Well sure - each side wants the government to have more power, but only for as long as they control the government. Of course, so many of them either don't realize or don't care that it's a lot easier to give the government power than it is to take it away...
I am appalled when people say the Holocaust didn't happen; there's so much evidence it did. I've talked to Holocaust survivors. However, deniers being shitty people doesn't mean they should be thrown in jail. It angers and upsets me when people deny the Holocaust, but that's not a good reason to imprison someone.
When you say you want evidence, do you mean direct observation, or genetic, physiological, and fossil evidence? And since you want to use the inter-breeding population definition, I assume you're only looking for evidence in living things that sexually reproduce?
It's well-supported by anatomy, physiology, and genetic studies, but okay. Here are some examples of speciation in plants and other insects, with more references. I do still encourage you to look at this site.
I named one proof of speciation. We've also seen it in bacteria numerous times (including, yes, gain of function!). However, speciation is expected to be a long process, based on the mutation rate we see in DNA. It's not surprising that we don't have many examples in larger organisms. As for modern medicine - proteins and processes conserved by evolution are the reason a lot of antibiotics and antiviral medicines work (and yes, while viruses aren't "alive" in the conventional sense, they do replicate and are under selective pressure, and thus can evolve). Evolution is the reason animal models for disease are informative, but not perfect. Evolution is the reason we test some things in monkeys, and why they give us more accurate results than mice do. Evolution is why bacteriophages could be an excellent way to combat antibiotic-resistant bacteria, but regulatory processes have (somewhat understandably) hampered that. Evolution is the best explanation we have for why muscle physiology is so well conserved, and why a lot of mammalian physiology is conserved across species. Evolutionary principles have guided some really neat antibacterial and antiviral compounds that look promising. In short, evolution has had an enormous impact on modern medicine.
Before I spend any more time on this "debate" - are you actually willing to change your mind? So many people who don't believe in evolution aren't. No amount of evidence is enough to convince them. Are you one of them, and if not, what evidence would you need?
I'd really like to see you ask an evolutionary scientist about their opinion on the start of life. Divine creation is not a reasonable scientific explanation for the origin of life, because it's not scientific in the slightest. It's possible that's how life actually started, but it's not a reasonable scientific explanation. Moreover, evolution right now does not seek to explain the origin of life. It may in the future, but that seems unlikely.
And yet, regardless of what Darwin did or did not believe, the modern theory of evolution does not address the origin of life. Abiogenesis is its own thing, and involved substantially less evidence and more guesswork.
No - Darwin's title is more properly interpreted as "how species came about", which does not mean "how life came to be". Oftentimes, organisms grow more complex over time, but not always.
In addition, some DNA that doesn't make RNA at all (as far as we know, anyway) is important for regulating other pieces of DNA, which can be pretty far away.
No shit, it's not back up to where it was before a huge crash? They implemented austerity measures after the crash (with a delay) and fairly soon afterwards, things started to get better - not good, as there probably aren't any policies that can erase a crash overnight, but better. Of course Krugman would frame it like that though. What he's attributing to austerity is more properly the result of the collapse in the first place. Furthermore, much of the "growth" that he puts on his chart was inflated by the bubble before the crash - the trend doesn't represent real economic growth.
Well, the government rarely pays for clinical trials anymore (it does happen, but when it does, it's mostly just Phase I, which is by far the cheapest). Even if the drug was discovered and preclinical studies were done with government money, clinical trial costs are the biggest part of getting a drug to market, and - at least nowadays - that's mostly not government-funded.
That can't be right, since they have costs not related to either of those things (management, actual manufacturing, security, etc.). They do spend a lot on advertising, but even the R&D is a ton of money.
What laws, specifically, do you think we should have to prevent this sort of thing? It's easy to say "this guy should be in jail", but with government overreach as bad as it is currently, we can't just give them license to throw people in jail for being a douche.
What's even funnier is, macroeconomics works the same way. See Mark Blyth: everyone who's done austerity has had their GDP collapse to where their debt percentage is higher than it was when they started.
[citation needed]
But actually, Ireland and Spain have seen higher economic growth after austerity measures. Iceland also implemented austerity measures in addition to letting banks collapse and prosecuting bank CEOs. Their austerity programs were different than the others, but they appear to have worked pretty well.
In short, austerity programs can work, if they're implemented intelligently; anti-austerity measures can also work. It mostly depends on the specifics of the programs themselves.
None of the Scandinavian countries (including Denmark) are socialist. They have socialized some specific things, but their economies still have significant private sector contributions. The term you're looking for is mixed market.
Most games only let you kill men, or vastly more men than women. Are there games where you only kill women? What games exist that are specifically about raping and killing women, and do not have many male victims as well? Isn't it a bit hypocritical of you to say "Do your research before getting offended" while ignoring the all of the games where you do only kill men?
I think it was probably more of an assumption than a definitive claim, but sure, it's still a lie.
Well, most people align into two sides on some issues; there's pro-GG and anti-GG, and anti-GG sometimes lumps anyone who is apathetic to the whole thing in with the pro-GGers, or claims they're misogynists as well. I definitely agree that people tend to take lies and half-truths at face value when it agrees with their views, and it's pretty sad. It's hard to fight though, partly because it can be ideologically driven, and people hate compromising, especially when the rest of their group will label them a traitor for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Shaming someone for the amount of sex they have or don't have? That's not very progressive of you.
Well sure - each side wants the government to have more power, but only for as long as they control the government. Of course, so many of them either don't realize or don't care that it's a lot easier to give the government power than it is to take it away...
I am appalled when people say the Holocaust didn't happen; there's so much evidence it did. I've talked to Holocaust survivors. However, deniers being shitty people doesn't mean they should be thrown in jail. It angers and upsets me when people deny the Holocaust, but that's not a good reason to imprison someone.
When you say you want evidence, do you mean direct observation, or genetic, physiological, and fossil evidence? And since you want to use the inter-breeding population definition, I assume you're only looking for evidence in living things that sexually reproduce?
It's well-supported by anatomy, physiology, and genetic studies, but okay. Here are some examples of speciation in plants and other insects, with more references. I do still encourage you to look at this site.
I named one proof of speciation. We've also seen it in bacteria numerous times (including, yes, gain of function!). However, speciation is expected to be a long process, based on the mutation rate we see in DNA. It's not surprising that we don't have many examples in larger organisms. As for modern medicine - proteins and processes conserved by evolution are the reason a lot of antibiotics and antiviral medicines work (and yes, while viruses aren't "alive" in the conventional sense, they do replicate and are under selective pressure, and thus can evolve). Evolution is the reason animal models for disease are informative, but not perfect. Evolution is the reason we test some things in monkeys, and why they give us more accurate results than mice do. Evolution is why bacteriophages could be an excellent way to combat antibiotic-resistant bacteria, but regulatory processes have (somewhat understandably) hampered that. Evolution is the best explanation we have for why muscle physiology is so well conserved, and why a lot of mammalian physiology is conserved across species. Evolutionary principles have guided some really neat antibacterial and antiviral compounds that look promising. In short, evolution has had an enormous impact on modern medicine.
Before I spend any more time on this "debate" - are you actually willing to change your mind? So many people who don't believe in evolution aren't. No amount of evidence is enough to convince them. Are you one of them, and if not, what evidence would you need?
I'd really like to see you ask an evolutionary scientist about their opinion on the start of life. Divine creation is not a reasonable scientific explanation for the origin of life, because it's not scientific in the slightest. It's possible that's how life actually started, but it's not a reasonable scientific explanation. Moreover, evolution right now does not seek to explain the origin of life. It may in the future, but that seems unlikely.
Speciation in a vertebrate. You may also find this website educational.
And yet, regardless of what Darwin did or did not believe, the modern theory of evolution does not address the origin of life. Abiogenesis is its own thing, and involved substantially less evidence and more guesswork.
No - Darwin's title is more properly interpreted as "how species came about", which does not mean "how life came to be". Oftentimes, organisms grow more complex over time, but not always.
Evolution does not cover the origin of life. It covers life's diversification after life existed.
In addition, some DNA that doesn't make RNA at all (as far as we know, anyway) is important for regulating other pieces of DNA, which can be pretty far away.
No shit, it's not back up to where it was before a huge crash? They implemented austerity measures after the crash (with a delay) and fairly soon afterwards, things started to get better - not good, as there probably aren't any policies that can erase a crash overnight, but better. Of course Krugman would frame it like that though. What he's attributing to austerity is more properly the result of the collapse in the first place. Furthermore, much of the "growth" that he puts on his chart was inflated by the bubble before the crash - the trend doesn't represent real economic growth.
Well, the government rarely pays for clinical trials anymore (it does happen, but when it does, it's mostly just Phase I, which is by far the cheapest). Even if the drug was discovered and preclinical studies were done with government money, clinical trial costs are the biggest part of getting a drug to market, and - at least nowadays - that's mostly not government-funded.
That can't be right, since they have costs not related to either of those things (management, actual manufacturing, security, etc.). They do spend a lot on advertising, but even the R&D is a ton of money.
Not that I'm going to shed any tears for him while he's "Bubba's" playmate in prison.
Nobody deserves to be raped.
What laws, specifically, do you think we should have to prevent this sort of thing? It's easy to say "this guy should be in jail", but with government overreach as bad as it is currently, we can't just give them license to throw people in jail for being a douche.
That was really well said, thanks!
What's even funnier is, macroeconomics works the same way. See Mark Blyth: everyone who's done austerity has had their GDP collapse to where their debt percentage is higher than it was when they started.
[citation needed]
But actually, Ireland and Spain have seen higher economic growth after austerity measures. Iceland also implemented austerity measures in addition to letting banks collapse and prosecuting bank CEOs. Their austerity programs were different than the others, but they appear to have worked pretty well.
In short, austerity programs can work, if they're implemented intelligently; anti-austerity measures can also work. It mostly depends on the specifics of the programs themselves.
None of the Scandinavian countries (including Denmark) are socialist. They have socialized some specific things, but their economies still have significant private sector contributions. The term you're looking for is mixed market.
I hadn't heard of this before either, but a quick search turned this and this up. I'm not sure it's reliable, but there could be some truth to it.
And that would be nice, if she wasn't cherry-picking and/or misrepresenting (maybe unintentionally, who knows) facets of the games.
Most games only let you kill men, or vastly more men than women. Are there games where you only kill women? What games exist that are specifically about raping and killing women, and do not have many male victims as well? Isn't it a bit hypocritical of you to say "Do your research before getting offended" while ignoring the all of the games where you do only kill men?
I think it was probably more of an assumption than a definitive claim, but sure, it's still a lie.
Well, most people align into two sides on some issues; there's pro-GG and anti-GG, and anti-GG sometimes lumps anyone who is apathetic to the whole thing in with the pro-GGers, or claims they're misogynists as well. I definitely agree that people tend to take lies and half-truths at face value when it agrees with their views, and it's pretty sad. It's hard to fight though, partly because it can be ideologically driven, and people hate compromising, especially when the rest of their group will label them a traitor for it.
Excellent! Nobody should be on that side, it's a silly side.