So it's OK to send a possibly-innocent person to prison as long as it serves as a deterrent to other people who might think of committing things which are possibly crimes? Your logic is disgustingly lazy. He gave no "huge amount of leverage" to anyone, except the press he worked with, and they have been incredibly restrained in their actions. You are screaming to eliminate due process when you want to, because of some issue you've concocted in your own head. You suck at thinking, and even being a human.
Seeing as you missed an incredibly salient part of this discussion, why on Earth should anyone listen to your hypotheses? Who's to say you didn't miss a few more words in all these stories and somehow think Snowden is some sort of time-travelling Communist robot from Mars. Your credibility is gone.
You do realise when you post these inane remarks using such words people don't think "oh, I should research what's happening in the Muslim world", they think "this guy needs some professional help; his world is tiny and cold, and he's scared of people who look different, and lacks the ability to ascertain what's happening in the world at even a very basic level"? In short, the only person you are hurting with your comments is yourself.
Don't bring logic to an anti-vaxxer argument - they simply can't deal with it. I guess if they were exposed to some smaller amounts of less-harmful logic when they were younger they might appreciate the benefits of acting and discoursing logically with others...
Based on your comments in other threads, where you are rather anti-science, I don't know why people should think of you as some sort of paradigm of logic. You've shown yourself to create arguments based on your own gut-feeling and instincts instead of evidence and rational thought. The only reason I can think of for some people to listen to you is that they simply agree with your points, as they themselves are also illogical.
I don't disagree with you - I simply think the problems perceived by the racist/sexist muppet I replied to either don't exist or are easily surmountable in the near future (as the evidence seems to suggest). It is a nascent field full of interest and difficult problems, but so far they've done an amazing job of overcoming them, and show no sign of failing to continue along that path.
No, not really. There are millions of us over here who get to share the same system. Other countries also have similar systems. It appears you are confusing your experience with the standard, which is a common problem.
Because most religious people become religious when they are children, well before they have developed the analytical skills required to make a conscious decision. Also, if you are correct, there should be a more-even distribution of religions around the world, as everyone studies different religions and picks the one which speaks loudest to you.
You should read what "speciation" is, and then maybe you'd grasp why a single comment such as the one you replied to really does close the debate on this subject. They haven't just observed fruit flies changing colour or anything like that, but a population of fruit flies diverging into two different species. It's also been witnessed in the wild, with things such as the mosquitos which only live in the London Underground.
So yes, it does prove something as complex and time-spanning as evolution, and what they described is definitely direct observation of evolution. You complain that they can't perform the experiments, then they do, then you complain that they didn't. Weird.
Nope. Thanks to genome sequencing, the gift of fruit flies' rapid reproduction, and observed speciation in the wild and in the lab, it is an observed fact.
Science doesn't deal with "proof" - that's mathematics or liquor.
Evolution says nothing about how life was started, just how it changes. Plus "spontaneous generation" is incredibly old-fashioned and no biologists would believe in that these days (what with evidence and what-not). The thing you're looking for is "abiogenesis".
Hint: biologists don't differentiate between "micro" and "macro" evolution, as they are the same things on different scales. If you hear someone using those terms without explaining this, they are not arguing from science, which is to be avoided when discussing scientific principles.
What the GP said was correct - genetic traits which are not entirely disadvantageous will be more likely to pass on to further generations than those which are disadvantageous. Couple that with the fact that genetic mutations happen, and we have a fact. Of course some disadvantageous mutations are passed on in some individuals, but the theory of evolution explains how populations and not individuals change over time. It might be time for you to crack open that biology textbook again:)
What is that supposed to prove, other than you can make things up?
It's only an inconvenient question to you, who it outed as some sort of muppet. Scientists don't believe the brain to be a "random hodge-podge of mutations", so the fact you'd claim that is very illustrative of your knowledge of science, which is then amplified by your pathetic signature. Your education must have sucked.
You might want to provide links for your second point, and also for your third while you're at it. 700,000 miles without incident is not a bad track record (no pun intended).
Speak for yourself! The public transport in the city in which I live is wonderful, as it frequently is across the country where I live (Germany). You just need to be relatively near to a tram stop (which is the vast, vast majority of people, even those in the styx), and you can get wherever you want quickly, efficiently, and cheap. Great connections to the high-speed rail means you can be anywhere very quickly with minimal fuss, including neighbouring countries. It's awesome to leave your house, walk 20m to the tram stop, take a tram to the train station, then ride at 186mp/h+ to your destination while sat in the diner car drinking awesome beer and eating suspiciously-delicious food.
Don't assume all public transport is broken just because your locality can't manage it.
So improve your public transport system. The Karlsruhe method, for example, couples local trams with regional trains, which all share street tracks, meaning you can hop on a tram and be taken to other towns and places outside the city. The US method of public transport is an abject joke, but not the only game in town.
As humans crash cars all the time, by your own logic you don't want them on the road either. 700,000 miles without an accident is not bad so far. Or, to put it in perspective - 100% infallibility so far.
Slashdot Mirror
So it's OK to send a possibly-innocent person to prison as long as it serves as a deterrent to other people who might think of committing things which are possibly crimes? Your logic is disgustingly lazy. He gave no "huge amount of leverage" to anyone, except the press he worked with, and they have been incredibly restrained in their actions. You are screaming to eliminate due process when you want to, because of some issue you've concocted in your own head. You suck at thinking, and even being a human.
Seeing as you missed an incredibly salient part of this discussion, why on Earth should anyone listen to your hypotheses? Who's to say you didn't miss a few more words in all these stories and somehow think Snowden is some sort of time-travelling Communist robot from Mars. Your credibility is gone.
You might want to differentiate between unions in the US and unions elsewhere. Unions in quite a few other countries work as expected.
You do realise when you post these inane remarks using such words people don't think "oh, I should research what's happening in the Muslim world", they think "this guy needs some professional help; his world is tiny and cold, and he's scared of people who look different, and lacks the ability to ascertain what's happening in the world at even a very basic level"? In short, the only person you are hurting with your comments is yourself.
Bono was not as influential in either of those issues as you seem to think he was.
Don't bring logic to an anti-vaxxer argument - they simply can't deal with it. I guess if they were exposed to some smaller amounts of less-harmful logic when they were younger they might appreciate the benefits of acting and discoursing logically with others...
Based on your comments in other threads, where you are rather anti-science, I don't know why people should think of you as some sort of paradigm of logic. You've shown yourself to create arguments based on your own gut-feeling and instincts instead of evidence and rational thought. The only reason I can think of for some people to listen to you is that they simply agree with your points, as they themselves are also illogical.
I don't disagree with you - I simply think the problems perceived by the racist/sexist muppet I replied to either don't exist or are easily surmountable in the near future (as the evidence seems to suggest). It is a nascent field full of interest and difficult problems, but so far they've done an amazing job of overcoming them, and show no sign of failing to continue along that path.
No, not really. There are millions of us over here who get to share the same system. Other countries also have similar systems. It appears you are confusing your experience with the standard, which is a common problem.
It sure would be odd if vaccines were antibiotics. But they're not, so it's not odd. You clearly have some reading to do.
Or, eschewing the entire belief system entirely, by simply accepting some very basic axioms a la Bertrand Russell.
Because most religious people become religious when they are children, well before they have developed the analytical skills required to make a conscious decision. Also, if you are correct, there should be a more-even distribution of religions around the world, as everyone studies different religions and picks the one which speaks loudest to you.
No - it would change into something morphologically incredibly similar to a dog, but its genes would most definitely still be feline.
You should read what "speciation" is, and then maybe you'd grasp why a single comment such as the one you replied to really does close the debate on this subject. They haven't just observed fruit flies changing colour or anything like that, but a population of fruit flies diverging into two different species. It's also been witnessed in the wild, with things such as the mosquitos which only live in the London Underground.
So yes, it does prove something as complex and time-spanning as evolution, and what they described is definitely direct observation of evolution. You complain that they can't perform the experiments, then they do, then you complain that they didn't. Weird.
Nope. Thanks to genome sequencing, the gift of fruit flies' rapid reproduction, and observed speciation in the wild and in the lab, it is an observed fact.
Science doesn't deal with "proof" - that's mathematics or liquor.
Sorry - "the theory accepted by practically every single productive biologist in the world". The pedantry is strong with this one :)
Evolution says nothing about how life was started, just how it changes. Plus "spontaneous generation" is incredibly old-fashioned and no biologists would believe in that these days (what with evidence and what-not). The thing you're looking for is "abiogenesis".
Hint: biologists don't differentiate between "micro" and "macro" evolution, as they are the same things on different scales. If you hear someone using those terms without explaining this, they are not arguing from science, which is to be avoided when discussing scientific principles.
What the GP said was correct - genetic traits which are not entirely disadvantageous will be more likely to pass on to further generations than those which are disadvantageous. Couple that with the fact that genetic mutations happen, and we have a fact. Of course some disadvantageous mutations are passed on in some individuals, but the theory of evolution explains how populations and not individuals change over time. It might be time for you to crack open that biology textbook again :)
This works wonderfully.
What is that supposed to prove, other than you can make things up?
It's only an inconvenient question to you, who it outed as some sort of muppet. Scientists don't believe the brain to be a "random hodge-podge of mutations", so the fact you'd claim that is very illustrative of your knowledge of science, which is then amplified by your pathetic signature. Your education must have sucked.
No - evolution is the observed phenomenon, and the theory of evolution is the explanation of said phenomenon.
You might want to provide links for your second point, and also for your third while you're at it. 700,000 miles without incident is not a bad track record (no pun intended).
Speak for yourself! The public transport in the city in which I live is wonderful, as it frequently is across the country where I live (Germany). You just need to be relatively near to a tram stop (which is the vast, vast majority of people, even those in the styx), and you can get wherever you want quickly, efficiently, and cheap. Great connections to the high-speed rail means you can be anywhere very quickly with minimal fuss, including neighbouring countries. It's awesome to leave your house, walk 20m to the tram stop, take a tram to the train station, then ride at 186mp/h+ to your destination while sat in the diner car drinking awesome beer and eating suspiciously-delicious food. Don't assume all public transport is broken just because your locality can't manage it.
So improve your public transport system. The Karlsruhe method, for example, couples local trams with regional trains, which all share street tracks, meaning you can hop on a tram and be taken to other towns and places outside the city. The US method of public transport is an abject joke, but not the only game in town.
As humans crash cars all the time, by your own logic you don't want them on the road either. 700,000 miles without an accident is not bad so far. Or, to put it in perspective - 100% infallibility so far.