|
Author
|
Topic: Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22493 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.9
|
Re: I would focus on "potential falsifications"
Hi Michael, welcome aboard! Jar is taking the Socratic approach, I'll take the opposite tack.
Michael McBride writes: Another thing: IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE ANY THEORY OF THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE. This thread is in the Biological Evolution forum, and the topic of this particular thread is potential falsifications of evolution. Neither has anything to do with cosmology. If you wish to discuss the origin of the universe then you need to find a thread over in the Big Bang and Cosmology forum. You are correct that is impossible to scientifically prove theories, but that's because theories are never proven scientifically. In science when people say prove what they mean supported by sufficient evidence to persuade a consensus. The absence of proof within science is because of the principle of tentativity. All scientific knowledge is open to change in light of new evidence or fresh insights. This process of continuous improvement allows theory to represent our best understanding of the current state of knowledge.
There is no way to Observe the origin of the universe... Again, wrong forum.
...all science is based on Observation and Experimentation, so the ToE is not really a Scientific theory... Really. What parts of the theory of evolution did not derive from observation and/or experimentation?
...but rather it is another scientifically non-provable world religion... Again, if by the word prove you mean prove something to be unambiguously and eternally true, then nothing in science is ever proven. But if you instead mean supported by evidence then evolution is well supported. Concerning the topic itself, do you have any potential falsifications of evolution to offer? --Percy
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22493 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.9
|
Re: I would focus on "potential falsifications"
Hi Michael, If you click on the peek button for any message you can see the actual markup used to format quotes and such. Once you see how it's done it's easy to do it yourself. You can also find detailed documentation over at the dBCode Help Page.
Michael McBride writes: Why can't the origin of the Universe be observed? time travel hasn't been invented yet Police solve crimes that have no eyewitnesses all the time. Things that have actually happened leave evidence behind.
What makes you think any Theory is proven? if a theory has been proven, it is then no longer a theory CIP: Newton's first law Theories are never proven, including Newton's First Law. All scientific theories are tentative and unproven, no matter how high the mountains of evidence supporting them. We can increase our confidence in a theory by building the mountain of supporting evidence ever higher, but that confidence never achieves certainty.
Also: take a look at the first and second laws of thermodynamics The laws of thermodynamics are as unproven as all other scientific theories. They are supported by copious evidence, but they are not proven. Like all scientific theories they are tentative, which means they are open to change in light of new evidence or improved insights. For example, a few years ago it was discovered that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is not as ironclad at quantum levels as it is at macro levels. It turns out entropy can spontaneously decrease temporarily over short distances and time spans. --Percy
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22493 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.9
|
Re: Has any evidence been found yet?
AlphaOmegaKid writes: As I said, the process has begun, and there is evidence. Dr. John Sanford has already published a few things on this subject, and more is coming. You can find his information here: http://logosresearchassociates.org/...john-sanford/#more-136 His paper here claims falsification: http://logosresearchassociates.org/...Mendels-Accountant.pdf This is not peer reviewed material, but Dr. Sanford has approximately 5 papers that will be peer reviewed and published in the science community by June of next year. Dr. Sanford is an extremely accomplished Biologist/ Genetisist and has a long track record of getting his papers published in the scientific community. Dr. Sandford's work, when published and peer reviewed will not immediately falsify NDTOE. The claims will be made, but the process will take years, but I believe that the process has already begun, and population genetics will lead to the demise of NDTOE. About the paper Mendel’s Accountant: A New Population Genetics Simulation Tool for Studying Mutation and Natural Selection, this is the concluding sentence of the abstract:
Sanford writes: The primary reason is that most deleterious mutations are too subtle to be detected and eliminated by natural selection and therefore accumulate steadily generation after generation and inexorably degrade fitness. Can you explain for us how "deleterious mutations too subtle to be detected" can have an impact? Once they've accumulated to the point where they can can have an impact they're no longer "too subtle to be detected." Natural selection will operate to deselect those in a population who have accumulated too many of these "deleterious mutations too subtle to be detected." Many genetic simulation programs have been written demonstrating that evolutionary principles produce innovation. What is different about Sanford's program that leads you to think he has discovered something lacking that no one else has? --Percy
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22493 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.9
|
Re: ID science or evangelical proselytising? False Dichotomy?
I downloaded it but don't have time to give it a detailed look right now, but my God, Fortran! I haven't used Fortran since I moved to Algol in 1973! But even though he's using a modern revision of Fortran, I wonder if it's in Fortran because it's based on something written long ago. --Percy
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22493 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.9
|
Re: Has any evidence been found yet?
AlphaOmegakid writes: As phenotypes gain these slightly deleterious mutations, there is a selective pressure against these mutations, but basically all of the organisms have them, so they cant' be differentiated at the organism level. So you believe that a collection of slightly deleterious mutations for which there is negative selection pressure would spread throughout the entire population so that "basically all of the organisms have them"? Really? Just how do you envision this happening? The reality is that populations of non-trivial size have a great deal of variation, and the extent to which individuals possess these slightly deleterious mutations will vary widely. Natural selection will prevent deleterious combinations of mutations from spreading throughout the population, and it simply will not happen that "basically all of the organisms have them." There are non-genetic scenarios where this could happen. For example, creatures with little or no fur might have a survival advantage in dry desert climes, but if the climate changed and became very cold then the alleles for little or no fur would suddenly become deleterious, even though "basically all of the organisms have them." But that's a climatic event having nothing to do with mutation and selection.
In organisms with large genomes, low fecundity, and long generation times (most large mammals),... So you believe that large genomes and large creatures go hand in hand? Really? Did you know the record for genome size goes to an amoeba?
...they cannot afford the cost of selction without severe inbreeding depression. You believe that selection doesn't operate on large mammals? Really? Did you know that half of all polar bear cubs don't make it to adulthood (this is aside from the additional habitat problems caused by global warming)? Doesn't that sound like selection to you?
So the population continues to exist under reduced selective pressures and the mutations just add up over time. You believe that populations of large mammals are subjected to reduced selective pressures just because if they weren't they'd go extinct? Really? My, isn't mother nature kind! You sure believe a lot of weird things. Did you think them all up yourself, or is some website feeding you this nonsense? --Percy
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22493 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.9
|
|
Message 136 of 968 (589678)
11-03-2010 7:39 PM
|
Reply to: Message 135 by dwise1
11-03-2010 7:32 PM
|
|
Re: Getting Mendel's Accountant Source
gzip -d -c name-of-gziped-tarball | tar -xf - --Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 135 by dwise1, posted 11-03-2010 7:32 PM | | dwise1 has not replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22493 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.9
|
Re: Getting Mendel's Accountant Source
The -z option isn't available in all versions of tar, so I played it safe. --Percy
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22493 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.9
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Has any evidence been found yet?
AlphaOmegakid writes: through genetic drift. It is well documented. You may want to learn about it. Click on the "Search" link at the top of the page. For "Search Terms" enter "genetic drift" between double quotes. For "Search Forum or Category" select "Search All Open Forums". For "Search by Author Name" enter "Percy". Click on Search. Peruse the results going back to 2001. Evidently I've been familiar with the term for a long time. Now change "genetic drift" to "Kimura" and repeat the search. Peruse the results going back to 2002. Evidently I've been familiar with Kimura's work for a long time, too. So since I'm familiar with genetic drift and Kimura, you must have misunderstood my answer. Where you've gone wrong is that you've forgotten what you're defending. Back in my Message 104 I quoted Sanford, saying:
Percy in Message 104 writes: About the paper Mendel’s Accountant: A New Population Genetics Simulation Tool for Studying Mutation and Natural Selection, this is the concluding sentence of the abstract:
Sanford writes: The primary reason is that most deleterious mutations are too subtle to be detected and eliminated by natural selection and therefore accumulate steadily generation after generation and inexorably degrade fitness. Can you explain for us how "deleterious mutations too subtle to be detected" can have an impact? Once they've accumulated to the point where they can can have an impact they're no longer "too subtle to be detected." Natural selection will operate to deselect those in a population who have accumulated too many of these "deleterious mutations too subtle to be detected." Let me explain the contradiction again. Sanford says these mildly deleterious mutations are "too subtle" individually to be subject to the natural selection filter, and that they accumulate over time and degrade fitness. When deleterious mutations have aggregated to the point where they degrade fitness then this aggregation is not "too subtle" to be subject to natural selection. Natural selection would operate against aggregations of deleterious mutations degrading fitness.
So climate has no impact on selection? Sorry if I wasn't clear. Of course climate change of any sort affects selection. The scenario was supposed to be one of rapid climate change within a single generation, causing previously advantageous traits like hairlessness to become deleterious. Let me illustrate this another way. Say you transported hairless creatures from the desert to the North Pole. Their advantageous alleles for hairlessness would suddenly be deleterious. What is advantageous or deleterious is often a function of environment. The point I was making is that genetic processes will not cause aggregations of deleterious mutations to spread throughout a population and degrade fitness. Natural selection would operate against this. And if you want to argue that such aggregations have too subtle an effect for natural selection to operate on, then since there is no effect on survival to reproduce there cannot have been any degradation in fitness.
So half the bears survive under reduced selection as I said. There you go talking about reduced selection again. What in your imagination is causing this reduction in selection pressure? You do sort of attempt an answer here:
AlphaOmegaKid writes: You believe that populations of large mammals are subjected to reduced selective pressures just because if they weren't they'd go extinct? Really? My, isn't mother nature kind! Well what do you think protection of endangered species is? It is a reduction of selection. And no that reduction is not caused by mother nature. She is an idiot. That reduction comes from the will and intelligence of man. But Sanford's Mendel program has nothing to do with artificial changes in selection pressures caused by man. Sanford is making claims about how evolution in nature works, not about man's impact on selection. So leave human interference out of the equation and explain to us what is responsible for this "reduction of selection" for large mammals. --Percy
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22493 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.9
|
Re: Has any evidence been found yet?
AlphaOmegakid writes: Great! Then if you are familiar with these theories, then you are aware that Ohta's refinements in the nearly neutral theory of molecular evolution are well accepted by today's population genetisists. I'm not questioning Kimura's or Ohta's views. I'm questioning your views, which are not shared by Kimura and Ohta. Demonstrating that you can spell their names is not a substitute for explanation. Here's another example of you not explaining something:
What you are missing is that the strongest are mutants also relative to their ancestors. They are the most fit in that generation in that selection environment. However, they are less fit than their ancestors. That's what relative fitness is. Now, I am just referring to sexually reproducing creatures here. Creatures where Mendelian genetics apply. I am not referring to bacteria or viruses etc. This is just a restatement of the original statement that I questioned. Again, just how do you envision this happening? Yes, slightly deleterious alleles can become fixed in a population, but you go beyond Kimura and Ohta in claiming that deleterious genes must inevitably accumulate in populations to the point of making them less fit than prior generations. This is not a valid extrapolation of Kimura and Ohta. Here's why you're wrong: Imagine you have a population with slightly deleterious allele X that is not affected by natural selection and that eventually becomes fixed. Later slightly deleterious allele Y occurs in a different gene. It, too, is unaffected by natural selection, even in combination with allele X, and it, too, eventually becomes fixed in the population. Still later, slightly deleterious allele Z occurs in a different gene. It, too, is unaffected by natural selection, even in combination with alleles X and Y, and it, too, eventually becomes fixed in the population. This population can go on accumulating and fixating slightly deleterious alleles that are unaffected by natural selection even in combination with all the other deleterious alleles, and since there is no impact on natural selection then there cannot possibly be any impact on fitness. As soon as you introduce a slightly deleterious allele into the population that in combination with the older and now fixated deleterious alleles is subject to natural selection because it diminishes fitness, then that allele will be selected against. It will not spread through the population and cause the population to be less fit than prior generations.
So lets compare the ancestral population to the progeny population. The ancestral population would do just fine with the warmer environment. The progeny population (evolved population) is incapable of adapting. So who is more fit? It is the ancestral population. This is the revelation of the data from MA. And it is abundantly obvious in the real worl when you think about it. It is not a revelation to anyone that as populations adapt to a changing environment they become less fit in the original environment. That's inherent in the evolutionary process. You seem to have forgotten what we're discussing again, which is your claim that the accumulation in a population of slightly deleterious alleles to the point of degrading fitness is inevitable. The example about a sudden climate change was just an illustration of how a non-genetic process could cause the situation you're postulating. It wasn't intended to change the topic of discussion.
Well, unfortunately, that is why I asked you to learn about it. You obviously are aware of it from your many posts, but you are not learning about it. Let me post from the wiki article which may elucidate your thinking to see that drift can have a substantial effect on both large and small populations in regards to deleterious mutations.... I'm beginning to notice that when it comes time to explain something you either name-drop, or you quote somebody else who you've misinterpreted as agreeing with you. Why don't you read your little excerpt yourself and then explain to us how it supports your claims? --Percy
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22493 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.9
|
Re: Common Descent rebutted
GrannyMagda writes: I haven't ever made a claim that I am a scientist, but I am.
I do not believe you. I think you're lying. In Message 150 AlphaOmegakid said:
AlphaOmegakid in Message 150 writes: Great! I love science. I learn from it all the time. My job is in the "science" world. I wonder why he put science in quotes? I wouldn't worry about whether AlphaOmegakid is really a scientist. He hasn't had any qualms about making other claims at odds with the evidence, I don't see why this claim would be any different. Besides, I'd pit my two Nobels against his science degree any day!  I guess my point is that those of us who prefer to remain anonymous on the Internet, which I still think is a good idea, can make any personal claims we wish without fear of challenge. We're all familiar with the fallacy of argument from authority, especially when the authority cited is the person making the claim, so we can just ignore such arguments. And anyway, AlphaOmegakid is not the topic of this thread. It should be possible to eventually uncover whether AlphaOmegakid has any coherent evidence-based support for his claims. --Percy
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 176 by Granny Magda, posted 11-05-2010 3:43 PM | | Percy has seen this message but not replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22493 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.9
|
|
|
Message 181 of 968 (590127)
11-06-2010 7:44 AM
|
Reply to: Message 178 by dwise1
11-05-2010 10:54 PM
|
|
Re: MA Source
Hi Dwise1, I haven't been following your exchange with WK, but if you're looking for the MA source files then go to that link you mentioned:
Click on "Linux Source Distribution". Download and unpack mendel_v1.4.7.tar.gz. It contains all the sources, here's the index:
sh-3.2$ gzip -d -c mendel_v1.4.7.tar.gz.gz | tar -tf -
mendel_v1.4.7/
mendel_v1.4.7/version
mendel_v1.4.7/favicon.ico
mendel_v1.4.7/html/
mendel_v1.4.7/html/images/
mendel_v1.4.7/html/images/mendel.png
mendel_v1.4.7/html/images/logo.png
mendel_v1.4.7/html/account.html
mendel_v1.4.7/html/intro.html
mendel_v1.4.7/html/tips.html
mendel_v1.4.7/html/tips.js
mendel_v1.4.7/html/other.html
mendel_v1.4.7/html/toc.html
mendel_v1.4.7/html/index.html
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/cmendel.exe
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/fmendel.exe
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/cmendel/
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/cmendel/CVS/
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/cmendel/CVS/Repository
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/cmendel/CVS/Entries
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/cmendel/CVS/Root
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/cmendel/diagnostics.c
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/cmendel/Makefile
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/cmendel/config.h
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/cmendel/debug.c
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/cmendel/fileio.c
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/cmendel/init.c
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/cmendel/mem.c
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/cmendel/mendel.c
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/cmendel/mendel.h
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/cmendel/mendel.in
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/cmendel/mpi.c
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/cmendel/offspring.c
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/cmendel/ranlib.c
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/cmendel/ranlib.h
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/cmendel/readme
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/cmendel/selection.c
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/cmendel/sort.c
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/cmendel/.#sort.c.1.2
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/fmendel/
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/fmendel/CVS/
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/fmendel/CVS/Root
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/fmendel/CVS/Repository
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/fmendel/CVS/Entries
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/fmendel/Makefile
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/fmendel/common.h
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/fmendel/mendel.f
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/fmendel/mendel.in
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/fmendel/mpi_mendel.f
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/fmendel/mpi_mendel_seq.f
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/fmendel/pbs.script
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/fmendel/random_pkg.f90
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/fmendel/sort.f90
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/plot_recipes.cgi
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/config.inc
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/delete.cgi
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/diff.cgi
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/label_post.pl
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/list_cases_win.cgi
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/monitor.ajax
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/list_cases.cgi
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/qsub.pl
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/list_files.cgi
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/Makefile
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/mendel.in
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/mendel.in.yeast
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/more.cgi
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/readme
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/qdel.cgi
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/output.cgi
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/plot_modify.cgi
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/memory.inc
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/plots.cgi
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/start.cgi
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/qmpd.cgi
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/qstat_main.cgi
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/qstat.cgi
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/with_selected.cgi
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/parse.inc
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/rename.cgi
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/monitor.cgi
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/input_file_reader.inc
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/label_form.cgi
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/input_file_writer.pl
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/plots_combine.cgi
mendel_v1.4.7/cgi-bin/input_file_parser.inc
mendel_v1.4.7/cmendel
mendel_v1.4.7/fmendel
mendel_v1.4.7/js/
mendel_v1.4.7/js/tabpane.js
mendel_v1.4.7/js/jquery.js
mendel_v1.4.7/js/stylize_buttons.js
mendel_v1.4.7/js/flot/
mendel_v1.4.7/js/flot/examples/
mendel_v1.4.7/js/flot/examples/basic.html
mendel_v1.4.7/js/flot/examples/layout.css
mendel_v1.4.7/js/flot/examples/zooming.html
mendel_v1.4.7/js/flot/examples/graph-types.html
mendel_v1.4.7/js/flot/examples/selection.html
mendel_v1.4.7/js/flot/examples/setting-options.html
mendel_v1.4.7/js/flot/examples/index.html
mendel_v1.4.7/js/flot/examples/dual-axis.html
mendel_v1.4.7/js/flot/examples/interacting.html
mendel_v1.4.7/js/flot/examples/time.html
mendel_v1.4.7/js/flot/examples/visitors.html
mendel_v1.4.7/js/flot/examples/turning-series.html
mendel_v1.4.7/js/flot/examples/mendel.html
mendel_v1.4.7/js/flot/excanvas.pack.js
mendel_v1.4.7/js/flot/excanvas.js
mendel_v1.4.7/js/flot/TODO
mendel_v1.4.7/js/flot/API.txt
mendel_v1.4.7/js/flot/NEWS.txt
mendel_v1.4.7/js/flot/README.txt
mendel_v1.4.7/js/flot/jquery.flot.js
mendel_v1.4.7/js/flot/jquery.flot.pack.js
mendel_v1.4.7/js/flot/jquery.js
mendel_v1.4.7/js/flot/index.html
mendel_v1.4.7/css/
mendel_v1.4.7/css/style1.css
mendel_v1.4.7/css/style2.css
mendel_v1.4.7/css/tab.webfx.css
mendel_v1.4.7/css/form.css
mendel_v1.4.7/images/
mendel_v1.4.7/images/nodata.html
mendel_v1.4.7/images/mendel_logo.png
mendel_v1.4.7/images/nodata.png
mendel_v1.4.7/images/mendel.png
mendel_v1.4.7/images/logo.png
mendel_v1.4.7/images/button.gif
mendel_v1.4.7/images/famfamfam.com/
mendel_v1.4.7/images/famfamfam.com/application_go.png
mendel_v1.4.7/images/famfamfam.com/cross.png
mendel_v1.4.7/images/famfamfam.com/page_white_get.png
mendel_v1.4.7/images/famfamfam.com/page_white_put.png
mendel_v1.4.7/images/famfamfam.com/folder_page.png
mendel_v1.4.7/images/famfamfam.com/chart_curve.png
mendel_v1.4.7/images/famfamfam.com/folder_explore.png
mendel_v1.4.7/images/famfamfam.com/information.png
mendel_v1.4.7/images/famfamfam.com/world_link.png
mendel_v1.4.7/images/famfamfam.com/user.png
mendel_v1.4.7/images/famfamfam.com/comment.png
mendel_v1.4.7/images/famfamfam.com/arrow_branch.png
mendel_v1.4.7/images/famfamfam.com/delete.png
mendel_v1.4.7/images/famfamfam.com/textfield_rename.png
mendel_v1.4.7/images/famfamfam.com/lock.png
mendel_v1.4.7/images/famfamfam.com/tick.png
mendel_v1.4.7/images/famfamfam.com/time_add.png
mendel_v1.4.7/images/famfamfam.com/compress.png
mendel_v1.4.7/images/famfamfam.com/lock_open.png
mendel_v1.4.7/help.html
mendel_v1.4.7/Makefile
mendel_v1.4.7/configure
mendel_v1.4.7/README
mendel_v1.4.7/win/
mendel_v1.4.7/win/in.nsi
mendel_v1.4.7/index.html You can also just say "tar -tzf mendel_v1.4.7.tar.gz.gz" if you have a gzip capable version of tar. --Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 178 by dwise1, posted 11-05-2010 10:54 PM | | dwise1 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 183 by dwise1, posted 11-06-2010 8:57 AM | | Percy has replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22493 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.9
|
|
|
Message 182 of 968 (590128)
11-06-2010 7:58 AM
|
Reply to: Message 179 by crashfrog
11-05-2010 11:55 PM
|
|
Re: Common Descent rebutted
Hi Crash! I think we think about design the same way, but I thought I'd make sure.
crashfrog writes: Sure, there's design in places in the biological world. Most species show absolutely no design of any kind, at all. And the few species that do - agricultural cultivars, livestock, de novo proteins, GM organisms, bespoke bacteria, and the like - were designed by human beings. Naturally, all these organisms are no older than human civilization. There are no examples of design in organisms prior to when humans began to design organisms. When you say design I think you mean design with purpose and intent by some tangible entity, is that right? If so, then I think we're on the same page. But there can also be unintended design. Current theories about the origin of agriculture are that each new season men would only plant grain that they found most advantageous the previous season, thereby unintentionally carrying out breeding experiments. Then there are those strange Japanese crabs with the outline of a warrior on their carapace created by an unintentional breeding program driven by superstition. So I often find it effective to concede that there is indeed design everywhere throughout nature, but that the process of descent with modification and natural selection is the designer. Evolution finely crafts the adaptation of organisms to their environment that has all the appearance of being purposefully designed. We don't have to agree on this, but just thought I'd bring it up in case it helps with AOK. --Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 179 by crashfrog, posted 11-05-2010 11:55 PM | | crashfrog has not replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22493 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.9
|
|
|
Message 184 of 968 (590148)
11-06-2010 9:53 AM
|
Reply to: Message 183 by dwise1
11-06-2010 8:57 AM
|
|
Re: MA Source
dwise1 writes: ...so that will be contingent on my condition when I return. Hopefully returning itself will be "contingent on my condition." I know you said "seminar," but there's always that unwinding period in the bar at the end of the day. Have fun but be safe. --Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 183 by dwise1, posted 11-06-2010 8:57 AM | | dwise1 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 185 by dwise1, posted 11-06-2010 10:29 PM | | Percy has replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22493 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.9
|
|
|
Message 186 of 968 (590256)
11-07-2010 6:55 AM
|
Reply to: Message 185 by dwise1
11-06-2010 10:29 PM
|
|
Re: MA Source
dwise1 writes: Still no luck with that tarball. The -tf option for tar does display the source files, but not extract them. Neither does the -xf option. The "t" in "tar -tf" stands for "table of contents," so it will only display what is in the tarball. The "x" in "tar -xf" stands for "eXtract", and should extract all files, including the source files. Are you saying it extracts other files but not the source files? Or is it extracting nothing? You should see a top level directory called "mendel_v1.4.7", and it should contain everything listed in the table of contents. Are you using true Linux or at least Unix, or are you using an emulator? --Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 185 by dwise1, posted 11-06-2010 10:29 PM | | dwise1 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 187 by dwise1, posted 11-08-2010 1:25 AM | | Percy has replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22493 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.9
|
|
|
Message 188 of 968 (590433)
11-08-2010 8:19 AM
|
Reply to: Message 187 by dwise1
11-08-2010 1:25 AM
|
|
Re: MA Source
I can open and examine all the files. There are source files in Perl, Fortran, HTML, Javascript and CSS. Let me repeat the process and see if I can download and unpack it again. First I go to Mendel’s Accountant download | SourceForge.net Then I click on the "View all files" button. Then I click on "Linux Source Distribution". Then I click on "mendel_v1.4.7.tar.gz", which for me downloads the file "mendel_v1.4.7.tar.gz.gz", which is fine. I move the the downloaded file from my Windows machine to my Linux machine and put it in a temp directory. I execute this command: tar -xzf mendel_v1.4.7.tar.gz.gz It extracts the directory mendel_v1.4.7 and all it's contents. I do an ls on the directory:
% ls -l mendel_v1.4.7
total 176
-rw-r--r-- 1 elkind cadence10 6650 Jul 23 2009 Makefile
-rw-r--r-- 1 elkind cadence10 2524 Jul 23 2009 README
drwxr-xr-x 4 elkind cadence10 4096 Jul 23 2009 cgi-bin
lrwxrwxrwx 1 elkind cadence10 15 Nov 8 08:13 cmendel -> cgi-bin/cmendel
-rwxr-xr-x 1 elkind cadence10 29111 Jul 23 2009 configure
drwxr-xr-x 2 elkind cadence10 4096 Jul 23 2009 css
-rw-r--r-- 1 elkind cadence10 9662 Jul 23 2009 favicon.ico
lrwxrwxrwx 1 elkind cadence10 15 Nov 8 08:13 fmendel -> cgi-bin/fmendel
-rw-r--r-- 1 elkind cadence10 88443 Jul 23 2009 help.html
drwxr-xr-x 3 elkind cadence10 4096 Jul 23 2009 html
drwxr-xr-x 3 elkind cadence10 4096 Jul 23 2009 images
-rw-r--r-- 1 elkind cadence10 165 Jul 23 2009 index.html
drwxr-xr-x 3 elkind cadence10 4096 Jul 23 2009 js
-rw-r--r-- 1 elkind cadence10 16 Jul 23 2009 version
drwxr-xr-x 2 elkind cadence10 4096 Jul 23 2009 win I do an ls on one of the subdirectories:
% ls -l mendel_v1.4.7/js
total 80
drwxr-xr-x 3 elkind cadence10 4096 Jul 23 2009 flot
-rw-r--r-- 1 elkind cadence10 55774 Jul 23 2009 jquery.js
-rw-r--r-- 1 elkind cadence10 873 Jul 23 2009 stylize_buttons.js
-rw-r--r-- 1 elkind cadence10 10182 Jul 23 2009 tabpane.js I cat the smallest file:
% cat mendel_v1.4.7/js/stylize_buttons.js
/**
this plugin converts ugly submit buttons to nice looking buttons
see: http://www.oscaralexander.com/tutorials/how-to-make-sexy-buttons-with-css.html
This jQuery plugin is created by Jankees van Woezik for www.base42.nl
Date: October 3, 2008
*/
jQuery.fn.stylizeButton = function() {
return this.each(function(){
//value is the text in the button
var value = this.value;
var id = this.id;
if($(this).attr("stylizeAction") == "submit"){
$(this).css({ display:"none"});
$(this).after(""+value+"");
}else if($(this).attr("stylizeAction") == "clean"){
$(this).css({ display:"none"});
$(this).after(""+value+"");
}else{
//sorry for now i only do submit buttons and clean buttons
}
});
}; The download and unpacking seems to be okay. I haven't attempted building it. --Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 187 by dwise1, posted 11-08-2010 1:25 AM | | dwise1 has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2