spacemanspiff

Duke87 is quite correct that radiation is a big driver of mutations, but only in lower order life. The reproductive systems of higher order organisms mitigate genetic changes caused by radiation. Essentially, sex becomes the vehicle for genetic diversity. Thanks for the support many of you have shown me for our grading practices. We are very up front with what we expect and why we expect it. As such, we've never had a problem. We've never denied someones right to their religion, or argued the existence of god. What we rail against are positions that are at odds with knowledge, logic, and truth. Junk science and half-truths should and will always be challenged. Great Balls of Lightening Benjamin Franklin called himself a Christian, yet Churches denounced him as a heretic. Why? Because he invented the lightning rod. How did that make him a heretic? Because weather was not a science a the time. Weather was the work of god, demons, angels, and spirits. Lightning, in particular, was considered god's way of punishing sinners (sort of like Zeus or Thor). Lightning rods directly interfered with the will of god. Franklin was going to be smote! In fact, many blamed him for the earthquake of 1755 because god had to find another way to punish people. So, you may believe in evolution and call yourself a Christian, but will the religious establishment cast you out anyway? The World is Flat Here is another exercise I use in teaching. The Flat Earth Society. These folks actually argue that the world is flat. My students all think it's nuts, so I tell them 'prove it'. They actually make some good arguments in support of their flat idea. The exercise is to use good science and debate to debunk the junk-science claims that the world is flat. When all the flat earth arguments are rendered powerless, the people who argue for a flat Earth retreat to their last-ditch claim, "it's all a conspiracy, and you can't prove a thing!" A Sinking Feeling A huge burr under the saddle of creationism is the existence of fossils. Paleontology is the bane of creationists. At first, fossils were a scientific curiosity. After Darwin published The Origin of Species, suddenly the fossil record had meaning and further reinforced evolution. Religion has made up some of the silliest stories to try to explain these extinct creatures. My all time favorite (and the most prevalent) is their destruction by the great flood. When they died, their bones settled in different layers of mud, which have turned to stone in a few thousand years. It's so absurd that it just makes you roll your eyes. While Paleontologists and Geologists have gone to great lengths to prove their scientific theories, creationists have comparably done nothing. Still, they demand creationism is science. Deus ex machina When everything else has failed and is rendered invalid, Creationists, like the Flat Earth Society, resort to the same tactic. Complete Denial. They usually introduce some excuse or condition that renders it impossible to verify or test their claims. Coincidentally, the same excuse conveniently invalidates all counter-arguments. In their mind, this demotes scientific proof (since the evidence or methodology is invalid), to a guess. Psychologically, they've leveled the playing field by reducing everyone to zero. It's a common ruse, and many peo

Interesting take, manticorefan. First off, there are no 350 MT weapons. The largest ever was only a 50MT hydrogen weapon. It was the Tsar Bomba, and it was too large to be practical. Something on the order of 350MT would literally be as big as a barn. But seriously... Start Smaller Again, we have an argument against evolution clearly ignoring the theory altogether. Your explanation that a single cell is too complex to have been created by chance is a prime example of limited scope of space and time. Complex cells and organisms were not created when lightning struck a pool of long-chain carbon molecules. In the Beginning... Do you know the difference between the structure of a virus and a bacterium? Why won't penicillin kill a virus, but it will treat bacterial infections? Viruses are a prime example of evolution. Bacterium are single cell organisms. Viruses are even less. They aren't cells at all, but yet they are life. If anything, they are likely the first form of life as we know it. (Scientifically, though, it depends on your definition). Viruses are not cells, but they consume energy and reproduce. In a nutshell, they are nothing more than genetic material coated in proteins. The largest ones are nearly cells, but not quite. There's almost nothing to them, and every kind is perfect in it's own way. They are constantly mutating, hence why we cannot cure the common cold or flu. Even the most minor changes to their RNA/DNA creates a totally new virus. They practically evolve right before your eyes. Building Blocks and Bridges. Everything living (past or present, alive or extinct) between a virus and us humans IS evolution. Some viruses got to the point they weren't viruses anymore, they became small single celled organisms (most likely bacteria). All throughout the history of viruses, some occasionally make the step up to cells. Some changes work out, some don't, but viruses are still around. Some single cell critters got bigger, and some had an advantage by clumping together. Neither of which made all the smaller single cell organisms obsolete. The smaller the creature, the more readily adaptable to changes. In any case, it's taken nearly 4 billion years to build up to people (with some notable setbacks). All along the chain of evolution, certain species have found their niche and not changed much, even some higher order animals like turtles, sharks, and crocodiles. Books and Blogs. Evolution is not like reading a book. One chapter doesn't end when another starts. It's more like a zillion blogs. Some blogs inspire new blogs to be created, some get better, some die out. Sometimes a server crashes and bunches of blogs are lost. In a creationist setting, all blogs started at the same time, but some stopped for some reason and there will never be any new blogs. Driving Ms Mutation. Ok, so in my car analogy, people drive the changes and innovations in automotive evolution, but in biology, natural selection is at the wheel. In the natural world, changes in circumstances (like food availability) vet out the differences in mutations. Some become a bonus, while other create a liability. This is natural selection. Remember our friend the virus? It's in a constant evolutionary war with our immune system. Our immune system evolves to keep pace with the changing viruses.

First and foremost I want to state that this debate is anything but useless. It is engaging people in a mental exercise, which is always a good thing. Second, I'd like to establish my credibility. I'm not bragging, but I simply hate backtracking to reference things. I don't do it when I teach, and I won't do it here. I started out working with nuclear weapons during the cold war, and eventually worked at NASA-JPL. My wife and I are both teachers/professors in the Bible belt of the US. Scope and Scale. When it comes to understanding evolution or creation, most people have almost zero understanding of space and time. That is to say, their ability to place the scope of their knowledge (their perception of time and the world around them), in perspective to the great age and size of the universe that we know. Most people cannot conceptualize how much DNA can fit on the head of a pin, no more than they can quantify how big our solar system is (much less our galaxy or the universe). To even begin to understand these things takes a lot of mental energy, a considerable amount of education, and a dedicated effort to understand. Most people don't/can't make this effort. This doesn't make them bad or wrong, but it's the set-up for the creationist argument. That argument is, basically, that everything is now as it was created by the creator not so long ago. So how do you condense years of biology, physics, psychology, astronomy, and everything else into something that the common person can understand? I use cars. The Automobile. Perhaps the best way I've found to to explain mutation/natural selection/evolution, is to use cars as a parallel example. The automobile has been around long enough, are complex enough, and have changed in a constant enough way, for people to begin to understand the concept of biological evolution. Consider the 'evolution' of the automobile. From steam powered carts, to hydrogen powered luxury machines. Of all the changes made to the automobile, none of them were perfect at the first implementation. Innovations did not occur all at the same time. Nor did any innovation instantly negate all previous models. Many things worked, but but simply fell out of favor. Still other things have little sense or purpose, but you can still find them on new cars. Mutations occur in biology in numbers that are too big to grasp, and in ways that are too small to understand. However, unlike our example of cars, the changes take a long tome to notice. If something works really well (you may even say perfect), they don't change (like sponges). We can go into why sponges don't mutate noticeably, but that's a biology lesson. Cannon Law. Religion is not as tricky as you may think. Since we started at the beginning by trying to understand how people think, you can see where creation got it's start. ALL religions have a creation story, and they are all very similar. However, because they are similar dose not make make them credible. Instead, their similarities all point to a commonality in human psychology and sociology. When these creation stories were first formed, people were completely ignorant of the natural world, time, and the universe. They had no idea of what a star was, or of DNA. They didn't travel, so they had no idea of the diversity of species. The oral (and limited written) histories lacked any semblance of detail. For centuries, the creation stories worked because they were the only thing that fit within the scope of peoples understanding. Nothing challenged that idea. In fact, when dinosaur fossils were f

A central tenet of Western military capability is being able to react to conflicts in a swift and furious manner. China has too much at stake to risk sparking a shooting war so long as they can maintain the status quo. A more interesting aspect is Taiwan/ROC and their intentions. For half a century, the ROC has maintained that they are a government in exile and if they declare independence, then they essentially void their claim to all of China. On the other hand, they stand to gain recognition as a full nation again with all the rights and privileges as such. They can regain their UN seat, establish treaties, and create alliances. It may be beneficial for them to proceed with independence at this time, or they may continue to wait the PRC out. With the rise in Communist China's power and influence, and their ability to keep an iron grip on the mainland populace, ROC's chance may never come.

The reason Carbon has become the villain is because it fits three key purposes; Idealogical, Political, and Financial. Ideologically, carbon emissions is linked with industrialization and progress. There will always be people who view this as wrong. Furthermore, it's easy for it to fall on social lines because the 'haves' are perceived as the chief emitters of carbon, while the 'have-nots' become the victims of corporate greed. Politically, this has helped solidify power gained from the growing idealogical base. There are growing numbers of influential 'activists' with serious financial support, popular backing, and political clout by bashing carbon emissions. The final phase is Financial. In addition to the direct expense of curbing or eliminating emissions, a portion of the taxes and levies the emitters must pay is going to supporting a bureaucracy for the sole purpose of carbon regulation. Worse yet are the outright scams like carbon offset schemes. Water and water vapor won't fit these purposes. When people see water vapor, they think 'pretty cloud', not 'greenhouse gas'. Since there is no idealogical base against water vapor, there is no political power to be had. It's hard to attach a price to water vapor management since it's everywhere. No money to be made by proposing we build giant de-humidifiers. I'm a conservationist, and believe that pollution should be reduced or eliminated where possible, but the industry and ignorance of carbon emissions dose not sit well with me.

I think US Air Marshal coverage is random. Given their plainclothes appearance, you are supposed to never be certain of their presence. I would think training and equipping airline staff would be a better option. I think if a September 11 event were to happen again, it would have to be a charter flight full of terrorists. In any case, it still wouldn't rely on the use of firearms. I was once in line with a bunch of military school students. They were all declaring firearms. No fuss, no muss.

Actually, Duke87, the water vapor cycle isn't stable at all. Warmer air has a higher dew point, so it holds more water vapor. The more water vapor, the greater the greenhouse effect, the higher the temperature, the more water vapor the atmosphere can hold. And yes, we are increasing the quantity of water vapor. Water tables are falling in many regions of the world because of excessive deep-well pumping. Vast amounts of water that should be in the ground are being subjected to evaporation. More water vapor increases precipitation, which alters ocean salinity levels, which impacts ocean currents, which changes the way thermal energy is redistributed. Frigid zones grow colder, the torrid zone widens and gets hotter, and the temperate zones shrink. It is a theory of possible ice age formation. Given that ocean levels are near their all time high (they have a few feet to go), we are near the top of the 'hot' portion of the cycle. At the bottom of the 'cold' cycle, the oceans will retreat to the edge of the continental shelf. Just 18,000 years ago, the ocean was over 400 feet lower than it's present level. Britain, Ireland, and Cuba were not islands. Eventually, the amount of fresh water is locked up in a solid state coupled with higher salinity levels and reduced oceanic surface area cannot sustain the higher levels of atmospheric moisture, which begins to reverse the process. I think that chasing carbon as the culprit is going down the wrong path.

Correct, Voar Tok. All you need to do is declare it when you check your baggage. Sometimes they check it, sometimes they don't. Sometimes they tag it, and sometimes they don't. Cargo (baggage) is handled in a logical manner. Speaking of TSA and firearms. The September 11 attacks were carried out with box cutters, not firearms. Policy at the time was to comply with hijackers and negotiate. Part of the response was to ban anything pointy on flights, which I thought was absurd. I could just imagine what would happen if someone tried to hijack an aircraft with a nail file after Sept. 11. They'd have to remove that person from the plane with a squeegee.

Duke87: Actually, CO2 isn't a very good 'greenhouse' gas. The greenhouse properties of water vapor are higher than CO2. As I've stated in one of my Educational Thesis', it's plain to see that the increase in temperature corresponds to the agricultural revolution of the 18th century, and subsequent increases in water usage. Without digging through my old research, my research showed that every year we burn something like 1/3rd of a cubic mile of petroleum, but we pump and use something like 5000 cubic miles of water. Just think of all that evaporation. So, basically, it's all the farmers fault, but it's easier to blame SUVs.

Thanks for the year typo catch, Duke87. Very interesting thread, and it's gotten better. That makes me happy. I'm glad that people are mentioning that violence is a cultural issue. In the US, a contributing factor to the problem has been the recent phenomenon of cultural fracturing. It was one thing when that nation was just divided along a black/white line, but the last few decades have seen a surge in the number of class and cultural categories. Now you have African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Gay-Americans, Muslim-Americans, and the list goes on. The opportunity for prejudices to exist has exploded, and violence rates have reflected that. The lack of unity is a growing problem. Add some economic instability to the mix and people are literally forced to act on those prejudices as a form of competition for resources. Worse still are subcultures that find violence to be acceptable. Usually, this is born completely of ignorance. People who are unable to cope with issues intellectually skip straight to physical action. It's the same everywhere you go. Sunnis and Shiites. Hutu and Tootsie. Ignorance, prejudice, culture, and competition are all contributing factors. When you get down to the core of the problem, gun ownership is hardly a factor in the equation.

The only good thing about suicide bombers is that they can only cause mayhem once. Radical loons aren't much different. Sure, their aim is usually to only cause property damage, but the goal is the same. To cause terror by means of random acts of violence. In that sense, I agree with Bumdark, Hang 'em.

El Burro: Yes, PRC has undergone a major military upgrade, but there is still a huge gap in capability. Plans and strategy take considerable effort to develop. Hardware upgrades are the easy part, but only a fraction of what is necessary to be truly modernized. Cyber warfare is a major part of the PRC's operations, but that's nothing new. Sure, the USAF just created Cyber Command, but that has been part Space Command for decades. TRNSTN: Excellent point about their upcoming Olympic Games. You are so right. Not a very good idea to start a complicated conflict on the eve of such a high profile event. Of course, the Chinese Olympics is another topic unto itself. Furthermore, you are even still more correcter that it would be a humanitarian issue. As I pointed out earlier, ROC has never been part of Communist China, and has asserted itself as an independent nation for over 50 years. If the UN lets China swallow them up, it would be a travesty. The PRC is a weird nation, and many of the things id does makes no sense. I attribute it to the feudal/dynastic elements that operate within the country. Their military dose so many odd, belligerent things. Things like the RC135 incident, the Spratly Islands, turning away ports-of-call, and Taiwan. Then the central government makes confusing sometimes contradictory, overtures. Sure, some of it is saber rattling, but some stuff is just nonsensical. t leaves to question, who is in charge of what. If there is a problem with internal communications, or some sort of power struggle, then things can get out of hand.

It was probably Code Pink, or some other self-righteous-to-the-point-of-delusion fringe group. One thing is for sure, it wasn't a militant Islamic terrorist.

Tell you what, were the PRC to attack the ROC, then a major war would erupt. However, I doubt the PRC will make that move. They are just getting to the point that they can militarily challenge tiny little Taiwan, so they are in no shape whatsoever to tussle with the US or Japan. Interestingly enough there has been quite an arms race in East Asia for the past decade or so. Essentially, since the collapse of the USSR, China has made effort to step up on the power ladder. This hasn't been lost on their neighbors, who have beefed up their own militarizes in a direct response. Even itsy-bitsy Singapore is flexing it's muscles. An even more important player in all this is Japan. Lets not forget the loving relationship between China and Japan. Japan has a very large, modern, and potent military, though they keep a very low profile. For some time now, the Japanese government has been trying to rework Article 9 of their constitution. Article 9 is what defines their military and it's role. Many find it too be too restrictive in the current world climate, especially given the capabilities of China and their little buddy, the DPRK (North Korea). I'm sure there are a lot of Filipinos that are reconsidering the US' decision to leave since China has been aggressively claiming territory near the Philippines.

I'm so disappointed in this thread that I run the risk of making people angry. Instead, I'd rather you read this post and start thinking in a new way. The common denominator I find in these current event topics is a gross oversimplification of a problem, which is fixed by an arguably simple solution. It's faulty logic. In the case of this thread, it's degenerated into 'gun violence is bad, so to eliminate gun violence you eliminate guns'. Remember, the original topic was about the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. Instead, I've seen a litany of poor supporting information, comparisons between dissimilar objects and situations, and a parade of half-truths. SimCity isn't the real world. Crime (and violence) is not the result of low-wealth zoning and it isn't solved by plopping police stations. Now, to the meat of the subject. The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees all of it's citizens (with a minimum of exceptions) the right to firearm ownership. The 'militia' was clarified as being everyone. Now, here comes the WHY. The reasons go back to the original colonists of the Americas. These people were of the Yeoman (middle class), who, because of dwindling space (land) saw the colonies as an opportunity to continue their way of life. They were skilled and had education, and the colonies thrived. When the Government in England began to mistreat the colonies in 1851 (the Navigation Acts), the colonies responded with diplomacy. Over the next 25 years, the situation escalated, but was still dealt with without violence, and revolt was not an option until near the end. It is a poignant piece of human history. On one hand, King George couldn't back down because his reputation was at stake, and on the other, the Colonists had their freedom on the line. In the end, it cost Britain it's empire. Why is this important? Because for nearly 200 years the Colonists were Englishmen, and the relationship between Colony and King were good. When that relationship soured and decades of diplomacy failed, firearms became the deciding factor. The truth is that governments can and do go bad, and that without the ability to defend yourself, citizens are doomed. That is why gun ownership is protected in the US. Had enough history lesson yet? Go find out more and gird yourself with knowledge. Now, on to the issue of violence. I like New Zealand, Australia, Norway, and many other low violence countries. But I would argue that the low rates of violent crimes has little to do with the availability of firearms. In 1st world nations, firearm ownership and violence do not form parallels. Firearms are illegal in the UK, but violence has become a serious problem. Instead, I argue that the common denominator is in the culture. The least violent places all have homogeneous populations and a very unifying culture. In places where violence is present, you will always find a mix of cultures and values. This is the real birthplace of violence, not firearms. Firearms are just a tool, like arson, stabbings, and homemade bombs. Here's a thought for you. The worst shootings in recent US history have all taken place in 'gun free' zones. Firearms are not allowed in schools, colleges, and Government offices. Even the mall in Omaha didn't allow lawful concealed carry of guns. Prisons are amongst the most violent places you will find, and there are certainly no guns there. Where there is a will, there is a way. People who are compelled to commit violent acts will do just that. Faulty logic applied to oversimplified problems will give you nothing but wrong answers.