I think you should read up on the Libertarian movement, because they don't want to "move everything to the state level" as you falsely claim. Don't come back with some wacko and claim that's the movement ideology.
It is not a crime to forage and eat when you need food. That is the natural law. You twist the meaning a bit, but are close. In your example of the grocery store and currency, you are not foraging. Therefor taking food because you are hungry would be stealing (the grocery store has foraged to stock the shelves in simple terms).
Under natural law, you could go through public places and look for food and that is not illegal (no matter what some buerocrat want's to tell you).
Natural rights do exist, and are the foundation for our human rights. I think you need to think harder about what I claimed, and keep them to minimums when contemplating. Natural laws go back well before the US Constitution and were the foundations for numerous civil laws in numerous societies.
Nope, sorry but you are way out there on the majority of what you are trying to claim. Natural rights are available for all living things. This is the right to find food and eat it, find shelter and use it, the right to socialize with with their own kind, the right to find a mate and bump nasties to make babies, and the right to defend itself.
Humans have additional rights that we have granted ourselves which go beyond natural rights.
I would agree that treating Chimps as Humans is foolish, because the additional human rights that we have granted ourselves require responsibility. Those rights are things such as the right to keep and bear arms, the right to free speech and press, etc...
When we deny an animal their natural rights, we should as humans question why and how we can live without doing those things.
I.E. Is it within our rights to cage chimps and isolate them, preventing them from breeding and socializing? Is our methods of controlling captive animals excessive? To what purpose are we keeping captive animals?
Funny that since we are all taught to be greedy, and that there are no limits, we don't question what we should. Sane people would not question using chimps to test certain medications. Sane people would question using chimps to test better ways of killing each other, or makeup for vanity. Ignorant people and fools lump both together and see no difference.
The problem is that if they fund it, how do you ensure that the "third party" is unbiased?
I mentioned that the FDA should be the coordinators for the testing, and of course the FDA should be audited by independent agencies. While not perfect, almost everything exists today to do just this. Except for a mandate that GMOs are tested thoroughly. Pipe dream currently, but a legislator could work on it.
1: If someone objects to all GMOs, they object to even the most beneficial ones. Vitamin A rice is a reasonable argument against those who want to ban GMOs. It's not a good argument against testing, but I've not seen it used that way myself.
Agree, but this same argument can run the other direction and often does. The same types of appeal to emotion on both ends of the science feed inaction.
2: If you are referring to the "terminator" traits where F2 is infertile rather than male-sterile lines, those have not been included in many seeds. In fact, the USDA currently does not list a deregulated corn or soybean terminator trait [usda.gov].
My understanding is that Monsanto had developed such a trait, which they intended to use to prevent accidental cross-pollination; but when people objected to it, they dropped it.
Some of that is simply not true. All you have to do to see where terminator seeds are in production is to follow the law suits Monsanto files against people for IP violations, and follow the complaints to the FDA where Monsanto terminator varieties of seeds have infected farms that have never purchased Monsanto seeds. Both of those have numerous searchable articles and reports. Monsanto is not the only biotech company to search, but the primary one since they have been the most public if not the most ruthless in courts.
I did not mention cost as an issue because I'm well aware that there's quite a bit of testing in development of any crop.
I interned at Pioneer one summer collecting soil moisture measurements for drought stress trials, and they mentioned the scale of the testing.
A crop is usually tested for at least five years. Trials runs about $2000 per acre per year for corn, and there are always
several evaluations (resistance to pests, drought tolerance, nitrogen use efficiency, and so on) and they are replicated at 4-5 sites.
What is not normally tested is the impact on humans and animals eating the crops, which is what most anti-GMO people are requesting. What they do test is to be sure that the seeds work as expected in order to make a profit for the company designing the seeds.
In pharmaceuticals, you still hear people claiming that there is bias, and once in a while you hear about trials that were tampered with.
Sure you do, but there is enough testing and trials where things do not always hit the public in mass before bad drugs get caught. We can never prevent all bad things from happening, and with the testing and trials for pharmaceuticals that is not a different thought. What the timings do is reduce impact from bad things.
Comparing that to GMOs is really not a comparison. Most GMOs have been released with almost no animal or human testing in the USA. Other countries have required testing and banned the GMOs from growing based on test results. That fact itself should cause you concern if you are a US citizen.
I like your third question, and agree that funding is the driver. That said, why not make the agro businesses that make huge profits pay for unbiased testing in order to license the product? Every time something like this is mentioned, some pro-GMO person claims "Well our vitamin A rice".. but they neglect the "Terminating seeds" which reap huge profits for these companies.
The FDA is swamped, sure. They don't need to be the testing company, they could be the gatekeepers for smaller independent companies to do testing. In other areas, like pharmaceuticals the cost of testing is assumed in the product. The same thing should be done with GMO foods, because the majority of the purposes are not altruistic but profit driven.
Women have been forced to pay for viagra and prostate exams,
It was never forced into a woman's insurance policy to pay for Viagra, so you are a liar. Compare prostate and breast exams and you would be unbiased, but you are biased.
why shouldn't we cover women's health care now?
Another lie, woman's health care was covered previously. A woman could be in the most beneficial plan for her, as my example about the 50 year old woman shows. Now her premium is doubled because she has to pay for prenatal care and birth control and she can't have kids.
You're just a bitter old man looking for a reason to complain. No one really cares what you think.
Typical idiocy, ad hominem does not trump truth and reason. Lie + Lie + Name Calling does not trump all. Of course when you are convinced that lies are truth, I don't expect much else.
A conclusion drawn from the results of an experiment with too few test subjects to be statistically solid and whose subjects' very genome is likely to introduce bias into said results isn't shaky?
The breed of rat is what makes absolutely NO difference, and I'm amazed that you lack the ability to come to that conclusion. If there were different breeds used for different groups, yes there would be bias. When it is the same exact breed in the 3 groups (control group, GMO corn group, and GMO + Roundup) it there is NO bias!
Claiming the breed is the problem is the same thing as complaining that the science is bad because they didn't use rabbits in the testing. Actually it's worse than that, because if you are testing cancer rates from something you don't want cancer resistant breeds to be used in the testing.
Likewise, would you be in favor of retracting any that reached a very shaky conclusion?
Except that the conclusion was not shaky. The number and type of rats was what was complained about, not the actual experiment or the results.
Why not advocate expanding these experiments with more and various test subjects instead of making a false claim? Seems to me like you are pro-GMO. Either that or you didn't see the obvious. Your link to a blog post instead of a reputable source has me thinking it's simply pro-GMO propaganda talking, especially when more than half of the blog post is ad hominem.
Your minister example is way off the mark, and just a red herring. We can show that GMOs are good and/or bad, it's not just a philosophical question. There are many reports of GMOs being bad outside of the science discussed in TFA. This was the best scientific example for sure. The point is, we should be advocating independent study instead of relying on Monsanto and all of the other biotech companies simply claiming "it's safe".
I'm not claiming there is not some bad science for anti-GMO, but that does not take away the same bad science we are given which is pro-GMO. Science is supposed to be unbiased an fact driven. Not ad hominem, red herring, poppycock.
Despite how my post looks, that is absolutely not the "only" reason I boycott Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart just happened to be the first store that came to mind as putting up Christmas items in October.
Am I correct in guessing that English is not your first/primary language? Your phrasing makes better sense if that is true, so I probably assumed incorrectly you were being very literal.
Let me move your comment into the two questions I see, and I'll answer both. Answers are of course my educated opinion, and I may be able to point to materials for understanding.
1. Do corporations own both parties in the US Political System?
No, however people that own very large and key corporations do. Television for example provides a means for select people to present candidates to the public. The hype and lies about Obama would not be possible without a media conglomerate advertising the person and distorting reality for viewers.
2. Do American corporations openly defy US Law?
Yes, quite frequently. Occasionally they are charged with crimes and face justice, but not as often as they should. Outrage about illegal acts is often pacified by media for given corporations, and information is simply not provided in many cases. See the answer to question 1. People in power controlling media means that reality is manipulated. Very few Americans know for example that Dole had mercenary forces in South America murdering civilians for farming lands and rights.
References: Plato's "The Republic" see "The Allegory of the Cave". Gary Allen "None Dare Call it Conspiracy". Mark Dice "Illuminati Fact vs. Fiction". The first shows that the manipulation of reality is a science going back thousands of years. The last book by Mark Dice contains hundreds of references to other works showing the controlling structures behind corporations and media.
I never said Google created the NSA, save your straw man next time. I asked the question of whether or not Google became so big because they play ball with Government agencies where others did not. That would not be the sole reason, obviously, but it could easily play a big role.
Claiming that Google is happy or unhappy with the arrangement is not really relevant to the fact that they do play ball. Google has not changed any policies after the revelations. The only thing that has happened is that they claim they want to be more transparent about it. That was the point of the comment about "repent"ing. Google today is still giving the NSA, data and people are still giving Google data to play middle man with.
Your last paragraph is a speculation, just like claiming that there is some big conspiracy is a speculation. With little facts available due to the secrecy, your speculation is no better. In fact with all of the leaked data over the last few years, your speculation is worth less than someone claiming it's nefarious.
If you ignore the 30 million people that have had premiums double in addition to the 9 million cancelled,you would have a point. And those shitty policies that failed to cover items, like the mandatory birth control and pregnancy care forced onto every policy including the 55 year old woman with a hysterectomy!
If you work for a big company, you already had some immunity. Yours is coming next year. When your rates double because you have to pay for prenatal care as a single guy with no girlfriend I'm sure you will hop on the band wagon with everyone else.
We all have our lines in the sand. I won't deny that I don't trust Sony PC software for the same reason. If it was just me, I would not own a PS4. My kid is a different story, and to have friends over to game he would have either a Xbox or PS3/4. I choose the lesser of the two evils, and yes the Xbox is way more evil than Playstation.
What? Wait a minute. Google, Facebook, and Microsoft have repented for their sins? Or perhaps they just claimed "sorry" to gain some users back that are now uneasy? I believe the latter is much more accurate.
Sure, many businesses were blind to what's going on just like Joe the Plumber. Many businesses don't want to cooperate and have refused to cooperate with certain Government agencies. That would be fair. These are not the "big" ones that are working with the Government in abusing their power and trust.
You should also be asking if the big ones got big because they are "players". When looking at the Microsoft anti-trust cases, I think there is at least some validity to that line of thinking. The MySpace vs. Facebook stories also hint that in at least some cases this may be true.
The point is that you need to have some caution when making a blanket statement like "all corporations care about the NSA scandal and are quite unhappy wit the NSA", because that is not true for the people holding the power over many very key pieces of the spy grid. Search Engines, Social Networking, Operating Systems, etc... And we already know that AT&T has given copies of every data link to the NSA, so they are guilty also.
People said the same thing about the PS3 when it came out. My kid said "you are stupid to buy it now dad, let's wait till January" and we ended up with the higher end model for 100 bucks less than the cheap model before Christmas.
I refuse to support a system that makes everything possible as commercial as possible to the detriment of society as a whole. Yeah, I have become what I used to complain about. At the same time, I see things today like my parents saw them back then.
Once prices drop after Christmas, my son will get a PS4. I'm pretty lucky that my kid is just as much against the commercialization of everything as I am. We boycott any store that puts up "Christmas Sale" signs before Thanksgiving. Yeah, that's right! FU Wallzmart, I don't spend a penny at your stores!
Like I said, the questions posed as macro vs. micro evolution have been around for quite a while. If you don't care to argue the questions posed, then sit silent.
When you have to resort to being a liar, you don't add anything of benefit to either side of the argument. Perhaps you are happy looking like the Fred Phelps of atheism. Anyone that questions your belief must be hated and despised. That position is not rational, or enjoyed by most of the community.
No, I am not a creationist. So not only do you have trouble with fallacies, you have difficulty with the truth.
It's closed minded people like you that make the debates very unproductive.
The only person here that has mentioned religion or creationism is you. I never implied either religion or creationism. I stated very clearly that certain aspects of the theory of evolution were not yet proven. I also stated that many aspects of evolution where proven. You immediately hop on your bigot bike because I dare question what people claim without proof. If you are ignorant, and lack the critical thinking skills to question what you are told, that is your problem.
Thanks for that link, I had not yet seen this study. Interesting first read, I have to go read more on their work. The article only comments on the shape the yeast took, and not how the cells cooperated as a group.
I did comment as a joke, but I can imagine how bad that would be. I have tried to explain the same basic concepts to people and their eyes tend to glaze over as soon as you say a two syllable word. It's not just compression artifacts to deal with either. I have met people truly convinced that the international space station is a UFO in the sky. *sigh*
It's not "my definition". The rest of your post is bullocks as you claim mine was. If you don't understand why there is debate on the subject do some homework. Thanks for playing "I have fallacies"!
Dogs can breed with wolves, which means that something is wrong with having reproduction as a differentiation as species variation. I agree that clear and concise definitions don't exist, but not just from myself but the science as a whole.
Here is the scientific dilemma. There is a claim that a thing became another thing, which became another thing. We start the model at a single cell, and claim that these cells began to group together to become simple critters, like a jellyfish. The length of the DNA increases with every evolution in species. These branch of course, where successful things lived and mutated further and other things died out with perhaps the same DNA length but a slightly different ordering resulting in less efficient critters that could not survive.
We take this further out, and we can today claim that nearly 50% of everything shares the same exact DNA. DNA is long, so the other 50% is not trivial. The end claim is that humans evolved from primates that received positive/successful extensions to their DNA. This is simplified a bit obviously, as there were several generations of extensions, but this is where we hear that human DNA is 99% the same as certain primates.
The extension of the DNA is the part we can't really prove. So I believe the fair description in what we are lacking is related to describing the DNA changes required to claim "yes we have a new species". This is something that can happen either by optimizing the string of DNA, or extending the DNA.
The issue in my opinion is not that we can't prove it, but rather that it will take time to do so. It is the proverbial search for a needle in the haystack, because we have enough data to determine that it "should" happen in time.
One would think that this is relatively easy to prove. Stuff billions of single cell critters in a tank with lots of food and watch them grow. But it's really not that simple. There is some magic component that we just have not seen yet which triggers these events. Of course as soon as we start to intervene, we lose the ability to claim "see, nature did make an evolution happen".
It is absolutely not everyone in the entire field making claims that we have proof of species evolution. It's very few. "Talkorigins.org" is not some great scientific organization, it's a propaganda site biased against creationists. There are of course creationist sites which are biased also, which you can easily find.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you should read up on the Libertarian movement, because they don't want to "move everything to the state level" as you falsely claim. Don't come back with some wacko and claim that's the movement ideology.
It is not a crime to forage and eat when you need food. That is the natural law. You twist the meaning a bit, but are close. In your example of the grocery store and currency, you are not foraging. Therefor taking food because you are hungry would be stealing (the grocery store has foraged to stock the shelves in simple terms).
Under natural law, you could go through public places and look for food and that is not illegal (no matter what some buerocrat want's to tell you).
Natural rights do exist, and are the foundation for our human rights. I think you need to think harder about what I claimed, and keep them to minimums when contemplating. Natural laws go back well before the US Constitution and were the foundations for numerous civil laws in numerous societies.
Nope, sorry but you are way out there on the majority of what you are trying to claim. Natural rights are available for all living things. This is the right to find food and eat it, find shelter and use it, the right to socialize with with their own kind, the right to find a mate and bump nasties to make babies, and the right to defend itself.
Humans have additional rights that we have granted ourselves which go beyond natural rights.
I would agree that treating Chimps as Humans is foolish, because the additional human rights that we have granted ourselves require responsibility. Those rights are things such as the right to keep and bear arms, the right to free speech and press, etc...
When we deny an animal their natural rights, we should as humans question why and how we can live without doing those things.
I.E. Is it within our rights to cage chimps and isolate them, preventing them from breeding and socializing? Is our methods of controlling captive animals excessive? To what purpose are we keeping captive animals?
Funny that since we are all taught to be greedy, and that there are no limits, we don't question what we should. Sane people would not question using chimps to test certain medications. Sane people would question using chimps to test better ways of killing each other, or makeup for vanity. Ignorant people and fools lump both together and see no difference.
The problem is that if they fund it, how do you ensure that the "third party" is unbiased?
I mentioned that the FDA should be the coordinators for the testing, and of course the FDA should be audited by independent agencies. While not perfect, almost everything exists today to do just this. Except for a mandate that GMOs are tested thoroughly. Pipe dream currently, but a legislator could work on it.
1: If someone objects to all GMOs, they object to even the most beneficial ones. Vitamin A rice is a reasonable argument against those who want to ban GMOs. It's not a good argument against testing, but I've not seen it used that way myself.
Agree, but this same argument can run the other direction and often does. The same types of appeal to emotion on both ends of the science feed inaction.
2: If you are referring to the "terminator" traits where F2 is infertile rather than male-sterile lines, those have not been included in many seeds. In fact, the USDA currently does not list a deregulated corn or soybean terminator trait [usda.gov]. My understanding is that Monsanto had developed such a trait, which they intended to use to prevent accidental cross-pollination; but when people objected to it, they dropped it.
Some of that is simply not true. All you have to do to see where terminator seeds are in production is to follow the law suits Monsanto files against people for IP violations, and follow the complaints to the FDA where Monsanto terminator varieties of seeds have infected farms that have never purchased Monsanto seeds. Both of those have numerous searchable articles and reports. Monsanto is not the only biotech company to search, but the primary one since they have been the most public if not the most ruthless in courts.
I did not mention cost as an issue because I'm well aware that there's quite a bit of testing in development of any crop. I interned at Pioneer one summer collecting soil moisture measurements for drought stress trials, and they mentioned the scale of the testing. A crop is usually tested for at least five years. Trials runs about $2000 per acre per year for corn, and there are always several evaluations (resistance to pests, drought tolerance, nitrogen use efficiency, and so on) and they are replicated at 4-5 sites.
What is not normally tested is the impact on humans and animals eating the crops, which is what most anti-GMO people are requesting. What they do test is to be sure that the seeds work as expected in order to make a profit for the company designing the seeds.
In pharmaceuticals, you still hear people claiming that there is bias, and once in a while you hear about trials that were tampered with.
Sure you do, but there is enough testing and trials where things do not always hit the public in mass before bad drugs get caught. We can never prevent all bad things from happening, and with the testing and trials for pharmaceuticals that is not a different thought. What the timings do is reduce impact from bad things.
Comparing that to GMOs is really not a comparison. Most GMOs have been released with almost no animal or human testing in the USA. Other countries have required testing and banned the GMOs from growing based on test results. That fact itself should cause you concern if you are a US citizen.
I like your third question, and agree that funding is the driver. That said, why not make the agro businesses that make huge profits pay for unbiased testing in order to license the product? Every time something like this is mentioned, some pro-GMO person claims "Well our vitamin A rice".. but they neglect the "Terminating seeds" which reap huge profits for these companies.
The FDA is swamped, sure. They don't need to be the testing company, they could be the gatekeepers for smaller independent companies to do testing. In other areas, like pharmaceuticals the cost of testing is assumed in the product. The same thing should be done with GMO foods, because the majority of the purposes are not altruistic but profit driven.
Women have been forced to pay for viagra and prostate exams,
It was never forced into a woman's insurance policy to pay for Viagra, so you are a liar. Compare prostate and breast exams and you would be unbiased, but you are biased.
why shouldn't we cover women's health care now?
Another lie, woman's health care was covered previously. A woman could be in the most beneficial plan for her, as my example about the 50 year old woman shows. Now her premium is doubled because she has to pay for prenatal care and birth control and she can't have kids.
You're just a bitter old man looking for a reason to complain. No one really cares what you think.
Typical idiocy, ad hominem does not trump truth and reason. Lie + Lie + Name Calling does not trump all. Of course when you are convinced that lies are truth, I don't expect much else.
A conclusion drawn from the results of an experiment with too few test subjects to be statistically solid and whose subjects' very genome is likely to introduce bias into said results isn't shaky?
The breed of rat is what makes absolutely NO difference, and I'm amazed that you lack the ability to come to that conclusion. If there were different breeds used for different groups, yes there would be bias. When it is the same exact breed in the 3 groups (control group, GMO corn group, and GMO + Roundup) it there is NO bias!
Claiming the breed is the problem is the same thing as complaining that the science is bad because they didn't use rabbits in the testing. Actually it's worse than that, because if you are testing cancer rates from something you don't want cancer resistant breeds to be used in the testing.
Likewise, would you be in favor of retracting any that reached a very shaky conclusion?
Except that the conclusion was not shaky. The number and type of rats was what was complained about, not the actual experiment or the results.
Why not advocate expanding these experiments with more and various test subjects instead of making a false claim? Seems to me like you are pro-GMO. Either that or you didn't see the obvious. Your link to a blog post instead of a reputable source has me thinking it's simply pro-GMO propaganda talking, especially when more than half of the blog post is ad hominem.
Your minister example is way off the mark, and just a red herring. We can show that GMOs are good and/or bad, it's not just a philosophical question. There are many reports of GMOs being bad outside of the science discussed in TFA. This was the best scientific example for sure. The point is, we should be advocating independent study instead of relying on Monsanto and all of the other biotech companies simply claiming "it's safe".
I'm not claiming there is not some bad science for anti-GMO, but that does not take away the same bad science we are given which is pro-GMO. Science is supposed to be unbiased an fact driven. Not ad hominem, red herring, poppycock.
Despite how my post looks, that is absolutely not the "only" reason I boycott Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart just happened to be the first store that came to mind as putting up Christmas items in October.
Am I correct in guessing that English is not your first/primary language? Your phrasing makes better sense if that is true, so I probably assumed incorrectly you were being very literal.
Let me move your comment into the two questions I see, and I'll answer both. Answers are of course my educated opinion, and I may be able to point to materials for understanding.
1. Do corporations own both parties in the US Political System?
No, however people that own very large and key corporations do. Television for example provides a means for select people to present candidates to the public. The hype and lies about Obama would not be possible without a media conglomerate advertising the person and distorting reality for viewers.
2. Do American corporations openly defy US Law?
Yes, quite frequently. Occasionally they are charged with crimes and face justice, but not as often as they should. Outrage about illegal acts is often pacified by media for given corporations, and information is simply not provided in many cases. See the answer to question 1. People in power controlling media means that reality is manipulated. Very few Americans know for example that Dole had mercenary forces in South America murdering civilians for farming lands and rights.
References: Plato's "The Republic" see "The Allegory of the Cave". Gary Allen "None Dare Call it Conspiracy". Mark Dice "Illuminati Fact vs. Fiction". The first shows that the manipulation of reality is a science going back thousands of years. The last book by Mark Dice contains hundreds of references to other works showing the controlling structures behind corporations and media.
I never said Google created the NSA, save your straw man next time. I asked the question of whether or not Google became so big because they play ball with Government agencies where others did not. That would not be the sole reason, obviously, but it could easily play a big role.
Claiming that Google is happy or unhappy with the arrangement is not really relevant to the fact that they do play ball. Google has not changed any policies after the revelations. The only thing that has happened is that they claim they want to be more transparent about it. That was the point of the comment about "repent"ing. Google today is still giving the NSA, data and people are still giving Google data to play middle man with.
Your last paragraph is a speculation, just like claiming that there is some big conspiracy is a speculation. With little facts available due to the secrecy, your speculation is no better. In fact with all of the leaked data over the last few years, your speculation is worth less than someone claiming it's nefarious.
If you ignore the 30 million people that have had premiums double in addition to the 9 million cancelled,you would have a point. And those shitty policies that failed to cover items, like the mandatory birth control and pregnancy care forced onto every policy including the 55 year old woman with a hysterectomy!
If you work for a big company, you already had some immunity. Yours is coming next year. When your rates double because you have to pay for prenatal care as a single guy with no girlfriend I'm sure you will hop on the band wagon with everyone else.
We all have our lines in the sand. I won't deny that I don't trust Sony PC software for the same reason. If it was just me, I would not own a PS4. My kid is a different story, and to have friends over to game he would have either a Xbox or PS3/4. I choose the lesser of the two evils, and yes the Xbox is way more evil than Playstation.
What? Wait a minute. Google, Facebook, and Microsoft have repented for their sins? Or perhaps they just claimed "sorry" to gain some users back that are now uneasy? I believe the latter is much more accurate.
Sure, many businesses were blind to what's going on just like Joe the Plumber. Many businesses don't want to cooperate and have refused to cooperate with certain Government agencies. That would be fair. These are not the "big" ones that are working with the Government in abusing their power and trust.
You should also be asking if the big ones got big because they are "players". When looking at the Microsoft anti-trust cases, I think there is at least some validity to that line of thinking. The MySpace vs. Facebook stories also hint that in at least some cases this may be true.
The point is that you need to have some caution when making a blanket statement like "all corporations care about the NSA scandal and are quite unhappy wit the NSA", because that is not true for the people holding the power over many very key pieces of the spy grid. Search Engines, Social Networking, Operating Systems, etc... And we already know that AT&T has given copies of every data link to the NSA, so they are guilty also.
People said the same thing about the PS3 when it came out. My kid said "you are stupid to buy it now dad, let's wait till January" and we ended up with the higher end model for 100 bucks less than the cheap model before Christmas.
I refuse to support a system that makes everything possible as commercial as possible to the detriment of society as a whole. Yeah, I have become what I used to complain about. At the same time, I see things today like my parents saw them back then.
Once prices drop after Christmas, my son will get a PS4. I'm pretty lucky that my kid is just as much against the commercialization of everything as I am. We boycott any store that puts up "Christmas Sale" signs before Thanksgiving. Yeah, that's right! FU Wallzmart, I don't spend a penny at your stores!
Like I said, the questions posed as macro vs. micro evolution have been around for quite a while. If you don't care to argue the questions posed, then sit silent.
When you have to resort to being a liar, you don't add anything of benefit to either side of the argument. Perhaps you are happy looking like the Fred Phelps of atheism. Anyone that questions your belief must be hated and despised. That position is not rational, or enjoyed by most of the community.
No, I am not a creationist. So not only do you have trouble with fallacies, you have difficulty with the truth.
It's closed minded people like you that make the debates very unproductive.
The only person here that has mentioned religion or creationism is you. I never implied either religion or creationism. I stated very clearly that certain aspects of the theory of evolution were not yet proven. I also stated that many aspects of evolution where proven. You immediately hop on your bigot bike because I dare question what people claim without proof. If you are ignorant, and lack the critical thinking skills to question what you are told, that is your problem.
Thanks for that link, I had not yet seen this study. Interesting first read, I have to go read more on their work. The article only comments on the shape the yeast took, and not how the cells cooperated as a group.
Carnivora? I thought that he was a vegetarian?
I did comment as a joke, but I can imagine how bad that would be. I have tried to explain the same basic concepts to people and their eyes tend to glaze over as soon as you say a two syllable word. It's not just compression artifacts to deal with either. I have met people truly convinced that the international space station is a UFO in the sky. *sigh*
There was a UFO in the first animated GIF! It has to be Nephilum, the Mayans were right, and the apocalypse is coming!
Now that your conspiracy is satisfied carry on and enjoy the show!
It's not "my definition". The rest of your post is bullocks as you claim mine was. If you don't understand why there is debate on the subject do some homework. Thanks for playing "I have fallacies"!
Dogs can breed with wolves, which means that something is wrong with having reproduction as a differentiation as species variation. I agree that clear and concise definitions don't exist, but not just from myself but the science as a whole.
Here is the scientific dilemma. There is a claim that a thing became another thing, which became another thing. We start the model at a single cell, and claim that these cells began to group together to become simple critters, like a jellyfish. The length of the DNA increases with every evolution in species. These branch of course, where successful things lived and mutated further and other things died out with perhaps the same DNA length but a slightly different ordering resulting in less efficient critters that could not survive.
We take this further out, and we can today claim that nearly 50% of everything shares the same exact DNA. DNA is long, so the other 50% is not trivial. The end claim is that humans evolved from primates that received positive/successful extensions to their DNA. This is simplified a bit obviously, as there were several generations of extensions, but this is where we hear that human DNA is 99% the same as certain primates.
The extension of the DNA is the part we can't really prove. So I believe the fair description in what we are lacking is related to describing the DNA changes required to claim "yes we have a new species". This is something that can happen either by optimizing the string of DNA, or extending the DNA.
The issue in my opinion is not that we can't prove it, but rather that it will take time to do so. It is the proverbial search for a needle in the haystack, because we have enough data to determine that it "should" happen in time.
One would think that this is relatively easy to prove. Stuff billions of single cell critters in a tank with lots of food and watch them grow. But it's really not that simple. There is some magic component that we just have not seen yet which triggers these events. Of course as soon as we start to intervene, we lose the ability to claim "see, nature did make an evolution happen".
It is absolutely not everyone in the entire field making claims that we have proof of species evolution. It's very few. "Talkorigins.org" is not some great scientific organization, it's a propaganda site biased against creationists. There are of course creationist sites which are biased also, which you can easily find.