September 9, 2011 at 3:21 am
GSquared (9/8/2011)
...breeding dogs for 10,000 years has yet to produce a T-Rex...
Isn't it fortunate for us that this wasn't the intention from the outset?
For fast, accurate and documented assistance in answering your questions, please read this article.
Understanding and using APPLY, (I) and (II) Paul White
Hidden RBAR: Triangular Joins / The "Numbers" or "Tally" Table: What it is and how it replaces a loop Jeff Moden
September 9, 2011 at 6:12 am
ChrisM@Work (9/9/2011)
GSquared (9/8/2011)
...breeding dogs for 10,000 years has yet to produce a T-Rex...
Isn't it fortunate for us that this wasn't the intention from the outset?
I don't know.
I think scritching a T-Rex's belly to make his leg twitch would be hillarious!
Imagine the size of the frisbee you'd need for a game of fetch, though!
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
September 9, 2011 at 6:57 am
GSquared (9/9/2011)
ChrisM@Work (9/9/2011)
GSquared (9/8/2011)
...breeding dogs for 10,000 years has yet to produce a T-Rex...
Isn't it fortunate for us that this wasn't the intention from the outset?
I don't know.
I think scritching a T-Rex's belly to make his leg twitch would be hillarious!
Imagine the size of the frisbee you'd need for a game of fetch, though!
pashaw, I say!
If we bred dogs and ended up with a t-rex, it could be a mini t-rex (tyrannosaurus-familiarus?)! No giant frisbee required!
This is all I'll say about the evolution thing. (As I'm writing this, I'm using the word "you" in a most ambiguous manner.)
Who is to say that those on one side of the argument is "close minded". From the perspective of a person on the opposing(?) side, perhaps you are the closed minded one. You are just as unwilling to accept an alternate theory as someone who holds a differing one than you, and differing for whatever reason it may be. Think special relativity, perspective is everything. You can apply this thinking to many other topics...except .9... = 1 :-P.
I find enjoyable the theories in themselves and the variations on each theory is just as interesting. However it happened, it's great we can try to come up with ways to explain how things became the way they are and contemplate how things might end up.
September 9, 2011 at 7:07 am
GSquared (9/9/2011)
ChrisM@Work (9/9/2011)
GSquared (9/8/2011)
...breeding dogs for 10,000 years has yet to produce a T-Rex...
Isn't it fortunate for us that this wasn't the intention from the outset?
I don't know.
I think scritching a T-Rex's belly to make his leg twitch would be hillarious!
Imagine the size of the frisbee you'd need for a game of fetch, though!
More tea, vicar? Fido, stop that!
For fast, accurate and documented assistance in answering your questions, please read this article.
Understanding and using APPLY, (I) and (II) Paul White
Hidden RBAR: Triangular Joins / The "Numbers" or "Tally" Table: What it is and how it replaces a loop Jeff Moden
September 9, 2011 at 7:21 am
calvo (9/9/2011)
GSquared (9/9/2011)
ChrisM@Work (9/9/2011)
GSquared (9/8/2011)
...breeding dogs for 10,000 years has yet to produce a T-Rex...
Isn't it fortunate for us that this wasn't the intention from the outset?
I don't know.
I think scritching a T-Rex's belly to make his leg twitch would be hillarious!
Imagine the size of the frisbee you'd need for a game of fetch, though!
pashaw, I say!
If we bred dogs and ended up with a t-rex, it could be a mini t-rex (tyrannosaurus-familiarus?)! No giant frisbee required!
This is all I'll say about the evolution thing. (As I'm writing this, I'm using the word "you" in a most ambiguous manner.)
Who is to say that those on one side of the argument is "close minded". From the perspective of a person on the opposing(?) side, perhaps you are the closed minded one. You are just as unwilling to accept an alternate theory as someone who holds a differing one than you, and differing for whatever reason it may be. Think special relativity, perspective is everything. You can apply this thinking to many other topics...except .9... = 1 :-P.
I find enjoyable the theories in themselves and the variations on each theory is just as interesting. However it happened, it's great we can try to come up with ways to explain how things became the way they are and contemplate how things might end up.
I've spent a more-than-fair amount of time and attention on "Scientific Creationism", and it's not even vaguely convincing. The arguments are emotional, not rational.
I give full respect and credit to someone who will out-and-out say, "God (or whomever) created the world, and I believe that as part of my faith, and it requires no proof". But I just can't give any respect to someone who hasn't got the guts to be forthright about it, and has to try to cloak their faith in pseudo-scientific terms in order to try to justify their own rationalizations about it. Faith should, in my opinion, not require rationalization. It should just be a full trust and belief, regardless of "reasons" or justifications.
Don't try to dress up religious faith in twaddle about "the laws of thermodynamics don't allow for evolution, because houses don't repair themselves in the real world" (I've actually heard and read this exact argument time and time and time again; it's even got copyrighted Power Point slides that go along with it, and I'm not kidding about that). The argument is based on a seriously, horribly, completely flawed understanding of the laws of thermodynamics, and deliberately ignoring whole swaths of readily observable facts, and fails on just about every logical flaw that's ever been enumerated. It's garbage at every level there is.
That's my problem with the subject. I'm not being close-minded about it, I'm saying the logical arguments against evolution are junk. The faith arguments against it don't have to follow the "laws of logic", and aren't subject to my judgement, nor should they be. Faith requires courage of conviction, and "scientific creationism" is, in my opinion, a coward's attempt to dress up a lack of true faith in a cloud of faulty logic and utter incomprehension of "science". Or, even worse, it's an attempt to "used car salesman" religious creationism by dressing it up with the same faulty logic and idiocy, and that's covert and dishonest and shows an even worse perversion of faith than the other. Again, my opinion, based on a lot of study on the subject.
Real, courageous, honest faith is, in my opinion, a critical part of the spiritual experience of life. Demeaning it by rationalization and justified thought is a perversion of the whole point of it.
P.S.: I'm convinced of the existence of and necessity for biological evolution. My personal faith doesn't rest on anything related to that subject at all. Just in case anyone finds my arguments about evolution and faith confusing - they don't contradict each other in the slightest. Ask privately if you have questions about that. I'll end up offending even more people than usual if we discuss it in this forum, and while I don't mind doing that, the owners of the site might have a problem with it, and this is their sandbox we're playing in.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
September 9, 2011 at 9:38 am
GSquared (9/9/2011)
I've spent a more-than-fair amount of time and attention on "Scientific Creationism", and it's not even vaguely convincing. The arguments are emotional, not rational.I give full respect and credit to someone who will out-and-out say, "God (or whomever) created the world, and I believe that as part of my faith, and it requires no proof". But I just can't give any respect to someone who hasn't got the guts to be forthright about it, and has to try to cloak their faith in pseudo-scientific terms in order to try to justify their own rationalizations about it. Faith should, in my opinion, not require rationalization. It should just be a full trust and belief, regardless of "reasons" or justifications.
Don't try to dress up religious faith in twaddle about "the laws of thermodynamics don't allow for evolution, because houses don't repair themselves in the real world" (I've actually heard and read this exact argument time and time and time again; it's even got copyrighted Power Point slides that go along with it, and I'm not kidding about that). The argument is based on a seriously, horribly, completely flawed understanding of the laws of thermodynamics, and deliberately ignoring whole swaths of readily observable facts, and fails on just about every logical flaw that's ever been enumerated. It's garbage at every level there is.
That's my problem with the subject. I'm not being close-minded about it, I'm saying the logical arguments against evolution are junk. The faith arguments against it don't have to follow the "laws of logic", and aren't subject to my judgement, nor should they be. Faith requires courage of conviction, and "scientific creationism" is, in my opinion, a coward's attempt to dress up a lack of true faith in a cloud of faulty logic and utter incomprehension of "science". Or, even worse, it's an attempt to "used car salesman" religious creationism by dressing it up with the same faulty logic and idiocy, and that's covert and dishonest and shows an even worse perversion of faith than the other. Again, my opinion, based on a lot of study on the subject.
Real, courageous, honest faith is, in my opinion, a critical part of the spiritual experience of life. Demeaning it by rationalization and justified thought is a perversion of the whole point of it.
P.S.: I'm convinced of the existence of and necessity for biological evolution. My personal faith doesn't rest on anything related to that subject at all. Just in case anyone finds my arguments about evolution and faith confusing - they don't contradict each other in the slightest. Ask privately if you have questions about that. I'll end up offending even more people than usual if we discuss it in this forum, and while I don't mind doing that, the owners of the site might have a problem with it, and this is their sandbox we're playing in.
Well reasoned, well supported, well put.
Richard Feynman described a disagreement he had with an artist friend who decried Feynman's verbal dissection of, IIRC, a flower. Paraphrasing here, the friend said, "Why can't you just see the flower as beautiful and not examine its innermost scientific details? You destroy the beauty through examination!" Feynman was perplexed by this, replying (again paraphrasing): "How do I remove beauty by seeing both the scientific marvel of this plant's innermost workings and the outward beauty of the flower? My appreciation is fuller because I can appreciate both the chemistry and biology AND the color and smell."
Historically interesting point on the debate about evolution, one I learned about in one of Stephen J. Gould's books. William Jennings Bryan - liberal, populist Democratic politician - argued in the Scopes trial against evolution. Gould wondered why, as it seemed out of character with modern stereotypes. Turns out that, in those days, the "survival of the fittest" bit was frequently taken out of context and used by robber baron capitalists as justification for laissez faire policies favoring the wealthy, and Bryan didn't approve. I would say this was yet another way in which the conclusions of science were deliberately "misinterpreted" to support a political agenda: in this case, to promote a self-serving economic framework. Of course, the casualties of such splattered damage were and still are public education and an understanding of the science of evolution.
It's nothing new, and we'll see it again.
OK, I'm a convert: GSquared, can I also buy you a beer to discuss these things? I have work to do, but I keep coming back to this thread dammit! 😀 Oh and BTW, the U.S. now produces an astounding variety of world-class, truly excellent beers, so your Europe-centric stereotyping of American ales, stouts, and lagers is passe, undeserved, and uneducated!
Rich
September 9, 2011 at 12:34 pm
I watched a NOVA program once that showed a bird that could grow teeth if a certain gene (or genes) was turned on (or off). I thought that was remarkable. (I think it was this NOVA.)
So I've been interested in finding out more about the human genome project - do we have genes for other traits that could be turned on? Remnants of our past could be in our DNA.
The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. - Stephen Hawking
September 9, 2011 at 1:57 pm
OK, I'm a convert: GSquared, can I also buy you a beer to discuss these things? I have work to do, but I keep coming back to this thread dammit! Oh and BTW, the U.S. now produces an astounding variety of world-class, truly excellent beers, so your Europe-centric stereotyping of American ales, stouts, and lagers is passe, undeserved, and uneducated!
Rich
Uh oh! I've been caught!
You're right, I am horribly uneducated on beer, regardless of it's point of origin. I don't drink, so I guess that's to be expected.
So, if you want to sit and talk, that's fine, just don't buy me a beer. 🙂
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
September 9, 2011 at 1:59 pm
mtillman-921105 (9/9/2011)
I watched a NOVA program once that showed a bird that could grow teeth if a certain gene (or genes) was turned on (or off). I thought that was remarkable. (I think it was this NOVA.)So I've been interested in finding out more about the human genome project - do we have genes for other traits that could be turned on? Remnants of our past could be in our DNA.
Could be? Try "definitely are".
If I'm not mistaken, most of our DNA is holdovers from our past, and much of it never expresses itself at all. There are whole swaths of "junk code" in human DNA. (My fingers tried to type DBA instead of DNA in that sentence. Freudian slip?)
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
September 9, 2011 at 2:04 pm
GSquared (9/9/2011)
mtillman-921105 (9/9/2011)
I watched a NOVA program once that showed a bird that could grow teeth if a certain gene (or genes) was turned on (or off). I thought that was remarkable. (I think it was this NOVA.)So I've been interested in finding out more about the human genome project - do we have genes for other traits that could be turned on? Remnants of our past could be in our DNA.
Could be? Try "definitely are".
If I'm not mistaken, most of our DNA is holdovers from our past, and much of it never expresses itself at all. There are whole swaths of "junk code" in human DNA. (My fingers tried to type DBA instead of DNA in that sentence. Freudian slip?)
Well, that's just what I'm interested in! Like what kind of traits are turned off? 'You happen to know?
The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. - Stephen Hawking
September 9, 2011 at 2:34 pm
Think of how it would change our world if scientists proved that turning on a certain gene(s) made us, say, grow a tail. :w00t:
Oh, and they found the gene for shyness recently. The researchers said that they would have found it sooner, but it was hiding behind another gene...
The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. - Stephen Hawking
September 10, 2011 at 12:01 pm
Came across this: http://i.imgur.com/dsCw0.gif
As an ex-teacher, I love stuff like this that explains/shows the meaning behind these numbers and symbols.
______________________________________________________________________________
How I want a drink, alcoholic of course, after the heavy lectures involving quantum mechanics.
September 15, 2011 at 12:59 pm
mtillman-921105 (9/9/2011)
Think of how it would change our world if scientists proved that turning on a certain gene(s) made us, say, grow a tail. :w00t:Oh, and they found the gene for shyness recently. The researchers said that they would have found it sooner, but it was hiding behind another gene...
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/jack_horner_building_a_dinosaur_from_a_chicken.html Teeth and tail, he's working on modifying the genes that control position of the leg (raptor!). I thought this was fascinating, and told my wife about it. She said it was mean, and stopped talking to me...
---------------------------------------------------------
How best to post your question[/url]
How to post performance problems[/url]
Tally Table:What it is and how it replaces a loop[/url]
"stewsterl 80804 (10/16/2009)I guess when you stop and try to understand the solution provided you not only learn, but save yourself some headaches when you need to make any slight changes."
September 15, 2011 at 2:33 pm
jcrawf02 (9/15/2011)
mtillman-921105 (9/9/2011)
Think of how it would change our world if scientists proved that turning on a certain gene(s) made us, say, grow a tail. :w00t:Oh, and they found the gene for shyness recently. The researchers said that they would have found it sooner, but it was hiding behind another gene...
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/jack_horner_building_a_dinosaur_from_a_chicken.html Teeth and tail, he's working on modifying the genes that control position of the leg (raptor!). I thought this was fascinating, and told my wife about it. She said it was mean, and stopped talking to me...
'Sounds interesting, but don't think I like the idea of raptors running around. 🙂
The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. - Stephen Hawking
September 15, 2011 at 2:36 pm
mtillman-921105 (9/15/2011)
jcrawf02 (9/15/2011)
mtillman-921105 (9/9/2011)
Think of how it would change our world if scientists proved that turning on a certain gene(s) made us, say, grow a tail. :w00t:Oh, and they found the gene for shyness recently. The researchers said that they would have found it sooner, but it was hiding behind another gene...
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/jack_horner_building_a_dinosaur_from_a_chicken.html Teeth and tail, he's working on modifying the genes that control position of the leg (raptor!). I thought this was fascinating, and told my wife about it. She said it was mean, and stopped talking to me...
'Sounds interesting, but don't think I like the idea of raptors running around. 🙂
Why? What could possibly go wrong and generate three sequels?
---------------------------------------------------------
How best to post your question[/url]
How to post performance problems[/url]
Tally Table:What it is and how it replaces a loop[/url]
"stewsterl 80804 (10/16/2009)I guess when you stop and try to understand the solution provided you not only learn, but save yourself some headaches when you need to make any slight changes."
Viewing 15 posts - 136 through 150 (of 158 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply