“A company selling proprietary software to third parties will never open its code if the company has a competitor. It will never release its software under the GNU GPL. If you consider open code a benefit to society, you may want to propagate open-code legislation or otherwise try to stimulate new competition in the marketplace.” A draft of this article has been stirring up much debate on the Free Software law mailing list, but this is the first time it’s been published at a web site.
The Game Theory of Open Code
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
I think one of the companies with a good model for how OSS can benefit business is Zend. Develop a popular open source tool, then release performance enhancing components for it as well as additional tools. Zend has competition from Macromedia, but you don’t see that stopping them.
The game industry has surpassed all the “code” stages… Of course there is always possible to add new special effects, but the reality is that a game nowadays is just content and content packaging…
There is no need for more code to be able to create very good games. But that is the problem isn’t it?
Most companies will add all those special effects just to camouflage the crappy game structure and innexistent challanges and plots…
But that is entirelly another thread…
Cheers…
Luis Ferro
Bionomics and systems theory are much better for modeling systems than game theory. Bionomics didn’t exist in 1968 and systems theory was not widely embraced. The analogy that seems to work well is open system = open source and closed system = closed source.
Open source creates ecologies that have the potential to change, to evolve, based on the global environment.
Closed source creates ecologies that are under the control of the local environment.
There is no closed source ecology that evolves to suit the needs of the many as well as an open source ecology.
It is the difference between a closed system and an open system.
“If you consider open code a benefit to society, you may want to propagate open-code legislation…”
Well, if we want to get rid of personal ownership of property (intellectual or not), capitalism, etc., sure, we can TRY to put in place legislation that forces open source.
What problem are we solving? Like a good doctor, you want to cut/do as little as possible to heal the patient.
Let’s pick specific areas to look at for open source:
The citizen’s default security monitoring system (Palladium)
The citizen’s default operating system (Windows)
These two systems should be open source. Why? Because open source enables trust, enables collaborative economies. An open system operating system will evolve to suit the needs of the many, not the needs of Microsoft. Same thing with Palladium, a joint venture between the US government and Microsoft.
However, the needs of the citizens are not the needs of the government. Open source is not something that the government would want. At least not as the government exists today.
The government can do what it wants, when it wants, however it wants with closed source. For the areas where the citizenry would most desire open source, the government would want closed source.
Why do you think essentially nothing is happening to Microsoft in the antitrust trial? Because Microsoft’s closed source monopoly is a giant government asset/resource.
So we end up in a strange place with a conflict between the citizenry and government. Much like where we started.
It is clear to me that the issue is not simplistic.
It will be difficult to introduce legislation that reduces government power. Usually it takes a revolution or other large public movement to do that sort of thing.
So where do we land?
If we want to have the benefits of open source in the areas that matter most to the citizens, we need to form a mass movement to make Microsoft move Windows and Palladium to open source.
An open source ecology is the only type of system that will serve the needs of the many.
#m
“An open source ecology is the only type of system that will serve the needs of the many.”
Ok.. But since you are using the term “ecology”, who cares? Evolution doesn’t care about “the needs of the many”. Evolution does not operate on the level of the species. It operates on the level of the individual. Group selection (a theory that was popular in the 60s) has little relevance today.
As far as the government legislating it and forcing companies to open their source. No thanks. But I’m glad he brought it up. It proves what I have said all along that the GPL’s roots are in socialism.
NO.
i agree with simba.
sometimes i think making the eula illegal and making software companies more responsible for shoddy products ought to fix things right up quick
>>”An open source ecology is the only type of system that >>will serve the needs of the many.”
>Ok.. But since you are using the term “ecology”, who
>cares? Evolution doesn’t care about “the needs of the
>many”. Evolution does not operate on the level of the
>species. It operates on the level of the individual.
>Group selection (a theory that was popular in the 60s)
>has little relevance today.
Evolution operates on all levels.
You may choose to breed with a stupid person, lowering your chances of intelligent offspring.
Your tribe may choose to live under a volcano because it’s warm. And then the volcano erupts and you all die.
Your people and culture may choose to live on a beautiful island, but then in a cataclysm, the island sinks and your culture and people perish.
Evolution is the output of the entire system.
If the system is closed, its total evolution over a period of time will be less than that of an open system.
In today’s science, we are discovering morphogenetic fields where the evolution of one individual effects the entire species. (see Rupert Sheldrake’s seminal work).
http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC12/Sheldrak.htm
In effect, closed source is constrained evolution, from a biological systems viewpoint using modern science.
#m
He uses the tragedy of the commons and the prisoners dilemma. But I’m sure there is more to game theory than those two options. His solution seems inelegant. Perhaps if he extended to many companies using open source he might find another game play for winning.
“Evolution operates on all levels.”
It does not. Evolution operates on the level of the individual. If you choose to breed with a stupid person then your negative trait (lack of good judgement when choosing a breeding partner) will slowly be weeded out.
“Your tribe may choose to live under a volcano because it’s warm. And then the volcano erupts and you all die.”
That’s not evolution. That’s a social issue. And once again, if you choose to remain with the tribe in spite of knowing that the volcano is going to erupt, then your negative trait (lack of self preservation initiative) will slowly be weeded out.
“Your people and culture may choose to live on a beautiful island, but then in a cataclysm, the island sinks and your culture and people perish.”
Once again. This is a social issue. See above comments.
“Evolution is the output of the entire system.”
Populations evolve. Individuals do not. But individuals are selected. Groups are not. Cataclysmic events are a seperate issue. If everyone is in the wrong place at the wrong time, that is not evolution. However, if some individuals survive the cataclysm because they have a trait that enables them to and others do not, that is evolution.
“In effect, closed source is constrained evolution, from a biological systems viewpoint using modern science.”
From a biological systems viewpoint using modern science, you better go back and review basic evolutionary theory.
“He uses the tragedy of the commons and the prisoners dilemma. But I’m sure there is more to game theory than those two options.”
There is a lot more to game theory than this. I’m an ecology major and we use game theory all the time to study the evolutionary reasons why certain behavioral traits have developed.
The prisoner’s dillema is only one type of game. There are many many other game matrixes that can be used. And today we are question how much relevance the prisoner’s dillema has in actual behavioral studies anyway. It was a valid attempt at explaining why cooperation might develop. However, more recent studies have shown that animals devalue the future. Basically, $10 today is better than $10 next week. Because animals devalue the future, the prisoner’s dillema seems to be losing validity in animal behavior studies as it does not adequitely explain things.
By the way… The descripion of the prisoner’s dillema given in the article is a little bit flawed.
“Thus, the rational prisoner will never co-operate.”
This is only true if animal A can be sure that it will never have another encounter with animal B. If animal A defects and receieves a big payoff, while animal B co-operates and recieves maximum punishment, And animal A later meets up with animal B again, animal B will remember what happened last time. Thus, a few things could happen. Among them are:
1. animal B will defect, remembering that animal A betrayed it last time. Thus, both animals will now get punished because both defected.
2. animal B may decide to beat the crap out of animal A for betrying it last time, in which case the injury that animal A suffers may have a higher cost then the payoff it originally receieved for defecting.
Because of this, a rational prisoner will not always defect as the author suggests. A rational prisoner will only defect if he can be sure that he will never have another dealing with the other prisoner involved in the dillema. That’s where the co-operation may be beneficial. If animal A and animal B will have multiple dealing with each other both now and in the future, it might make more sense for them to co-operate.
However, as I stated before, more recent studies have shown that animals tend to devalue the future, so this whole thing may not be as important as once thought.
There should be no legislation mandating open source. I have no objection to open source per se, but one has to advocate such things within the full context of what we know — not just its effect on the computer industry.
There should be no laws mandating the terms according to which two or more consenting adults wish to do business. There should be no laws mandating the terms under which a software developer should ply his wares to consenting adults. If a developer wishes to release it as closed source, open source, shared source, shitty source, no source or whatever, he should be allowed to do so if the other party agrees. If not, then they move on.
I’m not against open source and have even released GPL’d software myself, but nobody should be forced to do this. What, open source isn’t fairing well so you want to pass laws to impose it on the market place, using the government as your bully? Not commendable. The supporters of such an idea are not advocates of freedom, whatever they may be, though I know they’d like to be seen as such.
http://objectivistcenter.org
As a commercial developer, I can say that he is right on both counts. We won’t open our code because the risk is high it could be used to put us out of business by competitors. Neither will we go for GPL (if we decided to open source) on the grounds that its infectious nature is unjust. I would choose a BSD license over GPL instead because it is fairer to all players.
There is another factor which is often neglected.
It is assumed that all software developers are equal in their ability to develop good software or ideas, which blows the “commons” argument out of the water (all farmers are not equal). This is not true and I believe the “intelligence” to create softwarewill be clustered according to a number of factors. Fundamentally, there needs to be a localized benefit to the developer for intelligence to cluster. In a commercial software company, money will be one of those factors, but in an academic or open source environment there will be other more important factors, like research grants and recognition. I generally don’t agree with Raymonds argument’s that support a commercial underpinning of OSS, primarily on the assignments of costs. His argument that the “grass grows taller when it’s grazed on” is hollow in that all software has a cost associated with development. My argument is that if that cost cannot be directly related to the use of the software, that ultimately the business model will fail. If you don’t fertilize the grass, it will eventually die for lack of nutrients.
P
Interesting read, but totally irrelevant, I think. Just because you believe (no matter how much) that code should be open, you don’t have a right to force others to agree with your belief through the use of force. Wonder why we squirm so much about things like the SCCA? Because it forces us into a situation where we’re not free. If you want freedom, you have to practice it. A “live and let live” credo is lost on many free software zealots.
So, how do you get people to use open software? Persuade them that your view is right, and show them tangible benefits of the use thereof.
“sometimes i think making the eula illegal and making software companies more responsible for shoddy products ought to fix things right up quick
”
Eliminate the first part of the statement about making it illegal, and go from there. Open Source companies could do better than their closed-source opponents by doing things like providing warranties for their software. Things, of course, would have to “just work.” But it would breed good software. How many times have you seen an advertisement for a 7year/70,000mi. warranty on a car? It’s a selling point. The product has to be good enough to live up to that promise. A scant few softare producers do that today. Debian is very close, and they don’t make money (but people still bitch about how old the packages in “stable” are). Apple is headed in that direction with their latest ad campaign.
But mandating open-source software would not further the goals of freedom.
Yes, legislation to impose open software – I am dead set against that. OSS is wonderful, but it has to make it on its own merits. To me, the best case scenario is one where there is dynamic tension between OSS and commercial software, where both are enhanced by, not only their existence, but the constant improvement on both “sides”. I realize that scenario is not always in place <g>. But, to me, it is a worthy state of affairs to try and reach and maintain.
This is a fascinating discussion. Some of the posts have been great and I can see how these theories play out in the area of computing. It is interesting to view “closed systems” like Microsoft and Apple in this light. But, when I do that, it still seems to me that the overarching activity of these systems is either trying to come up with something and convince people they need it or react to events outside of theirs systems (like the way Microsoft turned on a dime to become internet oriented). The great contributions of computing to the population as a whole are in the areas of the sciences and medicine. At the consumer level it’s still a matter of convincing people that they can do cool things with their computers – some of them really useful, others fun, others just fluff. But it is really interesting to see the webs people like Gates and Jobs try to weave in these closed systems – and the obsession to keep them closed.
The open source has made coumputing more easy an more open those 5-7 years, Microsoft is working 24/24 to perfect it’s products againt the penguins attack, Apple have released an Open souce OS (Darwin) to stimulate apple farmers to get into the air.
“Eliminate the first part of the statement about making it illegal, and go from there. Open Source companies could do better than their closed-source opponents by doing things like providing warranties for their software. Things, of course, would have to “just work.” But it would breed good software. How many times have you seen an advertisement for a 7year/70,000mi. warranty on a car? It’s a selling point. The product has to be good enough to live up to that promise. A scant few softare producers do that today.”
It comes down to my argument of costs. In my experience, supporting software can cost more than developing it. While it can’ be said that OSS == Free (as in cost) software, that is often the assumption that people erroneously make, and if the assumption is valid, supporting OSS can be a higher cost than developing it too – this is borne out by my experience of OSS. Although making software open certainly can help towards warranting your software, the risk of competition has to be weighed as reduced revenue. As long as your openness doesn’t cost revenue, it would save on costs if done the right way. We must however not forget the hidden costs of OSS – software creation does have costs – if the costs are not recovered, there will be a deficit somewhere, not necessarily monetary.
Having said that, I think it is possible to improve software warranties by providing source, but still under a closed model – this happens all the time (although we don’t do it). The OSS movement hasn’t got the market cornered on that front.
P
What about the GNU Lesser License ( http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html )that GNUstep is distributed under?
my bad. my thoughts was in a warentee situation but it didnt come out that way =)
The choice of keeping source open or closed depends on the target *market*. Not everything is created equal (although certain people would like you to believe this in the guise of communism ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hopen source) and some markets do in fact require closed source, else there is no technological gain on the competition, which spells disaster.
On a tangent, it takes a lot of time, resources, energy and money to innovate software products. If these were forced to be open sourced, many companies would die as soon as garage outfits began flogged their wares for a fraction of the initial costs.
Freedom of choice, isn’t that what it’s all about?
….It’s socialism, which actually does work.
Wow. What an amazingly well drafted troll!
Step 1: Ignore the fact that many companies are making a profit, do release Open code, and do have competitors. (See: Redhat, Mandrake, IBM)
Step 2: Declare that Netscape has already lost the browser war, so it doesn’t count as an acceptable example of how Open Source can benefit a company.
Step 3: The final blow! “This Open Source lark will never fly, lets use restrictive laws to force people to use Open source!” Take a final dig at Open Source companies; make sure to include one succesful company in the list as a final joke.
“Step 1: Ignore the fact that many companies are making a profit, do release Open code, and do have competitors. (See: Redhat, Mandrake, IBM)”
Erm… not exactly good examples, since:
1. Redhat is thinking about a patents on some of his software (don’t ask how they think about a thing like that, since the software is GPL).
2. Mandrake isn’t making great profits (hence they searches some ways to switch to a different businness model).
3. IBM is a hardware company, not a software one.
The original peice doesn’t make a distinction between hardware or software companies. Nor have patents anything to do with GPL code. Its entirly possible for Redhat to hold a defensive patent on something; if they then choose to use that patent in GPL’d code, they have to abide by cluses in the GPL which specifically provide Free terms under which they must also allow use of their patented code.
I stand by my original remark; the article is one uber-troll. The possibility that the guy is serious is simply too scary to contemplate, anyhow.
davidsmind, i appreciate and empathize with your socialistic viewpoint. I simply believe, having observed socialism in action over the course of many decades, that it, almost without exception, stunts creativity and innovation. It works at a certain level, but not all that great. However, it is a haunting thing. For example, I would like to see health insurance in our country (USA) for everyone. In fact, it makes me sick to my stomach that we don’t. But, it’s a huge leap in a sense and, inevitably, the quality of it will go downhill. LOL, it’s easier to talk about it in a software context rather than human. Anyway, it works on a “lower” level, but stymies innovation.
“….It’s socialism, which actually does work.”
It doesn’t work. Because of the nature of human nature. Like it or not, people, like other animals, are most interested in “me”. “What’s in it for me? How do I benefit? If I defect, will I get a better payoff than if I co-operate?”
Like most animals, humans generally only co-operate when it is beneficial on a personal level.
Socialism takes away a great deal of motivation. If you can’t capitalize on your ideas, why bother putting effort into making them materialize just so that they can basically become public property?
Socialism sounds great in theory. In reality it simply doesn’t work.
“Wow. What an amazingly well drafted troll!”
It was reasonably well drafted, except for the fact that as I pointed out earlier, his analysis of the prisoner’s dillema was quite flawed. There are most definately situations where it makes the most sense for the prisoners to co-operate. A rational prisoner will not always defect as the author suggests.
Simba: It sure sounds like you’ve been reading your Ayn Rand. =) This discussion is growing exceptionally offtopic and overwhelmingly trite (these conversations were captivating when I was, say, a High School freshman, but that’s honestly about it), but, hey, I might as well get in on some of this angsty teenaged action! The tiresome argument that humans are nothing more than animals, that humans are selfish creatures, incapable of cooperation and anything remotely resembling an altruistic act is quite possibly the most naive, widespread, and, frankly, dangerous ideal across which I’ve ever come. Applying the law of the wild blindly to an intellectually advanced being such as humans is clearly a mismatched metaphor, and seems only possible in a society such as ours. Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m no socialist, I just find blind faith in the oh-so-tempting ideology of laissez-faire capitalism to be a dangerous thing.
ANYWAY, enough of that… starting to make myself sick! Regardless of any of the drivel I may have just spewed, I find this article to be little more than one big mismatched metaphor itself, chock full of nonarguments (hey, much like my own writing!) and poor grafting-on of now-trendy game theory. One thing that I’ve always failed to understand is, e.g., ESR’s and RMS’s belief that software is of the utmost social significance. Now, as much as I would like to examine the source code of the most sophisticated software out there, 1) let OSS compete on its own terms, as begging for government exceptions will make you look even more unprofessional =), and, more importantly 2) honestly, why on earth would it be in the interest of the government to create legislation that would most certainly create such a dent in the economy? Absolutely complete and utter foolishness to even propose such a thing!
“The tiresome argument that humans are nothing more than animals…”
Well, I hate to burst your bubble… But humans are nothing more than animals. There is zero biological evidence to support any alternative. We share the exact same genetic code of other animals, etc. We are animals. We just happen to have a highly developed intelect.
“incapable of cooperation and anything remotely resembling an altruistic ac…”
We are not incapable of cooperation. We are capable of cooperation when it benefits us. And of course, altruism does exist. But altruism exists in other animals as well so humans are hardly unique in that. A good example is are closed living relative, the chimpanzee. Altruistic acts are quite common in them. Altruism also exists in lions, wolves, and other group living animals. It exists in many insect species as well.
One of the reasons we study social behavior in other animals is in the hopes of obtaining a better understanding of the social behavior of our own species.
“It sure sounds like you’ve been reading your Ayn Rand.”
I’ve actually never read anything from Ayn Rand. Like I said, my major is ecology. My primary focus is animal behavior.
But let me ask you something… Why do you feel the need to think that we are some how “higher” than the animals? Is there something degrading about being a species of animal?
I once saw a quote, which I believe was from an article, but I do not know the exact source:
“If Darwin’s theory should be true, it will not degrade man. Rather, it will simply elevate the rest of the animal kingdom into dignity.”
I really don’t see why people have such a problem with the idea that humans are “just” a species of animal.
Simba,
Sure, we are animals, but are something more than that as well. We (for most cases)are capable of things beyond that of a monkey or fish.
Language, culture, intellect and a drive to change and further ourselves as both individuals and as a species, these are some of the things that seperate ourselves from any other animal. We are animals, but we are more than that as well.
“Sure, we are animals, but are something more than that as well.”
Your statement is a religious belief. And it is not supported by the scientific evidence. We are animals. We aren’t anything more than that. It is that simple. We are animals that happen to have a very highly developed intellect as a result of evolutionary processes–the same process that affect all other animals.
This is not an over-simplification. It is a simply what the scientific evidence says.
If you want to believe that we are more than just animals that is fine. But at least be honest about the belief. It is a religious one, and not one that comes from, or is supported by, science.
Okay guys, I’m about to get Really off subject here, but I just can’t let it go.
” It is a religious one, and not one that comes from, or is supported by, science.”
I suppose quantifying humanity scientifically as a concept is totaly impossible, but that does not mean my viewpoint is necessarily a religous one, though I could see how it could be interpreted as such. One can believe in humanity without believing in a religion.
Simba, I respect your position and you seem like an inteligent person; however, you sound like someone who has focused so much on their job/speacialty/career/hobby as to have gotten lost in the details and unable to comprehend much outside of your niche.
Sure, Humans have evolved from other plain old animals. We have started as something less and now we are something more.
But the key word here is evolved, we(humanity) are no longer your average animal that we one were.
At the core of our arguments I believe we agree. Yes we are animals. But, you must admit, aside from any religion, there are certain things no other animal besides man has done. Plus, there ARE definite biological differences between man and any other animal, such as a larger brain capacity.
Granted, many humans in practice of their lives accomplish little more than any other animal; but, humanity is capable of something far and beyond the scope of any other animal.
Show me one fish that could have been Plato, show me one monkey that could have been Mozart.
Simba, you see the trees but not the forest.
One thing that was not brought up in the article is a potential advantage of opening up the source in asymmetric competition — a dominant competitor versus a minor one. This argument is handled in quite a bit of detail in Varian/Shapiro’s “Information Rules”. It boils down to being potentially advantageous for the minor player’s specifications being open (and compatible with everything), whereas the major player will often find it to its advantage to be closed, and incompatible with all of the minor players. Open source may be one way to achieve this. Or at least available source — something along the lines of “when you buy the product, you get the source” sounds to me like a better business model than “GPL and charge for service”.
There are some other issues, but the margins of this article are too short to contain them. Also my program just finished compiling.
Yours truly,
Jeffrey Boulier
Not speaking for anyone in particular.
Please<em>ignore</em>thistest.
“however, you sound like someone who has focused so much on their job/speacialty/career/hobby as to have gotten lost in the details and unable to comprehend much outside of your niche.”
In a way, you are probably right. I am highly focussed on my research. But it is only because I believe strongly in what I am doing and want to do the best job of it that I possibly can.
However I disagree that my view that humans are nothing more than an animal that is highly developed intelectually is a result of this specialization. Rather, I think it is based on the simple fact that I don’t feel any need to think I am higher than other species of animals. I think this insatiable need of people to believe we are “more than animals” is because they need to believe it in order to feel that humans have a meaning or purpose. I don’t see things that way. I see us as another animal. We are no more or less than any other animal. Like every other animal, we fill an important niche. And that is where the meaning and purpose is.
“But the key word here is evolved, we(humanity) are no longer your average animal that we one were.”
What is an average animal? There is no average animal. All animals have evolved traits that other animals do not have. Humans have developed a great deal of intelligence. But can you out sprint a cheetah in the 100 yard dash? I bet there are a lot of athletes out there that wish they were built like a cheetah and could sprint at 75mph. So we are not more than the “average” animal because there is no such thing as an “average” animal. All animals have specialized traits. Humans are no exception. We happen to be highly intellecutally developed. But that does not mean we have become “more” than animals. Biologically, we are still just animals who function in the exact same way as other animals. on a biological level.
“Simba, you see the trees but not the forest.”
Like I said. I disagree. I think the belief that we are more than animals come because many people can’t find meaning or purpose for human life if we are just animals. I find plenty of meaning and purpose in believing that we are just animals. So I think I see the trees and the forest quite well…
And I would have to say it is likely you that is seeing the trees and not the forest. But alas, since we both have such vastly different views of what the forest and the trees actually look like, neither one of us will convince the other that we are seeing only one part of it.
(just have to get my shot in too
i dont think we are animals and certainly not evolved past anything we was created for. i believe there is a God. if i thought we was just some sort of glorified ape i would have no reason to obey the law whatsoever. i would just lie cheat steal kill whatever i want since i wouldnt matter in the end.
(i hope the url formats right)
http://www.creationscience.com/
this has some interesting stuff on the sorting of fossils (read reproducible scientific experiments). if you dont believe any of it is fine but read it just to broaden your horizons ^^
have fun
” But can you out sprint a cheetah in the 100 yard dash?”
I see your point. As a human animal we have developed a higher intelligence, but lack some traits held by other animals (speed in this case).
There are other animals that may give the cheetah a run for there money in terms of physical ability. However, there is no other creature that comes close to rivaling humans in there intellectual ability. We as humanity stand alone in our niche of the animal kingdom.
“But alas, since we both have such vastly different views of what the forest and the trees actually look like, neither one of us will convince the other that we are seeing only one part of it.”
Perhaps your right.
“i dont think we are animals and certainly not evolved past anything we was created for.”
Show me one shread of biological evidence that we are not animals? I can show you mountains of evidence that we are.
As far as the link you posted, there is no such thing as creation science. This is pseduo-science. It is the biological equivalent of alchemy.
And if you want to play the 20 questions game like they do on the web site, I can certainly accomidate you, although I am not going to post 20 here (however, I can come up with thousands).
#1: Can you design an experiment that proves the existance of god that I can replicate?
#2: If we do not all have a common ancestor, can you explain to me why all living things have the EXACT same CODON sequence? There is no underlying reason why they should and the only logical explination is a common ancestry.
#3: Can you explain the existance of transtional whale fossils?
#4: Can you explain paedomorphic traits? Once again, the only logical explination is a common ancestry.
#5: Can you explain homologous structures? Only logical explination is evolution.
When you corner the creationists on these questions, they ultimately resort to “He’s god. He can do whatever he wants”, because that is the only way they can explain it. Sorry, but that is not a scientifically valid hypothesis because there is no way that it can be tested. It is purely speculation.
Well you are at it, it creationists have all of this evidence that evolution is false, perhaps you can explain to me why they are not writing articles on it and getting them published in peer reviwed journals such as SCIENCE and NATURE? Simple. Because the evidence they have is false. It doesn’t hold up under peer review.
Also, creationists have resorted to some pretty pathetic fallcies to try to disprove evolution. One of my favorites is the one regarding the 2nd law of thermodynamics… Sorry, but an 8th grade high school physics student can debunk that one.
Yeah, I know this has gotten way off topic. But like any good evolutionary biologist, I had to respond when someone starts posting links that claim to be “creation science”. Like I said, there is no such thing as creation science. There is creation speculation. That is all there is.
“There are other animals that may give the cheetah a run for there money in terms of physical ability.”
True. Cheetahs have a very high hunting success rate because they are so fast. In fact, their success rate at making a kill is around 50%. In contrast, lions, although much stronger physically, have a much lower hunting success rate. It’s only around 17%.
However, cheetahs often lose their kills to lions. Physically, a cheetah is no match for a lion. So if a lion shows up and wants to steal the kill, the cheetah has no choice but to abandon its kill.
So basically, the cheetah has traits that enable it to be an extremely successful hunter–far more successful then the lion. However, the lion has traits that enable it to steal kills from the cheetah, and there is little that the cheetah can do to stop it.
By the way, the average success rate of human hunters during the deer season in my state is around 20%. So cheetahs are apparently far better hunters than humans. And cheetahs don’t even need high powered rifles, chemical attractants, food bait, etc. to achieve a 50% success rate.
“there is no other creature that comes close to rivaling humans in there intellectual ability.”
There is some evidence that could be used to argue this point. Dolphins have proven to be extremely intelligent, and some would suggest they rival humans in this department. Of course, given that they can’t directly talk to us, and we can’t directly talk to them, this kind of thing is difficult to study. We know that dolphins are extremely intelligent. But we will probably never know just how intelligent they are because of the communication barriers.
“We as humanity stand alone in our niche of the animal kingdom.”
A lot of ecology is based on the idea that no two animals can fill the same niche in any ecosystem. Basically, one will always outcompete the other. So each animal fills a difference niche, even though the differences are often very small.
>>1: Can you design an experiment that proves the existance of god that I can replicate?
#2: If we do not all have a common ancestor, can you explain to me why all living things have the EXACT same CODON sequence? There is no underlying reason why they should and the only logical explination is a common ancestry.
#3: Can you explain the existance of transtional whale fossils?
#4: Can you explain paedomorphic traits? Once again, the only logical explination is a common ancestry.
#5: Can you explain homologous structures? Only logical explination is evolution. <<
first off did you read the whole site? i doubt it but thats ok
.
1. no, but you can with out a doubt show me evolotion either cuase we dont yet have time travel ^^
2-5. commonalities suggest common design which can only be done thru inteligence.(like cars we make now are just different models on a simular design, most have four wheels not 5 and such).
the problem with evolution is it start with several ASSUMPTIONS (most all hypothesis do anyway ^^).
1. the earth and universe came from nothing and is old. (i guess the universe isnt proof enough of God )
2. sedimentary layers represent millions of years
its just a different interpretation of the facts i have seen. read the site and you will also see reasons why its not in science and nature. it tells
ps not sure what a paedomorphic traits are but interested to know
“1. no, but you can with out a doubt show me evolotion either cuase we dont yet have time travel ^^”
I can show you many examples of evolution that have occured and are occuring today:
#1: The creationist propeganda that there are no transitional fossils in the fossil record is a downright lie. There are quite a few, the most common being whales. There are several fossils in the record of the transition of whales from land animals to ocean animals.
#2: The peppered moths of the industrial revolution are perhaps the most famous example of evolution at work.
#3: New species of birds have appeared within recorded history. In fact, there are species of birds that exist today that did not exist 75 years ago.
The question on the site about evolutionists not being able to get any examples of macroevolution occuring today is a red herring. Macroevolution is a process that takes millions of years. It is very much occuring today. But we can’t see it occuring because it takes so long.
“commonalities suggest common design which can only be done thru inteligence.”
Speculation… And bad speculation at that. Because there no intelligent reason why these structures should be homologous. In fact, some of these structures would be more efficient if they were designed differently then they are. That would seem to suggest there was no intelligence behind their design. A far more logical explination is that there are commonalities because one structure developed out of another. That would also more logically explain why they are not perfect. Evolution had to work with what it had available. It couldn’t completely redesign the structure. It had to modify an existing structure to be used for a different purpose.
“1. the earth and universe came from nothing and is old. (i guess the universe isnt proof enough of God )”
The Universe is not proof of god. There is no evidence you can give that it is.
“2. sedimentary layers represent millions of years.”
This is not an assumption. It is based on many things including radioactive dating techniques. And I know what you are going to say, but before you do. It is another lie put forth by creationists. Creationists have tried to prove radioactive dating doesn’t work by using such circus stunts as the following:
– carbon dating objects that are still alive. Of course that’s going to give you erratic results because living objects are still taking in carbon 14.
– radioactively dating objects that are simply not good candidates for dating. No secular scientist would have even attempted to date these objects because they simply can’t be dated.
– Putting forth the lie that dating techniques make the invalid assumption that radioactive decay occurs at a constant rate. This is not an assumption. It has been tested and shown to be true. Radioactive decay occurs at a constant rate regardless of temperature, pressure, humidity, and any other form of environmental change. So, no, the mythical world wide flood would not have accelerated radioactive decay rates as some creationists like to suggest. That theory has been tested and disproven.
“its just a different interpretation of the facts i have seen. read the site and you will also see reasons why its not in science and nature. it tells
”
I know perfectly well why it is not in SCIENCE and NATURE. And I have already told you why. The idea that science has an agenda to disprove creation has no valid basis. There is no motivation for wanting to do that. Science is interested in finding how things work.
So I might as well point out, that although there is no motive for science to have an agenda to disprove creation, there is a HUGE motive for creationists to have an agenda to disprove evolution. Why? Because if evolution is true, then a major keystone of the Bible is false. Creationists are the one with motive here to pursue an agenda, not evolutionists.
“ps not sure what a paedomorphic traits are but interested to know
”
Paedomorphic traits are traits that are seen in juvenile development, but disappear with age. A good example in humans is that developing embryos have gill sacks. These gill sacks disappear before birth though. The most logical explination for the gill sacks is that they are an ancestral trait from our waterborn ancestors that has not fully disappeared yet.
Another thing creation cannot account for but evolution can is the existance of vestigial traits. Vestigial traits are traits that animals have from past ancestry that no longer serve any useful purpose, but simply have not had time to be completely weeded out yet. Humans have over 700 vestigial features. A couple of examples are body hair, and the muscles that can be used to wiggle your ears (which most people cannot actually control anymore, even though the muscles still exist, the synaptic connections in the brain necessary to control the muscles no longer exist).
>>#1: The creationist propeganda that there are no transitional fossils in the fossil record is a downright lie. There are quite a few, the most common being whales. There are several fossils in the record of the transition of whales from land animals to ocean animals.
still assume they are from different time periods.
>>#2: The peppered moths of the industrial revolution are perhaps the most famous example of evolution at work.
tell me more
>>#3: New species of birds have appeared within recorded history. In fact, there are species of birds that exist today that did not exist 75 years ago.
they are not new species if they can still interbreed. just new races.
>>- carbon dating objects that are still alive. Of course that’s going to give you erratic results because living objects are still taking in carbon 14.
– radioactively dating objects that are simply not good candidates for dating. No secular scientist would have even attempted to date these objects because they simply can’t be dated.
i agree
>>The Universe is not proof of god. There is no evidence you can give that it is.
its not disproof either. there is no experiment you can perform to disprove it. so we both stuck there.
>> – Putting forth the lie that dating techniques make the invalid assumption that radioactive decay occurs at a constant rate. This is not an assumption. It has been tested and shown to be true. Radioactive decay occurs at a constant rate regardless of temperature, pressure, humidity, and any other form of environmental change. So, no, the mythical world wide flood would not have accelerated radioactive decay rates as some creationists like to suggest. That theory has been tested and disproven.
you assume to know the starting consentration
>> So I might as well point out, that although there is no motive for science to have an agenda to disprove creation, there is a HUGE motive for creationists to have an agenda to disprove evolution. Why? Because if evolution is true, then a major keystone of the Bible is false. Creationists are the one with motive here to pursue an agenda, not evolutionists.
hmm. no motive at all for anything science? so you are telling me if there was proof that it would be bally hooed in the media right away? i didnt think so either
. science is very corupted by politics these days. particularly weather but thats another story. im no expert on the subject i just know what i have read just like you and the evidence i have seen is more compelling for creation. if you feel so firm and want to make 100 bucks the guy at the site i sent you would gladly pay you to debate him. (he pays cuase evolutions’ are usually to chicken to show up most of the time). read the rules of the debate and go for it ^^. win or lose neither of us will probably change our opinion.
>>Another thing creation cannot account for but evolution can is the existance of vestigial traits. Vestigial traits are traits that animals have from past ancestry that no longer serve any useful purpose, but simply have not had time to be completely weeded out yet. Humans have over 700 vestigial features. A couple of examples are body hair,
again assuming we know everything there is to know about anything. i wouldnt call body hair useless and vestigial. some women like it
. i would redefine it as plumage ^^
>> and the muscles that can be used to wiggle your ears (which most people cannot actually control anymore, even though the muscles still exist,
common design and “natural” (nothing is natural) variation on that design.
the synaptic connections in the brain necessary to control the muscles no longer exist).
…that we know of… things change as knowledge increases. just a couple years ago a new muscle group was found that helps work our jaws.
“still assume they are from different time periods.”
It’s not an assumption because the fossils are found at different layers in the sediment. That proves they are from different time periods. If they were from the same time period, they would be in the same layer.
“they are not new species if they can still interbreed. just new races.”
I’m fully aware of that. Guess what? They can’t interbreed. Their genetic makeup has changed too much.
“its not disproof either. there is no experiment you can perform to disprove it. so we both stuck there.”
Science can neither prove nor disprove deity. Nor does it try to either. What it can disprove is a creation that occured as told in Genesis. If there is a god (goddess?), and if said god/goddess did create the world, Genesis is a totally inaccurate account of how he or she actually did it.
“you assume to know the starting consentration”
We don’t need to know the starting concentration. All we need to know is the decay rate. I suggest you do some reading on how radio isotope dating is actually done.
“science is very corupted by politics these days.”
More like science is hindered by politics because of politicians making decisions about what science can and cannot do without having the slightest understanding about the issues underlying the decisions they are making. But you are right, that is another story.
“im no expert on the subject i just know what i have read just like you and the evidence i have seen is more compelling for creation.”
You’re right. You are not an expert. And that is why you buy into it. Because you don’t realize the fallacy of the arguments. You don’t realize all of the evidence that exists that evolution is occuring right now. You don’t realize that creationists are lying to you when they tell you that there are no transitional fossils in the record. You don’t realize the overwhelming evidence modern genetics has given us that support Darwin’s theory. The evidence that Darwin was corrects gets stronger all the time. Sure Darwin wasn’t right about everything. But his basic ideas have proven to be correct through tons of experiments and evidence.
“again assuming we know everything there is to know about anything. i wouldnt call body hair useless and vestigial. some women like it
. i would redefine it as plumage ^^”
It is useless. It serves no practical purpose today.
“common design and “natural” (nothing is natural) variation on that design.”
Once again, if there was an intelligence behind it, why put muscles there and then leave out the necessary synaptic connections to control the muscles? It doesn’t make sense.
Lets go a little further… Ever heard of antagonistic pleiotropy? These are traits that are beneficial at one point in life but later on become harmful and can even cause death. Humans have these traits. If there was an intelligent creator behind this design, why would he have made such a mistake? This is a perfect example of natural selection at work. The benefit of having the trait outweighs the fact that it can ultimately cause harm to the individual that has it.
There is a book I suggest you read from Ian Plimer. It’s called “Telling lies for God: Reason vs. Creationism”. Published by Random House in Australia. I think it will shed some light on how badly creationists are distorting and downright lying about things in a desperate attempt to keep another major keystone of their religion from falling by the wayside and being written off as nothing more than a fairytale.
>>You’re right. You are not an expert. And that is why you buy into it. Because you don’t realize the fallacy of the arguments. You don’t realize all of the evidence that exists that evolution is occuring right now. You don’t realize that creationists are lying to you when they tell you that there are no transitional fossils in the record. You don’t realize the overwhelming evidence modern genetics has given us that support Darwin’s theory. The evidence that Darwin was corrects gets stronger all the time. Sure Darwin wasn’t right about everything. But his basic ideas have proven to be correct through tons of experiments and evidence.
didnt buy into anything. like i said i have seen the so called evidence. wasnt convincing. i really hate when people find some bone fragments and think they can recreate the whole animal and assume they know everything for sure on how it lived. what you call transitional i call just another animal
.
>> We don’t need to know the starting concentration. All we need to know is the decay rate. I suggest you do some reading on how radio isotope dating is actually done.
show me a link and i will read it.
>>It is useless. It serves no practical purpose today.
i dont know about you but sex is pretty good purpose to me =)
>>why put muscles there and then leave out the necessary synaptic connections to control the muscles? It doesn’t make sense.
why are some people tall and short? why not all the same? maybe it serves a function we dont yet see.
>>Ever heard of antagonistic pleiotropy? These are traits that are beneficial at one point in life but later on become harmful and can even cause death. Humans have these traits. If there was an intelligent creator behind this design, why would he have made such a mistake? This is a perfect example of natural selection at work. The benefit of having the trait outweighs the fact that it can ultimately cause harm to the individual that has it.
not in so many words but the effect sounds familiar. you say it is a mistake but i say we just dont know the whole process of anything in biology. if we knew then we wouldnt have any disease nor would we have drug lawsuits cause we would be able to make drugs that work on the problem without harming some other part of the body. like i said we dont know anything yet.
>> There is a book I suggest you read from Ian Plimer. It’s called “Telling lies for God: Reason vs. Creationism”. Published by Random House in Australia. I think it will shed some light on how badly creationists are distorting and downright lying about things in a desperate attempt to keep another major keystone of their religion from falling by the wayside and being written off as nothing more than a fairytale.
interesting but you didnt reply about the debate
“didnt buy into anything. like i said i have seen the so called evidence. wasnt convincing.”
You haven’t seen the evidence. Because virtually all of the evidence I have brought up so far you have asked me to explain further. I don’t have time to get into such things as the fact that we are 98% genetically identical to a chimpanzee and the further away you go morphologically, the less similar we are (once again, very powerful evidence for common ancestry and evolution). But you have demonstrated that you haven’t seen the evidence.
“maybe it serves a function we dont yet see.”
You are using a lot of “maybes” in your posts lately. “Maybe” is speculation. It’s desperation to try to save the sinking ship of creationism.
“interesting but you didnt reply about the debate
”
I know how moving goal posts work. Like most creationists, he can simply say “He’s god. He can do what he wants and that can fully explain why it is this way.”, and then he can claim I lost the debate because I didn’t prove Genesis was invalid. You can’t debate with someone who has that kind of view. You can’t debate with someone who is willing to believe that “he’s god, so he can do whatever he wants and make it look however it wants and it doesn’t matter what the evidence says.”
>> I know how moving goal posts work. Like most creationists, he can simply say “He’s god. He can do what he wants and that can fully explain why it is this way.”, and then he can claim I lost the debate because I didn’t prove Genesis was invalid. You can’t debate with someone who has that kind of view. You can’t debate with someone who is willing to believe that “he’s god, so he can do whatever he wants and make it look however it wants and it doesn’t matter what the evidence says.”
dude if you read the statement he has on his site regarding the debate you would know that it is not legal in the debate to mention the bible at all or anything religious. just read the site and see.
when it comes to genetic differences its a code right? reuse of code is effecient. thats why we use dll’s and such. dont you think something with any sort of inteligence would want to be effecient? i would. we do here when it comes to making os’s. why not dna? i have also read of research (a brief on sciencedaily.com not sure what the date of the article is though) that says although we may share 98% with chimps we code 4times more proteins. a new thing they find is one dna sequence can code for several different proteins. so in addition to effeciency we have compression too!
i am not in any sort of desperation. cause my faith and what i see doesnt rest on what others think ^^.
this is far off topic though for here so if you want to continue just email me. the email is valid so its ku. if its ok with you anyhow
“dude if you read the statement he has on his site regarding the debate you would know that it is not legal in the debate to mention the bible at all or anything religious. just read the site and see.”
I’ll debate him if he is willing to get an independant panel of unbiased judges to make the decision about which one of us was more convincing. I’m not going to debate someone when the other side of the debate gets to decide who wins.
“when it comes to genetic differences its a code right? reuse of code is effecient. thats why we use dll’s and such.”
No offense, but this has to be one of the most reaching analogies I have ever seen. Very desperate. And completely irrelavent.
The only logical and rational explination for the genetic code is that we all inherited it from a common ancestor. Anything else is pure speculation with no supporting evidence. The supporting evidence for the inheritance is the common morphology, vestigial traits, homologous structures, paedomorphic traits, etc.
“a new thing they find is one dna sequence can code for several different proteins. so in addition to effeciency we have compression too!”
Not sure where you got that. But its news to me so if you could cite it I would be interested. A CODON sequence can only code for a single amino acid. And I can even give you a table that tells which CODON sequences code for which acids. And in this, we are 100% identical to other animals. The same CODON sequence codes for the same amino acid in all animals. Once again, the only logical explination is common ancestry. And that is the only one with supporting evidence. Anything else is just speculation.
“am not in any sort of desperation. cause my faith and what i see doesnt rest on what others think”
Thank you for finally admitting it. Because ultimately, that is what creationism comes down to. Faith in spite of the evidence, not because of the evidence. It is faith in spite of evidence that says creationism is wrong. It is faith in spite of the fact that so called “creation science” researchers have fabricated experiments and downright lied about concepts and principles in order to make it look like there is some valid scientific basis to creationism. Ultimately, there is no valid scientific basis. And that is why so called “creation scientists” have to resort to fabrications and lies to make it look valid.
>> I’ll debate him if he is willing to get an independant panel of unbiased judges to make the decision about which one of us was more convincing. I’m not going to debate someone when the other side of the debate gets to decide who wins.
it is as you say.
>> Not sure where you got that. But its news to me so if you could cite it I would be interested. A CODON sequence can only code for a single amino acid. And I can even give you a table that tells which CODON sequences code for which acids. And in this, we are 100% identical to other animals. The same CODON sequence codes for the same amino acid in all animals. Once again, the only logical explination is common ancestry. And that is the only one with supporting evidence. Anything else is just speculation.
yes the codon codes for specific amino sequence but the protein can fold in many ways (sometimes harmful ways) but the different ways of folding can produce different uses.
>> Thank you for finally admitting it. Because ultimately, that is what creationism comes down to. Faith in spite of the evidence, not because of the evidence. It is faith in spite of evidence that says creationism is wrong. It is faith in spite of the fact that so called “creation science” researchers have fabricated experiments and downright lied about concepts and principles in order to make it look like there is some valid scientific basis to creationism. Ultimately, there is no valid scientific basis. And that is why so called “creation scientists” have to resort to fabrications and lies to make it look valid.
you only say that it is unscientific because you have not seen any real fact presented by creationists you have talked to. probably cuase none of them are experts in a field. (my expertise is web design lol).
there is evidence of a world wide flood like it or not biblical or not. sure there is some evolution now big deal it doesnt mean it was always that way. if you know the ark story you would know that it was only different TYPES of animals that was on it not EVERY animal. so they diversified again as you would say. read that website and you will see facts. but of course your faith is in time. without massive amounts of time evolution falls apart or at least must be rethought. the only proof necessary is sitting on mount ararat (spelling?). course no gov in the world would seriously investigate it if it was there or not.
another thing is you keep calling creationists liers as if evolutionists have never lied about anything even to others in their own field. people lie its just fact. no matter what side of the coin you look at.
like i keep telling you. read the WHOLE site. it took me about a week. in college they say keep an open mind. so do that. if you still feel your way then debate the guy and kick his butt with your knowledge. its all good to me^^. just let me see both sides of the debate msgs.
“yes the codon codes for specific amino sequence but the protein can fold in many ways (sometimes harmful ways) but the different ways of folding can produce different uses.”
Like I said, you will need to cite some source for this. Proteins don’t “fold”. Sure carbon chains can form different compounds based on their arangementm but like I said, you need to cite a scientific source for this that I can reference.
“you only say that it is unscientific because you have not seen any real fact presented by creationists you have talked to.”
The people I have gotten these lies from have doctorate degrees in biology. Some of them are extremely well known among the creation science movement. In fact, they spear head it.
“there is evidence of a world wide flood like it or not biblical or not.”
Sorry. But there is no evidence for the world wide flood. The supposed evidence that existed has been debunked. However, there is tons of evidence that there was no world wide flood. Here is just a small sample:
– The existance of carnivores means there could not have been a world wide flood. They would have quickly exausted the available prey population after the flood given the small numbwer of animals that Genesis says were taken on the ark.
– The distribution of species means there could not have been a world wide flood. How did they repopulate the earth? Did lions and tigers suddenly sprout wings? Or did they swim across the ocean?
– The diversity of species means there could not have been a world wide flood. To have the diversity we have today would have require an extreme amount of massive evolution in a very short period of time. (BTW, this is a paradox for creationism. A world wide flood requires massive amounts of evolution afterwards.
– A world wide flood would have left fossils in the Greenland ice cores. No fossils have been found there.
– A world wide flood would have displaced the polar ice caps. The polar ice caps are perfectly intact.
– A world wide flood would have left evidence of flood damage in fossilized tree rings. No such evidence exists.
– The atmosphere cannot hold that much water.
– The vapor canopy theory often put forth by creationists has been throughtly discredited. A vapor canopy that thick would have blocked so much sun light that the earth would have been an ice box before the flood. In addition, nitrogen levels would have been so high they would have been toxic. Life could not have survived.
“you would know that it was only different TYPES of animals that was on it not EVERY animal. so they diversified again as you would say.”
Sure… I already addressed this. Problem is evolution this massive cannot happen that quickly… And by the way, this requires macroevolution and new species to be developed. You already stated in a previous post that macroevolution does not occur. Backpeddling a little bit are you?
“another thing is you keep calling creationists liers”
They are lying. Like I said, some of the theories are so fabricated that they can be debunked by an 8th grade science student (one of them being the vapor canopy theory). They consistantly lie to cover up the fact that there is zero evidence to support their theory.
“like i keep telling you. read the WHOLE site.”
I’ve been reading the site. There is nothing new that I haven’t seen before. Don’t forget, my major is Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior. I’ve been around the block a few times with creationists and their pseudo-science. I’ve even had to deal with it occasionally in classrooms. It doesn’t hold up. It’s that simple. There is nothing new on this site that I haven’t already seen and rejected with valid scientific arguments.