It doesn't follow, though. The evidence that proves micro-evolution does not prove universal common descent. The evidence for micro-evolution would be evidence for macro-evolution if it could also prove UCD. It is one thing to say species change, or even that they can change into other species. It is quite a different thing to say that all species evolved from a common ancestor. That goes far beyond what you can prove scientifically.

This also is not about drawing an imaginary line about how much change can occur; it has to do with the amount of information in the genome. For bacteria to man evolution, a significant amount of information has to be added to the genome. The information in the bacteria genome, no matter how you shuffle it around, will never produce anything more significantly complex than itself. So then the question is, how does this information get added to the genome? Many people at this point will say "mutations!", but the problem with that is, we have never seen a mutation give rise to an increase in functional complexity. If they do, they are so compartively rare as to completely invalidate evolution as a theory. There simply wouldn't be enough time to account for the millions of changes required.


As the main mechanism for adding information into the genome, you would think that there would be clear evidence to support its actually happening..but you would be wrong:



So these are a few reasons why I do not buy into the evolutionary paradigm. The way it is presented to the public is as a proven fact, but when you start analysing the data and not just listening to the conclusions, you find a giant mess with no clear answers. You also find a chorus of true believers who just know its true and interpret all of the data through the conclusion. They see everything through those glasses and thus that is the way everything looks to them.
In reply to this comment by GenjiKilpatrick:
How do you reconcile accepting the science that substantiates micro-evolution.. but disregarding the SAME SCIENCE that substantiates macro-evolution.

It's sorta like if I said: "I accept the evidence for the divinity of Jesus. But I refuse to accept that Yahweh exists"

If it follows that: Divinty of Jesus = Divinity of Yahweh.

Then it must follow that: Evidence of Micro-evolution = Evidence of Macro-evolution.

How do you reconcile this without talking in circles?

Wtb specifics.

The first half of this speech was bang on. The second half where it's possible to fix it all if we just think differently was rather vague, if pleasantly hopeful.

Humans could indeed grow into a mature, long-thinking species, but the change required is fundamental and enormous. And how do you deal with those who share the same resources, but who do not see the need for change, who disagree with the methods, or who would actively oppose it?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

A fresh start would be good, and then use emulation or virtualisation to run the old Windows programs.

Apple has shown that this can be done. First with the move from Old Mac OS to to the completely different OS X then with the move from Power PC to Intel. Both changes required emulators to run the old programs and were then eventually discarded.

>> ^Deano:

>> ^dag:
This was John Gruber's main criticism - one more layer on top of something that needs to rebuilt from the ground up. http://daringfireball.net/2011/06/windows_8_fundamentally_flawed
>> ^Deano:
Notice that Windows 7 seems to be underneath when they run Excel. I don't like this. They should make the commitment to the new paradigm else it's going to be a dodgy compromise.


True. I guess though it must be one huge codebase to maintain compatibility across to the new version and somehow make the interface as consistent as possible. In other words they're going to fail at some of this. But it might be the price needed to move Windows on.
Idea - what if they did break compatibility? What if you had to rewrite your code? Would that be so bad? They could then provide a new security model and control their app store with an iron fist. I still think informed users would be able to install anything they like (hell it's still a Windows PC) but many users would find themselves nudged towards chargeable applications.

@TheGenk @Skeeve @Boise_Lib @gwiz665 @packo @IronDwarf @MaxWilder @westy @BicycleRepairMan @shuac @KnivesOut

Evolution is pseudo-science. It exists in the realm of imagination, and cannot be scientifically verified. At best, evolution science is forensic science, and what has been found not only does not support it, but entirely rules it out. I don't think any of you realize how weak the case for evolution really is. None of them quotes, as far as I know, are from creation scientists btw

No true transitional forms in the fossil record:

Darwins theory proposed that slow change over a great deal of time could evolve one kind of thing into another. Such as reptiles to birds. The theory proposed that we should see in the fossil records billions of these transitional forms, yet we have found none. When the theory was first proposed, darwinists pleaded poverty in the fossil record, claiming the missing links were yet to be found. It was then claimed that the links were missing because conditions conspired against fossilizing them, or that they had been eroded or destroyed in subsequent fossilization.

120 years have gone by since then. We have uncovered an extremely rich fossil record with billions of fossils, a record which has completely failed to produce the expected transitions. It has become obvious that there was no process that could have miraculously destroyed the transitionals yet left the terminal forms intact.

The next theory proposed was "hopeful monster" theory, which states that evolution occurs in large leaps instead of small ones. Some even suggested that a bird could have hatched from a reptile egg. This is against all genetic evidence, and has never been observed.

The complete lack of transitional forms is not even the worst problem for evolution, considering the big gaps between the higher categories, and the systemic absence of transitional forms between families classes orders and phyla.

"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?"

Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History (and a hardcore evolutionist), in a letter to Luther Sunderland, April 10, 1979 admitting no transitional forms exist.

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."

Ronald R. West, PhD (paleoecology and geology) (Assistant Professor of Paleobiology at Kansas State University), "Paleoecology and uniformitarianism". Compass, vol. 45, May 1968, p. 216

"Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?"

-Charles Darwin

"In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another."

-Evolutionist Stephen M. Stanley, Johns Hopkins University

Fossil record disputes evolutionary theory:

According to evolutionary theory we should see an evolutionary tree of organisms starting from the least complex to the most complex. Instead, what we do see in the fossil record is the very sudden appearance of fully-formed and fully-functional complex life.

If you examine the fossil record, you see all kinds of complex life suddenly jumping into existence during a period that evolutionists refer to as the "Cambrian explosion".

None of the fossilized life forms found in the "Cambrian period" have any predecessors prior to that time. In essence, the "Cambrian period" represents a "sudden explosion of life" in geological terms.

Evolutionists try to disprove this by stretching it over a period of 50 million years, but they have no transitional fossils to prove that theory before or during.

"The earliest and most primitive members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous series from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed"

-Paleontologist George Gaylord

What disturbs evolutionists greatly is that complex life just appears in the fossil record out of nowhere, fully functional and formed.

A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.

-Paleontologist Mark Czarnecki (an evolutionist)

"It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and both reject this alternative."

-Richard Dawkins, 'The Blind Watchmaker', W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, pp. 229-230

Evolution can't explain the addition of information that turns one kind into another kind

There is no example recorded of functional information being added to any creature, ever.

"The key issue is the type of change required — to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content, from over half a million DNA ‘letters’ of even the ‘simplest’ self-reproducing organism to three billion ‘letters’ (stored in each human cell nucleus)."

Species just don't change. Kind only produces kind:

"Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome....brings terrible distress. ....They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that's not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don't change, its not evolution so you don't talk about it."

Evolutionist Stephen J. Gould of Harvard University

Not enough bones:

Today the population grows at 2% per year. If we set the population growth rate at just 0.5% per year, then total population reduces to zero at about 4500 years ago. If the first humans lived 1,000,000 years ago, then at this 0.5% growth rate, we would have 10^2100 (ten with 2100 zeroes following it) people right now. If the present population was a result of 1,000,000 years of human history, then several trillion people must have lived and died since the emergence of our species. Where are all the bones? And finally, if the population was sufficiently small until only recently, then how could a correspondingly infinitesimally small number of mutations have evolved the human race?

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."

-Professor Louis Bounoure, past president of the Biological Society of Strassbourg, Director of the Strassbourg Zoological Museum and Director of Research at the French National Center of Scientific Research.

Try to debunk this if you can
http://www.youtube.com/watchv=tYLHxcqJmoM&feature=PlayList&p=C805D4953D9DEC66&index=0&playnext=1

More fun facts:

There are no records of any human civilization past 4000 BC

"The research in the development of the [radiocarbon] dating technique consisted of two stages—dating of samples from the historic and prehistoric epochs, respectively. Arnold [a co-worker] and I had our first shock when our advisors informed us that history extended back only for 5,000 years . . You read statements to the effect that such and such a society or archeological site is 20,000 years old. We learned rather that these numbers, these ancient ages, are not known accurately; in fact, the earliest historical date that has been established with any degree of certainty is about the time of the First Dynasty of Egypt."—*Willard Libby, Science, March 3, 1961, p. 624.

Prior to a certain point several thousand years ago, there was no trace of man having ever existed. After that point, civilization, writing, language, agriculture, domestication, and all the rest—suddenly exploded into intense activity!

"No more surprising fact has been discovered, by recent excavation, than the suddenness with which civilization appeared in the world. This discovery is the very opposite to that anticipated. It was expected that the more ancient the period, the more primitive would excavators find it to be, until traces of civilization ceased altogether and aboriginal man appeared. Neither in Babylonia nor Egypt, the lands of the oldest known habitations of man, has this been the case."—P.J. Wiseman, New Discoveries, in Babylonia, about Genesis (1949 ), p. 28.

Oldest people/language recorded in c. 3000 B.C., and were located in Mesopotamia.

The various radiodating techniques could be so inaccurate that mankind has only been on earth a few thousand years.

"Dates determined by radioactive decay may be off—not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude . . Man, instead of having walked the earth for 3.6 million years, may have been around for only a few thousand."—*Robert Gannon, "How Old Is It?" Popular Science, November 1979, p. 81.

Moonwalk disproves age of moon:

The moon is constantly being bombarded by cosmic dust particles. Scientists were able to measure the rate at which these particles would accumulate. Using their estimates according to their understanding that the age of the Earth was billions of years, their most conservative estimate predicted a dust layer 54 feet deep. This is why the lander had those huge balloon tires, to be prepared to land on a sea of dust. Neil Armstrong, after saying those famous words, uttered two more which disproved the age of the moon entirely "its solid!". Far from being 54 feet, they found the dust was 3/4 of an inch.

Evolution is a fairy tale that modern civilization has bought, hook line and sinker. Humorously, atheists accuse creationists of beiieving in myths without any evidence..when they place their entire faith in an unproven theory even evolutionists know is fatally flawed and invalid. Evolution is a meta physical belief that requires faith. Period.

Evolution is false, science affirms a divine Creator
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Books,%20Tracts%20&%20Preaching/Tracts/big_daddy.htm

Though most of this is undisputable, I'm just getting started..

<>> ^bcglorf:
...

The social attachment to oil is much deeper the powering the transportation to get to the grocery store or the beach. It is in every piece of food you get at the grocery store or bring to the beach. It is in the road you drive on, the oil that lubricates the engine as well as just the gas tank.

The agricultural attachment to oil is not just that it is used in the production and delivery of the fertilizer that grows the food to feed the citizen or just the fuel in the gas tank of the grain harvester and other farm machinery.

The political attachment to oil is not just ensuring that a population have access to the cheap energy for their car, but the cheap fuel for the cheap power plant the provides the cheap electricity for to run the fridge for the cheap food brought from all corners of the earth.

The monetary attachment to oil is not just to the Oil Barons and Corporations who make billions mining and selling it to citizens and governments.

The military attachment is not just to fuel the transportation of tanks, battleships and aircraft carriers, as well as fighter-jets and bombers. It is not just the means of production of weapons which are then transported to the front lines where they are employed in freeing up more oil for the Country, for the Government, for the Citizen, for the Oil Baron, and for the Military which turns round and does it again.

The attachment to oil is all of those things. Interwoven and inseparable.

There is no quick fix or replacement for oil. There must be a reduction of our energy consumption. There will be massive social and political changes required for us to get through the coming crisis of the long emergency. If we are smart we will get those changes moving sooner rather then later. Some of them are already beginning. And that gives me some hope.

In the mean time, let me know when you've found a battery that can power an ocean liner.

The GAU-8 Avenger on the A-10 Warthog is meant as a Anti-Tank weapon thus it is loaded with a combat mix munitions composed of Armor Piercing Incendiary (DU) and High Explosive Incendiary rounds.

"The GAU-8 Avenger fires a mix of both high explosive incendiary (HEI) and armored piercing incendiary (API) ammunition. A typical combat load for the GAU-8 would include 1,100 rounds of 30mm high explosive or armor piercing ammunition. The 30mm API is mixed with 30mm High Explosive Incendiary (HEI) at the factory and is called Combat Mix Ammunition. The ratio of API to HEI rounds in the Combat Mix is 4:1. Combat mix is a sequential mixture of DU and HEI rounds in which 1 HEI round followed by 4 DU rounds are fired by the AN/GAU-8 gatling gun. DU is the primary munition for the A/OA-10 in a combat environment."
FAS Article on the GAU-8 Avenger.

The combat mix is a practice solution for what is essentially a belt fed system in the air, changing munitions out is not ideal within a combat zone where targets of opportunity would change requiring a change of attack profile, the A-10 landing and switching out rounds would not work.

I believe this is a video from Afghanistan not Iraq. CAS is provided by US forces for International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), which is an operation of NATO nations including the U.S. BBC News would report casualties, while close calls like this is a daily occurence for operations both in Afghanistan and Iraq. This was from MilitaryVideos.com

Well of course I know where you're going with that. But things like this - 100 or less people? Not really going to do much. I've said it before and I'll say it again - real change requires real action. Not just showing up and holding a sign.

Hear hear, Doc_M! Hear hear!

Well, even I agree that the entry into war with Iraq was shady at best, and an outright lie at face value. But I still hold that He has no ground on which to stand to disobey his lawful, yes lawful orders.
I also believe that we are doing a lot of good over there. Yes, people are dying. But you can't say that the world hasn't been ridden of a vicious tyrant. Sure, the infrastructure isn't the best around, but it wasn't all that great to begin with. For sake of time (and my laziness) I'm not going to describe how stringent the rules are dealing with collateral damage, human or otherwise. If you really want to hear some stories of how awful and strict they are, lemme know. But to keep it short, 90% of the time, we weren't allowed to shoot. And most of those that we could shoot were only illumination rounds.
No one wants us there? Tell that to the Iraqi people that hugged me and shook my hand. Tell that to the ones that offered what little food they had as a way of saying "Thank you." - And some of that food is hella good.

And MINK, I really do appreciate yours and other's attempts to keep troops safe, but the fact of the matter is that just because Bush sees a protest, it doesn't mean he'll pull out. I know that makes ZERO fucking sense, mainly because our great country was founded to be run by the people and for the people, but like I said in another post, real change requires real effort.

Hey there, Drachen_Jager, did you miss the part where I said "(in fundamentals, of course)"?
The fact of the matter still remains that the people of this nation DO have the power to establish a new government, but simply diving your soccermommobile to the nearest protest isn't going to accomplish anything.

I live in Maine, about an hour away from where Bush has a home on the cost. He was here a couple of times this summer, and of course, the protesters came out. Do you really think that he's going to look out the window and say "Oh, well, there's a hundred people out there that don't like me." And then pick up the phone and give the order to get out of Iraq? Yeah, not gonna happen. Real change requires real effort.

.....so, gwann, this q. comes from one neither insensitive nor ignorant of the plight of the Palestinians' with relation to the state of Israel, little "s", i.e. current manifestation......

How do Israelis'/Palestinians' factor into your ideal scenario for the peoples of the region. Answer the q. if you would, as if you had the power to effect the changes required, ignoring, for now, any retribution for past sins you may feel necessary to make everyone satisfied.

(Revenge comes later, served on ice, when least expected)

-gee,had asked this question earlier,innit?

Though I do not grasp how it addresses the original problem (an ever growing queue), I'm a proponent of joedirt's idea to allow for videos to be associated with a core category and to setup FQDNs (music.videosift.com, for example) strictly for finding and displaying videos in that category.

Other than the obvious code changes required to make available a new level of video association, I think the FQDN thing would be best implemented with Apache's mod_rewrite, which allows you to sneak additional query parameters into the user's request before it is handled by PHP.