No, they wouldn't. Their offspring survival rate is similar. The poor end of my family has something like a 30% death-before-reproduction rate in their offspring, while the middle class end, with fewer children, so far has a 0% DBR in the last three or four generations. It comes out to about the same rate of successful reproduciton overall.
Uh, you seem a bit confused. If the butterflies speciate, that is a demonstration of the fact of evolution. Period. Just as various lab experiments involving fast-reproducing organisms of various kinds have been. I don't really know why you immediately assume that proof of the existence of the process actually says anything about the origins of life itself. That's an archeological/historical matter, pretty much unrelated.
And when did speciation 'drive' evolution? I'm fairly certain it's simply one of the more obvious observable aspects of the process, and definitely closer to being a result than a cause.
Basically, stop whining about evolutionary processes when you apparrently have no idea what evolution entails. Take a biology class or something so that you can at least attack the actual theory rather than some wierd patchwork beast you've constructed in your mind.
I'd probably go against evolution 'existing', as (a) it's not a unified process, (b) the popular concept of what evolution 'does' is pretty much bullshit, and (c) I don't know that anything which cannot be isolated (i.e. actions and processes rather than actual objects) can really be said to 'exist'. Then, in all honesty, forced to a definitive answer on the subject, I'd probably just direct you to the biology department.
No, "God did it" is still a very worthless assertion. As any early scientist could tell you, the concern of science is not wether god did it, or why god did it, but how god did it. The wether and why offer no real benefit to people in terms of understanding or useful application, and that's why we gave them to the religions... keeps a really annoying segment of the population tied up in unsolvable riddles while the rest of us go on with our lives.
Cause, you know, the fact that the people the argument is directed against are being overly stiff in their belief completely excuses the fact that the 'squids have better eyes' example is rather dumb argument based on twisting the definition of 'better' to suit a premade conclusion.
Why not? You really can't judge the intelligence of the design without knowing the intent of the creator. Plus, you're assuming that design and implementation took place at the same time. Maybe the mammalian eye was an earlier design incorporated into later constructions because it was cheaper and more compatible. It happens in things humans design, don't see why biology should necessarily be any different.
Or maybe your definition of 'better' is simply being bent to support your point, rather than your conclusion being formed to fit the evidence.
An impeachment hearing about perjury, dunce. And you'll note that, in addition to not violating civil rights, he also did nothing else. Among the things he didn't do was attempt to defend our country or respond to the growing oragnization and temerity of our enemies. through the Clinton years Al Quada et al kept blowing up bigger and bigger things as they realized that tehy could get away with it. Clinton sat around seducing interns and let American citizens die without a blink, often even helping the incidents fade from the media by completely ignoring them days after they occurred. Well, he fed their confidence enough, and they found a really big target to knock over. Yeah. The glorious reign of the Democrat. Real nice legacy, there.
Amen, reverend. This useless money sink, too, shall go the way of the Dodo, right alongside that damned social security and no child left behind nonsense.
Uh, no, the terrorists don't win until we stop supporting Israel and cease using economic pressures to influence the middle east. Or when we're all dead. Or both.
"So why did Republicans vote down that simple amendment?"
There is no such beast. Given the way our law system works, a 'simple' amendment probably has 5 public works projects, the establishment of three new government organizations, and a provision mandating that the congressman's dog get patted three extra times that afternoon. I don't even bother asking your question anymore, as so much crap is built into the making of laws that there is always, always a valid objection to any given act. Just my 2 cents.
The NRA has the guts to advocate the gun control measure of "not being a fucking idiot". They don't quite say that people that leave their guns loaded in reach of children fully deserve it when they end up with bullet holes in sensitive areas, but they come close enough that they're one of the few organizations that I respect, despite not fully agreeing with them on some points. It's a very effective prevention method, actually, I've applied it successfully to many areas of my life. Also, by 'mainstream' I think you mean 'the whiny democrat faction and people in california' because those are the only people I've heard actually complain about the NRA itself.
Yeah, the legacy of the government preceding this one is that no one ever, ever cancels anything out of a paranoid fear of losing a voter or two. The only people with the guts to actually end things that need ending are the libertarians, and they're unfortunately populated heavily by complete nutjobs.
Yeah, it's too bad that very few americans are dying in Iraq, the government is only slightly more corrupt than was originally accounted for in building the constitution, freedoms are pretty much the same in effect (it's called a subphoena, they could get your phone conversations and library records anyhow, and in the latter case usually wouldn't need one), and traditional civil liberties are either going pretty much untouched, or are in the focus of the public eye where politicians who fuck with them will be touching the third rail. Seriously, man. Get some perspective.
Yeah, we need verification that the guy has fulfilled one of the (few) constitutionally outlined conditions for revocation of citizenship (basically, serving in a foreign military or swearing allegiance to a foreign government). If that's established, though, the government isn't violating any of his constitutional protections, because he hasn't got any (unless the foreign government he swore to is recognized as legit by the US, in which case he's protected by treaty.)
The clause on treason in the constitution-- if you attack american citizens, you retain your citizenship, you're just a criminal. If you serve in the military of another country, you revoke your citizenship and open yourself to a charge of treason. If you serve in a freelance military-type unit like al quaeda that disclaims any nationality, then you're doubly screwed, because you've lost the protection of your American citizenship without gaining the protection of citizenship in another country, and we can pretty much do to you what we want legally. Being a fairly honor-bound and group-oriented person myself, I entirely approve of this policy, but that's irrelevant, as it's the way it is either way. Anyhow, that's the difference.
I seem to recall something about your soul being damned to hell for eternity if your fighting does not take place in the frame of a holy war expressly approved by god, though. So the religion has also bred a lot of people really, really careful about what cause they commit to. Cashus Clay used Islam to dodge the draft, i think, on the reasoning that god commanded him, effectively, to be a pacifist.
Actually, the democrats used to, a few decades back. The reason they don't now is that they've lost their focus completely, and don't stand for anything anymore. This is kinda the normal cycle for the party, or actually any party. The party loses all meaning, then another party gains dominance, then that party loses meaning, and another (perhaps democrats again, we americans like the word so much that a lot of popular movements have hijacked it) with an actual purpose rises.
If you listen very carefully to the mumblings of various democrats, you'll notice they're still self-serving hypocrites too. But since the party is dead as far as agenda goes, they're a bunch of individual self-serving hypocrites, and thus much harder to hate than the more organized self-serving hypocracy on the other end. That's ok, though, I have enough disgust and sarcasm for them all. Except Swartzenegger(sp), every time i try to criticise him, i burst into laughter for some reason.
Bullshit. States rights is an attempt to reduce the red tape in government by decentralizing it, on the theory that people who live somewhere and are actually familiar with the local conditions might (gasp! blasphemy!) be better suited to deal with local problems than the kind of useless career politicians that are requred for national government. The philosophy itself has little to do with specific local policies, though seeing the federal government royally screw up managing local matters is usually what motivates people to push the philosophy. Also, you're overstating the ACLU's role in our history. It did some important things, but it was far, far away from being solely responsible for any of your points, except perhaps the abortion one. (Not that anyone from the organization will admit as much... this is one of the reasons I tend to think they're a bunch of pretensious jerks. The other reason is that most of them actually are pretensious jerks.)
Nah, almost no one follows logic all the way through these days. The problem with 'those religious people' is that they seem to lack the sense of humor that the creation process imbues in most of us nowadays.
Slashdot Mirror
No, they wouldn't. Their offspring survival rate is similar. The poor end of my family has something like a 30% death-before-reproduction rate in their offspring, while the middle class end, with fewer children, so far has a 0% DBR in the last three or four generations. It comes out to about the same rate of successful reproduciton overall.
Nice try, though.
Uh, you seem a bit confused. If the butterflies speciate, that is a demonstration of the fact of evolution. Period. Just as various lab experiments involving fast-reproducing organisms of various kinds have been. I don't really know why you immediately assume that proof of the existence of the process actually says anything about the origins of life itself. That's an archeological/historical matter, pretty much unrelated.
And when did speciation 'drive' evolution? I'm fairly certain it's simply one of the more obvious observable aspects of the process, and definitely closer to being a result than a cause.
Basically, stop whining about evolutionary processes when you apparrently have no idea what evolution entails. Take a biology class or something so that you can at least attack the actual theory rather than some wierd patchwork beast you've constructed in your mind.
I'd probably go against evolution 'existing', as (a) it's not a unified process, (b) the popular concept of what evolution 'does' is pretty much bullshit, and (c) I don't know that anything which cannot be isolated (i.e. actions and processes rather than actual objects) can really be said to 'exist'. Then, in all honesty, forced to a definitive answer on the subject, I'd probably just direct you to the biology department.
Man goes on to prove black is white, and is killed at the next zebra crossing.
No, "God did it" is still a very worthless assertion. As any early scientist could tell you, the concern of science is not wether god did it, or why god did it, but how god did it. The wether and why offer no real benefit to people in terms of understanding or useful application, and that's why we gave them to the religions... keeps a really annoying segment of the population tied up in unsolvable riddles while the rest of us go on with our lives.
Cause, you know, the fact that the people the argument is directed against are being overly stiff in their belief completely excuses the fact that the 'squids have better eyes' example is rather dumb argument based on twisting the definition of 'better' to suit a premade conclusion.
Why not? You really can't judge the intelligence of the design without knowing the intent of the creator. Plus, you're assuming that design and implementation took place at the same time. Maybe the mammalian eye was an earlier design incorporated into later constructions because it was cheaper and more compatible. It happens in things humans design, don't see why biology should necessarily be any different.
Or maybe your definition of 'better' is simply being bent to support your point, rather than your conclusion being formed to fit the evidence.
An impeachment hearing about perjury, dunce. And you'll note that, in addition to not violating civil rights, he also did nothing else. Among the things he didn't do was attempt to defend our country or respond to the growing oragnization and temerity of our enemies. through the Clinton years Al Quada et al kept blowing up bigger and bigger things as they realized that tehy could get away with it. Clinton sat around seducing interns and let American citizens die without a blink, often even helping the incidents fade from the media by completely ignoring them days after they occurred. Well, he fed their confidence enough, and they found a really big target to knock over. Yeah. The glorious reign of the Democrat. Real nice legacy, there.
Amen, reverend. This useless money sink, too, shall go the way of the Dodo, right alongside that damned social security and no child left behind nonsense.
Uh, no, the terrorists don't win until we stop supporting Israel and cease using economic pressures to influence the middle east. Or when we're all dead. Or both.
"So why did Republicans vote down that simple amendment?"
There is no such beast. Given the way our law system works, a 'simple' amendment probably has 5 public works projects, the establishment of three new government organizations, and a provision mandating that the congressman's dog get patted three extra times that afternoon. I don't even bother asking your question anymore, as so much crap is built into the making of laws that there is always, always a valid objection to any given act. Just my 2 cents.
The NRA has the guts to advocate the gun control measure of "not being a fucking idiot". They don't quite say that people that leave their guns loaded in reach of children fully deserve it when they end up with bullet holes in sensitive areas, but they come close enough that they're one of the few organizations that I respect, despite not fully agreeing with them on some points. It's a very effective prevention method, actually, I've applied it successfully to many areas of my life. Also, by 'mainstream' I think you mean 'the whiny democrat faction and people in california' because those are the only people I've heard actually complain about the NRA itself.
They have plenty of morals. That's the problem.
"The only thing worse than war is the degraded moral state in which nothing is worth fighting for." ~Sam Clemens
Yeah, the legacy of the government preceding this one is that no one ever, ever cancels anything out of a paranoid fear of losing a voter or two. The only people with the guts to actually end things that need ending are the libertarians, and they're unfortunately populated heavily by complete nutjobs.
Yeah, it's too bad that very few americans are dying in Iraq, the government is only slightly more corrupt than was originally accounted for in building the constitution, freedoms are pretty much the same in effect (it's called a subphoena, they could get your phone conversations and library records anyhow, and in the latter case usually wouldn't need one), and traditional civil liberties are either going pretty much untouched, or are in the focus of the public eye where politicians who fuck with them will be touching the third rail. Seriously, man. Get some perspective.
Yeah, we need verification that the guy has fulfilled one of the (few) constitutionally outlined conditions for revocation of citizenship (basically, serving in a foreign military or swearing allegiance to a foreign government). If that's established, though, the government isn't violating any of his constitutional protections, because he hasn't got any (unless the foreign government he swore to is recognized as legit by the US, in which case he's protected by treaty.)
The clause on treason in the constitution-- if you attack american citizens, you retain your citizenship, you're just a criminal. If you serve in the military of another country, you revoke your citizenship and open yourself to a charge of treason. If you serve in a freelance military-type unit like al quaeda that disclaims any nationality, then you're doubly screwed, because you've lost the protection of your American citizenship without gaining the protection of citizenship in another country, and we can pretty much do to you what we want legally. Being a fairly honor-bound and group-oriented person myself, I entirely approve of this policy, but that's irrelevant, as it's the way it is either way. Anyhow, that's the difference.
I seem to recall something about your soul being damned to hell for eternity if your fighting does not take place in the frame of a holy war expressly approved by god, though. So the religion has also bred a lot of people really, really careful about what cause they commit to. Cashus Clay used Islam to dodge the draft, i think, on the reasoning that god commanded him, effectively, to be a pacifist.
Also, he forgot to use the (/tinfoilhat) command to close his post.
Actually, the democrats used to, a few decades back. The reason they don't now is that they've lost their focus completely, and don't stand for anything anymore. This is kinda the normal cycle for the party, or actually any party. The party loses all meaning, then another party gains dominance, then that party loses meaning, and another (perhaps democrats again, we americans like the word so much that a lot of popular movements have hijacked it) with an actual purpose rises.
If you listen very carefully to the mumblings of various democrats, you'll notice they're still self-serving hypocrites too. But since the party is dead as far as agenda goes, they're a bunch of individual self-serving hypocrites, and thus much harder to hate than the more organized self-serving hypocracy on the other end. That's ok, though, I have enough disgust and sarcasm for them all. Except Swartzenegger(sp), every time i try to criticise him, i burst into laughter for some reason.
Bullshit. States rights is an attempt to reduce the red tape in government by decentralizing it, on the theory that people who live somewhere and are actually familiar with the local conditions might (gasp! blasphemy!) be better suited to deal with local problems than the kind of useless career politicians that are requred for national government. The philosophy itself has little to do with specific local policies, though seeing the federal government royally screw up managing local matters is usually what motivates people to push the philosophy. Also, you're overstating the ACLU's role in our history. It did some important things, but it was far, far away from being solely responsible for any of your points, except perhaps the abortion one. (Not that anyone from the organization will admit as much... this is one of the reasons I tend to think they're a bunch of pretensious jerks. The other reason is that most of them actually are pretensious jerks.)
The american olympic javelin team must certainly be confused.
I seem to remember the only way to stop a zombie in night of the living deat was to break every bone in its body of set it on fire.
Nah, almost no one follows logic all the way through these days. The problem with 'those religious people' is that they seem to lack the sense of humor that the creation process imbues in most of us nowadays.