Posted on 02/14/2007 2:07:15 PM PST by Tim Long
May I introduce you to the concepts of extinction and genocide. Not pretty concepts, but the truth is often hidden by our reluctance to see the horror of reality.
The new evolution exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History has a corner devoted to religious people talking about how their religious beliefs and their understanding of evolution do not conflict. I can't wait to see this--the whole exhibit, not just that corner.
1500 - 1750 or so
Thanks for an interesting article, a snippet:
“The making of the large human brain is not just the neurological equivalent of making a large antler. Rather, it required a level of selection that’s unprecedented,” Lahn said. “Our study offers the first genetic evidence that humans occupy a unique position in the tree of life. Simply put, evolution has been working very hard to produce us humans.”
NAS membership is way more competitive than publishing a printable research, It is heads and shoulders more competitive than breaking into prestigious journals. One current NAS member began his career at MIT many years ago. At that time there were about 600 qualified and published candidates for that junior slot. Well, he made that cutoff. To get into NAS, there was something similar. At such level it has to become meritocratic [to avoid scandals] - and it takes a lot of merit.
published = "published" [i.e. with respectable publications lists].
That only further makes the point that the peer pressure to conform to the consensus NAS position must be enormous. Elitism disdains dissent.
I believe "The Enlightenment" began in the 17th century.
You got the wrong point. That guy [I am familiar with one of his former postdocs] is a biochemist. To pass those levels of selection, "Darwinist conformity" is irrelevant [everybody is "conforming" at about the same maximum level, so one could not stand out]. No, he had to be demonstrably better than others in doing the science they were supposed to do, and that's the difficult part. Parroting an official line is, OTOH, very easy.
That is a bunch of OOMPAH. If I earn a million or I earn $12,000, what I claim will not change your tax burden one iota.
In spite of the mountains of data that support evolutionary biology, there are more unknowns in biology than a million grad students could resolve in 10 years at the local pub.
There are unknowns in relationships between phyla, new species pop up practically every day that need to be classified (usually unsuccessfully) and studied, embryonic cleavage patterns are unknown for most species, molecular relationships that have to be determined and the appearance of cell types is still something of a mystery.
These unknowns will keep biologists busy well into the future, unless our civilization fails.
If you do not pay, then others will have to, or the shortfall would have to be borrowed somewhere or printed anew. The burdens of interest on Treasury borrowing, or of inflation, fall on all taxpayers, and that includes me.
You funny. It's difficult to count transitional species there are so many of them. Let me throw the Pambdelurions out there.
These could be unique in being the only intermediate fossil group between 2 crown phyla, the onychophoran-like lobopodians and stem arthropods.
So, tell me, how much do I have to pay, since you apparently know what must be "borrowed"?
Pro-rate your taxes to the Treasury receipts for the year - it would give you some approximation of your share in the burden. That fraction of everybody else's charitable deduction comes out of YOUR personal pocket. As the burden [of interst on borrowing] is carried in the future, and both your taxes and total Treasury receipts will change in the future years, it is an approximation. How much is to be borrowed - Treasury requests the borrowing authority, and Congress decides, and I do not work in either place. But it is much easier to avoid this tedious arithmetics - just take the high moral ground and do not claim the charitable deduction.
I'm sure you do that every year.
You are still spouting oompah. Your tax burden depends not one whit on my tax burden.
Of course, I do. I am always taking the high road - it is the best place from which to blow one's nose on those below.
Yeah, right. When you take the "high" road it is probably always filled with smoke. And "those" below happen to be your toes.
The terms actually used were "dark ages" and "Age of Reason." There were actually many centuries between these two periods, according to their accepted meanings. My point was that anti-Christians, atheists, objectivists, and the like don't really know history well, if at all. They are simply parroting the myths and slogans of the secular humanist LEFT, which they probably picked up from some "liberal" teacher or professor.
Hostility to religion, particularly the Judeo-Christian religions on which our culture is based, is a charactistic trait of the LEFT, not of conservatism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.