Ironically, those states consistently rank higher than the US in "quality of life" and in fact, are starting to rank higher than the US in "per capita income" as well as economic stability indicators, among other things.
Well, I find that speed limits are WAY too high on many roads with blind corners.. and WAY too low on well maintained divided lane highways with infinite visibility, high fences, raised roadways in a dry climate.
The pace of traffic on I-70 between Colorado and Kansas (for example) is about 90 miles per hour. 100 isn't uncommon. To be honest, 120 in a good car is pretty safe. The road is raised, 4 lane, divided, in perfect shape with a pretty normal day having 10 miles of visibility, totally dry with a hot road surface and bright sunshine. The speed limit is 85mph which is OK, but perhaps a little on the low side, seeing that you'll get run over doing that speed.
On a similar road in Iowa, the speed limit is 65 and you WILL get a ticket for doing 70. Just a political jurisdiction change, no difference in road conditions except a slightly higher chance of rain.
Of course, there are death traps in Connecticut where no sane person would go over 50 (and i'm the guy who thinks 110 is fine in Kansas) but the speed limit is 60.
It really depends on what road you're on.
Doing 60 on the death trap in CT will get you a nod and a smile. Doing 110 on Kansas will get you a week in the pokey.
If everyone's roof was comprised entirely of high efficiency solar cells, their power needs would be met in most of the US climate zones.
Factories stand to cause the biggest problem, but several companies have proven that they can easily develop techniques to use waste products as fuel, as well as to use renewable energy like solar power.
I believe Subaru is testing a small scale assembly plant with zero input or output (other than raw materials and product) after renewable energy, aggressive recycling and manufacturing process changes that reduce waste.
it's been used for evil (and still is in many places), but I'm talking about religion in American and Today.
Reasonably corrupt compared to the religion in other places and from even just 100 years ago. Spooky!
When was the last time you helped out at a homeless shelter
'bout six weeks ago.
or traveled down to help disaster victims
After Katrina
or went out and took donations to help people in a war-torn country?
Went to Uganda awhile back to do that.
I know people that did those things. Religion has power indeed, but it's power to motivate more than anything...
I don't know any religious people who did that. Maybe they did and I don't know it. One of the most pompus, wealthy, snobbish people I've ever met was the head of a big church. Anicdotes are neat, aren't they?
as long as people keep their wits about them, that motivation can be a very good thing.
See, the most POWERFUL religious groups include things like Focus on the Family and The Soceity of Evangelicals.
I just about swallowed my gum when I was reading a news article about the new president of some National Evangelical organization, claiming to represent 30 million Americans (10% of the population).
He called for the organization to re-focus their efforts on global poverty, hunger and peace. He said these are things that Jesus would have done.
He was immediately removed from his post and replaced by someone who would parrot the "party line" of NO GAY COUPLES HAVING ABORTIONS
This party line apparently gives them more political leverage and allows them to stir up resentment in conservative members, therefore, getting more money to lobby in political circles (and pay their executives, of course).
Since when was stopping poverty and hunger a distasteful concept?
Oh right... when it was proposed to modern American evangelical pseudo-political organizations.
I'm going to start a group called "Focus on the Swine" and demand that we past constitutional amendments banning pork and implementing restrictions on mixed fabrics and re-introducing limited slave trades (which are the other things right next to gay sex in Exodus).
That is culinary research and design. You lose all your cooking ware!!! Bahhh!!!
Sorry, what did you say? You built a model aircraft, but removed some of the wings to increase roll speed? Wow, you're doing aeronautical research and design.
How exactly does one define something so absurdly broad, except perhaps, to ask whether or not it was commercial.
If he was selling goods out of his basement, sure zoning laws are obviously being broken.
But just having a hobby... almost ANY hobby, involves some "research" and some "design".
Because she doesn't understand how chemistry works, it's "industrial" to her. Because my strapping a camera to the bottom of a model airplane is a bit more simple, that's just a hobby, however.
Or should I lose my airplane for zoning violations?
The only political party in the US who doesn't have an interest in controlling people is the Libertarian party... But some of their views are pretty wacky the other direction (like selling the national forests to foreign interests in order to repay the debt, etc).
The democrats and republicans are basically all the same across the spectrum. The Greens are probably worse at telling people what to do. The Constitution party claims all their "freedom for everyone" crap, but they're really built on a platform of anti-gay and racist bigotry with a bit of corporate knob-sucking thrown in... Who else is there? Just about nobody.
Awesome, I'm moving to Russia. They're too damn busy waving flags and invading small neighbors to give a shit what happens with their own citizens.
Every bit of open space around here has permanent "no burn" restrictions to artificially prevent forest fires.
At the same time, the botanists are saying that our forests must burn sometimes, or they will become choked with over-dense vegetation and stagnant growth cycles.
But I'm sure it ultimately comes down to some 12 year old knob in Arkansas who lit one on his kitchen table and killed his little sister.
After all, If it saves just one little child.........
The culture of "absolute safety, absolute certainty" permeates Western culture and will be our downfall.
I saw an article earlier today that said "child development experts all agree that allowing a child to learn from his mistakes is the most effective teaching method."
So uhm... where do we hear them actually put this into practice? It's one thing to write it in a book. It's another to speak before Congress, arguing that fact.
Interestingly, I have done research on this and it's fear easier to move into most EU countries as a highly skilled worker, especially in Engineering, ESPECIALLY if you avoid Germany and the UK (but you can do it even there).
I have friends in Germany who have investigated moving to the US and it is much more difficult.
So, while you're little search-find-replace is a tad funny, I'm not sure that it's accurate, coming from someone who has actually looked into it.
Domed CMOS sensors are hard. CMOS is made by photolithography and the layers are set down by lasers etching patterns into silicon wafers.
Since silicon has a flat crystal structure, it can't easily be made into a curve, so you have to rethink the entire concept of CCD/CMOS digital optical sensors. The phrase "I could never understand why..." generally underscores a..... general lack of understanding.:-)
The point of insurance is to protect you in the unlikely event of a catastrophic event.
Auto insurance is totally unnecessary for getting new windshield wipers.
However, if you buy a car and wreck it 3 months later, even if it's the only wreck you've ever had, you are fucked.
the point isn't to pay for regular procedures (which your option C handles quite nicely), but is rather to pay for rare instances of extraordinary events.
When you have a random accident and fall down the stairs, and require a 3 week stay and a dozen MRIs on your busted head, would your family appreciate it if the doctor shrugged and let you die because you didn't have the necessary $100,000 in the bank?
I'm not sure, because you didn't make a lot of sense.
You either agreed with him, or you basically said the concept of insurance is flawed and will always result in business decisions being made to improve profit at the expense of improving service.
If you were trying to apply your example to government, you failed, because it applies almost exactly equally (and almost in parallel to your words) to privately run business.
Generally, if something claims to cure EVERYTHING, it really can't. And quite often cures nothing.
My problem with "colloidal silver" is that the proponents of it claim it cures everything... prostate enlargement... cystic fibrosis.... lukemia, depression, skin rash.... cataracts, uhm.. what else have I heard....
Oh and it will bring your grandma back to life, right, I forgot that one.
The problem with claims like that is that they're completely and utterly absurd.
What, exactly does it do?
Has there ever been a double-blind study done by an unbiased research organization (such as a publicly funded university laboratory) that you can cite?
The real question here is, "Should the prosecutors use every law that *is* on the books and which she *is* responsible for upholding to achieve the maximum sentence when a more lax reading of criminal statutes would result in a slap on the wrist?"
I say, yes. If that means pulling out little used, obscure statutes or creative interpretation to achieve that goal, then that's still fair. After all, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Anyone with any sense knows that what she did was *wrong.* The only question here is whether there is a strong enough sentence available to balance out the evils committed by prosecuting her for the right number of crimes.
I strongly disagree.
If a person cannot determine before performing an action, whether it is illegal or not, that is not a free society.
First off "little used" "obscure" or "creative interpretation"... none of these phrases belong in law. If any of these phrases apply to laws, then perhaps we need to re-examine the laws. Ignorance is no excuse. NAFTA is law. Please summarize what is on page 9,122.
Yes, I know that is absurd, but do you know the city, county, state and federal laws you are subject to? You do know that we have somewhere on the order of 50 TIMES more laws than we did 100 years ago?
But regarding the concept that law should be twisted to appease people who are offended by someone's actions....
All I can say is "uhm... no"
YOU SAY that "anyone with any sense knows what she did is wrong".
Well, no actually. What she did was not very nice, but was it wrong in the "federal pound-me-in-the-ass-prison" sense?
Nope.
I don't think so. The other poster in this thread doesn't think so.
So WHY does THAT PARTICULAR PROSECUTOR get to decide that she was wrong? Why do you?
That's the problem!
I think worshiping some egotistical dude with a beard who lives in the sky is wrong. I demand we prosecute!
OH wait, that's right, we have freedoms and you have to be told what's illegal and be aware that there will be an consistent and recognizable enforcement of those laws.
The simple conclusion to draw from YOUR version of law is that the government should pass a law that says:
It is hereby illegal to do something we don't like. In addition, if enough people are offended by your actions, they can petition us to arrest you. Sentence guidelines require a sentence between light community service and death.
Then suddenly you live in Stalinist Russia where your life is lived at the whim of prosecutors and law enforcement.
If it is a felony to sign up with a fake name on MySpace, then the prosecution has a LOT of prosecuting to do, and I have some evidence to destroy.....
I say, yes. If that means pulling out little used, obscure statutes or creative interpretation to achieve that goal, then that's still fair.
To turn back on this sentence just a little.......
"THAT GOAL" is something that you just decided. If you have done ANY reading of history, you will recognize that handing the power to prosecute someone to an individual (the prosecutor, in this case) is a recipe for abuse. Maybe THIS CASE, you do not feel the law was misused. But it is not this case I'm talking about specifically, but rather the enforcement of laws, in general.
The PRINCIPLE of having such indeterminate leeway in prosecution is what I am railing against. "pulling out little used laws" to be able to prosecute bascially anyone provides the prosecutor this indetermine leeway to prosecute... well...basically anyone. Since basically everyone who uses myspace inputs fake information, then the law used is unjust, or the means used to interpret the law is unjust. I don't care which you decide, but you can't have your pie and eat it too.
It is just simple human nature and is VERY well documented, that when you give someone the power
Speciation took place in just under a decade and an entirely new distribution of species took hold. This is not the only example. We have some pretty detailed fossil records of speciation in very very granular steps. Normally, this is where ID folks interject that it can't be true because we don't have very granular steps for EVERY species, just for a few. It might serve them to remember that many species don't live in climates where fossilization takes place very easily. It's really a rather unique process.
But in my view evolution is like saying that you make apples into seed weed in a matter of a few million years. That to me just seems a little too far fetched. I just see evolution of the only way of explaining existence and eliminating a designer.
I beg the question, if man did not invent computers and software, would have it come into existence in a billion years?
Overlooking your misuse of the phrase beg the question, the answer is.......... Not exactly.
It's a bit nonsensical to ask "what are the odds a dalmatian would evolve from a guppy". Dalmatian is not a singular form and if it were done over again, would have almost zero probability of existing how it does now.
The question can then be re-worded to state "what are the odds of a guppy evolving into something?" At which point the answer is "highly likely".
A common fallacy used to extol the virtues of ID is to say "how did a guppy turn into a dalmatian?" This is a flawed way to look at it. Dalmatian (or human) isn't a goal... it's just a result. Give a million more tries, a guppy might involve into a million totally difference species, or it might die out 900 thousand times out of that million and not evolve into anything.
The gap in your comprhension relies on the belief that our current state was pre-ordained before evolution started.
That's a fallacy.. and a big one. How things are now appear to be a byproduct of natural selection.... it's not that it CHOSE to make things how they are now... but rather that it appears things are how they are now by random chance.
Limited understanding, indeed.
A theory that cannot be proven false by any rational test is a faith, not a scientific theory. Evolutionary scientists set out every day to TRY to disprove aspects of evolution, because that is how we refine our theories...
Ever heard of an ID proponent who set out to disprove his own theory?
Did god make fossils to confuse us?
Did god put a bunch of prehistoric plants on the island of New Calendonia, but nowhere else in the world.... just to fuck with us?
Or perhas, that island is the only geographically isolated "piece" of the ancient continent of Pangea that was never joined to the mainland by a land bridge, and therefore those plants were never selected against by species such as dinosaurs and mammals?
Which is more plausible? Which is testable? Which can be disproven by scientific discovery?
Slashdot Mirror
Ironically, those states consistently rank higher than the US in "quality of life" and in fact, are starting to rank higher than the US in "per capita income" as well as economic stability indicators, among other things.
Doh!
Yeah, but cruising at 65mph for 25 minutes is no different... still can zone out just as easily...
Well, I find that speed limits are WAY too high on many roads with blind corners.. and WAY too low on well maintained divided lane highways with infinite visibility, high fences, raised roadways in a dry climate.
The pace of traffic on I-70 between Colorado and Kansas (for example) is about 90 miles per hour. 100 isn't uncommon. To be honest, 120 in a good car is pretty safe. The road is raised, 4 lane, divided, in perfect shape with a pretty normal day having 10 miles of visibility, totally dry with a hot road surface and bright sunshine. The speed limit is 85mph which is OK, but perhaps a little on the low side, seeing that you'll get run over doing that speed.
On a similar road in Iowa, the speed limit is 65 and you WILL get a ticket for doing 70. Just a political jurisdiction change, no difference in road conditions except a slightly higher chance of rain.
Of course, there are death traps in Connecticut where no sane person would go over 50 (and i'm the guy who thinks 110 is fine in Kansas) but the speed limit is 60.
It really depends on what road you're on.
Doing 60 on the death trap in CT will get you a nod and a smile. Doing 110 on Kansas will get you a week in the pokey.
Which is Evil Keneval?
hmmm
5. Where the power from the electric car will come from.
For now, from power plants which achieve around 75% efficiency and have massive carbon and CO scrubbing towers which reduce pollution substantially.
That's as opposed to internal combustion engines which operate around 9%-15% efficiency and do a relatively poor job of scrubbing pollutants.
But... you may continue to be opposed to it on sheer principal and party-politics if you like. :-)
If everyone's roof was comprised entirely of high efficiency solar cells, their power needs would be met in most of the US climate zones.
Factories stand to cause the biggest problem, but several companies have proven that they can easily develop techniques to use waste products as fuel, as well as to use renewable energy like solar power.
I believe Subaru is testing a small scale assembly plant with zero input or output (other than raw materials and product) after renewable energy, aggressive recycling and manufacturing process changes that reduce waste.
There have been plenty of examples (George Washington is one) where a leader was offered power and he refused it for purely altruistic reasons.
Then again, you're right that eventually you'll end up with a bad egg.
it's been used for evil (and still is in many places), but I'm talking about religion in American and Today.
Reasonably corrupt compared to the religion in other places and from even just 100 years ago. Spooky!
When was the last time you helped out at a homeless shelter
'bout six weeks ago.
or traveled down to help disaster victims
After Katrina
or went out and took donations to help people in a war-torn country?
Went to Uganda awhile back to do that.
I know people that did those things. Religion has power indeed, but it's power to motivate more than anything...
I don't know any religious people who did that. Maybe they did and I don't know it. One of the most pompus, wealthy, snobbish people I've ever met was the head of a big church. Anicdotes are neat, aren't they?
as long as people keep their wits about them, that motivation can be a very good thing.
See, the most POWERFUL religious groups include things like Focus on the Family and The Soceity of Evangelicals.
I just about swallowed my gum when I was reading a news article about the new president of some National Evangelical organization, claiming to represent 30 million Americans (10% of the population).
He called for the organization to re-focus their efforts on global poverty, hunger and peace. He said these are things that Jesus would have done.
He was immediately removed from his post and replaced by someone who would parrot the "party line" of NO GAY COUPLES HAVING ABORTIONS
This party line apparently gives them more political leverage and allows them to stir up resentment in conservative members, therefore, getting more money to lobby in political circles (and pay their executives, of course).
Since when was stopping poverty and hunger a distasteful concept?
Oh right... when it was proposed to modern American evangelical pseudo-political organizations.
I'm going to start a group called "Focus on the Swine" and demand that we past constitutional amendments banning pork and implementing restrictions on mixed fabrics and re-introducing limited slave trades (which are the other things right next to gay sex in Exodus).
Awesome.
Sure, but a strict application of the scientific method, followed by inference using something like occams razor makes it a very tenuous concept.
Now who's misinformed? (what a dumb question when talking about an invisible man in the sky)
You added paprika to your dinner?
That is culinary research and design. You lose all your cooking ware!!! Bahhh!!!
Sorry, what did you say? You built a model aircraft, but removed some of the wings to increase roll speed? Wow, you're doing aeronautical research and design.
How exactly does one define something so absurdly broad, except perhaps, to ask whether or not it was commercial.
If he was selling goods out of his basement, sure zoning laws are obviously being broken.
But just having a hobby... almost ANY hobby, involves some "research" and some "design".
Because she doesn't understand how chemistry works, it's "industrial" to her. Because my strapping a camera to the bottom of a model airplane is a bit more simple, that's just a hobby, however.
Or should I lose my airplane for zoning violations?
meh?
Ignorance... or absurd law... one or the other.
Either way, it's worth bitching about.
Vote libertarian.
The Democrats, while perhaps marginally better, aren't really noticeably so.
meh
I've never seen one of those running.
Generally, the "I'm so holy" crowd wants to institute gaggles of legislation to control people, which is the definition of "big government" to me.
It's a little ironic, perhaps that EVERY SINGLE president of the US has been Protestant.. except Kennedy I believe...
So.. uhm.. which "religious types" are you talking about? Ted Haggard? Awesome sauce. (literally)
Vote libertarian.
http://www.lp.org/
Bob Barr and Wayne Root, 2008. They're businessmen, not lawyers and they hate big government.
The only political party in the US who doesn't have an interest in controlling people is the Libertarian party... But some of their views are pretty wacky the other direction (like selling the national forests to foreign interests in order to repay the debt, etc).
The democrats and republicans are basically all the same across the spectrum. The Greens are probably worse at telling people what to do. The Constitution party claims all their "freedom for everyone" crap, but they're really built on a platform of anti-gay and racist bigotry with a bit of corporate knob-sucking thrown in... Who else is there? Just about nobody.
Awesome, I'm moving to Russia. They're too damn busy waving flags and invading small neighbors to give a shit what happens with their own citizens.
heh
Every bit of open space around here has permanent "no burn" restrictions to artificially prevent forest fires.
At the same time, the botanists are saying that our forests must burn sometimes, or they will become choked with over-dense vegetation and stagnant growth cycles.
But I'm sure it ultimately comes down to some 12 year old knob in Arkansas who lit one on his kitchen table and killed his little sister.
After all, If it saves just one little child.........
*snort*
The culture of "absolute safety, absolute certainty" permeates Western culture and will be our downfall.
I saw an article earlier today that said "child development experts all agree that allowing a child to learn from his mistakes is the most effective teaching method."
So uhm... where do we hear them actually put this into practice? It's one thing to write it in a book. It's another to speak before Congress, arguing that fact.
Interestingly, I have done research on this and it's fear easier to move into most EU countries as a highly skilled worker, especially in Engineering, ESPECIALLY if you avoid Germany and the UK (but you can do it even there).
I have friends in Germany who have investigated moving to the US and it is much more difficult.
So, while you're little search-find-replace is a tad funny, I'm not sure that it's accurate, coming from someone who has actually looked into it.
i'm sorry.... let's insert some definitions...
is a curved digital optical sensor "much different" than an array of 6-20 ground glass lenses?
Why.... yes... it is. :-)
Domed CMOS sensors are hard. CMOS is made by photolithography and the layers are set down by lasers etching patterns into silicon wafers.
Since silicon has a flat crystal structure, it can't easily be made into a curve, so you have to rethink the entire concept of CCD/CMOS digital optical sensors. The phrase "I could never understand why..." generally underscores a..... general lack of understanding. :-)
The point of insurance is to protect you in the unlikely event of a catastrophic event.
Auto insurance is totally unnecessary for getting new windshield wipers.
However, if you buy a car and wreck it 3 months later, even if it's the only wreck you've ever had, you are fucked.
the point isn't to pay for regular procedures (which your option C handles quite nicely), but is rather to pay for rare instances of extraordinary events.
When you have a random accident and fall down the stairs, and require a 3 week stay and a dozen MRIs on your busted head, would your family appreciate it if the doctor shrugged and let you die because you didn't have the necessary $100,000 in the bank?
Or would you wish for insurance then?
TANSTAAFL is right.
haha. I think you just agreed with him.
I'm not sure, because you didn't make a lot of sense.
You either agreed with him, or you basically said the concept of insurance is flawed and will always result in business decisions being made to improve profit at the expense of improving service.
If you were trying to apply your example to government, you failed, because it applies almost exactly equally (and almost in parallel to your words) to privately run business.
So uhm... what is it that you're saying?
Generally, if something claims to cure EVERYTHING, it really can't. And quite often cures nothing.
My problem with "colloidal silver" is that the proponents of it claim it cures everything... prostate enlargement... cystic fibrosis.... lukemia, depression, skin rash.... cataracts, uhm.. what else have I heard....
Oh and it will bring your grandma back to life, right, I forgot that one.
The problem with claims like that is that they're completely and utterly absurd.
What, exactly does it do?
Has there ever been a double-blind study done by an unbiased research organization (such as a publicly funded university laboratory) that you can cite?
I'm curious...
The whole point of it being exciting, I think, is that you can't simple hit the "restart" button and be exactly where you were before.
You actually HAVE to care about what you're doing.
I know lots of WoW players who just wander around dying over and over and over and over because it doesn't matter at all.
Try that in Eve. haha. :-)
If only the NPCs were as smart as people...
then.... they would... uhm.. act like... uhm... wow.
Cool. :-) /me buys Eve
I strongly disagree.
If a person cannot determine before performing an action, whether it is illegal or not, that is not a free society.
First off "little used" "obscure" or "creative interpretation"... none of these phrases belong in law. If any of these phrases apply to laws, then perhaps we need to re-examine the laws. Ignorance is no excuse. NAFTA is law. Please summarize what is on page 9,122.
Yes, I know that is absurd, but do you know the city, county, state and federal laws you are subject to? You do know that we have somewhere on the order of 50 TIMES more laws than we did 100 years ago?
But regarding the concept that law should be twisted to appease people who are offended by someone's actions....
All I can say is "uhm... no"
YOU SAY that "anyone with any sense knows what she did is wrong".
Well, no actually. What she did was not very nice, but was it wrong in the "federal pound-me-in-the-ass-prison" sense?
Nope.
I don't think so. The other poster in this thread doesn't think so.
So WHY does THAT PARTICULAR PROSECUTOR get to decide that she was wrong? Why do you?
That's the problem!
I think worshiping some egotistical dude with a beard who lives in the sky is wrong. I demand we prosecute!
OH wait, that's right, we have freedoms and you have to be told what's illegal and be aware that there will be an consistent and recognizable enforcement of those laws.
The simple conclusion to draw from YOUR version of law is that the government should pass a law that says:
It is hereby illegal to do something we don't like. In addition, if enough people are offended by your actions, they can petition us to arrest you. Sentence guidelines require a sentence between light community service and death.
Then suddenly you live in Stalinist Russia where your life is lived at the whim of prosecutors and law enforcement.
If it is a felony to sign up with a fake name on MySpace, then the prosecution has a LOT of prosecuting to do, and I have some evidence to destroy.....
To turn back on this sentence just a little.......
"THAT GOAL" is something that you just decided. If you have done ANY reading of history, you will recognize that handing the power to prosecute someone to an individual (the prosecutor, in this case) is a recipe for abuse. Maybe THIS CASE, you do not feel the law was misused. But it is not this case I'm talking about specifically, but rather the enforcement of laws, in general.
The PRINCIPLE of having such indeterminate leeway in prosecution is what I am railing against. "pulling out little used laws" to be able to prosecute bascially anyone provides the prosecutor this indetermine leeway to prosecute... well...basically anyone. Since basically everyone who uses myspace inputs fake information, then the law used is unjust, or the means used to interpret the law is unjust. I don't care which you decide, but you can't have your pie and eat it too.
It is just simple human nature and is VERY well documented, that when you give someone the power
Oh. Cool. Please see Darwin and Grant's finches. Wikipedia summary of a book about this is here.
Speciation took place in just under a decade and an entirely new distribution of species took hold. This is not the only example. We have some pretty detailed fossil records of speciation in very very granular steps. Normally, this is where ID folks interject that it can't be true because we don't have very granular steps for EVERY species, just for a few. It might serve them to remember that many species don't live in climates where fossilization takes place very easily. It's really a rather unique process.
Overlooking your misuse of the phrase beg the question, the answer is.......... Not exactly.
It's a bit nonsensical to ask "what are the odds a dalmatian would evolve from a guppy". Dalmatian is not a singular form and if it were done over again, would have almost zero probability of existing how it does now.
The question can then be re-worded to state "what are the odds of a guppy evolving into something?" At which point the answer is "highly likely".
A common fallacy used to extol the virtues of ID is to say "how did a guppy turn into a dalmatian?" This is a flawed way to look at it. Dalmatian (or human) isn't a goal... it's just a result. Give a million more tries, a guppy might involve into a million totally difference species, or it might die out 900 thousand times out of that million and not evolve into anything.
The gap in your comprhension relies on the belief that our current state was pre-ordained before evolution started.
That's a fallacy.. and a big one. How things are now appear to be a byproduct of natural selection.... it's not that it CHOSE to make things how they are now... but rather that it appears things are how they are now by random chance.
Limited understanding, indeed.
A theory that cannot be proven false by any rational test is a faith, not a scientific theory. Evolutionary scientists set out every day to TRY to disprove aspects of evolution, because that is how we refine our theories...
Ever heard of an ID proponent who set out to disprove his own theory?
Did god make fossils to confuse us?
Did god put a bunch of prehistoric plants on the island of New Calendonia, but nowhere else in the world.... just to fuck with us?
Or perhas, that island is the only geographically isolated "piece" of the ancient continent of Pangea that was never joined to the mainland by a land bridge, and therefore those plants were never selected against by species such as dinosaurs and mammals?
Which is more plausible? Which is testable? Which can be disproven by scientific discovery?
hmmmmm