This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Testy Calibrate
In lots of ways it probably has. If you haven't seen the original, yeah, you should.
Dude changed the rules. Shoot first, ask questions later.
Can non random mutation cause speciation?
is this where we discuss the vanilla ISIS attack in portland, too?Jesus, I don't know what you are referring to specifically, but we had a fucked up white supremacist thing where skinhead fuckhead was harassing two Muslim women and 3 guys told himto stop and he pulled out a knife and cut their throats. 2 died and the third is in the hospital. I tell you what, I am going to deal with that sort of situation a lot different than I might have before that. Incapacitated is the first order of business when dealing with a trump supporter being tough.
David Lynch once asked why people demand that art makes sense when they don't expect reality to.
You are pulling out all the stops today. Did you crack open your copy of "in their own words" big book of quotemines?QuoteAt the moment, we can only conclude that the Neo Darwinian model of evolution, based on a gradual accumulation of point mutations, appears to be incomplete at best. It is not, of course, that one doubts that evolution has occurred. The theory is in trouble because it insists on locating the driving force solely in random mutations. And alternative theory of evolution that emphasizes the importance of nonrandom epigenetic changes during development could explain the problems now being encountered by evolutionary theory. Developmental change as a source for the creation of new form equal to the "creativity" of a random natural selection is a scientific possibility of great merit. But, mostly because it is tinged with the element of "nonrandomness," it appears to favor a religious creationism rather than the materialistic process that it actually is, it is therefore left mostly unexplored. http://harveybialy.org/files/kuhn.pdf p. 196Heh
Heh. If you actually knew what he was saying there, you'd be so sad.You'll have to ask Ehrlich ...ALL observations help Darwin.
Explain to us how an animal with feathers that suckles young helps Darwin?
You fuck nugget of idiocy.QuoteEhrlich, Paul and L.C. Birch (1967), "Evolutionary History and Population Biology," Nature, 214:349-352, April 22, p. 352I really don't know how Darwinists do it ... it's quite a remarkable feat!
Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus "outside empirical science" but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it.
Hmm. Actual dementia would really ruin the revenge angle.
But if we want to know the TRUTH about these questions / speculations, then we have to do more than just compare their similarities ...
Otherwise we are not doing science.
Do go on. What must we do beyond comparing similarities?
To sum it up neatly, Darwinism is the Giant Fraud of Modern Times.You mean to sum up your dumbass assertions.
Easy peazy. Now, being white yourself, getting started is easy!
Here's what your "nested hierarchy, therefore common descent" argument boils down to ...That's not what it boils down to. You are an idiot Dave.
1) Chimps have some similarities to humans so they "nest" together in a group
2) Proposing that "God did it" is "unscientific."
3) There's all these bones and skulls which, if we squint and mumble and hold our nose, we can say that they are transitional between apes and humans ... public school kids don't know the difference and don't care anyway so they'll buy it.
3) Therefore there must have been a common ancestor of the apes and humans.
Watching that dude's victory speech right now. I could take him. Maybe I will go reporter on his ass.
Jared Kushner has just been revealed as the senior White House adviser who is under investigation in the Russia probe -- which is news that comes as little surprise. Indeed, when The Washington Post reported last week that a then-unnamed top Trump adviser was a focus, many quickly assumed it was Kushner.
But while those assumptions were based on his known contacts with Russians and his status as one of few senior White House aides, there's another reason his naming fits the puzzle: He's related to Trump.
Kushner's ability to even work in the White House has been the subject of plenty of debate because he is Trump's son-in-law. (Kushner has made concessions to try and avoid violating a federal anti-nepotism law, including forgoing a paycheck.) And a big reason anti-nepotism laws exist is to avoid the corruption that all too often comes with installing your relatives in positions of power. As any expert on corrupt authoritarian regimes throughout history will tell you, those regimes' wrongdoing will often run through family members with official titles.
It isn't clear what possible crimes might be under investigation, and it's important to emphasize that Kushner hasn't been charged with anything. We don't know where this will lead, if anywhere.
But here's a key part of The Post's story:
In addition to possible coordination between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign to influence the 2016 presidential election, investigators are also looking broadly into possible financial crimes -- but the people familiar with the matter, who were not authorized to speak publicly, did not specify who or what was being examined.
In other words, this isn't just about whether Kushner or anyone else facilitated collusion with Russia during the 2016 campaign; indeed, the two meetings he had with Russians that have been spotlighted actually came in December, after Trump was elected. Federal investigators appear to be cluing on some other potential crimes that may or may not be related to that.
Kushner met with Russian Ambassdor Sergey Kislyak and then with Sergey Gorkov, the head of Vnesheconombank, which faced U.S. sanctions after Russia's annexation of Crimea. Beyond that, there aren't many details.
If it does lead down a path to corruption allegations, though, there will be plenty of I-told-you-sos.
"You've seen it in countries all over the world where they've appointed family members, whether it's their son, daughter, in-laws -- it provides for tremendous opportunities for corruption," Shruti Shah, an international corruption expert at Coalition for Integrity, told HuffPost last month. "People who want to curry favor find their way to provide favors to family members as a way to get closer to the person in power."
Added Gerald Feierstein, a former top State Department official and ambassador to Yemen in the Obama administration: "For many countries and governments, certainly in the Gulf, in the Middle East, they would recognize this pattern immediately. ... I think that they would find it completely normal that leaders mix personal business interests with government affairs and would use family members in various official responsibilities."
apparently god is a shitty designer?
Why?I agree that it would be more natural to group a robin with a crow than with a rainbow trout.Again ... Linnaeus didn't discover anything. He examined the pattern of Nature and re-affirmed what naturalists had known all the way back to Aristotle ... that Nature conforms to an "ordered hierarchic system" (to use Denton's term) and that this system is "fundamentally non-sequential" (Denton again).and what was that?Well, like Newton, Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler, he didn't actually discover anything. He did RE-discover something that naturalists all the way back to Aristotle (and probably before) had known ...Yet more idiocyWhat did Linnaeus discover, Dave?
Or are you still too busy 'shitting up the thread'?
So you agree that the pattern he discovered tabulated is an actual observable and discernable property of living things, not an arbitrary grouping that could be imposed on any set?
"Wrong" = " I don't like it "
Denton p. 131 ...this is just wrong or else ridiculously transparent equivocation.QuoteWhile hierarchic schemes correspond beautifully with the typological model of nature, the relationship between evolution and hierarchical systems is curiously ambiguous. Ever since 1859 it has been traditional for evolutionary biologists to claim that the hierarchic pattern of nature provides support for the idea of organic evolution. Yet, direct evidence for evolution only resides in the existence of unambiguous sequential arrangements, and these are never present in ordered hierarchic schemes.
needs appropriate context for those like me who don't know who don lemon is or what he said
blame the rurals and their economic anxiety seems a little misguided as a policy suggestion.