DNA study sheds new light on horse evolution

The THEORY of Evolution must itself EVOLVE!
The humans who observe it have NOT perfected OBSERVING hence the theory has Neither been thoroughly understood, perfectly applied and defined, nor completely proven. This process, like human intellect, instrumentality, and the subjects by which we come to understand evolution, need time!
Wha? Because we have been to the moon we thought we knew EVERYTHING!
Adaptive evolution WILL be proven...once WE ADAPT :-)

We already have adapted. Human macro evolution is evidenced by the modern human fossil record and by our ability to sequence DNA from preserved modern human corpses.

DNA is the vehicle that shows how mutations and variance vectors within a species arise and propagate. Evolution is a theory only in terminology as there is no such thing as a "law" in science.

"Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true. "

http://wilstar.co...ries.htm

Great definition of something that doesn't exist.

A "law" is a theory that we have never found contrary evidence for.

Great definition of something that doesn't exist.

A "law" is a theory that we have never found contrary evidence for.

Part of the problem is pop science reporting. We get used to seeing "Law of Gravity", when it's really "Theory of Gravity". The fact that things fall is called an observation. The mathematical description and postulates about why this happens is called a theory. When we call something a LAW in science, it's a colloquialism and not technically correct.

Great definition of something that doesn't exist.

A "law" is a theory that we have never found contrary evidence for.

Part of the problem is pop science reporting. We get used to seeing "Law of Gravity", when it's really "Theory of Gravity". The fact that things fall is called an observation. The mathematical description and postulates about why this happens is called a theory. When we call something a LAW in science, it's a colloquialism and not technically correct.

I wonder how hard some work to find exceptions to theory?
I had heard that is what scientists are supposed to do, try and disprove theories.

The mathematical description and postulates about why this happens is called a theory.

The unfortunate side effect of this is that the word 'theory' has a different meaning in common language than it does to scientists. This leads people to make the argument that "Oh, [insert claim] is just a theory anyway so they don't really know anything for sure." which is extremely irritating to have to explain the difference every time.

The mathematical description and postulates about why this happens is called a theory.

The unfortunate side effect of this is that the word 'theory' has a different meaning in common language than it does to scientists. This leads people to make the argument that "Oh, [insert claim] is just a theory anyway so they don't really know anything for sure." which is extremely irritating to have to explain the difference every time.

It is just as irritating to hear scientists state that theories are FACTS which can never be disputed.
A bit more humility from scientists would be refreshing.
If one has a proper education, the more one learns, the more one should discover how much MORE there is to learn. This leads to the unpleasant situation of discovering how ignorant one is even after years of education.

marjon,

When a theory has enough evidence and the competing theories have no evidence, it's easy for even a scientist to incorrectly use the term "Fact".

Evolution is probably one of the cases where it's used expressly due to the ridiculous detraction from religious outlets.

marjon,

When a theory has enough evidence and the competing theories have no evidence, it's easy for even a scientist to incorrectly use the term "Fact".

Evolution is probably one of the cases where it's used expressly due to the ridiculous detraction from religious outlets.

Then science becomes what you accuse religion of, being closed minded.
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance-it is the illusion of knowledge." Daniel Boorstin, Wash.Post, 29 JAN 84.
"Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing." Wernher Von Braun.
"It is a good morning exercise for a research scientist to discard a pet hypothesis every day before breakfast. It keeps him young." Konrad Lorenz

Marjon,

The paper you're referring to was exempted from the peer review process as the editor for the magazine, and the writer of the research were one in the same.

The paper was removed from the journal because the researching in question, Richard Sternberg, violated ethics.

The mathematical description and postulates about why this happens is called a theory.

The unfortunate side effect of this is that the word 'theory' has a different meaning in common language than it does to scientists. This leads people to make the argument that "Oh, [insert claim] is just a theory anyway so they don't really know anything for sure." which is extremely irritating to have to explain the difference every time.

It is just as irritating to hear scientists state that theories are FACTS which can never be disputed.
A bit more humility from scientists would be refreshing.
If one has a proper education, the more one learns, the more one should discover how much MORE there is to learn. This leads to the unpleasant situation of discovering how ignorant one is even after years of education.

Marjon,

My sentiments exactly!

Scientist can get along a lo better with non-scientist if they can stay humble. Just do your job. It will all come out in the wash

It is just as irritating to hear scientists state that theories are FACTS which can never be disputed.

Although this does happen sometimes (what with scientists being human too, and all) most of the time it's the pop-science reportage that simplifies and editorializes.

marjon:

Scientists work VERY hard to disprove theories, creationist claims notwithstanding. In science, the best way to get cred is to create a new theory; the second-best way is to disprove an existing theory; and a distant third is to confirm an existing theory. Scientists are simply not motivated to form conspiracies of that type. Of course, they're human too, thus the old saying "science advances one funeral at a time".

Marjon,

My sentiments exactly!

Scientist can get along a lo better with non-scientist if they can stay humble. Just do your job. It will all come out in the wash

But when the scientist has done his job what stance should religion take if the finding is contrary to its scripture? Should they be humble and recant, or should it take several hundred years and many innocent peoples' deaths to appease religious scripture?

Science proved the earth was not flat, yet scientists were not allowed to speak of it as it offended the Christian view of the world.

Science proved that the Earth was older than the religion based view of 6000 years. The first person to suggest this openly was excommunicated by the sitting Pope, much to the scientists dismay. Perhaps relgion should be a little bit wiser, seeing as it's older, and learn when to be humble itself.

But when the scientist has done his job what stance should religion take if the finding is contrary to its scripture? Should they be humble and recant, or should it take several hundred years and many innocent peoples' deaths to appease religious scripture?

Why do bring up religion here? I submit scientists should not be as arrogant as they act at times.
As you are a Randian, I thought she was way out of line when she wrote about Apollo 8. Borman quoted the Bible as he went around the moon in DEC '68. As a test pilot, he understood the risks he was taking and how fragile the craft was and saw many of his fellows die. Borman was humbled but Rand thought he should arrogantly brag about how humanity had reached such technological heights.
There are many stories in literature warning of such hubris.

Then allow me to use religion's excuse here.

"That wasn't science that did that, that was the men involved who misused science for personal gain."

Gee, men couldn't use a religious philosophy for personal gain either could they?

Scientist can get along a lo better with non-scientist if they can stay humble.

You know what else would be great? If scientifically ignorant laypeople learned to stay humble and acknowledge their ignorance, rather than insisting on flaunting it in public in a loud, obnoxious, and insulting fashion.

It never ceases to amaze me how willing some people are to mock and reject scientific findings and processes, while themselves having not a single clue (and frequently, worse: erroneous information) regarding the subject matter. As a layperson, you are liable for being played like a political sock puppet; you are fed information that you have no background or skills necessary to judge or interpret, then you're told what conclusion to jump to. They say jump, and you ask how high. You're nothing but a tool and a dupe. Pathetic.

That's really all I want to say on the topic; I try not to feed the trolls.

If it were true what does that say about 'reality'?

The same thing that science says about reality every day.

"We're barely scratching the surface."

Difference is, science doesn't actively discourage investigation, religion, and by extension creationism, do.

Many religions encourage investigation. Especially into one's soul.

Blow the whistle, loose a grant. No money involved?

Is this the US-American perspective? I don't know about the US, but in Europe most "grants" for scientist come from the industry and not from the government.

Is this the US-American perspective? I don't know about the US, but in Europe most "grants" for scientist come from the industry and not from the government.

And how much grant money is GE Solar going to hand over to a scientist that finds non-solar is a better energy generation method?

How much will Dow Chemical, (researching CO2 scrubber trees), pay a scientist for a grant to determine that the technology they're trying to sell has no merit?

If anything you strengthen the argument by shifting fund origination.

Not if the objective is to shift more power to the government. Which appears to be the case as the ONLY solutions proposed at Copenhagen require a massive take over of the free market to implement.

Not if the objective is to shift more power to the government.

Obviously according to the successful Chinese model. :)

Not if the objective is to shift more power to the government.

Obviously according to the successful Chinese model. :)

What successful Chinese model?

Not if the objective is to shift more power to the government.

Obviously according to the successful Chinese model. :)

What successful Chinese model?

Wikipedia:

China has had the fastest-growing major economy for the past 30 years with an average annual GDP growth rate above 10%

But industry in the EU is 'directed' by the state via regulations, tax 'incentives', etc. It is call Fascism.

No, Fascism is when the industry runs the government, dominates labor, deliberately whips up nativist/nationalist frenzy, self-regulates, sets foreign policy, and writes the laws (all of which are the case with USA.) Fascism values efficiency over humanity.

In Europe, generally speaking it's more a case of moderate Socialism (with some variability across the different countries, of course.)

But help me out here: what does any of this have to do with horse evolution?

I don't think the business owners in Germany of the 20s and 30s thought they were running the government.

There was no need to "own" the Nazi government.
Wikipedia:

About 12 million forced labourers, most of whom were Eastern workers and Poles, were employed in the German war economy inside Nazi Germany. More than 2000 German companies profited from slave labour during the Nazi era, including Daimler, Deutsche Bank, Siemens, Volkswagen, Hoechst, Dresdner Bank, Krupp, Allianz, BASF, Bayer, BMW, and Degussa.

"The state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter. The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners of property. (Barkai 1990, pp. 26-27)"
"Hitler�s regime eliminated small corporations and made membership in cartels mandatory.1 The Reich Economic Chamber was at the top of a complicated bureaucracy comprising nearly two hundred organizations organized along industry, commercial, and craft lines, as well as several national councils. The Labor Front, an extension of the Nazi Party, directed all labor matters, including wages and assignment of workers to particular jobs. "
http://www.econli...ism.html

Doesn't sound like much of a free market. Sound more like the corporate states of Europe and the USA.

I wonder how long and hard the denialists had to dig, and how many people they had to pay off, in order to turn a couple of offhand private comments into a tempest in a teapot? Unlike scientists who are *not* generally inately motivated (in principle) one way or the other on AGW, the denialists have a very specific financial interest in AGW not being true. So feel free to attempt demonization all you want. You've got a very large hill to climb before you even get to a level playing field.

My, but you have severely misunderstood the ramifications of the data leaked, haven't you? You need to get your hands on the data and look it all over for yourself. The emails are nothing compared to some of the other material. You have people fraudulently plugging in numbers that do not exist, encouraging destruction of data, members of experts panels accusing the IPCC of using fraudulent data in their reports, data contradicting AGW censored and unpublished, and much, much more.

@marjon

I don't think the business owners in Germany of the 20s and 30s thought they were running the government.

See frajo's response for a partial listing of German mega-corps that were running the government and profiteering from the wars. Volkswagen was started by Hitler, by the way; did you know that?

The state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state.

That may indeed be considered a Socialist item on the agenda. Of course, it's also the same stance that had been practiced in every Monarchy since time immemorial. However, this is only a rather tangential component of an otherwise corporate-run state. Nazis are like Socialists in the same way that men are like mice. For instance, Socialists tend not to hate Communists to a point of considering them enemies of the state and traitors to the nation. (Look up Hitler's views on Communism...)

Doesn't sound like much of a free market. Sound more like the corporate states of Europe and the USA.

My point exactly. There is no such thing as a real free market: it's a dynamically unstable system that, if actually ever tried in practice, will rapidly and spontaneously transform into something else. Any market allowed to run unsupervised (i.e. "free") will inevitably get hijacked and become controlled by a cartel of key large players (or industries.) For instance, USA has become the world capital of fraudulent finance. That's not coincidental; it's a direct consequence of our government being for sale to the highest bidder, and the consequent push for "deregulation" and "free trade". Now our "free markets" (as well as our government) are run and controlled by the likes of Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan.

@Velanarris,

Actually they're completely controlled by our Democrat Congress at the moment.

You have it backwards. What you have to examine, is who controls the Democrats. As well as the Republicans. You will find that our biggest industries are really the ones in control, and you will find that most of our legislation is written, vetted, and/or edited by industry lobbyists.

I doubt any company would willingly give up control to any dictator.

What makes a company so different from the men/women who run it? If men/women willingly give up control to dictators, then so do companies. Indeed, it's easier for companies because they are not motivated by any particular ideals or ideology: their only concern is making money, so if you are in a position to corner a market with the help of a dictator, or if you're in a position to benefit from sweetheart government contracts and various forms of pork, then you are not going to resist such money-making opportunity; on the contrary, you're going to welcome it with open arms.

I'm *trying* to explain to you how things work in the real world. Your idealized ideology simply cannot and does not apply. No matter how long and how hard you rave about your particular utopia, it will never come to pass in reality: because it is impossible.

As for what I support or don't support, you are presuming too much.

I'm *trying* to explain to you how things work in the real world. Your idealized ideology simply cannot and does not apply. No matter how long and how hard you rave about your particular utopia, it will never come to pass in reality: because it is impossible.

As for what I support or don't support, you are presuming too much.

What the mind of man can conceive and believe, the mind of man can achieve.

If you don't support liberty, they you must oppose it.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

If you don't support liberty, they you must oppose it.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

What is a Sith?
The world is made of absolutes.
Computers are binary, on or off. Very absolute. Gray is made of varying quantities of discrete photons.

If you don't support liberty, they you must oppose it.

One man's liberty is the other man's suppression. Societies need to balance individual liberties between the needy and the greedy.

If you don't support liberty, they you must oppose it.

One man's liberty is the other man's suppression. Societies need to balance individual liberties between the needy and the greedy.

No one has the liberty to commit violence against another or violate another's property rights.

"What the mind of man can conceive and believe, the mind of man can achieve."

How does that apply to utopias? Shall we try Communism one more time?

If you don't support liberty, they you must oppose it.

How do you support "liberty" without rule of law and a fair playing field? In absence of regulation, you will have neither: guaranteed. So in allowing a corporate mafia takeover of society, you in fact not only fail to support liberty -- you stand in direct opposition to it.

Funny, isn't it, how good intentions so frequently pave the road to hell?

One man's liberty is the other man's suppression. Societies need to balance individual liberties between the needy and the greedy.

No one has the liberty to commit violence against another or violate another's property rights.

Let's say in a given country, a given person owns 99% of all the land, which he keeps to himself and passes on to his descendants, in perpetuity. The rest of the population are relegated to the remaining 1%. Highly hypothetical, I know: however, in this thought experiment, do property rights protect liberty or impede it? In other words, at what point (if any) do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?

More to the point, is grossly inequitable distribution of resources sustainable, or will it instead lead to social instability and revolution? Keep in mind that actual revolutions have undeniably happened: witness France, Russia, Cuba, China, etc, etc, etc...

What if all the land is supposedly held in common by all as was the USSR or Cuba? Where is the incentive to use resources most efficiently?
If one individual owns all the land, how will he eat? He can farm it himself or hire someone to help. How will he pay his workers?
Who will he hire to protect his land? How will he pay them? Maybe they will demand a piece of land for themselves in payment?

Chill out Velanarris, I get comments periodically removed too -- for no apparent good reason (the usual justification given is "VERBIAGE".)

They're not partisan; they're just unintelligent.

What if all the land is supposedly held in common by all as was the USSR or Cuba? Where is the incentive to use resources most efficiently?

That's not the point. The point is that balance is vital. Property rights do not by themselves achieve balanced distribution of resources. Quite to the contrary, on their own they tend to uphold and reinforce (i.e. amplify over time) an unfair distribution.

If one individual owns all the land, how will he eat? He can farm it himself or hire someone to help. How will he pay his workers?

Have you ever encountered the subjects of Feudalism and Serfdom in your grade school world history curriculum?

The point is that balance is vital

Who decides what is the 'balance'? The mob? A dictator?

Have you ever encountered the subjects of Feudalism and Serfdom in your grade school world history curriculum?

Where did the serfs go?
If you read The Road to Serfdom, we are all becoming serfs to the state. What balance!

Who decides what is the 'balance'? The mob? A dictator?

In a Democracy, that would be the Majority.

Where did the serfs go?

They were slowly elevated to the Middle Class, thanks to labor organization and Socialist policies (though in quite a few unfortunate countries, things were too far gone and a bloody revolution occurred instead.)

If you read The Road to Serfdom, we are all becoming serfs to the state. What balance!

If you checked the trends in income inequality, you would note that it has been steadily escalating since the early '80s -- precisely when Reagan launched the "free market" neocon adventure. If this continues unabated, then our country will arrive at a point of such tremendous social imbalance and malaise, that another revolution will become increasingly likely.

""The world has become more free, and, at the same time, growth is soaring to new highs. During 1995 to 2005, the growth rate of per capita GDP in99 countries for which data are available has increased to 2.2 percent, nearly twice the rate of recent decades. Since 2000, the annual growth rate of per capita GDP has been even more rapid, 3.2 percent." "
"Economic freedom produces high living standards. "
""individuals have economic freedom when they are free to use, exchange, or give their property as long as their actions do not violate the identical rights of others." "
"Countries with little or no economic freedom make life hellish for all but the politicians or dictators in charge "
""The average rating of the 99 countries for which data are available continuously since 1980 has increased from 5.5 in 1985 to 6.6 in 2005,"
Gwartney's data show that it's better to be poor in a more-free country than in a less-free country.

http://townhall.c...23/a_fre

In a continuation from my last, Reagan was elected in 1980, no? A coincidence that economic freedom has increased around the world since then?

Much of that "growth" has been a debt-fueled fraud (there's a reason why Bush Sr. referred to Reagan's policies as "voodoo economics".) For example, see here what's been happening since 1980:

http://market-tic...0-on.png

The whole world (with USA in the lead) is about to go bankrupt as a result. The newfangled "freedom" has sucked most productive enterprise (i.e. manufacturing) out of U.S. into the third world. As a result, formerly rural peasants are now toiling in horrid conditions for $2/day, while the environment around them gets poisoned and destroyed -- so we can have our cheap toys on credit, for as long as credit growth will last (which it can't any more, as it has just last year hit the brick wall of non-sustainability.)

I'm sorry, but the sum total of global Ponzi finance is about to blow up in all our faces. Many a Cassandra has warned of this over the years. A true Greek Tragedy in the making.

Oh, and by the way: we're now so far off topic, that I'm just going to stop posting here. If you want to continue the discussion, marjon, feel free to PM me.

Ok, I can't resist... One more post and that's it. On the diagram I linked for you, here it is again:

http://market-tic...0-on.png

Notice that the government portion of the debt (both Federal and State) has been historically only a small percentage of the overall debt (most of which was incurred by companies and individuals: i.e. on the "free market".) Even now, that government is trying to fill in the gaping hole left by collapsing spending by all other parties, its share of the total debt has yet to reach even 25%.

And those debt figures, by the way, don't even include the derivatives, which have leveraged the $50 Trillion into some god-awful global number ranging into $Quadrillions -- all of it done entirely via "financial innovation" in the unregulated "free markets".

"Financial innovation" is just the New Age name for "Ponzi finance."

Notice that the government portion of the debt (both Federal and State) has been historically only a small percentage of the overall debt (most of which was incurred by companies and individuals: i.e. on the "free market".) Even now, that government is trying to fill in the gaping hole left by collapsing spending by all other parties, its share of the total debt has yet to reach even 25%.

And those debt figures, by the way, don't even include the derivatives, which have leveraged the $50 Trillion into some god-awful global number ranging into $Quadrillions -- all of it done entirely via "financial innovation" in the unregulated "free markets".

"Financial innovation" is just the New Age name for "Ponzi finance."

Government controls the money supply. Government made cheap money available for the stock market bubble in the 90s and the recent housing bubble. FDIC punished a bank in MA for NOT making risky loans. Markets respond to the environment created by the state.