The difference between the flagship AMD FX and the Intel EE is a full 28 seconds for video-enconding a sample video clip. I think these results are more pro-Intel than even the windows benchmarks.
Of course since AMD will hit back with 4x4, and Intel will surely follow up with Jet Propulsion, the only conclusion is: please move along. Nothing to see here.
P.S The photo of the processor is very funny. It's like a map of Egypt: civilisation on one side and desert for the rest. What's the empty area, electronics freaks?
What would be interesting is to see how easily you can destroy this device, and if it can be done quickly enough to be possible after a knock on the door and before you open to find the FBI outside. $260? Too much.
Of course they can. My argument (which is common knowledge) is that the reason significant DNA changes in that pool occur is not the predicatable and almost algorithmic genetic processes of meiosis and mitosis, but in the errors (mutations) induced by various environmental factors. This is what you CANNOT simulate.
As for Dawkins, I can't bring myself to read opinionated, agenda-driven BS while textbooks and libraries are available. And I can't believe you have the nerve to write back after simple wiki articles have shown your errors.
You can throw your kids at it, but can you play modern games on it with decent FPS without blurring/ghosting?
Plasmas are made for size, not geek features. LCDs are for the office to begin with, but I wouldn't call a 20 inch, 2ms gray-to-gray display low on features.
Yes. I think we practically agree on all points, although I was a little vague about the mutations leading to beneficial characteristics being necessary. You are right of course, sometimes no "favorable" change is induced in the offspring, which is why nature has so much variety. But the theory of survival/selection relies on the fact that changing conditions arbitrarily give mutated offspring an advantage (e.g denser muscle) and thus they survive while the predesecors die.
I think the single difference in opinion is on the probablistic interpretation of events. You have promoted the issue to philisophical abstraction, but I ( comp.science therefore math freak ) will not give up so easily!
The most significat of mutations may occur from the most subtle of physical events, events that are of truly random nature. While it is remotely possible to attain the same effect on DNA through several means, the chances of affecting an exclusive atom in the DNA more than once are again very very low. The physical (hence chemical and biological) state of any 10km sq bit of land is never repeated in any number of years. The factors are too many for that to happen. Not only do you have true randomness(hence meaninglessness) but the chance of repetition in combined physical state (mass, energy; radiation, electron velocity) is practically zilch even without number-theory reliance, as per pseudo-random generators.
On a higher level, the physical/chemical factors act on the instincts of already existing animals to produce a truly unique environment every second. While you may think that if we didn't exist, others would, the shocking truth is that maybe nothing would.
We have established that most mutation leads to failure - heck we didn't establish it, it's common knowledge. Now the probability of any single mutation occuring at a particular point in time is unknown(doesn't follow a distribution), but low. IF the tiny feature/group of features (say cell wall permeability) that allowed early single-celled creatures to survive, depended on a few mutations, a small chenge in the temperature of the environment would disrupt them. The temperature results from planetary weather and that depends on the fusion reactions in the sun at any moment. While some things stay relatively stable, a change of 1 degree celcius could have erased organic life from the face of the earth.
I have a question though (you're probably more up to date than me): has anyone sucessfully created a living cell from chemical reaction alone (no usage of existing cells)?
If I get too annoyed with you, I will report you, get a treceroute to your ISP and make life very difficult for you. I don't know why you hate me so much(religion?) and I don't care, but you are in serious need of a life.
Certainly, any programmer worth his salt could devise a not-so-easy and/or complicated routine to transform Rational Polar Equations back to the regular form, but that is no pat-on-the-back for Wildberger, rather it shows the counter-intuitive and flawed reason for using that coordinate framework.
Can someone please write a not-so-difficult and/or simple translation of the above paragraph? And why the crap did he have to mention the reasoning was counter-intuitive *if it was actually flawed*. Do you get extra points? What good would it do the reasing if it was intuitive if it was also flawed, genius?
Slashdot editors please think of the children. I'm going to bed.
Since you are raising my blood pressure (mostly due to the fact that you think I'm against evolution) I will have to direct you to wiki readings that may further your understanding of the issues at hand. Instead of pretending that you are in a position to judge my remarks, please educate yourself a little more on the issue and try to use your imagination. What you said about the "simulation" really gave it away.
A single animal cell evolved into an eye? Really? Do you know what mitosis is? Do you understand the difference between sexual and asexual reproduction, in terms of genetics alone (no mutation of genes involved)? I am not trying to offend you, but this time your remarks are funny. I didn't know eyes could reproduce. Or are you saying that an organism that sexually reproduces had a single cell that turned into an eye over 7000 life-cycles? I'm afraid I have wasted my time.
Now I may be inccurate in my usage of a term but you are wrong about everything. You are wrongabout the main driving force behind evolution(2nd paragraph), you are wrong about the probability of arbitrary mutation of genes being successful(3rd paragraph), and you are limiting your imagination to what you usually hear discussed in terms of looking for genes passed-down, rather than looking for how they came to be in the first place.
What's really driving me mad is that you seem quite intelligent, intelligent enough to understand that not so much as 1% difference in a species' DNA can be achieved by either mitosis or meiosis processes, without mutation. You have even said it yourself. You start of with rats, you only get rats. You may get different rats, bigger rats(with limits), differently colored rats(with limits), rats with longer legs; but you will never change phyla, let alone species. You can *never* get a donkey from interbreeding of horses without the occurance of a mutation. You can *never* get a sparrow from the interbreeding of different eagles, unless mutations occur. And of course I am using the concept of time in this. It is a favorite among blind darwinists, but to anyone with a remote understanding of biology, physics and probability, it makes no real difference. Meiosis happens in a very well defined process that can (as opposed to arbitrary mutation) be written down in code and simulated, even though it contains elements of randomness (this is why you cannot determine your "unique" genes beforehand). It doesn't matter if you simulate for eternity the life-cycles of an organism..some things are possible and some things aren't.
I am rather dissapointed that I will not be able to discuss with you more involved issues, because you cannot see even the elementary ones. I am always ready to learn and adapt, for in the end I know nothing.
Actually, we should take companies very seriously, and any proof we can have against claims they make - claims that can jeopardize our security - is fertile ground for lawsuits.
but Im gonna buy a PS3, and I now a bunch of not-so-rich guys who will. I hate Sony as a corporation(love their products), and the brand name price is starting to get a wee bit over the top, but I'm a goner this time. We'll probably go for the cheap option, and our reasons for throwing away $600 are simple:
The Games.
Konami makes amazing games. There are people willing to buy a PS3 for Metal Gear Solid 4 alone. The managers at Sony made a mistake with the price and are trying to be old-school with the controllers, but the games imprison our decisions. When WII games can promise the same quality, Sony will lose out for good, but the war is still on.
Note: Like everyone else, I agree the "analysis" is 100% pure cow manure.
I understand what you are saying(and heartfully agree mostly), so take it easy.
Your comment here:
The minor, minor changes to properties is introduced by mutations.
is exactly what I have been trying to say to you all this time. Of course the variation due to sexual reproduction is significant, and like you said can lead to different (and indeed unique) properties, but the gotcha is that it will never lead to evolution. You will of course get various and unique mice from your original sample, but you will never get weasels by reproduction alone.
For significant changes to your DNA to occur(1% or more), changes in cell structure and organisation, you need chromosomal mutation. Once again for the record: you cannot go from one species to another through meiosis alone. In fact, meiosis is quite boring in most respects. The real fun, as I said in my very first post, occurs in the impossible-to-simulate mutation of chromosomes before, during, and after meiosis. In fact, it happens in asexual reproduction as well. The reason you don't see mutation as a significant form of variation is that most of it is destructive (read other posts in this thread).
Evolution takes small steps, but they are the baby-with-an-extra-arm sort of steps, not the baby-with-stange-color-eyes sort. Now you were saying the "simulation" we argued about was of pure meiosis 7000 sequential times. And you said they produced a developed human eye, unless I misunderstood(again. maybe it has something to do with you?).
Good, ask him about the "most mutations are neutral" statement you just stated above, which I think is inaccurate.
Also, you are missing the main issue. We are not discussing heritable variation. The real changes that cause different phyla and species to come into existence are chromosomal mutations that occur because of breakdowns in DNA..etc. Most of this is molecular biology that has impacts on genetics, not simple mix and match as you seem to think.
Evolution is not about minor changes to properties. The complex structures existing in many animal and plant systems need significant variations to many cell types. When you said that the development of the eye for e.g, can be simulated, you had me very angry because the idea is laughable. If you have a solid background in physics and probability you will see why. The mutations that form an important part of development happen at the molecular level. To determine how they happen you need to understand the environment at the molecular level, which requires an unquantifiable amount of information. It is impossible (not hard but impossible) to model a 10km radius of wildlife at this level of detail, and produce accurate output.
Besides, if you can trace the past 7000 generations, what about the next 7000? Shouldn't you be able to do that with a free saturday morning and your trusty old Mac?
The arguments for giving 5 year olds a phone are not even funny. You have to raise your kids to take care of themselves. What do you mean they can call when they need help? Help doin what? The only thing I can think of is if they're running away from a gang of murderers, and thats just bad luck cuz you can't dial when you're doing that.
If your kids are lost or have been robbed or are unhappy they can
a) Find a f*ing police officer b) If they can't find a f*ing police officer, find a f*ing phone booth c) if !(a || b) find open grocery store, library..etc, run inside and tell someone important that they are lost and need to phone home. d) get on a f*ing bus and go home.
Raise you kids right. They can't have everything. Our civilisation is going to ruin because of the we are raising our kids. The world hates us, companies are charging us $600 for consoles..let's get a grip on things ok?
You mean the MMS protocol. As a developer who once had to design a distributed media server based on Helix, I couldn't care less. You can accomplish most things by packet sniffing if you really want to, but if you sniff MMS packets you will never sniff again.
The protocol is terrible.
RTSP, which is the open standard, is far better for your health. You can stream windows media content with RTSP.
You're a kind soul. I'd buy pet scorpions and plenty of natural fertiliser. Also, there's no law against having make-believe grendades and expended munitions buried in your yard. I'd give em a show, I would.
Ah, more misunderstandings yet! I have also "read the books" because of my studies, including the relationship of probabliity theory with our argument above. I'm not attacking anything. Just making a statmenent about the significance of arbitrary DNA mutation in the classical evolution of scpecies, and how realitic the classical theories are.
Your correction actually makes things worse. While accusing me of using arrogant perceptions, you are quoting "simulations" that have no way of presenting the state of the universe (hence the environment) on 7000 instances in time, even if certain aspects were kept constant.
As for the half-million years, let us assume you are right. Let us assume that 7000 generations (strange estimate; the possiblilities for the shape, size, texture,chemical structure..etc of a single tissue, say the iris, exceed this)are enough to develop a single organ like the eye. Do you comprehend the number of mostly unrelated universal factors that are required to trigger the needed mutation at each stage? Because the probability of these factors combining in that delicate manner once is itself very small. Now take that to the power of 7000. For one organ in one species, on a planet where the same factors are shaping all other mutations as well.
The selection part of evolution is quite simple, and does not warrant such a long explanation!
You are right of course: the new genes will remain part of the new population as long as they are non-harmful, but the point is that the older specimens usually die out as a result of the new mutation/groups of mutations being (coincidentally)crucial to the survival of the specimen under new (mostly random)environmental conditions.
For simple cell gene mutations that cause one aspect of size, shape or other property to change(like eye tissue properties, giraffe's neck), we can say things are plausible. But for significant changes in cell organisation that occur in the same random manner, probabilities are very low, because some mutations need to occur together in order to be non-destructive. This is why we cannot reproduce but the tiniest evolutionary steps in a lab. For example, scientists have been able to mutate bacterial cell-wall thickness by articfical environmental methods and intense reproduction (thousands of specimens are produced every minute). This is for a very specific and simple change.
Significant "designs" like an iris held by muscles, and protected by a coronea involving fluids which have to have certain properties, a lens held by another set of ciliary muscles and comprised of a unique tissue/fluid sturcture, all of this to focus light on a retina... you get the picture. With settings like these, there are no second chances. If the fluid had a different refractive index or the ciliary muscles were not well developed or the vitrous fluid had a different ph value, eyesight goes down the drain. A lot of major cell types have to form together (even if some properties can be flexible) in order to provide a non-harmful change, let alone a perfectly functional change that is unmatched by our own engineered products.
The person who believes in completely random evolution as thus, puts himself in a very scary position. The wind blows south due to planetary positions on a given day. The smell of prey reaches a predator. The predator searches for food but finds better options on the way. The "options" run into new dwelling, the dwelling has slightly different enviroments. The temperature causes a change in the DNA of the prey specimen during reproductive stages, which causes their IRIS muscles to be malformed. The slit-eyed cat is born, and is better able to defend and feed in the new dwelling, hence outliving the others.
Do you see how wild a ride this is? The same cat must also undergo similar mutations/coincidences for every single feature that makes it suitable to the desert, and these events must happen at the same time that the billions of other species are developing on the same planet.
I am saying that if we rewind and play, replicating the perfection that is nature will be virtually impossible.
40 times? Apparently you didn't read both my comments and the parent's. The number and variety of different cell tissue in the eye that comprise its various structures number in the hundreds, if not thousands. 40 steps means scores of successful mutations each time, and all of them leading to a more advantageous position in nature. Probability? Very very small.
And that's just the eye. It was only giving an example.
As for "hard science", you are again mistaken. He may suggest phases based on empirical evidence, but the actual mutation that causes the significant change in one or more cell types is never replicated.
SO..not a single distributed OS is mentioned? A true dist.OS is able to treat networked resources(including CPU) as shared among a group of nodes that have no global clock. Distributed computing is one the gretest human achievements. I believe Solaris was one of the first, but there are others used by IBM.
And one other thing, the Java Virtual Machine (and the compiler) is the software, not the "Java language" as he stated.
Slashdot Mirror
The difference between the flagship AMD FX and the Intel EE is a full 28 seconds for video-enconding a sample video clip. I think these results are more pro-Intel than even the windows benchmarks.
Of course since AMD will hit back with 4x4, and Intel will surely follow up with Jet Propulsion, the only conclusion is: please move along. Nothing to see here.
P.S The photo of the processor is very funny. It's like a map of Egypt: civilisation on one side and desert for the rest. What's the empty area, electronics freaks?
What would be interesting is to see how easily you can destroy this device, and if it can be done quickly enough to be possible after a knock on the door and before you open to find the FBI outside. $260? Too much.
Species can occur from a single breeding pool
Of course they can. My argument (which is common knowledge) is that the reason significant DNA changes in that pool occur is not the predicatable and almost algorithmic genetic processes of meiosis and mitosis, but in the errors (mutations) induced by various environmental factors. This is what you CANNOT simulate.
As for Dawkins, I can't bring myself to read opinionated, agenda-driven BS while textbooks and libraries are available. And I can't believe you have the nerve to write back after simple wiki articles have shown your errors.
I envy you. You must be on the PETA blacklist, something I've been trying to get on for the past few years. I don't know why they like me.
You can throw your kids at it, but can you play modern games on it with decent FPS without blurring/ghosting?
Plasmas are made for size, not geek features. LCDs are for the office to begin with, but I wouldn't call a 20 inch, 2ms gray-to-gray display low on features.
But like others have said, DLP might win.
It's
All your base are belong to us!
Please watch your grammar.
Yes. I think we practically agree on all points, although I was a little vague about the mutations leading to beneficial characteristics being necessary. You are right of course, sometimes no "favorable" change is induced in the offspring, which is why nature has so much variety. But the theory of survival/selection relies on the fact that changing conditions arbitrarily give mutated offspring an advantage (e.g denser muscle) and thus they survive while the predesecors die.
I think the single difference in opinion is on the probablistic interpretation of events. You have promoted the issue to philisophical abstraction, but I ( comp.science therefore math freak ) will not give up so easily!
The most significat of mutations may occur from the most subtle of physical events, events that are of truly random nature. While it is remotely possible to attain the same effect on DNA through several means, the chances of affecting an exclusive atom in the DNA more than once are again very very low. The physical (hence chemical and biological) state of any 10km sq bit of land is never repeated in any number of years. The factors are too many for that to happen. Not only do you have true randomness(hence meaninglessness) but the chance of repetition in combined physical state (mass, energy; radiation, electron velocity) is practically zilch even without number-theory reliance, as per pseudo-random generators.
On a higher level, the physical/chemical factors act on the instincts of already existing animals to produce a truly unique environment every second. While you may think that if we didn't exist, others would, the shocking truth is that maybe nothing would.
We have established that most mutation leads to failure - heck we didn't establish it, it's common knowledge. Now the probability of any single mutation occuring at a particular point in time is unknown(doesn't follow a distribution), but low. IF the tiny feature/group of features (say cell wall permeability) that allowed early single-celled creatures to survive, depended on a few mutations, a small chenge in the temperature of the environment would disrupt them. The temperature results from planetary weather and that depends on the fusion reactions in the sun at any moment. While some things stay relatively stable, a change of 1 degree celcius could have erased organic life from the face of the earth.
I have a question though (you're probably more up to date than me): has anyone sucessfully created a living cell from chemical reaction alone (no usage of existing cells)?
If I get too annoyed with you, I will report you, get a treceroute to your ISP and make life very difficult for you. I don't know why you hate me so much(religion?) and I don't care, but you are in serious need of a life.
No Vista/Duke Nuke Forever comments?
Come on people. It's saturday.
Correction:
What good would it do the reasoning to be intuitive if it were also flawed?
Sorry
Can someone please write a not-so-difficult and/or simple translation of the above paragraph? And why the crap did he have to mention the reasoning was counter-intuitive *if it was actually flawed*. Do you get extra points? What good would it do the reasing if it was intuitive if it was also flawed, genius?
Slashdot editors please think of the children. I'm going to bed.
Since you are raising my blood pressure (mostly due to the fact that you think I'm against evolution) I will have to direct you to wiki readings that may further your understanding of the issues at hand. Instead of pretending that you are in a position to judge my remarks, please educate yourself a little more on the issue and try to use your imagination. What you said about the "simulation" really gave it away.
A single animal cell evolved into an eye? Really? Do you know what mitosis is? Do you understand the difference between sexual and asexual reproduction, in terms of genetics alone (no mutation of genes involved)? I am not trying to offend you, but this time your remarks are funny. I didn't know eyes could reproduce. Or are you saying that an organism that sexually reproduces had a single cell that turned into an eye over 7000 life-cycles? I'm afraid I have wasted my time.
Now I may be inccurate in my usage of a term but you are wrong about everything. You are wrongabout the main driving force behind evolution(2nd paragraph), you are wrong about the probability of arbitrary mutation of genes being successful(3rd paragraph), and you are limiting your imagination to what you usually hear discussed in terms of looking for genes passed-down, rather than looking for how they came to be in the first place.
What's really driving me mad is that you seem quite intelligent, intelligent enough to understand that not so much as 1% difference in a species' DNA can be achieved by either mitosis or meiosis processes, without mutation. You have even said it yourself.
You start of with rats, you only get rats. You may get different rats, bigger rats(with limits), differently colored rats(with limits), rats with longer legs; but you will never change phyla, let alone species. You can *never* get a donkey from interbreeding of horses without the occurance of a mutation. You can *never* get a sparrow from the interbreeding of different eagles, unless mutations occur. And of course I am using the concept of time in this. It is a favorite among blind darwinists, but to anyone with a remote understanding of biology, physics and probability, it makes no real difference. Meiosis happens in a very well defined process that can (as opposed to arbitrary mutation) be written down in code and simulated, even though it contains elements of randomness (this is why you cannot determine your "unique" genes beforehand). It doesn't matter if you simulate for eternity the life-cycles of an organism..some things are possible and some things aren't.
I am rather dissapointed that I will not be able to discuss with you more involved issues, because you cannot see even the elementary ones. I am always ready to learn and adapt, for in the end I know nothing.
I hope you see where you went wrong.
-A
Actually, we should take companies very seriously, and any proof we can have against claims they make - claims that can jeopardize our security - is fertile ground for lawsuits.
but Im gonna buy a PS3, and I now a bunch of not-so-rich guys who will. I hate Sony as a corporation(love their products), and the brand name price is starting to get a wee bit over the top, but I'm a goner this time. We'll probably go for the cheap option, and our reasons for throwing away $600 are simple:
The Games.
Konami makes amazing games. There are people willing to buy a PS3 for Metal Gear Solid 4 alone. The managers at Sony made a mistake with the price and are trying to be old-school with the controllers, but the games imprison our decisions. When WII games can promise the same quality, Sony will lose out for good, but the war is still on.
Note: Like everyone else, I agree the "analysis" is 100% pure cow manure.
Your comment here:
is exactly what I have been trying to say to you all this time. Of course the variation due to sexual reproduction is significant, and like you said can lead to different (and indeed unique) properties, but the gotcha is that it will never lead to evolution. You will of course get various and unique mice from your original sample, but you will never get weasels by reproduction alone.
For significant changes to your DNA to occur(1% or more), changes in cell structure and organisation, you need chromosomal mutation. Once again for the record: you cannot go from one species to another through meiosis alone. In fact, meiosis is quite boring in most respects. The real fun, as I said in my very first post, occurs in the impossible-to-simulate mutation of chromosomes before, during, and after meiosis. In fact, it happens in asexual reproduction as well. The reason you don't see mutation as a significant form of variation is that most of it is destructive (read other posts in this thread).
Evolution takes small steps, but they are the baby-with-an-extra-arm sort of steps, not the baby-with-stange-color-eyes sort. Now you were saying the "simulation" we argued about was of pure meiosis 7000 sequential times. And you said they produced a developed human eye, unless I misunderstood(again. maybe it has something to do with you?).
My question now is, what did they start off with?
Good, ask him about the "most mutations are neutral" statement you just stated above, which I think is inaccurate.
Also, you are missing the main issue. We are not discussing heritable variation. The real changes that cause different phyla and species to come into existence are chromosomal mutations that occur because of breakdowns in DNA..etc. Most of this is molecular biology that has impacts on genetics, not simple mix and match as you seem to think.
Evolution is not about minor changes to properties. The complex structures existing in many animal and plant systems need significant variations to many cell types. When you said that the development of the eye for e.g, can be simulated, you had me very angry because the idea is laughable. If you have a solid background in physics and probability you will see why. The mutations that form an important part of development happen at the molecular level. To determine how they happen you need to understand the environment at the molecular level, which requires an unquantifiable amount of information. It is impossible (not hard but impossible) to model a 10km radius of wildlife at this level of detail, and produce accurate output.
Besides, if you can trace the past 7000 generations, what about the next 7000? Shouldn't you be able to do that with a free saturday morning and your trusty old Mac?
The arguments for giving 5 year olds a phone are not even funny. You have to raise your kids to take care of themselves. What do you mean they can call when they need help? Help doin what? The only thing I can think of is if they're running away from a gang of murderers, and thats just bad luck cuz you can't dial when you're doing that.
If your kids are lost or have been robbed or are unhappy they can
a) Find a f*ing police officer
b) If they can't find a f*ing police officer, find a f*ing phone booth
c) if !(a || b) find open grocery store, library..etc, run inside and tell someone important that they are lost and need to phone home.
d) get on a f*ing bus and go home.
Raise you kids right. They can't have everything. Our civilisation is going to ruin because of the we are raising our kids. The world hates us, companies are charging us $600 for consoles..let's get a grip on things ok?
The minimal age for cell-phone kids is 12.
You mean the MMS protocol. As a developer who once had to design a distributed media server based on Helix, I couldn't care less. You can accomplish most things by packet sniffing if you really want to, but if you sniff MMS packets you will never sniff again.
The protocol is terrible.
RTSP, which is the open standard, is far better for your health. You can stream windows media content with RTSP.
You're a kind soul. I'd buy pet scorpions and plenty of natural fertiliser. Also, there's no law against having make-believe grendades and expended munitions buried in your yard. I'd give em a show, I would.
They want their solar system back.
Ah, more misunderstandings yet! I have also "read the books" because of my studies, including the relationship of probabliity theory with our argument above. I'm not attacking anything. Just making a statmenent about the significance of arbitrary DNA mutation in the classical evolution of scpecies, and how realitic the classical theories are.
,chemical structure..etc of a single tissue, say the iris, exceed this)are enough to develop a single organ like the eye. Do you comprehend the number of mostly unrelated universal factors that are required to trigger the needed mutation at each stage? Because the probability of these factors combining in that delicate manner once is itself very small. Now take that to the power of 7000. For one organ in one species, on a planet where the same factors are shaping all other mutations as well.
Your correction actually makes things worse. While accusing me of using arrogant perceptions, you are quoting "simulations" that have no way of presenting the state of the universe (hence the environment) on 7000 instances in time, even if certain aspects were kept constant.
As for the half-million years, let us assume you are right. Let us assume that 7000 generations (strange estimate; the possiblilities for the shape, size, texture
A little scary, you must admit.
The selection part of evolution is quite simple, and does not warrant such a long explanation!
You are right of course: the new genes will remain part of the new population as long as they are non-harmful, but the point is that the older specimens usually die out as a result of the new mutation/groups of mutations being (coincidentally)crucial to the survival of the specimen under new (mostly random)environmental conditions.
For simple cell gene mutations that cause one aspect of size, shape or other property to change(like eye tissue properties, giraffe's neck), we can say things are plausible. But for significant changes in cell organisation that occur in the same random manner, probabilities are very low, because some mutations need to occur together in order to be non-destructive. This is why we cannot reproduce but the tiniest evolutionary steps in a lab. For example, scientists have been able to mutate bacterial cell-wall thickness by articfical environmental methods and intense reproduction (thousands of specimens are produced every minute). This is for a very specific and simple change.
Significant "designs" like an iris held by muscles, and protected by a coronea involving fluids which have to have certain properties, a lens held by another set of ciliary muscles and comprised of a unique tissue/fluid sturcture, all of this to focus light on a retina... you get the picture. With settings like these, there are no second chances. If the fluid had a different refractive index or the ciliary muscles were not well developed or the vitrous fluid had a different ph value, eyesight goes down the drain. A lot of major cell types have to form together (even if some properties can be flexible) in order to provide a non-harmful change, let alone a perfectly functional change that is unmatched by our own engineered products.
The person who believes in completely random evolution as thus, puts himself in a very scary position. The wind blows south due to planetary positions on a given day. The smell of prey reaches a predator. The predator searches for food but finds better options on the way. The "options" run into new dwelling, the dwelling has slightly different enviroments. The temperature causes a change in the DNA of the prey specimen during reproductive stages, which causes their IRIS muscles to be malformed.
The slit-eyed cat is born, and is better able to defend and feed in the new dwelling, hence outliving the others.
Do you see how wild a ride this is? The same cat must also undergo similar mutations/coincidences for every single feature that makes it suitable to the desert, and these events must happen at the same time that the billions of other species are developing on the same planet.
I am saying that if we rewind and play, replicating the perfection that is nature will be virtually impossible.
Correct, but you will never get a new species through genetic selection alone. It is mutation, like I said, where all the fun begins.
40 times? Apparently you didn't read both my comments and the parent's. The number and variety of different cell tissue in the eye that comprise its various structures number in the hundreds, if not thousands. 40 steps means scores of successful mutations each time, and all of them leading to a more advantageous position in nature. Probability? Very very small.
And that's just the eye. It was only giving an example.
As for "hard science", you are again mistaken. He may suggest phases based on empirical evidence, but the actual mutation that causes the significant change in one or more cell types is never replicated.
SO..not a single distributed OS is mentioned? A true dist.OS is able to treat networked resources(including CPU) as shared among a group of nodes that have no global clock. Distributed computing is one the gretest human achievements. I believe Solaris was one of the first, but there are others used by IBM.
And one other thing, the Java Virtual Machine (and the compiler) is the software, not the "Java language" as he stated.