When I first started coding (early 80s) it was on a mainframe which could only be accessed via the computer lab. Everyone closely guarded their user accounts, but when we compiled our programs, it generated a listing on a central printer. You would submit your program for compilation, then go hang out at the printer waiting for it to appear. Typically, a student would glance at the listing, note the compilation error, then toss the listing in the trash.
It wasn't long before the more clueless, or lazier students figured out that they could get pretty far ahead in their projects by rifling through the trash bin and pulling out another student's listing which (mostly) worked.
Those of us actually doing the work had no clue that this was going on because it was not unusual for someone to be digging through the trash bin for one of their own previous listings.
I learned about this "dumpster diving" practice when one of my professors warned me that another student had copied my work almost verbatim. Fortunately this prof knew me and my "style" well enough to figure out what was going on. After that, I saved all my listings and only trashed them later off site.
My point is that cheating like this among student coders is nothing new. There are always a few who are unable to make it on their own merits.
I'm concerned that placing too much trust in such a model-less paradigm is dangerous. Why? There could be several reasons. Data can be artificially manipulated, for example. This can cause us to draw erroneous conclusions, and consequently, to make poor decisions. I would still want to know "why".
There is one reason, and one reason only that Microsoft is the size they are today: The MS-DOS deal with IBM. It was a pretty good, inexpensive operating system; easy to develop for; and businesses were clamoring for PC's. The extreme popularity of the combination of an IBM PC (or compatible); MS-DOS; and Lotus-123 put Microsoft in the position to become the behemoth it is today.
All this talk about innovation or bringing business and engineering together is just absolute bullshit.
I am speaking metaphorically, of course. What I have in mind is someone like Newton, who could perceive of gravity, and had to basically invent the mathematics (calculus) to prove it. Gravity was Newton's "dragon in the garage". Something he could "see", but others couldn't.
This book did instill an advanced "see it to believe it" mentality on me and I thank Sagan for that.
I haven't read the book, so I can't really comment on it, but one must be careful with such a "see it to believe it" mentality. It can force people to restrict their thinking to "inside the box". This is why I say skepticism is just a starting point. Though we may be skeptical, we must not shut down, but continue to be open-minded, and allow for thinking outside the box. Because sometimes there really is a dragon in the garage.
One thing that needs to be taught is that being skeptical is not the same as an argument. It's fine to have a hunch that an idea is bad, wrong, or won't work, but it's only a starting point. Too many people believe that their work ends at being skeptical. Such "skeptics" are among the most closed minded people in society.
I would like to emphasize that I am decidedly NOT trying to be anti-scientific. The experiment is interesting. I am sure to a micro-biologist it is quite exciting.
If I were one of the scientists involved, I would want to do further experimentation to determine whether the mutation occurred purely by chance, or if there were some cause behind the effect. Indeed the article indicates that this is what they are doing, and was much of the reason for freezing various generations of the bacteria in order to determine at what point they changed, and (I assume) perhaps determine if something can be pointed at to cause the change.
For instance: if change occurs always in the same generation, I would think that would actually point away from random chance mutation, and towards some as yet unknown cause.
If we throw all philosophical bickering aside, and stick to pure science, this research could be very significant for a variety of reasons. I think it is unfortunate that they could not simply report their findings without sniping at creationists.
And I am not sure that you have read the article either.
Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. (emphasis mine)
That meant the "citrate-plus" trait must have been something special
This indicates that the E. coli still metabolize glucose just as before, only now they also metabolize citrate. They are still the same bacteria as before.
The C+ difference is only one of the traits used to differentiate E. coli from another species. But by stating that it is a different species, they are redefining the term to fit their agenda. I will show later why I call it an agenda rather than a hypothesis.
The article goes on to say, Lenski's experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. "The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events," he says. "That's just what creationists say can't happen."
Now, I will concede that Jerry Coyne, quoted above, may have nothing to do with Lenski's experiement, but it does appear to indicate that whoever performed the experiment had an philosophical agenda, i.e., to "poke the eyes" of creationists.
So, based on a thorough reading of the article, I stand by my arguments:
1. There was an agenda as well as a scientific hypothesis. (If not, why the crack about creationists?)
2. Terms were redefined to fit the experiment to the agenda.
My arguments are not ironic. I am not presenting a straw man argument. I am not saying that the experimenters did not prove evolution. Indeed, evolution of the sort that this experiment indicates is a real phenomenon. But their use of this experiment to disprove creation (which is a philosophy, and not a science) is a straw man argument, because they redefine the terms to fit their philosophical agenda.
I've read TFA a couple of times now, and with each reading I become less impressed. Based on the experimenters' statements, it appears the experiment is based on an agenda. They've defined "species" to mean what they want it to mean, then created an experiment to fit that definition. Then announce that they've knocked out creationism. This is a classic straw man argument. It is not convincing.
The one I did a while back matches pretty close to the one in TFA. One of the main differences is that I predict Missouri will go to Obama, and New Mexico will go to McCain.
Now that is something I can agree with. This research is pretty exciting if you narrow it down to the study of how and why bacteria mutate. It could lead to treatment that controls or destroys harmful bacteria, improving health care, for example.
Even if they have mutated into a different "species" they haven't really "evolved" into something radically different. They are still the same bacteria, still capable of metabolizing glucose. They've just added citrate to their diet. It could be that they've always had the ability to metabolize citrate, but simply didn't do so before for some reason.
Actually, the more I think about it, the less impressed I am. Do we delineate species based on their metabolism? I can no longer metabolize carbohydrates properly (diabetic). Does that make me a different species now?
Even if they have mutated into a different "species" they haven't really "evolved" into something radically different. They are still the same bacteria, still capable of metabolizing glucose. They've just added citrate to their diet. It could be that they've always had the ability to metabolize citrate, but simply didn't do so before for some reason.
I am not a creationist in the sense that you probably think of, but you need to understand that many creationists have investigated evolution, and have found it wanting. I certainly have, and I also find it wanting. While I find this experiment interesting, and believe that this research is important, and will give us very useful knowledge, I do not find it very convincing as an argument for me to completely shift my philosophy.
The point I'm making is that the moniker "species" is a purely subjective term. From what I read, the bacteria have simply changed their diet. Apparently bacteria are assigned species based on what they eat. Well, I changed my diet too, about two years ago, and I've lost 100lbs. Does that mean I'm a different species too?
And even if they have mutated into a different "species" they haven't really "evolved" into something radically different. They are still the same bacteria, still capable of metabolizing glucose. They've just added citrate to their diet. It could be that they've always had the ability to metabolize citrate, but simply didn't do so before for some reason.
No. However, for starters the word "species" is rather subjective. Simply calling an organism a unique species doesn't make it one. But even given that, I would want to ask if we can know, without a doubt, that these new traits never existed in any form. Or were they just "repressed". It still looks like micro evolution to me.
Don't get me wrong. It's very interesting research, and I hope it will lead to further research.
Creationists believe that one species doesn't evolve into another. These bacteria are still bacteria. They just evolved different traits. They didn't evolve into multi-celled organisms. Frankly, I don't see how this is even very big news. We know that bacteria do this sort of thing all the time. In fact so does all of life.
Not really. They're still bacteria. Obviously bacteria can evolve different traits. All of life does that. Now, if they had evolved into multi-cell life forms, that would be big news.
I think the answer to the question, "Is Google making us stupid?" is yes, and no.
I find that, as a moderately intelligent person, Google, and the internet in general, greatly facilitates and speeds my ability to research information, and organize my thoughts, on subjects which interest me. So, yes, for the thinking person, Google can make you "smarter".
For the non-thinking person, Google, and the rest of the internet, allows them to quickly ascend new heights of stupidity. This really can't be helped, but the problem is no different now than it has been in the past with any other emerging information technology.
Slashdot Mirror
When I first started coding (early 80s) it was on a mainframe which could only be accessed via the computer lab. Everyone closely guarded their user accounts, but when we compiled our programs, it generated a listing on a central printer. You would submit your program for compilation, then go hang out at the printer waiting for it to appear. Typically, a student would glance at the listing, note the compilation error, then toss the listing in the trash.
It wasn't long before the more clueless, or lazier students figured out that they could get pretty far ahead in their projects by rifling through the trash bin and pulling out another student's listing which (mostly) worked.
Those of us actually doing the work had no clue that this was going on because it was not unusual for someone to be digging through the trash bin for one of their own previous listings.
I learned about this "dumpster diving" practice when one of my professors warned me that another student had copied my work almost verbatim. Fortunately this prof knew me and my "style" well enough to figure out what was going on. After that, I saved all my listings and only trashed them later off site.
My point is that cheating like this among student coders is nothing new. There are always a few who are unable to make it on their own merits.
I'm concerned that placing too much trust in such a model-less paradigm is dangerous. Why? There could be several reasons. Data can be artificially manipulated, for example. This can cause us to draw erroneous conclusions, and consequently, to make poor decisions. I would still want to know "why".
"Two minutes... get your shit together..."
May he rest in peace.
There is one reason, and one reason only that Microsoft is the size they are today: The MS-DOS deal with IBM. It was a pretty good, inexpensive operating system; easy to develop for; and businesses were clamoring for PC's. The extreme popularity of the combination of an IBM PC (or compatible); MS-DOS; and Lotus-123 put Microsoft in the position to become the behemoth it is today.
All this talk about innovation or bringing business and engineering together is just absolute bullshit.
You would be in good company too. Plenty of famous practitioners of critical thinking and logic believed in God. Pascal, Newton, Franklin...
I am speaking metaphorically, of course. What I have in mind is someone like Newton, who could perceive of gravity, and had to basically invent the mathematics (calculus) to prove it. Gravity was Newton's "dragon in the garage". Something he could "see", but others couldn't.
This book did instill an advanced "see it to believe it" mentality on me and I thank Sagan for that.
I haven't read the book, so I can't really comment on it, but one must be careful with such a "see it to believe it" mentality. It can force people to restrict their thinking to "inside the box". This is why I say skepticism is just a starting point. Though we may be skeptical, we must not shut down, but continue to be open-minded, and allow for thinking outside the box. Because sometimes there really is a dragon in the garage.
One thing that needs to be taught is that being skeptical is not the same as an argument. It's fine to have a hunch that an idea is bad, wrong, or won't work, but it's only a starting point. Too many people believe that their work ends at being skeptical. Such "skeptics" are among the most closed minded people in society.
Thank you, smallfries.
I would like to emphasize that I am decidedly NOT trying to be anti-scientific. The experiment is interesting. I am sure to a micro-biologist it is quite exciting.
If I were one of the scientists involved, I would want to do further experimentation to determine whether the mutation occurred purely by chance, or if there were some cause behind the effect. Indeed the article indicates that this is what they are doing, and was much of the reason for freezing various generations of the bacteria in order to determine at what point they changed, and (I assume) perhaps determine if something can be pointed at to cause the change.
For instance: if change occurs always in the same generation, I would think that would actually point away from random chance mutation, and towards some as yet unknown cause.
If we throw all philosophical bickering aside, and stick to pure science, this research could be very significant for a variety of reasons. I think it is unfortunate that they could not simply report their findings without sniping at creationists.
And I am not sure that you have read the article either.
Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. (emphasis mine)
That meant the "citrate-plus" trait must have been something special
This indicates that the E. coli still metabolize glucose just as before, only now they also metabolize citrate. They are still the same bacteria as before.
The C+ difference is only one of the traits used to differentiate E. coli from another species. But by stating that it is a different species, they are redefining the term to fit their agenda. I will show later why I call it an agenda rather than a hypothesis.
The article goes on to say, Lenski's experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. "The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events," he says. "That's just what creationists say can't happen."
Now, I will concede that Jerry Coyne, quoted above, may have nothing to do with Lenski's experiement, but it does appear to indicate that whoever performed the experiment had an philosophical agenda, i.e., to "poke the eyes" of creationists.
So, based on a thorough reading of the article, I stand by my arguments:
1. There was an agenda as well as a scientific hypothesis. (If not, why the crack about creationists?)
2. Terms were redefined to fit the experiment to the agenda.
My arguments are not ironic. I am not presenting a straw man argument. I am not saying that the experimenters did not prove evolution. Indeed, evolution of the sort that this experiment indicates is a real phenomenon. But their use of this experiment to disprove creation (which is a philosophy, and not a science) is a straw man argument, because they redefine the terms to fit their philosophical agenda.
I've read TFA a couple of times now, and with each reading I become less impressed. Based on the experimenters' statements, it appears the experiment is based on an agenda. They've defined "species" to mean what they want it to mean, then created an experiment to fit that definition. Then announce that they've knocked out creationism. This is a classic straw man argument. It is not convincing.
DOH! Why did I have to include the word "yourself"? It's redundant anyway.
LOL, I deserve that.
NPR gives you a map you can play with yourself.
The one I did a while back matches pretty close to the one in TFA. One of the main differences is that I predict Missouri will go to Obama, and New Mexico will go to McCain.
I think the race is Obama's to lose.
Now that is something I can agree with. This research is pretty exciting if you narrow it down to the study of how and why bacteria mutate. It could lead to treatment that controls or destroys harmful bacteria, improving health care, for example.
The designation "species" is purely subjective.
Even if they have mutated into a different "species" they haven't really "evolved" into something radically different. They are still the same bacteria, still capable of metabolizing glucose. They've just added citrate to their diet. It could be that they've always had the ability to metabolize citrate, but simply didn't do so before for some reason.
Actually, the more I think about it, the less impressed I am. Do we delineate species based on their metabolism? I can no longer metabolize carbohydrates properly (diabetic). Does that make me a different species now?
Even if they have mutated into a different "species" they haven't really "evolved" into something radically different. They are still the same bacteria, still capable of metabolizing glucose. They've just added citrate to their diet. It could be that they've always had the ability to metabolize citrate, but simply didn't do so before for some reason.
I am not a creationist in the sense that you probably think of, but you need to understand that many creationists have investigated evolution, and have found it wanting. I certainly have, and I also find it wanting. While I find this experiment interesting, and believe that this research is important, and will give us very useful knowledge, I do not find it very convincing as an argument for me to completely shift my philosophy.
The point I'm making is that the moniker "species" is a purely subjective term. From what I read, the bacteria have simply changed their diet. Apparently bacteria are assigned species based on what they eat. Well, I changed my diet too, about two years ago, and I've lost 100lbs. Does that mean I'm a different species too?
And even if they have mutated into a different "species" they haven't really "evolved" into something radically different. They are still the same bacteria, still capable of metabolizing glucose. They've just added citrate to their diet. It could be that they've always had the ability to metabolize citrate, but simply didn't do so before for some reason.
I would call creationism a philosophy, and not subject to scientific testing. I am not a creationist in the sense that you are probably thinking of.
No. However, for starters the word "species" is rather subjective. Simply calling an organism a unique species doesn't make it one. But even given that, I would want to ask if we can know, without a doubt, that these new traits never existed in any form. Or were they just "repressed". It still looks like micro evolution to me.
Don't get me wrong. It's very interesting research, and I hope it will lead to further research.
So they are no longer bacteria? What are they then?
Creationists believe that one species doesn't evolve into another. These bacteria are still bacteria. They just evolved different traits. They didn't evolve into multi-celled organisms. Frankly, I don't see how this is even very big news. We know that bacteria do this sort of thing all the time. In fact so does all of life.
Actually the only reason it might be "stupid" is that creationists do not say that this type of evolution can't happen.
...sure to perplex and confound creationists...
Not really. They're still bacteria. Obviously bacteria can evolve different traits. All of life does that. Now, if they had evolved into multi-cell life forms, that would be big news.
Good observation. But I think E.M. Forster's The Machine Stops may be closer to the truth.
I think the answer to the question, "Is Google making us stupid?" is yes, and no.
I find that, as a moderately intelligent person, Google, and the internet in general, greatly facilitates and speeds my ability to research information, and organize my thoughts, on subjects which interest me. So, yes, for the thinking person, Google can make you "smarter".
For the non-thinking person, Google, and the rest of the internet, allows them to quickly ascend new heights of stupidity. This really can't be helped, but the problem is no different now than it has been in the past with any other emerging information technology.