It's used when you don't want to be too precise about such things.
It's used when you want to read more into something than you should (hint: there is only 1 kind of human, there is no "modern" vs "early" human) specifically for purposes of spreading doubt about Creation and facts (but not evidence) that attempt to explain a theory that has yet to take shape. There, I corrected that for you.
Researchers extracted mitochondrial DNA from the femur of a 400,000-year-old hominin
By the way, did anyone verify the measuring "stick" used to verify the 400,000 year age of this bone to ensure the measuring "stick" was itself accurate? I didn't think so. Carry on with your delusions and your faith in something that can't be proven by the best scientists that mankind can offer.
I'm unsure why some people deny the gift of free will. I guess because indirectly it allows them to deny the existence of a Creator who gave us that gift because they hate all things religious. It may also give them the ability to do whatever they damn well please by using the excuse they couldn't help themselves (i.e. weak minded). Criminals try taking advantage of this quite frequently. Many people like to view free will such that they have choices concerning whether or not to do something good but that free will magically stops at those actions which are evil. Again, that merely just proves they would prefer to satisfy their own agendas and bias to avoid punishment, retribution, etc. for their bad/evil/immoral/unethical actions brought on by their choices. But in the end, if you don't believe in free will then what's the point in having any moral code whatsoever? If you don't believe you can control what your mind tells your body to do then you should be able to argue that you have no reason to be held accountable for any wrongdoing, whether deemed wrong by you or society. Therefore what's the point in deeming something moral if you can't be held accountable for the immoral?
For those who deny free will, I ask you to prove it. Every decision you make on a daily basis proves you have free will. The mundane decisions in our lives don't disprove my statement. The fact that someone who knows you may be able to guess what your decision will be for any given choice doesn't force you into still making a specific choice, because you may still change your mind at the last minute. For the times when your friend is right when guessing what your choice will be it simply shows they know your tendencies and can infer based on their knowledge of you what you will choose. But *you* still have the final say. This is true despite your current emotion and is true despite your DNA, contrary to what criminals and homosexuals (notice 2 *separate* categories: criminals and homosexuals) would have you believe.
Free will is our greatest gift and it is also one of the fundamental properties of being a human being that so many people would prefer to ignore or outright deny as fact. Let me put it in the most basic terms possible for the laymen who choose to deny it: if we, as a species, didn't have free will, none of us wouldn't have the ability to choose when to wake up in the morning, when to eat breakfast, when to go to work, when to take vacation, when to take a new job, when to buy a new car/house, who to work for, with whom to go on your first date, who first to kiss, with whom to first have sex, whom to marry, etc. You may think that you can disprove the existence of free will by merely believing in [the Christian] God long enough to argue that if He is all powerful and has a plan then He is what defines what happens to us but you would be wrong again in your incorrect understanding of Christianity because even if He, for example, presents us with a new job opportunity He still leaves the final decision to us. He can't force us to accept the new job. Just as well, if Satan tempts us with drugs or money, we have the same free will to accept or deny those material desires. The mere fact that we have decision-making capability dictates we have free will.
More importantly, free will is completely separate from instincts and that is why humans are not animals. Of course, many people would prefer to deny that because again, it would lead to a mental conflict that involves having to accept the existence of a God that created Man and beast as separate entities rather than a natural process called evolution that created both as one in the same. Animals can only act on instincts; Man however, can choose whether to kill based on his moral compass. Only Man is held accountable for those same actions. A lot of people *hate* that they are held accountable to a higher power so they simply deny those concepts/theories/etc. that lend credence to a Creator and instead believe in those concepts that support their personal worldview of how to live without a higher authority that will eventually judge them, having naively rationalized that their choice (GASP! free will strikes again) to not believe in a God somehow would change God's rules. Satan gains a little more power every time a human believes they can outwit the system because that's one less person to follow God. Does failing to outwith the "system" (i.e. God's plan for us) mean there is no free will? No, it simply means one has chosen (by free will) whether to take God's side (and abide by His plan and rules) or to take their own path as influenced by Satan by outright denying God, creating their own moral code, denying they have no free will to do what's right/wrong, etc. Anyone who is against God is implicitly for Satan, whether or not they believe in either one.
So the real issue you have is that other people have a problem with your decision. Okay, that makes sense and I'd be pissed off if someone had issues with a choice I made and went so far as to chastise or persecute me for it. If I know ahead of time that there are, unfortunately, ignorant people in this world then that needs to be one of the factors I take into consideration for making a decision and acting on it; that's just a fact of life. There are, however, people who will disagree with you on fundamental grounds that it is still a choice to change your sex. They won't persecute you for it. They will still accept you as a person but that doesn't mean they have to accept your decisions or your choices, nor are they obligated to do so. You may claim that lack of acceptance in and of itself is persecution but you would be wrong. It's called disagreeing. And it is a part of everyday life that everyone needs to realize and be able to recognize so that person who are surprised that not everyone accepts their actions (I'm still only talking about the people who do so respectfully) don't go crying back to mommy or the government demanding that person A or group B who disagreed with said action be punished for the disagreement.
These statements also are true for the LGB portion of the LGBT group.
If you want to share your side of things with someone who can relate to the problems you face, try talking to a Christian sometime, specifically one who has been chastised for their beliefs, ridiculed, silenced, maybe even attacked physically (because they are expected to not fight back and then are ridiculed if they do).
It is not a choice. It's who someone is.
Your genetics aren't a choice but *how* you live your life and portray your gender *is* a choice because all those things rely on our actions, which we all have control over. "it's who someone is" is inaccurate. It would be more accurate to say "it's who someone wants to be". If you disagree with that then I'll have to deem you a bigot.
A piece of software can't take into consideration EVERY POSSIBLE CHOICE THAT HUMAN BEINGS CAN MAKE ABOUT THEIR LIVES because 1) it takes too much time to code up all the choices that would rarely occur [ but apparently Obamacare has tried to accommodate in its coding system all the reasons that someone needs medical treatment and that's a mess, not to mention a waste of time], 2) the number of possible choices we could ever make in a general sense are infinite anyway and 3) even if you want to speak of limiting the possible choices that humans can make about their lives to a specific question, such as marriage in this case, you still have to remember that we're dealing with choice. Everyone else isn't responsible for ensuring any given individual's choice is recognized just to make them feel better.
Case in point, since when do we need more than 1 bit of information to store the possible values associated with gender? Gender is binary: male or female. Even the disorders listed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_chromosome_disorders still ultimately categorizes the person's resulting gender into male or female. And more to the point of my argument regarding choice, if you want to change your gender, that's your decision. Don't expect everyone and everything else to accommodate that choice. That changing is only skin deep anyway even if you have surgery. As someone else already stated, it doesn't change your genetic code. I'm unsure why we have to muddy the waters with what people look like as the method for defining sex rather than looking at genetic code, which doesn't change.
People have been bringing this up at city council meetings only to be told by the council members that this type of activity is necessary to keep us safe - the typical GOP line.
Hate to burst your bubble but that isn't relegated to just a GOP anymore (if it ever was). Liberals are pushing more and more for a police state, not the GOP. Liberals like having control and a police state gives them control.
Not only is it a distraction but it isn't worth focusing on.
Many minimum wage workers begin getting raises within their first year or so of employment because they prove to be valuable assets to their employer and therefore their employer wants to reward them for their loyalty, productivity, and potentially a growth in skill set. This is how people move up the ladder. Minimum wage jobs are intended to be entry-level jobs. That's why they pay the lowest amount possible. They aren't intended to be careers but rather jobs that people entering the workforce can acquire due to their limited, or in some cases non-existent, skill set. This also means that many of the minimum wage workers are teenagers who don't have a family to feed and live at home. This means they don't need a high minimum wage due to their lack of responsibility to others. Their lack of skill set also doesn't justify starting out at a high wage.
So based on those statements, there isn't that many people left who are actually making just minimum wage after a year of employment who actually need a much higher wage due to having to support a family. So with that said, does raising the minimum wage for EVERYONE justify raising it for the very small subset of people who happen to be using the minimum wage job to support a family? No, it doesn't. A small subset of people will find themselves relying on a minimum wage job, sometimes to support their families, in the cases where they were laid off and couldn't find anything else or for those people who are near the end of retirement. Even if someone possesses a master's degree or has IT skills, those skills don't matter when flipping burgers, so someone who used to make $50k but got laid off and then who complains that they need $20/hr at McDonald's to support their family of 4 may as well expect to never get by with that job. There will be people who will work for less because they don't need to support a family because they are just a teenager who is applying for that job because it is indeed an entry-level job that requires no skills.
This doesn't mean I don't have compassion for those who need to support their families. If I didn't have compassion then I'd advocate making minimum wage $50/hr so that people making hamburgers and cashiers at walmart can get $100k a year just like other people who actually *have* skills deserving of $100k a year. But I understand economics too. I understand that if you keep having to pay someone more and more and not get anything more out of them for that higher cost (as in, more skills, more productivity, etc.) then they are more of a liability than an asset. Eventually, an employer will let that person go and make do with the other employees, OR, they will raise prices in order to still try earning profit in order to prevent the ENTIRE BUSINESS from collapsing due to employee costs that end up outweighing revenue thus equating to a loss of money. If that goes on for too long then the business closes up shop. THEN EVERYONE LOSES. So why would we want that?
Now, an employer who recognizes an employee is an asset, will move the employee to a higher paying position with MORE responsibility. But the original minimum wage job must still exist because there is still the need to have unskilled labor. There is nothing wrong with that. Kids and adults alike need to understand that there is a job for everyone; they are all important. I have worked my way up the salary ladder. I didn't expect $20/hr as a dishwasher. I knew I had to work my way up. For those who say, "but inflation makes things cost more". True, but you can thank the gov't (notice I didn't point to a specific president because there isn't one) for printing money that causes it to be worth less and therefore makes oil cost more and therefore fuel costs more. But when we raise the minimum wage they are just feeding the inflation fire because, as I said above, employers not only then have to contend with rising fuel costs (due to inflation and supply/demand changing) but now they have to continue their profit margin by raising their prices to account for having to pay employees more who don't deserve it (much like a union where the union fights to get wage increases for EVERYONE, whether they deserve it or not).
So when we raise minimum wage to $10.25/hr or whatever it goes to, expect the fast food restaurants and other businesses that rely on those types of workers to either raise prices (again), lay off those employees (unemployment jumps back to 9%+) or do both. Then the teenagers who are still able to work will have to spend the extra money they make on the higher priced food they buy at those same businesses when they go out with their friends. The end result? The minimum wage workers don't have any net gain because the extra money is needed to now pay for the items that cost more to make up for their higher wage BUT now many more of them are laid off, making the absolute minimum wage of $0 / hr. And who can we thank? The liberals who believe that everyone should be earning the same amount of money regardless of their skill set.
When San Francisco raised their local minimum wage to $10.25/hr a while back the Subway restaurants in the area had to stop offering their $5 footlong deals because they were losing money on them. That is just a relatively benign result of rising employee costs. In addition, many restaurants have already announced they are cutting back worker hours to about 30-32 hours in order to avoid having to pay health insurance costs for them under Obamacare. Of course, some of those businesses just outright laid off workers. So Obama has forced the hand of businesses to lay off more people at a time when a record number of people are already on food stamps and while we're still battling an unemployment rate that is the same as it was 4 years ago when he first entered office. He has made no progress in that regard and yet we voted him back in.