ends. Natural selection is the theory that the traits we observe in species today were both or either selected for or not selected against, by natural phenomena. Natural phenomena are those that can be incrementally and repeatably observed--i.e. birth, death, mutation, disease, etc. Further, they are reducable to base physical processes--cells don't just die, there are certain chemical reactions that fall out of balance and cease. Chemical reactions are controlled by quantum mechanics. A mysterious and unquantifiable intelligence is not observable, not repeatable, not incremental, and not reducable to any base physical processes. Effectively is sits outside observable nature--thus it is "supernatural" not natural.
Further, because science is a study of processes, not facts, you cannot "involve" theories. You can't pick and choose which "systems" are affected by your ID "theory." Either the process is wholly natural or it is not--all facts must conform to one or the other theories--theories cannot coexist. Science is not politics--contradictory ideologies cannot be logically tolerated. Either Newton or Einstein is right about gravity; it can't be both and it can't be piecemeal. One theory must explain the range of related phenomena--not some here and some there. It literally makes no scientific sense to say that that only "some" systems are "affected" by ID, or that ID "involves" genetics and natural selection.
Evolution and intelligent design are NOT mutually exclusive.
You can yell all you want, but you obviously don't understand what you're shouting about.
Great! If you could just bolt this 40kg ball of high-temp stainless steel to your comm/maneuvering package, we should be all set. Just let me know the sequence for deorbit; I'll take care of the targetting myself.
Intelligent design argues (or attempts to argue) from scientific evidence, that evolution is not a sufficient explanation for different species without some sort of guiding force.
Until you can describe, in precise, technical, repeatable detail, HOW such force guided evolution, ID is at its base no different than creationism. Both require the pre-existence of an all-powerful being, who through some all-powerful but mysterious mechanism (noodly appendage?) shaped (i.e. created) life as we know it today.
Whether it took 6 days, 6000 years, or 600 million years, if some all-powerful force shaped the development of life, it is a creationist story, as it involves a Creator. How long it took is simply an attribute of the main story.
I said it before and I'll say it again--ID and fundamentalist proponents would like NOTHING MORE than for the nation to think they are two separate schools of thought. Why? Because the nation has thoroughly and completely rejected the literal interpretation of the Bible, and the only way ID has any chance is if it is completely disassociated from the failure of fundamentalist literalism. Sorry, but we see through the sheep's clothing of science lingo, to the same old tired wolf within.
The fundamentalist belief (to which I hold) is not compatible with ID. These are two entirely separate paradigms.
Boy the ID folks would really, really, really like the nation to believe that, but sorry, we can see a pig, smell a pig, and know a pig even if the farmer calls it a chicken.
For reference, ID embraces pretty much the same things as the so-called independent thinking scientists, except for having a cause.
No, what ID says is that species we see today were designed into their current shape by an intelligent force. This is functionally the same message as Genesis, and about as far from modern theories of genetics and natural selection as you can get. The only thing ID has in common with real biological science is one slice of the data set--current life. ID proponents don't even recognize the validity of the fossil record.
Fundamentalists (again, that's me) hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis.
That is truly amazing, I had no idea so many Americans had developed the skill to read and understand ancient Hebrew. Or didn't you know that when you read an English Bible you're holding to a literal interpretation of some other human's translation and interpretation of the Bible? Didn't you know that the Bible was culled, edited, and assembled from source texts by humans?
If you want to lambaste one of the causes, please choose the appropriate one. Or at least make a distinction. Thanks.
Nope, not going to take that bait. It doesn't take a whole lot of critical thinking to see that that is exactly what the fondest dreams of the ID and fundamentalist communities are.
ID is being pushed now simply because the fundamentalist belief in the literal Bible has so thoroughly been rejected by American society. It's never taken hold and it never will--science is too important to America's success and power.
Even those who claim to hew the closest to the belief undercut themselves on a daily basis...how many fundamentalists in this country have ever taken an antibiotic? Received a flu shot? Received treatment for cancer? Answered a doctor's questions about their family medical history?
True fundamentalism demands avoidance of modern medicine and treatments; for did not the Lord create us in his image, and will he not provide for us when we are in need?
ID is nothing more that the fundamentalist belief in a literal act of designed creation by God, prettied up in the wrapper of scientific lingo.
Widescreen provides more room for palettes and sidebars, which are major part of the UI in pretty much any creative program. They were originally designed to sit on top of the canvas, and some people still use them that way. But more often they are just stuck to one edge of the screen, and on a normal-aspect monitor they can limit the width of the canvas.
As an example, my 14" iBook, at its highest resolution setting, cannot fit both an 800 pixel-width canvas and the Photoshop or Dreamweaver sidebars on the monitor at the same time. There is a small but annoying side-scroll bar for the canvas in both programs.
On the Mac, even Word uses palettes, so a wider screen view would benefit most everyone.
The lesson here, is that the constitution is no guarantee of our liberty.
The Constitution has never promised perfect preemptive protection of our liberties. It sets out what the government can and cannot do, but it's up to the citizens of the nation to apply that.
Freedom ultimately depends on the will of people to demand and enforce limits on government's continuous attempts to expand its power.
Exactly. The U.S. is the land of freedom and responsbility, not nanny protection. If we don't like something about our government, it's up to us to challenge it. The Constitution and the U.S. Code sets the structure and processes by which we do it. Think of it as codified revolution--you're changing the government but instead of guns the weapons are communication and lawyers.
I am a mechanical Turk you insensitive clods!!
If you do this, then you are deliberately disabling a copy protection system, which is illegal under the DMCA. So Sony can sue you.
Wrong. You are not disabling it, you are removing it.
The DMCA prohibits breaking digital encryption or protections that are in place to protect data from being freely accessed and distributed.
Software on your computer is neither encryption nor protection; it is a program. As long as you don't break or alter that program, you can add or remove it from your computer all you want. Adding or removing a program is not breaking it, as the capabilities the program provides are added or removed at the same time.
It's only when you alter the program, or design a new program that circumvents its protections to gain free access to the content that you tread on the DMCA.
My computer has a DVD player program that it shipped with. Do you really think it is a violation of the DMCA for me to remove this program from my computer?? Hint: it's not.
In a free market system the consumer chooses what they will pay for, and the onus is on the company to make the numbers work. If they cannot, they go under.
I can't emphasize this enough--uncompetitive companies must go under for the free market to operate efficiently. Propping up an aging, uncompetitive company hurts consumers--through poor service, high prices, and slowed economic growth.
In point of fact there might not BE any way for SBC to reconcile their fixed costs and the new consumer expectations of fixed connectivity pricing. So be it--that's life.
SBC/AT&T could go under tomorrow and the world would go on. Either: they would declare bankruptcy and write off debt and renegotiate union contracts, thereby lowering fixed costs, OR some other more competitive company would purchase their assets, employees, and customer lists, and provide service more efficiently. It would messy for a while, but when is any change neat, even if it's badly needed?
SBC/AT&T is welcome to do their best to get return on their investment. But the burden is on them to make it work, not on us.
I can't think of any better way to drive away business.
Business customers will wonder whether their upstream bandwidth will be held hostage by SBC if they become too successful.
Consumer customers will wonder if their access to online services will be disrupted by an upstream b2b rate dispute.
Lawyers salivate at either prospect.
Jobs is just a guy that has a decent eye for design (according to many people) who also quite fortuitously happened to be rich. As a result he runs a company that pays a lot of attention to design (which is rare in the US, for some reason). This is all very nice, but do not expect the next new thing in technology to come from him.
You're either poorly informed or willfully avoiding the facts of the story...Jobs wasn't always rich. He got rich because the company he helped start, and that he ran for years (Apple Computer), actually did usher in the next new thing in technology--the home computer.
Not to mention the whole Pixar thing...anyone remember the movie that kicked computer animation over the top? Toy Story, by Pixar--CEO Steve Jobs.
Jobs is not the second coming of Christ, but he's not some schlub either. He's one of the few people in the country whose start-up has survived for over 30 years and grown into one of the largest and most influential companies in the world in their market segment. Apple is a success story along the lines of FedEx (another startup gone huge).
Now his company is the second to successfully transition from computer to consumer electronics, with the iPod. This is what every computer maker wants to do, but only Apple and one other has done it with such success...how many people are buying Gateway or Dell TVs, stereos, or personal music players?
That's right, the second...who can guess the first? Sorry Jobs, it was Microsoft, with the X-box.
That is the whole point of "2001," in particular the final section, "Beyond the Infinite."
Kubrick is the only filmmaker who really got the concept of alien contact--ALIEN contact--in his gut. Contact with an alien intelligence, particularly a more advanced one, would be utterly confusing to us. Even the concept and structure of "intelligence" or "technology" is likely to be so alien as to be completely incomprehensible.
2001 is a brilliant movie because it is the only movie in which the audience experiences that first-hand...the movie watcher is thrust into the same overwhelming experience the characters are, with the same utter lack of explanation or exposition. In that respect it is probably the MOST realistic alien encounter movie made.
It is a movie about an alien experience that is, itself, an alien experience. It's the ultimate expression of the "show don't tell" maxim of story making. Its supreme achievement is that it makes such an experience watchable and enjoyable.
In his version of the story, the book "2001", Clarke was hampered by the limits of the medium...he had to tell--it's writing. The only science fiction novel I've read that compares to the movie experience of "2001" is another Clarke book: the original "Rendezvous with Rama." Again the entire experience is detailed, with no explanation forthcoming or even possible (this is why the subsequent books were such a huge dissappointment).
Too many movie fans want to be *told* amazing things. That's why "Contact" was so popular, and is consistently held up as a good science fiction movie. It tells you in clear exposition all the amazing things that are happening, and it wraps it all neatly up in the end.
Ultimately most movie are deeply plot driven--they get you to empathize with a character, then they explain what happens to that character in the course of the story. Most filmmakers do not like to keep the audience in the dark, unless it is to set them up for a big "reveal."
Kubrick was so great because he simply put the viewer into the experience and didn't bother to explain it. That's why his movies are often considered disturbing, and why they stick with you. And 2001 was his best, as it tackles a completely unknown and utterly foreign subject matter that way, and still succeeds.
How will Google keep people from uploading spam and flooding the system? Give people that much power over what lives in your system and see what happens. The status of Blogger is instructive.
Now we know why Bono wanted to meet with the President last week.
Very low frequency, actually. It doesn't ping, it booms. It is for very long-range detection, so it is low-frequency, and it is very very loud. This is not about pinging for a final firing solution. It is sonar that they hope can find subs hundreds of miles away. It is a strategic, not a tactical, tool, and it is new...unless you are still actively involved with sonar development you likely did not work with the technology that is the subject of the suit.
Calls to the General Products Corporation have not been returned.
Maybe tech writers use Macs because they are attuned to the details of technology, and they have a budget to buy them.
Apple gets a lot of coverage right now because a) they have new products to cover right now, b) they have a history of important innovation, c) they are one of the largest computer makers in the world, and d) they are succeeding at a strategy that all computer makers are trying--transitioning to a large consumer electronics company.
I was in a hurry writing that.