|
|
It says a hell of a lot more about the apathy and ignorance of the voters who helped create it.
I must have missed the part when people got to vote on the candidates' policies about the role, powers, leadership and reach of the NSA.
People don't advertise their mental illnesses in bars either.
Agreed, even after getting to know someone it can be hard to spot tell-tale warning signs. People can spend their life hiding things and get quite good at it. It was only after a girlfriend of mine moved in that her schizophrenia became apparent. She was very good at hiding it but put far less effort into that after she moved in. Warnings like when she yelled at me for listening to her thoughts all the time. That said, maybe I was the one that drove her crazy.
I don't have high expectations for any institution that's over 10% Scalia, but once in a while the government does manage to do the right thing, at least for the wrong reasons.
"The hypothetical creature, not found in the fossil record but inferred from it..." I know this is
Perhaps if you actually read the study. They examined, among many other things, the size and shape of all mammals as changed over time. By examining the emergence of genes, traits and other patterns and their geographical distribution allowed them to build a new family tree of placental mammals. They then just followed all the clues back up the tree of species until they found all the common traits converging on a single creature. It was previously believed to be a type of vole. The article is more about how this cooperative software they used helped them work together and narrow it down further than previously before, close enough to give an artists impression and some educated guesses about how it behaved. It's just one study and the point of publishing and peer reviewing them is that they are then able to be either confirmed or debunked. That's how science works. If you believe there are grave errors in their methods or the paper, perhaps you should publish your own paper pointing out their errors and how it could be fixed or improved.
I predict that TODAY a certain
Is that Science
I believe the word you are looking for is charlatan.
As stated, if your notion of "evolution" is as a scientific theory explaining all physical characteristics of biology, a set which includes organisms after 1951, it is directly false as a theory.
Citation needed. So the overwhelming concensus of the worldwide community based on an undeniable array of evidence is false because of what... I'm still waiting for something with some form of refutation and not just gassy wordplay.
.... I already stated my position on that subset is that it is untestable.
With respect to your design argument for which you refuse to provide a shred of evidence.... “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” – Christopher Hitchens.
We are at a point much like the situation regarding the Copenhagen and Everett interpretations of quantum mechanics--which is "true" is indeterminate as the same observables support either interpretation, and there is no presently test by which to demonstrate one correct "versus" the other.
Using fancy words to try to describe the situation as anything other than countless studies worth of proof versus philosophical procrastination without evidence will not change anyone's rational opinion.
There would be no overt difference in the fossil remains of an "engineered" versus "non-engineered" organism, just as the fossils of Dolly the Sheep (or any of the other thousands of available examples) would show no discernable evidence of engineering, even though that engineering, hence biological design, is a -fact-.
See Hitchens quote above, read it again and again until you get it.
If we are talking about "evolution" meaning "applying to all biology", then, again, as a statement about biology ascribing all physical characteristics to evolutionary process is simply false, which you can verify for yourself by googling any part of the history of genetic engineering.
Perhaps you can find a link to this mysterious study of genetic engineering that has rocked the world by disproving evolution but has somehow been overlooked by all reputable geneticists and biologists, I would be most obliged,
Genetically engineered organisms are biology, their characteristics were designed, and their biology can not be explained by natural selection mechanisms. Hence, a statement that "biology" per se is fully explainable by evolution is simply a false statement.
All the fields of paleontology, biogeography, morphology, developmental biology and genetics have all come to a cast iron conclusion based on very different but still insurmountably substantial EVIDENCE that you are just simply lying here. Please stop attempting to use vague and seemingly intellectual language in a way that you clearly don't fully understand.
It's quite simple fact, and is just there being the fact it is, and will remain so, regardless of how incompatible it may be to your habitual thoughts on the question.
I think you need to consider your words more carefully before you set them down. This is gibberish. You are clearly used to attempting to tech babble people with nonsense but its not going to wash here. Go and try and read up a little on the subject you are attempting to debunk, understand a little about it and you might actually learn something worthwhile. But if you cant provide any hard evidence that contradicts any of these carefully studied fields then understand that you are just blowing digital gas into the air without any real substance or meaning.
..... your notion of "evolution" is not merely of an indeterminate scientific status, it is provably false.
Interesting... so go ahead and disprove it. Please provide hard, testable or otherwise provable facts and not mere goofy wordplay. Are we talking proof such as finding large mammalian fossils in Ordovician or even pre Cambrian rock strata? That would do it. Or perhaps when you assert things like pre 20th century genetic engineering. Are you going to produce fingerprint signatures left behind by genetic engineers on existing modern animals? I'm eagerly awaiting the inevitable disappointment?
How is the different than anything else in evolutionary theory. No actual observational science, a couple of fossils here and there, no soft tissue to examine. Then bang, an possible/probable ancestral relationship is declared by somebody -- often discarded later due to other discoveries. It is what it is and will always be unless you manage to make a time machine.
An enormous catalogue of fossil history, geo distribution of species also provides massive evidence especially in recently observable separators such as archipelagos, the bounty genetic evidence, the ability to recreate observable evolution in our timescale on the bacterial level and our ability to force changes through selective breeding all combine to provide an irrefutable level of evidence. Each of these fields could also be used to disprove evolution if not for the fact that no reliable evidence contradictory to the theory has ever been produced. Anyone who can objectively examine even a portion of the evidence (there's so much it would take a lifetime to look at it all) and continue to refute the theory almost certainly has another agenda, either religious or political.
that's because the gaming market isn't basement dwellers playing the latest shooter or hack and slash game. it has moved way beyond that now. angry birds and other casual games hook people that would never play "real games" and they make more profits than most "real games"
Your right there's no need to make any big 'nerdy' games when there's a fortune to be made from casual angry birds clones. The problem is that developing these mobile casual games is basically a lottery where millions play and only a few very lucky people ever actually the big money.
You aren't by chance the arrogant prick who goes by the same username ("Jedidiah") on Ars Technica's comment boards, are you? Because when I sent a complaint in about you, I got a very nice reply referring to you as a "well-known but harmless douchebag" from their moderator team. Even if it isn't you, looks like the label applies!
The Apple is strong in this one...
Islam has been growing there, this is not unusual thing for Islamic countries.
Science flies you to the moon.
Religion flies you into buildings.
>But it wouldn't be a cure, just a very effective lifelong treatment.
Why would any fat cat want to fund research for a cure? You can only sell those once.
"Our vision is to speed up time, eventually eliminating it." -- Alex Schure