Waiting for Fitzgerald

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I think you've got me all wrong, Sebby. I don't believe that taxes are a tool for social engineering. Progressive taxation is a means of wealth distribution, but I disagree that it's socialism. I think that progressive taxation provides a means for maintaining infrastructure and a basic safety net. I don't advocate equality of outcomes. Hell, even if I believed in it as a positive good, I would recognize the fact that it isn't an achievable goal.

My only reason for addressing wealth disparity was to decry the fact that the current administration, among its other spendthrift habits, is going full-guns attempting to reverse progressive taxation, and that that is part of what is creating the widening gap in our soiciety.

"I don't believe that taxes are a tool for social engineering. Progressive taxation is a means of wealth distribution, but I disagree that it's socialism."

You've been conversing with me too long. I believe there's a contradiction there.

But as to your second point, I agree. You're right. I can't challenge that. All I can offer is the caveat that it is but one of many parts adding up to wealth disparity, and nowhere near the largest of of those parts.

[soup sandwich]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Really? If your Point. Is. Simply. That. Evolution. Has. Holes. That. Can't. Be. Or. Aren't. Yet. Explained. then you, Panda and balt may be less apart than you seem to think.

This is crap. The discussion actually wanders into an area where I have some experience and ideas, and I get no love for it. Balt makes one damn post and he gets cited??

You suck, Gattigap. I'm taking my primordial ooze and going home.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Really? If your Point. Is. Simply. That. Evolution. Has. Holes. That. Can't. Be. Or. Aren't. Yet. Explained. then you, Panda and balt may be less apart than you seem to think.

If your point, however, is also that they need to talk -- in a science class, not a philosophy or religion class -- about those gaps being filled by the Christian God, perhaps even to the exclusion of Budha, the Muslim God, and the FSM, well then you'd need to answer Wonk's, balts, and Panda's questions.

No. My point has always been that the people who rise to the bait of calling people who believe in creationism idiots, themselves typically are just buying into evolution based upon FAITH, and no more.

What is different between laying out in school 1 the primordial ooze theory, which is untestable and really just hindsight reconstruction to explain something non-creationists want explained and 2 maybe God started stuff and it evolved from there and he came back occasionally to prod (i.e. Organ systems start).

They are both non-testable and both solely faith based. Why should one be taught but not the other?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Outline a theory for how a single cell mutates into an animal having organ systems. Then sketch out a test protocal.

Over a billion years, a whole lot can happen. Universes are created a destroyed. You're analyzing in your mind, using your short, human, compartmentalized notion of time (and what can happen over short intervals) a theory involving minor mutations taking place over incredibly long periods of time. You're evaluating the swings of blue chips using criteria one would apply to tech penny stocks.

The "incredible systems" you cite are not that incredible at all when you conssider the expanse of time nature has had to work on them. If I had 500 years to live, I assure you, I could beat Tiger Woods silly at Augusta by the time I was 435.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by soup sandwich
an area where I have some experience and ideas,

you're being modest about sharing your knowledge?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by soup sandwich
This is crap. The discussion actually wanders into an area where I have some experience and ideas, and I get no love for it. Balt makes one damn post and he gets cited??

You suck, Gattigap. I'm taking my primordial ooze and going home.

Sorry, soup. If it makes you feel better, you have my proxy. I can't follow all the big words, and even though I suspect that Hank has to google the stuff he uses, I rely on you guys to call him on it.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Over a billion years, a whole lot can happen. Universes are created a destroyed. You're analyzing in your mind, using your short, human, compartmentalized notion of time (and what can happen over short intervals) a theory involving minor mutations taking place over incredibly long periods of time. You're evaluating the swings of blue chips using criteria one would apply to tech penny stocks.

The "incredible systems" you cite are not that incredible at all when you conssider the expanse of time nature has had to work on them. If I had 500 years to live, I assure you, I could beat Tiger Woods silly at Augusta by the time I was 435.

These simpletons say that single-celled animals evolved into everytihng. I ask, focused example now, how does a single celled animal that splits to reproduce become Sebastian Dangerfield who has a penis that ejects fertilizing sperm, usually into Kleenex, but on occasion into a mate, and someday resulting in offspring.

What possible mutation could cause that change? And how would we test? Becuase these ideolouges are saying you can't mention creationism in schools because it solely relies on the untestable.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by soup sandwich
This is crap. The discussion actually wanders into an area where I have some experience and ideas, and I get no love for it. Balt makes one damn post and he gets cited??

You suck, Gattigap. I'm taking my primordial ooze and going home.

No shit. Why is he dragging my ass into this?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
No. My point has always been that the people who rise to the bait of calling people who believe in creationism idiots, themselves typically are just buying into evolution based upon FAITH, and no more.

What is different between laying out in school 1 the primordial ooze theory, which is untestable and really just hindsight reconstruction to explain something non-creationists want explained and 2 maybe God started stuff and it evolved from there and he came back occasionally to prod (i.e. Organ systems start).

They are both non-testable and both solely faith based. Why should one be taught but not the other?

1. No. I believe in God. And I believe Creationists are idiots. Simple rational thought leads to me to both clonclussions. That Creationists are idiots is inescapable. Algebraically, "X" = "willful ignorance of the obvious" in the equation "X x Mind = Belief in Creationism."

2. People who believe in Evolution do not take it as faith. But its pretty fucking obvious from the fossil record, and if you've been to a zoo lately, that some animals evolved from others. I look at an ape and, again, its fucking inescapable that we all came from a shared foundation. If that doesn't work for you, compare our dna to that of apes.

3. You confuse the anger and frustration of evolution supporters with some sort of "secular faith." You're dead wrong. We're just frustrated that anyone can look at the obvious support for evolution, as imperfect as it is, and choose to believe in something as stupid as Creationism. And whats more frustrating is to realize those people know they're wrong, know they sound idiotic, but refusse to capitulate because they believe their ignorance is "faith."

My God encourages me to think and learn, not stick my fucking head in the sand and make a goddamned ass of myself. You are free to make a fool of yourself believing whatever you like. But don't try to teach it to my kids.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
This book is what you're talking about?

Have you read it? I couldn't get through the whole thing, but the part I did get through isn't doing what you think. She (and she is no Eva S in the looks dept.) is proposing a way that a change in an individual can become a fixed characteristic of a population.

She does not mention ANY way that a single cell can develop an organ system. Also, she certainly does not explain how to test the non-existant theory. Soup says we have to be able to prove stuff.

I was referring to her more widely known theories regarding endosymbiosis, which led to her theory of symbiogenesis. I provided endosymbiosis as an example of how a specialized structure might have arisen inside a single-celled organism, and as a backdoor introduction to her theories of symbiogenesis as a mechanism for the development of an organ system.

Regardless of whether you buy the latter, it is silly to say that evolution requires that a single cell can develop an organ system. Evolutionary mechanisms are the subject of great debate and theories like those of Gould and Margulis continue to move the field forward - regardless of how attractive or ugly their authors might be.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
These simpletons say that single-celled animals evolved into everytihng. I ask, focused example now, how does a single celled animal that splits to reproduce become Sebastian Dangerfield who has a penis that ejects fertilizing sperm, usually into Kleenex, but on occasion into a mate, and someday resulting in offspring.

What possible mutation could cause that change? And how would we test? Becuase these ideolouges are saying you can't mention creationism in schools because it solely relies on the untestable.

Over a billion years, you will have trillions of trillions of mutations. In 20000 men may lay eggs and women have gills. Who the fuck can tell?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
I was referring to her more widely known theories regarding endosymbiosis, which led to her theory of symbiogenesis. I provided endosymbiosis as an example of how a specialized structure might have arisen inside a single-celled organism, and as a backdoor introduction to her theories of symbiogenesis as a mechanism for the development of an organ system.

Regardless of whether you buy the latter, it is silly to say that evolution requires that a single cell can develop an organ system. Evolutionary mechanisms are the subject of great debate and theories like those of Gould and Margulis continue to move the field forward - regardless of how attractive or ugly their authors might be.

Gould probably looks pretty unattractive at the moment.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
No. My point has always been that the people who rise to the bait of calling people who believe in creationism idiots, themselves typically are just buying into evolution based upon FAITH, and no more.

You're equating a flaws in a theory that, to my understanding, is the foundation of modern biology (the vast majority of which IS testable) to tenets of theology which is almost entirely untestable.

What is different between laying out in school 1 the primordial ooze theory, which is untestable and really just hindsight reconstruction to explain something non-creationists want explained and 2 maybe God started stuff and it evolved from there and he came back occasionally to prod (i.e. Organ systems start).

Which class they should be taught in is one difference. Your argument seems to lead us to a conclusion where there must be moments of silence during the teaching of evolutionary theory in biology, because if it's not a testable portion of the theory, then we have to either say nothing, or include EVERYTHING about all possible explanations.

This solution strikes me as an impractical one, but that may be because I am less familiar with what you clearly consider to be crippling shortcomings of evolutionary theory. But if a solution is to take those fragments of "unproven" theory and toss it in a philosophy/religion class where we can discuss them together with Jesus, Buddha and Flying Spaghetti Monsters, then I'm cool with that, even if we create those new classes while cutting Art, Music and Sports from the school budgets.

They are both non-testable and both solely faith based. Why should one be taught but not the other?

Your apparent inclination to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
I was referring to her more widely known theories regarding endosymbiosis, which led to her theory of symbiogenesis. I provided endosymbiosis as an example of how a specialized structure might have arisen inside a single-celled organism, and as a backdoor introduction to her theories of symbiogenesis as a mechanism for the development of an organ system.

Regardless of whether you buy the latter, it is silly to say that evolution requires that a single cell can develop an organ system. Evolutionary mechanisms are the subject of great debate and theories like those of Gould and Margulis continue to move the field forward - regardless of how attractive or ugly their authors might be.

1 mutation that could do it, or a step towards it. that's all I ask.

Evolution is pretty certain- we've actually found a frozen mastodon, it's hard to not get it became elephants. But the gaps aren't just tiny gaps that are nitpicking- they're huge- big enough for Penske's first wife to run through big. Why does Seb say I'm crazy for merely saying you guys shouldn't be so sure, when YOU CAN"T EVEN GIVE ME A THEORY- fuck testable, I'll throw that out- just give me one possible mutation that could lead to organ systems.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
No. My point has always been that the people who rise to the bait of calling people who believe in creationism idiots, themselves typically are just buying into evolution based upon FAITH, and no more.

What is different between laying out in school 1 the primordial ooze theory, which is untestable and really just hindsight reconstruction to explain something non-creationists want explained and 2 maybe God started stuff and it evolved from there and he came back occasionally to prod (i.e. Organ systems start).

They are both non-testable and both solely faith based. Why should one be taught but not the other?

I don't know the "primordial ooze theory". Can you provide a cite?

You can teach "maybe God started stuff and it evolved from there and he came back occasionally to prod (i.e. Organ systems start)" all you want - in religion class. Again, it does not belong in science class.

You are going to come back with, Well, how does evolution belong in science class then? Depending on your definition of "primordial ooze theory", I am guessing I would say either you are mischaracterizing evolution or you are wrong - it is testable, but I await the cite.