LGP Political Discussion Thread

[doublem]

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapp ... estic_viol" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Opps

[Bob McKenzie]

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapp ... estic_viol

Opps

Liberal Intelligence?

What's the point of the facepalm? Continued biased posting?

[DelPen]

Can someone explain the eye and how it would have come to be through evolution?

[doublem]

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapp ... estic_viol

Opps

Liberal Intelligence?

What's the point of the facepalm? Continued biased posting?

Is this better? I'm not a journalist, I don't care about bias.
http://www.seiu.org/2009/09/domestic-vi ... dition.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[doublem]

Can someone explain the eye and how it would have come to be through evolution?

The human eye? Why do you need a creator to make the eye? Why is that special?

[Bob McKenzie]

I don't care about bias.

[HomerPenguin]

Can someone explain the eye and how it would have come to be through evolution?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/libra ... 11_01.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/200508 ... _sys.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.2think.org/eye.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not only is the human eye not a terribly difficult explanation, it's also inefficient enough to argue that, if it was formed by a "designer," that "designer's" status as "intelligent" has to be questioned.

[DelPen]

Can someone explain the eye and how it would have come to be through evolution?

The human eye? Why do you need a creator to make the eye? Why is that special?

There is absolutely nothing for all the systems in the eye to have evolved from to create what is an eye and even if there was there would have to be hundreds of slight variations that all manifest at the same time and stay viable to survive. If you wear glasses, how hard is it to function without them? Could who perpetuate a species walking into walls all the time? The human eye simply evolving from whatever you want to start with would be like nature making a car out of the blue.

[HomerPenguin]

When has anyone been afraid of offending the Christian Right?

Seriously?

[Tico Rick]

Torture or not? You decide:

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/i ... ur_to_gore

[DelPen]

When has anyone been afraid of offending the Christian Right?

Seriously?

Actually, yes. When was the last time anyone had to apologize for badmouthing Christians? 1950?

[HomerPenguin]

When has anyone been afraid of offending the Christian Right?

Seriously?

Actually, yes. When was the last time anyone had to apologize for badmouthing Christians? 1950?

When was the last time a mainstream American politician "badmouthed" "Christians"? Jefferson?

[cs6687]

Isn't liberal intelligence an oxymoron?

[Fast B]

Can someone explain the eye and how it would have come to be through evolution?

The human eye? Why do you need a creator to make the eye? Why is that special?

There is absolutely nothing for all the systems in the eye to have evolved from to create what is an eye and even if there was there would have to be hundreds of slight variations that all manifest at the same time and stay viable to survive. If you wear glasses, how hard is it to function without them? Could who perpetuate a species walking into walls all the time? The human eye simply evolving from whatever you want to start with would be like nature making a car out of the blue.

Yeah, monkeys didn't just turn into human beings overnight either. Maybe you ought to read the links HomerPenguin posted.

[Corvidae]

Can someone explain the eye and how it would have come to be through evolution?

The human eye? Why do you need a creator to make the eye? Why is that special?

There is absolutely nothing for all the systems in the eye to have evolved from to create what is an eye and even if there was there would have to be hundreds of slight variations that all manifest at the same time and stay viable to survive. If you wear glasses, how hard is it to function without them? Could who perpetuate a species walking into walls all the time? The human eye simply evolving from whatever you want to start with would be like nature making a car out of the blue.

Short explanation: Slight changes in genetic structure result in large changes in physiology. Genes that had one function in the past can change slightly to take on new roles. Example: Teeth. The same genes that originally gave animals teeth eventually changed to develop scales, bones, and even hair. The eye has origins in many "lowly" species and had millions of years to continue to improve, beginning with cells simply present to detect light (even plants can do that).

Suggested reading:

Your Inner Fish
Easy read with a chapter specifically on the eye.

The Plausibility of Life
More difficult, by far, but explains "facilitated variation." A theory relatively new, but holds its origins from many years similar thought.

[dagny]

http://www.newscred.com/article/show/ti ... f8/2022088

Wow, what a bunch of cowards. How do you let a bunch of crazies take over this country?

This is unreal!

America, the land of "freedom of choice" is the only country?

A biographical movie, about a scientific theory, with two wonderful leading actors in Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly, is too controversial to be picked up anywhere in America??? The protesting group makes it sound akin to porn or snuff films.

I would VERY MUCH like to see this movie, and I love these actors (they're real life husband and wife), and I'm PISSED that I don't get that option in my own country.

Now that it's getting out, the publicity should create enough of a backlash to get it a distributor here. Controversy sells.

Where's Kevin Smith? He ain't skeered.

[doublem]

It's funny, a movie about Jesus getting murdered can make tons of money in this country, but a biopic about Darwin is too much for the people to handle. This isn't some b-movie either, Jennifer Connelly has an academy award and the cast is great.

[dagny]

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapp ... estic_viol

Opps

Man, this just keeps getting better....

So, I guess that would make battered children "guilty" of pre-existing conditions, as well.

After all, those kids shouldn't be entitled to health insurance, since, if their parents beat them once, the odds are high that they'll continue to beat them.

[bhaw]

Can someone explain the eye and how it would have come to be through evolution?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/libra ... 11_01.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/200508 ... _sys.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.2think.org/eye.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not only is the human eye not a terribly difficult explanation, it's also inefficient enough to argue that, if it was formed by a "designer," that "designer's" status as "intelligent" has to be questioned.

Yes, I don't get where DelPen's argument is coming from or going. It seems the eye would be the epitome of evolutionary benefit. If you can see, you have better chance to survive so naturally as it evolved, it was kept in the gene pool.

[dagny]

Im assuming you meant the evolution thing.

I believe that species evolve. For crying out loud there are aquatic iguanas found only on the gallapagos (sp?) I just dont believe humans came from monkeys. We may have evolved WITHIN our species, just not FROM monkeys and not to the extreme some believe.

We probably have less hair and walk taller then humans 10,000 years ago. That doesn't mean it wasn't all part of the plan. People are taller now than we were even 200 years ago. Species adapt. It does NOT mean we evolved from monkeys.

------------------------------------------------------
A gentle reminder that we all hold our own views, and though we may disagree strongly with others' views, let's all remember to be respectful of other peoples' rights to choose to believe what seems right to them... and, also to be respectful in explaining our reasoning for choosing said beliefs.

We've got a darned civilized group of thinkers here, compared to anywhere or anything I've ever witnessed. It's fantastic to have a place to all come together and discuss so many differing perspectives.
------------------------------------------------------
The above is in no way directed specifically to PFIDC. This is just around the point that I though it'd be good time to say something, and i wanted to reply to this post, so i killed two birds with one stone.







Now that the slippery slope of religion + politics has been addressed.....

PFIDC, you understand that when you refer to species you are speaking of genetic makeup? That species can be identified and classified, conclusively, based on genetic makeup? That species can also be conclusively separated from one another, based on genetic makeup?

You're smart guy, so I'd say it's safe to assume your answer to these questions is yes.

Do you know that we are 99%, genetically compatible with monkeys? (I'm using the general term monkey, as has been used so far, however I"m pretty sure it's not all monkeys, but one in particular we share a nearly identical genetic makeup to. I just don't remember which one(s). I'm thinking chimpanzee, but that might just be because I love them so much. ) Genetically, they are, at the very least, as closely genetically identical, therefore related to us, as a first cousin.

You may choose to believe we didn't come FROM monkeys, but can you rationally dispute how incredibly, closely, related - genetically identical- we are?

Just something to think about.

[Corvidae]

Im assuming you meant the evolution thing.

I believe that species evolve. For crying out loud there are aquatic iguanas found only on the gallapagos (sp?) I just dont believe humans came from monkeys. We may have evolved WITHIN our species, just not FROM monkeys and not to the extreme some believe.

We probably have less hair and walk taller then humans 10,000 years ago. That doesn't mean it wasn't all part of the plan. People are taller now than we were even 200 years ago. Species adapt. It does NOT mean we evolved from monkeys.

This is a common misconception.

Evolution does not state that people evolved from the monkeys.

Let me clarify that: We didn't evolve from the monkeys you see today, we evolved from the same line as the monkeys you see today. And monkey isn't even correct, as gorillas and chimps are not considered monkeys but apes (huge difference).

Chimps are our closest genetic relatives alive today, but we did not evolve from them. We share a common ancestor and split away from them about 7 million years ago. The creatures we evolved directly from, specifically in the Homo genus, are much much more similar than even chimps (obviously decreasing in similarity depending on how far back you go). However, do to varying factors, including environmental changes and possibly even direct competition with Homo sapiens (only with Neanderthals, I believe), they are ALL extinct. If other Homos (*snicker*) were still walking around, I don't think any rational person would doubt evolution.

Plus, there has been 7 million years to look different from chimps (and don't forget, they evolved somewhat too) and 2.5 to 3 million years to have evolved differently from other members of the same genus. People migrated out of Africa about 50 thousand years ago. At that time, we were all the same race. Look what 50 thousand years did to skin, eyes, hair, and even bone structure. 50,000 years is a long time, but 7,000,000 is a lot longer.

But alas, I always must run this disclaimer: Evolution is how, not why. Why is a mystery or a matter of faith. Believing in evolution and believing in God and not mutually exclusive to each other and I don't know why so many people don't understand that.

Just in generally, PFIDC, I'm not directing it at you.

More suggested reading: Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors

[shafnutz05]

I just don't see why if you believe in evolution you can't believe in god. I never got that.

Finally, something we agree on!!!!

I don't even pretend to understand the amazingly complex history of our species, much less the Earth. I have no problem with saying that sure, evolution could have occurred. But it was via God's plan. I don't understand why people think they are mutually exclusive. As if they have ANY idea how the creator of the universe works.

I follow astronomy a lot, and love to read about it. Here is my thing....I believe in the Big Bang. But the question I always ask is, how did it get there?. How did all that superpacked material before the Big Bang get there in the first place. Someone (or something) had to put it there, right? That's where my religious side comes in. I think science is a wonderful thing, and don't understand why it can't be compatible with religion.

[ExPatriatePen]

Didn't Welch call Eisenhower a "communist stooge"?

Yes, Welch had done that in "The Politician", calling President Eisenhower had been a secret agent of the Communists.

He also had inane ideas that the state of Alaska was being prepared to house anyone who doubted his doctrine that fluoridated water was a Communist-backed plot to weaken the minds of the American public.

Welch could be a bonafide looney at times, as many geniuses often are, but that doesn't mean that he didn't also have a lot of very valid points.

No less than Barry Goldwater wrote a letter for the National review which supported many of Welch's views and his support for the John Birch Society by saying

"...the problem which Mr. Welch’s continued leadership of the John Birch Society poses for sincere conservatives. . . . Mr. Welch is only one man, and I do not believe (some of) his views, far removed from reality and common sense as they are, represent the feelings of most members of the John Birch Society. . . . Because of this, I believe the best thing Mr. Welch could do to serve the cause of anti-Communism (anti-Americanism) in the United States would be to resign. . . . We cannot allow the emblem of irresponsibility to attach to the conservative banner."

[Dean Wormer]

Didn't Welch call Eisenhower a "communist stooge"?

Yes, Welch had done that in "The Politician", calling President Eisenhower had been a secret agent of the Communists.

He also had inane ideas that the state of Alaska was being prepared to house anyone who doubted his doctrine that fluoridated water was a Communist-backed plot to weaken the minds of the American public.

Welch could be a bonafide looney at times, as many geniuses often are, but that doesn't mean that he didn't also have a lot of very valid points.

No less than Barry Goldwater wrote a letter for the National review which supported many of Welch's views and his support for the John Birch Society by saying

"...the problem which Mr. Welch’s continued leadership of the John Birch Society poses for sincere conservatives. . . . Mr. Welch is only one man, and I do not believe (some of) his views, far removed from reality and common sense as they are, represent the feelings of most members of the John Birch Society. . . . Because of this, I believe the best thing Mr. Welch could do to serve the cause of anti-Communism (anti-Americanism) in the United States would be to resign. . . . We cannot allow the emblem of irresponsibility to attach to the conservative banner."

Welch definitely had some good ideas. I just can't wait until the third Red Scare happens and I can start blacklisting people.

[shafnutz05]

Welch definitely had some good ideas. I just can't wait until the third Red Scare happens and I can start blacklisting people.

Wouldn't it be the "Green Scare"?