Scott Walker: I Don't Feel Like Answering Your Silly Evolution Gotcha Questions

Not the best answer, which would be "Yes I believe in evolution because it's real," but given, as Barack Obama says, the "religious sensitivities" at play, saying "a politician shouldn't be involved in that either way" is a pretty good answer too.

The left is really a terribly insular bunch. Right now they're screaming about this as if it's some kind of great victory, but in fact only nineteen percent of Americans believe in evolution without any assistance by god at all -- 42% believe God created all animals by hand, 31% more believe in "God-guided" evolution, sort of a Walker-esque punt on the question.

I don't know why they're running around shouting like Walker just scored an own-goal. I'm not a particular fan of his answer on the merits, but as a political matter, it's neutral-to-positive.

Actually it's probably positive-to-very-positive.

Do these f***ers even read? I mean, look, I believe in evolution and frankly think other answers are silly, but that belief does not somehow preclude me from knowing the fact -- not the belief, the fact -- that evolution is a very, very minority creed in America, very unpopular, except with godless secular materialists such as myself.

Above: Scott Walker offers an "unbuttoned" and casual look;
Piecemeal Armor by Albion Artisan Steel, $900;
Gentleman's Reaving Axe by The Armoury, Inc., $1500

Posted by: Ace at 05:09 PM

Comments

(Jump to bottom of comments)

1 not first

Posted by: AltonJackson at February 11, 2015 05:10 PM (2Ayux)

2 I think his stock answer to questions like that should be "Eat Me".

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 11, 2015 05:10 PM (nzKvP)

3 Heretic. Burn him.

Posted by: Neil deGrasse Tyson at February 11, 2015 05:11 PM (OD2ni)

4 He should just say whatever he thinks he needs to to win over voters.

Like me with the "approve/disapprove of gay marriage question".

Posted by: SCOAMF at February 11, 2015 05:12 PM (fgxO1)

5 I saw a hit piece on Jindal this morning too. Doesn't matter who We chose they will go after them...

Posted by: hello, it's Me Donna ....again at February 11, 2015 05:12 PM (Bn6aD)

6 The Crusaders were a bunch of evolution denialists.

Posted by: Turd Ferguson at February 11, 2015 05:12 PM (VAsIq)

7 They are HUNGRY for any victory they can find. They are looking to hamstring Walker before he ever gets off the starting line. They know he is popular among a lot of conservatives so they MUST poison the well.

So they will turn anything into a big thing if they think it can accomplish the goal.

Posted by: Aetius451AD at February 11, 2015 05:13 PM (wt/Oq)

8 So they go on about the non-existent "separation of church and state" unless it's their religion. Noted.

Posted by: NR Pax at February 11, 2015 05:13 PM (xVA4Y)

9 Won't someone pander to the Devil-worshippers and Wiccans or something? Maybe that veers too far into the 'sense of humor' deathzone.

Posted by: Lance McCormick at February 11, 2015 05:13 PM (aAFEk)

10 It's above his pay grade.

Posted by: Beary Obama at February 11, 2015 05:13 PM (bAGA/)

11 Oh man we need a poster like that on the Art Thread!

Posted by: HH at February 11, 2015 05:13 PM (Ce4DF)

12 I would like to know what Walker thinks about my mewling quim.

Posted by: Sandra Fluke at February 11, 2015 05:13 PM (FHh8u)

13 but as a political matter, it's neutral-to-positive.

---------------------------------------

Neutral is fine. And it is a silly question. Has absolutely no bearing on anyone's ability to be president.

Posted by: Soona at February 11, 2015 05:13 PM (/HX7u)

14 Above: Scott Walker offers an "unbuttoned" and casual look

I like it.

Posted by: Comrade Moron ZKzrr at February 11, 2015 05:13 PM (/kI1Q)

15 They never like to talk in evolutionary terms about homosexuality, do they?

Posted by: Garrett at February 11, 2015 05:13 PM (KIOiN)

16 The Left is wanking because Sciunce is the drum dance they do around a campfire in the light of the full moon.

They're as much about science as the apeman at the beginning of 2001 when he throw the bone in the air.

Posted by: Zap Rowsdower at February 11, 2015 05:14 PM (MMC8r)

17 But . . . who or what created creation? And evolution?

Posted by: Bronco Bama is Back! at February 11, 2015 05:14 PM (hOtJL)

18 I say bravo for Walker. You have to tell the press to sod off when they play these games.

What next, " would you say your more of a copernican or more of a Ptolemy person?"

Posted by: Kreplach at February 11, 2015 05:14 PM (jaxCP)

19 He's going Full Frazetta! The Death Dealer! I approve!

I got willowed in the last thread, so I'll repost:
I read that the Marines in Yemen destroyed their machine guns and crew-served weapons before leaving the embassy, but I can't find out to whom they turned in their pistols and carbines. Why would they surrender their personal weapons? Is this standard procedure in an evacuation? Who ordered this?

Posted by: All Hail Eris at February 11, 2015 05:14 PM (KH1sk)

20 I would just say "My position is exactly the same as Barack Obama's".

What, you haven't asked him his opinion on this terribly important political question?

Posted by: JackStraw at February 11, 2015 05:14 PM (g1DWB)

21 Do these f***ers even read?

---

I was just browsing your Twitter feed, Ace, and you know the answer to that question. They're much too busy watching all the "cool" TV shows.

Posted by: Turd Ferguson at February 11, 2015 05:15 PM (VAsIq)

22 It's not working! Quick, somebody ask him about rape!

Posted by: George Stephopotmus at February 11, 2015 05:15 PM (GuwT9)

23 Scott Walker denies that Obama is descended from a monkey, & other Right-Wing racist lies!

Posted by: Rachael Maddow as she angrily rams a spiked strap-on up Chris Hayes's squeakhole at February 11, 2015 05:15 PM (MbqmP)

24 I think his stock answer to questions like that should be "Eat Me".
---------
Also, he should whip it out, in case they're not sure what he means.

Posted by: Turd Ferguson at February 11, 2015 05:15 PM (VAsIq)

25 "5 I saw a hit piece on Jindal this morning too. Doesn't matter who We chose they will go after them...Posted by: hello, it's Me Donna ....again at February 11, 2015 05:12 PM (Bn6aD)"Exactly, I remember someRepubs in 2008 thought McCain would be a good choice becasue the press likes him. Ha.

Posted by: Benji Carver at February 11, 2015 05:16 PM (OD2ni)

26 He's getting more Calvin Coolidge-y as he goes along.

I the cut of his jib.

Posted by: TheThinMan at February 11, 2015 05:16 PM (+PEBZ)

27 **glares menacingly**

I don't know if God brought life into the world, but I know that I can take it out.

Posted by: Scott Walker, on his Throne of Skulls at February 11, 2015 05:16 PM (fgxO1)

28 It is possible to believe in evolution and also think it's at least possible - since we can't really prove OTHERWISE - there's some 'creator' out there who keeps the physicists batting at ever-smaller, ever-more-distant, ever-more-broadly-scoped concepts like a cat chasing a laser pointer.

Posted by: JEM at February 11, 2015 05:16 PM (o+SC1)

29 Ace--The point is not to be convincing or even accurate. The point is to start to repeat the lie now so that by the time the election rolls around it will have become the truth.

Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at February 11, 2015 05:16 PM (kQOYH)

30 Beck was talking about new 'science!' the other morning that maybe the Big Bang never happened and the Universe has always been.

Science is always Ultimate Truth, despite when Science changes completely.

Posted by: Zap Rowsdower at February 11, 2015 05:16 PM (MMC8r)

31 Yet the left frets and frets over the loss of the Golden Cheeked Worbler and plant trees that literally kill people to keep the bastards from going extinct.

Posted by: Lauren at February 11, 2015 05:16 PM (HKshA)

32 The Left is very, very Scientific.
Science is the only discipline that strives to correct itself.

Science would never allow itself to be made in to a politician's plaything!

Except for that whole global warming thing. There the science is settled, of course. So shut up and give us total control over your lives, you worms!

Posted by: navybrat at February 11, 2015 05:17 PM (JgC5a)

33 The whole GOP is a bunch of anti-science, anti-vaxxer creationist racist haters!!

Link at my blog, 1 year ad-free subscription for only $79.95

And buy my calendar!

Posted by: Dr Cahrsel Joshnon, Scienceologist at February 11, 2015 05:17 PM (GrXXa)

34 How pathetic is it that we "Morons and Moronettes" have had better dialog on evolution here at Peruvia North than the Newsies will have in a decade?

Your and my go-round on clockwork deism comes to mind.

Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077 at February 11, 2015 05:17 PM (/4AZU)

35 A better answer would be, "Evolution as a political issue is commonly raised by scientific illiterates. Rarely does one come across someone complaining about science literacy in the context of evolution who I'd actually call scientifically literate about evolution. Tell me, What is adaptive radiation? When you are taking evolution seriously as science and not as a prop for trolling, then maybe we can discuss evolution."

Being able to answer the question, 'Evolution is a theory of X. What is X?' is not among the powers of people who whine about evolution.

I doubt many of them can answer the challenge, "Define the term valid scientific theory. If you use the concept of expert at all you get an F-."

Posted by: Jmt at February 11, 2015 05:17 PM (kopxe)

36 Gentleman's Reaving Axe, ha.

Posted by: Garrett at February 11, 2015 05:17 PM (KIOiN)

37 >>> They are HUNGRY for any victory they can find. They are looking to
hamstring Walker before he ever gets off the starting line. They know he
is popular among a lot of conservatives so they MUST poison the well.
So they will turn anything into a big thing if they think it can accomplish the goal.

This.

I'm not sure there is any THERE, there, haven't looked into it, but supposedly Salon has uncovered a gotcha! moment for Walker that is a la Lyin' Brian Williams. Though it's, y'know, Salon, so I reserve judgement until it actually becomes A Thing. Link to the journoharpies in my nic.

Posted by: LizLem at February 11, 2015 05:17 PM (yRwC8)

38 Evolution? Was there when it started, baby! Real grim scene. Lotsa casualties. Total horrorshow.

Really don't want to talk about it.

Posted by: Brian Williams at February 11, 2015 05:17 PM (DLu2s)

39 Except for that whole global warming thing. There the science is settled, of course. So shut up and give us total control over your lives, you worms!

-----

Also, the science of what to eat. Totes settled.

Posted by: Turd Ferguson at February 11, 2015 05:18 PM (VAsIq)

40 Next thing to ask a dem politician:

When does science say that a new human life begins?

Posted by: Lauren at February 11, 2015 05:18 PM (HKshA)

41 No, actually I think the best answer for these silly pointless questions is FYNQ. But I'm biased towards Walker.

Posted by: mugiwara at February 11, 2015 05:18 PM (06U11)

42 I'm not sure there is any THERE, there, haven't looked into it, but supposedly Salon has uncovered a gotcha! moment for Walker that is a la Lyin' Brian Williams. Though it's, y'know, Salon, so I reserve judgement until it actually becomes A Thing. Link to the journoharpies in my nic.

And according to the media obama never ever did anything wrong in His entire life....

Posted by: hello, it's Me Donna ....again at February 11, 2015 05:19 PM (Bn6aD)

43 This from the wankers who want us to believe that Obama had no clue of Wright's anti-American, racist rantings that went on for over 20 years.

Posted by: Cheri at February 11, 2015 05:19 PM (oiNtH)

44 Scott Walker never graduated college. Gotcha!

Posted by: Salon at February 11, 2015 05:19 PM (VAsIq)

45 The Left loves SCIENCE!!! except for math, economics, genetics, etc., etc.

If it confirms their bias, it's SCIENCE, wingnutz!

Posted by: Zap Rowsdower at February 11, 2015 05:19 PM (MMC8r)

46 I think it's pretty clear most of them don't read.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at February 11, 2015 05:19 PM (oFCZn)

47 Anybody remember the movie, "Get Shorty"?

Remember the reporter who pulled a gotcha quiz on Dubya with a bunch of questions like naming the then new president of Pakistan (Pervez Musharraf)?

I would like to see a Republican reply to a reporter the way that Ray 'Bones' Barboni (Dennis Farina) replied to Harry Zim (Gene Hackman) in that movie.

Posted by: Obnoxious A-Hole at February 11, 2015 05:20 PM (KDbAT)

48 Democrats need to be asked about GMO food, nuclear power, fracking, and when life begins.

Maybe even bring back an oldie and ask about DDT and the millions of poor brown people they let die every year because Science!

Posted by: gwelf at February 11, 2015 05:20 PM (+7Usq)

49 how can you even begin to answer this without making some pretty severe assumptions about God?

The left wants to define God as a mythical being, but to me, and I think to a lot of people, God is *by definition* indefinable.

So sure, maybe to some people God is the set equations that unify all the forces of the universe. In that case,.... evolution was guided by God.

To other people, you get in to the the "turtles all the way down" dilemma. At some point, there has to be something holding the joint up, and we do not know what that is, and why not call that "God."

To me the whole question reveals a deeply provincial outlook and weak mind.

Posted by: Gentlemen, This is democracy manifest at February 11, 2015 05:20 PM (LWu6U)

50 I believe in God. As in God Almighty. Because evidence I believe in evolution. Because evidence. Next question...

Posted by: Kraken at February 11, 2015 05:20 PM (5+mPY)

51 I didn't like Evolution. The monsters scared me and Jill had to break out the plastic sheets.

Posted by: Joe Biden at February 11, 2015 05:21 PM (GuwT9)

52 Darn it! If only they had asked if the governor believed that cholesterol is the Debbil!

That one I know the answer to.

Posted by: Muldoon, a solid man at February 11, 2015 05:21 PM (NeFrd)

53 Love the outfit Walker is wearing.

The saddle really ties it all together.

Posted by: eman at February 11, 2015 05:21 PM (TVkfQ)

54 Good on Walker. It is a gotcha question. I'm no religious scholar but my response to atheists who go "but evolution" is "Yes? show me where in the Bible evolution is contradicted?" You can't do it w/o announcing that the english translations of 'day' is exactly right, pretty slim argument.

Posted by: PaleRider at February 11, 2015 05:21 PM (dkExz)

55 How did life start so evolution could begin?

I'll be over here awaiting the answer, and that answer better be replicable in a lab.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at February 11, 2015 05:21 PM (oFCZn)

56 "I believe in punctuated equilibrium. Equilibrium punctuated by REAVING."

Posted by: All Hail Eris at February 11, 2015 05:21 PM (KH1sk)

57 The left only believes in evolution to a point

Posted by: x at February 11, 2015 05:21 PM (uQZPO)

58 Remember when Barack got asked a hard question in 2008?

Remember when the press corps targeted Joe the Plumber for destruction for doing it?

Posted by: Zap Rowsdower at February 11, 2015 05:21 PM (MMC8r)

59 Micro-evolution is a given, we've seen it happen. Speciation seems likely, but I don't think it's actually been observed. Maybe in low orders.

Posted by: toby928(C) at February 11, 2015 05:21 PM (evdj2)

60 Is it common for species to stay around for millions of years after they have evolved into something else?

Asking for a friend....

Posted by: Meremortal at February 11, 2015 05:21 PM (1Y+hH)

61 I'm going to punt on that one as well," Walker said after being asked if he was comfortable with the idea of evolution

Unfortunately, that's going to be the meme from now until November '16. Perhaps "What difference, at this point, does it make?" would have been better.

5
I saw a hit piece on Jindal this morning too. Doesn't matter who We chose they will go after them...

The difference is that Jindal is confident enough in his intellectual superiority over the mental Lilliputians of the press that he'd have engaged and destroyed them. Something along the lines of "My position is exactly the same as Barack Obama's. What, you haven't asked him his opinion on this terribly important political question? You must have a small penis."

Also, Brian Williams.

Posted by: pep at February 11, 2015 05:22 PM (4nR9/)

62 The fact that reporters are asking politicians about evolution indicates just how in the bag they are.

Speaking of which, it would be interesting if a real reporter would ask President Precedent whether he would sign a law requiring abortion clinics to save a baby born alive...

Oh and if we had an opposition party they would have already sent him such a bill...

Posted by: 18-1 at February 11, 2015 05:22 PM (78TbK)

63 Many polled will answer "NO" to the evolution question just as a symbol of faith, as if they feel the real question they are answering is "Do you believe the whole Bible is one big Lie?"

Of course there can be evolution AND the Bible can also have a lot of "inspiration".

Walker has the right idea it seems. He does not want to negate what other people fully believe, and should call out those that try to make him do that.

Posted by: Illiniwek at February 11, 2015 05:22 PM (lUHnj)

64 Scott Walker never graduated college. Gotcha! Posted by: Salon at February 11, 2015 05:19 PM (VAsIq)

Ha! Pretty much. Though it might have been amusing to see Brian Williams try to preen about the uneducated rube that is Scott Walker on his show, when he himself never graduated from a fancy schmancy ivy league. Oh what might have been...

Posted by: LizLem at February 11, 2015 05:22 PM (yRwC8)

65 Win the Powerball tonight and create for the Eowk some custom Deathdealer armor and axe. Not a problem.

Though armor with chaps is no armor at all.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 11, 2015 05:23 PM (pTEmS)

66 Above: Scott Walker offers an "unbuttoned" and casual look

I like it.
Posted by: Comrade Moron ZKzrr at February 11, 2015 05:13 PM

Meh.

Needs a throne of skulls.

Posted by: RedMindBlueState at February 11, 2015 05:23 PM (h4vJk)

67 Such as this bullshit that's currently suffocating me.

"A project that significantly aided habitat restoration for the Warbler includes the U.S. Army's (Fort Hood base) success in protecting the largest patch of juniper-oak trees"

I would rage stroke, but that would probably kill me at this point.

Posted by: Lauren at February 11, 2015 05:23 PM (HKshA)

68 Posted by: Zap Rowsdower at February 11, 2015 05:21 PM (MMC8r)
---
FYI Zap, every time I see your handle I shout "ROWSDOWER!" in my head a la The Final Sacrifice. I assume you have a mullet...

Posted by: All Hail Eris at February 11, 2015 05:23 PM (KH1sk)

69 Every single rightist political aspirant has to learn to expect these sorts of bullshit questions from the Democratic auxiliaries posing as a "news media".

And further learn how to smoothly dismiss, or aggressively turn back upon the questioner, such bullshit questions.

This is where Sarah Palin got in trouble in 2008.

She agreed to an interview with Katie Couric, notorious limousine liberal and previously proven ambush interviewer of Republicans. (First mistake.)

Then, of course, SP got hit with the sort of question by Couric that would never in a million years be asked of Obama or Biden, and didn't handle it like a pro. (Second mistake.)

By comparison, it looks like Walker's kung fu is strong.

That's twice in a row now that he's been offered bullshit bait and hasn't deigned to take a bite at it.

Posted by: torquewrench at February 11, 2015 05:24 PM (noWW6)

70 Next time a Lefty says he's all sooper-science, ask him about the Bell Curve.

Posted by: Zap Rowsdower at February 11, 2015 05:24 PM (MMC8r)

71 Think Walker has a collection of battle axe's that he never talks about?

would be bad ass if he put one on john kerry's head for sport

Posted by: I'm a cowboy baby... at February 11, 2015 05:24 PM (kI3bx)

72 Is it common for species to stay around for millions of years after they have evolved into something else?
Asking for a friend....Posted by: Meremortal at February 11, 2015 05:21 PM (1Y+hH)

Soon...

Posted by: Cockroaches, and progressives, but I repeat myself at February 11, 2015 05:24 PM (yRwC8)

73
Stay out of our bedrooms ! - The Left

Posted by: The Jackhole at February 11, 2015 05:25 PM (6/J77)

74 Are humans still evolving?

Posted by: x at February 11, 2015 05:25 PM (uQZPO)

75 I want to know what percentage of these progressives understand evolution, or are they just taking the word of their "priests" in interpreting the received knowledge?

I went to school with enough of them to know that most can't understand a fucking graph, so there is no way they know enough about evolution to be able to claim a position on it.

Posted by: Gentlemen, This is democracy manifest at February 11, 2015 05:25 PM (LWu6U)

76 Walker canned answer needs to be - Evolution was an OK album by Journey. Next question.

Posted by: Roy at February 11, 2015 05:25 PM (fWLrt)

77 Apparently nowadays SCIENCE is evolution, women and men are exactly the same, vaccinations cause mental retardation and crystals can heal cancer.

At least that is what Huff Post tells me.

Posted by: 18-1 at February 11, 2015 05:25 PM (78TbK)

78 "A project that significantly aided habitat restoration for the Warbler includes the U.S. Army's (Fort Hood base) success in protecting the largest patch of juniper-oak trees"

Securing the little birdies against "workplace violence" at Hood?

Posted by: torquewrench at February 11, 2015 05:25 PM (noWW6)

79 That poster needs a throne of skulls and some music. Loud music.

Posted by: dantesed at February 11, 2015 05:25 PM (88xKn)

80 70 Next time a Lefty says he's all sooper-science, ask him about the Bell Curve.

Ask Him about evolution and survival of the Species. In other words there wouldn't be any of Us if it was Adam and Steve instead of Adam and Eve...

Posted by: hello, it's Me Donna ....again at February 11, 2015 05:25 PM (Bn6aD)

81 74 Are humans still evolving?
Posted by: x at February 11, 2015 05:25 PM (uQZPO)

Why not? Then I look around WalMart.....

Posted by: Kraken at February 11, 2015 05:26 PM (5+mPY)

82 Evolution sure has a lot of clout for a scientific hypothesis that had its last (still contested) breakthrough in 1953. Eh I guess people have to believe in something.

Posted by: Sam Haysom at February 11, 2015 05:26 PM (UtEx8)

83 My answer would be: "What does tat have to do with being the President of the United States...fynq!"

Posted by: Paladin at February 11, 2015 05:26 PM (E1aoU)

84 I'm reminded of the genetic engineering rejects that Bashir tried to help on Deep Space Nine. They managed to make it all the way there by one of them being dressed as an admiral and every time someone tried to question them he just said "that's a stupid question." It applies very well to the media. And I like that Walker called them out that its a "gotcha" question. That's what so many have liked about Gingrich. So it's good that some without his baggage are adopting some of that stance towards the media.

Posted by: Buzzion at February 11, 2015 05:26 PM (z/Ubi)

85 Are humans still devolving?
Posted by: x

FIFY, and yes.

Posted by: Prince Ludwig the Indestructible at February 11, 2015 05:26 PM (GuwT9)

86 Will the birds get purple hearts also?

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 11, 2015 05:26 PM (pTEmS)

87 How about "Of course I believe in evolution, and you're retarded for asking such a stupid question."

Posted by: Iowa Bob at February 11, 2015 05:26 PM (tu3iY)

88 Well hell, Ace, the world is only 2700 years old, that's not enough time for any real heavy duty evolution to take place.

Maybe something small like an opposable thumb, or a shorter beak, but nothing major.

Posted by: Muldoon, a solid man at February 11, 2015 05:26 PM (NeFrd)

89 47
Anybody remember the movie, "Get Shorty"?

Remember the
reporter who pulled a gotcha quiz on Dubya with a bunch of questions
like naming the then new president of Pakistan (Pervez Musharraf)?

I
would like to see a Republican reply to a reporter the way that Ray
'Bones' Barboni (Dennis Farina) replied to Harry Zim (Gene Hackman) in
that movie.

Posted by: Obnoxious A-Hole at February 11, 2015 05:20 PM (KDbAT)

The proper response is to reply that the reported is wasting everyone's time with these amateurish questions, yank any press credentials, and have the SS escort the dullard away from the event like some sort addlepated mental institution escapee.

Posted by: Sandra Fluke at February 11, 2015 05:26 PM (FHh8u)

90 Darwin! Evolution fuck yeah!

Equality!

*sound of a record needle yanked across a record*

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at February 11, 2015 05:26 PM (oFCZn)

91 "Isn't that sort of a religious question? And isn't it right there in the Constitution that religion can't be used as a qualification for public office? Why do you hate the Constitution??? I for one won't answer any questions posed by an anti-American, Constitution hating Commie sympathizer! NEXT!"

Posted by: GGE of the Moron Horde, NC Chapter at February 11, 2015 05:26 PM (6fyGz)

92 60 Is it common for species to stay around for millions of years after they have evolved into something else?

Asking for a friend....
Posted by: Meremortal at February 11, 2015 05:21 PM (1Y+hH)

Yes.

It is a branching exercise.

A yields B and C and all can exist at the same time.

Sort of like how your parents didnt drop dead when you were born.

Posted by: eman at February 11, 2015 05:27 PM (TVkfQ)

93 "Securing the little birdies against "workplace violence" at Hood? "

Maybe their plan is to make the jihadis (and everyone else) choke to death on their own mucus.

Posted by: Lauren at February 11, 2015 05:27 PM (HKshA)

94 Then I look around WalMart.....
Posted by: Kraken at February 11, 2015 05:26 PM (5+mPY)

We're evolving wheels & the ability to store six years worth of food in our bodies!

Posted by: Anderson Cooper's Rascal Scooter Brigade at February 11, 2015 05:27 PM (MbqmP)

95 In the Game of Throne of Skulls, Walker is King.

Posted by: Song of icy resolve and fiery speech at February 11, 2015 05:28 PM (yRwC8)

96 "A project that significantly aided habitat restoration for the Warbler includes the U.S. Army's (Fort Hood base) success in protecting the largest patch of juniper-oak trees"

It was a perfect place for private prayer and meditation, 5 times a day.

Posted by: Major Malik Hasan at February 11, 2015 05:28 PM (1Y+hH)

97 Are humans still evolving?

Devolving I think, in large part. Too much inbreeding, oddly enough for a mobile society, but we can be so selective, in the aggregate, we're selecting our own traits in a mate.

Posted by: toby928(C) at February 11, 2015 05:28 PM (evdj2)

98 "I say it's all just wind in sails"

Posted by: Gentlemen, This is democracy manifest at February 11, 2015 05:28 PM (LWu6U)

99 35
A better answer would be, "Evolution as a political issue is commonly
raised by scientific illiterates. Rarely does one come across someone
complaining about science literacy in the context of evolution who I'd
actually call scientifically literate about evolution. Tell me, What is
adaptive radiation? When you are taking evolution seriously as science
and not as a prop for trolling, then maybe we can discuss evolution."

The problem is that Walker doesn't know enough to make such a reply. I like the guy, and he may be the best candidate for the office, but we shouldn't blind ourselves to the gaps in his knowledge. He's got to do some serious boning up on foreign policy, etc. in the next 6 months, and I don't know if he can do it. We'll see.

OTOH, nobody knows the answers to all the questions the press will throw at him to try and trip him up, so maybe FYNQ is the correct answer after all.

Posted by: pep at February 11, 2015 05:28 PM (4nR9/)

100 I love evolution becuase it allows me to put that Darwin fish with feet symbol on my Prius and feel superior to the Rethugs.

Posted by: Typical Prog A-hole at February 11, 2015 05:28 PM (OD2ni)

101 Posted by: eman at February 11, 2015 05:27 PM (TVkfQ)

Thanks. I knew it was possible, didn't know if it was common.

Posted by: Major Malik Hasan at February 11, 2015 05:29 PM (1Y+hH)

102 I believe in the power of love and I accept evolution is true.

Posted by: eman at February 11, 2015 05:29 PM (TVkfQ)

103 "Isn't that sort of a religious question? And isn't it right there in the Constitution that religion can't be used as a qualification for public office? Why do you hate the Constitution??? I for one won't answer any questions posed by an anti-American, Constitution hating Commie sympathizer! NEXT!"
Posted by: GGE of the Moron Horde, NC Chapter at February 11, 2015 05:26 PM

*Hums The Battle Hymn of the Republic while walking out of room*

Posted by: RedMindBlueState at February 11, 2015 05:29 PM (h4vJk)

104 addlepated

Nice.

Posted by: toby928(C) at February 11, 2015 05:29 PM (evdj2)

105 Sorry eman, sock off.

Posted by: Meremortal at February 11, 2015 05:29 PM (1Y+hH)

106 Whoa--- GGE needs to be a political consultant.

Posted by: PaleRider at February 11, 2015 05:29 PM (dkExz)

107 >>Something along the lines of "My position is exactly the same as Barack Obama's. What, you haven't asked him his opinion on this terribly important political question? You must have a small penis."

You are a wise man with deep thoughts.

See my comment at 20.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 11, 2015 05:29 PM (g1DWB)

108 "84 I'm reminded of the genetic engineering rejects that Bashir tried to help on Deep Space Nine. "

I'm not sure what's more nerdy, the fact that you made this reference, or the fact that I immediately recognized it.

Posted by: Lauren at February 11, 2015 05:29 PM (HKshA)

109 J-school 101 must have a whole semester on asking Republicans what they think of evolution, abortion, gay marriage and contraceptives for women. They all ask the same questions. Though it would help if the Republicans had that figured out by now.

Posted by: flmomof4 at February 11, 2015 05:29 PM (nSjrf)

110 100 I love evolution becuase it allows me to put that Darwin fish with feet symbol on my Prius and feel superior to the Rethugs.
Posted by: Typical Prog A-hole at February 11, 2015 05:28 PM (OD2ni)

And me walking around with a key.

Posted by: Kraken at February 11, 2015 05:30 PM (5+mPY)

111 Too much inbreeding, oddly enough for a mobile society, but we can be so selective, in the aggregate, we're selecting our own traits in a mate.
Posted by: toby928(C) at February 11, 2015 05:28 PM (evdj2)
---
So what I'm hearing is, the Horde needs to go on a cross-continental rampage. For the good of the species.

Posted by: All Hail Eris at February 11, 2015 05:30 PM (KH1sk)

112 "Which is more likely to be affecting the life of average Americans, evolution or Obamacare? I think I'll let nature take care of it's million-year processes and worry about the legislation that's screwing things up here and now."

Posted by: Zap Rowsdower at February 11, 2015 05:30 PM (MMC8r)

113 Are we not men?

Posted by: Anderson Cooper's Rascal Scooter Brigade at February 11, 2015 05:30 PM (MbqmP)

114 "Next time a Lefty says he's all sooper-science, ask him about the Bell Curve."

Or about that triumph of Big Government Science, the obsessive official assault upon dietary cholesterol.

A substance which for decades was sternly claimed by the white-coated authority figures to be only slightly less lethal than ingesting cobalt-60 coated with potassium cyanide.

Suddenly it's Emily Litella time. Never mind!

Can anyone seriously argue that long-run predictions about planetary climate are LESS COMPLEX than short-run questions of human diet and nutrition are?

Posted by: torquewrench at February 11, 2015 05:30 PM (noWW6)

115 So what I'm hearing is, the Horde needs to go on a cross-continental rampage. For the good of the species.

As Her Grace notes often, our good is also a good, for some values of good. That is, ours.

Posted by: toby928(C) at February 11, 2015 05:31 PM (evdj2)

116 Andromeda Ascending anyone?

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 11, 2015 05:31 PM (pTEmS)

117 Walker just gave the politically correct version of FYNQ.

Posted by: The City of Paris at February 11, 2015 05:31 PM (+ebSh)

118 Evolution sure is selective. Out of the tens of thousands of different life forms only one progressed to our level of existence. It's that damn opposable thumb I guess.

Posted by: Brian Williams at February 11, 2015 05:31 PM (Xrson)

119 The irony is that the Left believe in "Intelligent Design" while conservatives grok evolution.

"Evolution" for the Left is just a way to explain a godless world. Yet they treat nature at some fragile unchanging thing, and they consider society as sometime to construct (or "intelligently design") from scratch.

Conservatives (of the Burkean vein), understand that nature and society will change over time. Societies with mores, folkways,a nd customs conducive towards the perpetuation of society will lead to the perpetuation of society; mores, folkways, and custom antithetical towards th perpetuation of society will either be replace that other mores, folkways, or customs... or that society itself will be replaced.

Posted by: The Political Hat at February 11, 2015 05:31 PM (0Ew3K)

120 I think "belief in evolution" is an oxymoron. Belief in a theory is a bit silly, don't you think. Do you believe in relativity? Atomic Theory? String Theory? Belief implies certainty. There are a whole lotta things that evolutionary theory explains away with "stuff happens here". That renders it a pretty good explanation, but belief? It's either correct or it's not. Otherwise Scientism, I guess.

Posted by: Astro at February 11, 2015 05:31 PM (XXTTU)

121 Posted by: Cockroaches and progressives, but I repeat myself

What, we aren't good enough? Well lah-di-dah.

Posted by: Tapeworms at February 11, 2015 05:32 PM (4nR9/)

122 don't drink water,
fish fuck in water,

just say'n

Posted by: I'm a cowboy baby... at February 11, 2015 05:32 PM (kI3bx)

123 Rachel Maddow- "Governor Walker, do you believe in evolution?"

"Why thank you for that question young man. Can I call you Richard? I think what you are really asking is, if elected president how would I approach the issue of economic growth coming out of an eight year downturn and in the face of mounting national debt and unfunded liabilities. Allow me to expand on that..."

Posted by: Muldoon, a solid man at February 11, 2015 05:32 PM (NeFrd)

124 Sock be gone

Posted by: Bob Belcher at February 11, 2015 05:32 PM (Xrson)

125 Humans are definitely devolving.
Back in antiquity, you had to be pretty smart to even get your next meal. Or avoid becoming one.
Today?

Posted by: navybrat at February 11, 2015 05:32 PM (JgC5a)

126 Meh.

Needs a throne of skulls.

Posted by: RedMindBlueState

----

No, it's good. Shows him out and about, mingling with the people. Hillary(!) can't very easily, what with the inability to walk unaided.

Posted by: Turd Ferguson at February 11, 2015 05:32 PM (VAsIq)

127 Posted by: pep at February 11, 2015 05:28 PM (4nR9/)

He can always say, "I don't give a damn about evolutionists as long as they don't unionize."

Posted by: Meremortal at February 11, 2015 05:33 PM (1Y+hH)

128 That's a pretty good deal on that axe. Unless it's made out of Chinese steel, in which case it's not worth it.

Posted by: RonF at February 11, 2015 05:33 PM (l8nW6)

129 Hat except they, as you point out, view biological gender as a societal construct.

In other words, the Prog-Soc Left is bug-fsck crazy.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 11, 2015 05:33 PM (pTEmS)

130 Maybe something small like an opposable thumb, or a shorter beak, but nothing major.

Posted by: Muldoon, a solid man

Whose beak are you calling short? I haven't had any complaints.

Posted by: Neanderthals at February 11, 2015 05:33 PM (4nR9/)

131 It's a Mister Grimm about some Reaping......

Posted by: The Great White Soctsman at February 11, 2015 05:33 PM (4oSLk)

132 Doesn't matter,
They have convinced a generation that the Right is a bunch of bible thumping, illiterate, bitter, gun-crazy, sub-beings.

Answer the question or not, we already lose as soon as they ask.

Posted by: Gentlemen, This is democracy manifest at February 11, 2015 05:33 PM (LWu6U)

133 Some nasty woman on Twitter:

"He has to go look up what it is."

Ha ha! Get it? Because Walker is stupid!!

Well, he's not, really, but he doesn't have a college degree. And I look forward to watching smug liberals possessed of "highly educated, finely tuned stupidity" (thanks, P.J.) shooting themselves in the foot as they look down on him for that. It'll piss me off, but it's good to see these friends of the disadvantaged reveal their true colors.

Posted by: JPS at February 11, 2015 05:33 PM (rib7B)

134 Next time a Lefty says he's all sooper-science, ask him about the Bell Curve.

--
Bell Curve isn't Science cause it's Teh Racism and Charles Murray is Teh White.

Boom. Problem solved. Science!!

Posted by: Super Science Lefty at February 11, 2015 05:34 PM (ZPrif)

135 113 Are we not men?
Posted by: Anderson Cooper's Rascal Scooter Brigade at February 11, 2015 05:30 PM (MbqmP)

We are Devo.

Devolution!

Posted by: wooga at February 11, 2015 05:34 PM (lwpmP)

136 They're all looking for a Stephanopolous 'contraception' moment.

Posted by: Zap Rowsdower at February 11, 2015 05:34 PM (MMC8r)

137 Too much inbreeding, oddly enough for a mobile society, but we can be so
selective, in the aggregate, we're selecting our own traits in a mate.

Haven't you heard, dysgenics is the new eugenics?

Fertility = 1 / IQ

Posted by: pep at February 11, 2015 05:35 PM (4nR9/)

138 And this is what passes for journalistic endeavor.

In a foreign country being asked gotcha questions for the sole purpose of derailing any current tide of popularity. Or for use later.

It truly is a mindset as they cooperate almost in a Borg sort of way with each other. I can totally understand how they don't comprehend their bias.

It's like asking a fish about water. They move in it, they breathe it, they absorb it into their bones.

I would actually say that any journalist who's NOT liberal should be suspect of having some other mental problem.
Who would subject themselves to such an immersion in such an inimical environment. Surrounded by others that you KNOW don't believe as you do and who would attempt to do you harm if they knew the extent of your deviation from the "norm".

Liberalism; it's not just a disease it's a mind fcuk.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That at February 11, 2015 05:35 PM (RZzX3)

139 "My position is exactly the same as Barack Obama's. What, you haven't asked him his opinion on this terribly important political question?

You must have a small penis."

THAT should be the follow-up to every stoopid question asked. Make the press gun shy to ask anything.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 11, 2015 05:35 PM (8Qxio)

140 "So what I'm hearing is, the Horde needs to go on a cross-continental rampage. For the good of the species."

::: imagines self driving Lord Humongous's nitrous oxide injected wasteland marauder mobile, brandishing a sawed-off shotgun :::

::: realizes the reality of a golf cart and a Weed Wacker :::

Posted by: torquewrench at February 11, 2015 05:35 PM (noWW6)

141 There is a site, phys.org or something, where after virtually every article the first comment is a post about how the knuckle dragging christian teabaggers will have no answer to whatever the paper is about. Same with the NYT. If the PuffHo runs a science! Article on butterfly poop someone will comment that the rethuglicans are too stoopid to appreciate science!
Walker was right. EVERY question from the press is a gotcha question for their mindless robot followers.

Posted by: New Phone at February 11, 2015 05:35 PM (lJsvf)

142 I would like to know Walker's cumulative GPA for the courses he took, even if he didn't graduate.

If you disregard the courses I got an F in, I'm 3.8. It was feast or famine at college for me.

Posted by: toby928(C) at February 11, 2015 05:35 PM (evdj2)

143 No, it's good. Shows him out and about, mingling with the people. Hillary(!) can't very easily, what with the inability to walk unaided.
Posted by: Turd Ferguson at February 11, 2015 05:32 PM

I'll give it that. The voters do like a people person, after all.

Posted by: RedMindBlueState at February 11, 2015 05:35 PM (h4vJk)

144 "Thank you for your question, Mr. Maddow. Now, I'm given to understand that you don't have any children. How does that affect your evolutionary future, in your opinion?"

Posted by: Anderson Cooper's Rascal Scooter Brigade at February 11, 2015 05:36 PM (MbqmP)

145 Evolution isn't about denying God. The left has no problem with a watchmaker God it's about denying original sin. that's why the polling numbers break down the way they do. The number of people that believe in a "created by Gods hand world" overlaps almost perfectly with the percentage of Americans that believe in original sin.

Posted by: Sam Haysom at February 11, 2015 05:36 PM (UtEx8)

146 >>Chinese steel, in which case it's not worth it.

look out for the wood too.

Bought a shovel last summer made in china, with a wood handle that looks just like oak only it snapped like a cornstalk when i tried to use it.

Same store sold replacement handles. f**ckers.

Posted by: Gentlemen, This is democracy manifest at February 11, 2015 05:36 PM (LWu6U)

147 Proper answer: "Stuff changes over time, and Darwin has come up with the only comprehensive theory as to why. But that's not your question. Your question is better rephrased thusly: 'Are you one of those dumbfuck Christian troglodytes that believe the earth is 6000 years old? Because if you are, haha, and if you're not, we just drove a stake through your heart in the Alabama primary. So suck it.'

I'm not playing that game. You need a college degree for that shit."

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at February 11, 2015 05:36 PM (RubNX)

148 I'm sick of this stupid bullshit gotcha question.

Posted by: Insomniac at February 11, 2015 05:36 PM (mx5oN)

149 Well, yourself and the Catholic Church, which has embraced evolution. Some minority.

In the 1950 encyclical humani generis, Pope Pius XII confirmed that
there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of
evolution, provided that Christians believe that the individual soul is a
direct creation by God and not the product of purely material forces.

Posted by: richard mcenroe at February 11, 2015 05:36 PM (XO6WW)

150 A documentary on how the Horde would conduct a Gumball Rally

http://youtu.be/cdLl1GVjOrc

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 11, 2015 05:36 PM (pTEmS)

151 Missing Link....Link Lancelot

I'll be damned. I just got it.

Posted by: Bob Belcher at February 11, 2015 05:37 PM (Xrson)

152 107
>>Something along the lines of "My position is exactly the same as
Barack Obama's. What, you haven't asked him his opinion on this
terribly important political question? You must have a small penis."

You are a wise man with deep thoughts.

See my comment at 20.

Posted by: JackStraw

Yeah, I should have included the comment number. Sorry about that.

Posted by: pep at February 11, 2015 05:37 PM (4nR9/)

153 "Haven't you heard, dysgenics is the new eugenics?"

In the UK, they were being loudly self-congratulatory about this.

"Why, this eugenics business must be arrant nonsense. We here in the UK haven't been practicing it, in fact quite the contrary, and thanks to the Flynn Effect, average IQ scores for our population continue to steadily increase!"

Until average UK IQ scores peaked and began to decline. Oops.

Posted by: torquewrench at February 11, 2015 05:38 PM (noWW6)

154 When Jimmy Kimmel was in Austin doing his show from the SXSW festival, he got an interview with Rick Perry who was then Governor of Texas. Kimmel asked Perry if the story was true that he had shot a coyote that had attacked his dog while he was out jogging. In an attempt to gotcha Perry, Kimmel then asked Perry, "So you carry a gun when jogging?" Perry replied, "I carry a gun when doing interviews." Kimmel swallowed and then asked the next question.

Posted by: Obnoxious A-Hole at February 11, 2015 05:38 PM (KDbAT)

155 None of these butthurt drama queens were gonna vote for him anyway, and the LIVs aren't paying attention yet. He shoulda just said he believes Mordor of the planet Glypzxx built the whole thing on a Tuesday afternoon, for all the difference it makes at this point.

Posted by: Jane58 at February 11, 2015 05:39 PM (oLZsm)

156 Devolving I think, in large part. Too much inbreeding, oddly enough for a mobile society, but we can be so selective, in the aggregate, we're selecting our own traits in a mate.

It's not really the individual's selectivity. It's the social engineering that imports Third Worlders and pays them to have many children of untraceable ancestry, while heavily taxing and thus reproductively suppressing those who are able to take care of themselves.

You need vaccinations and comprehensive medical insurance, property taxes for school, all to send them to college at highly inflated tuition rates, to get them propagandized in Leftism. All the while subsidizing the single mothers sleeping with whomever, raising up father-less children.

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at February 11, 2015 05:39 PM (0NdlF)

157 The number of people that believe in a "created by Gods hand world" overlaps almost perfectly with the percentage of Americans that believe in original sin.

I'm in that 'almost' section.

Posted by: Meremortal at February 11, 2015 05:39 PM (1Y+hH)

158 >>> My position is exactly the same as Barack Obama's. What, you haven't asked him his opinion on this terribly important political question?

Actually, I think that is brilliant. A jab at the MSM that the base would appreciate, and total defusing of the question for the left.

I actually think that this answer would be politically genius.

Posted by: dan-O at February 11, 2015 05:40 PM (D0bIN)

159 I can't belive that bitch nurse put my walker all the way over there

Posted by: Hillary Clinton 2016 at February 11, 2015 05:40 PM (kI3bx)

160 "Bought a shovel last summer made in china, with a
wood handle that looks just like oak only it snapped like a cornstalk
when i tried to use it.

Same store sold replacement handles. f**ckers.

Posted by: Gentlemen, This is democracy manifest at February 11, 2015 05:36 PM (LWu6U)"

Do they also sell fork handles?

Posted by: Obnoxious A-Hole at February 11, 2015 05:40 PM (KDbAT)

161 Speaking of evolution, do you think Obama has evolved on the KL pipeline?

Cuz the House just passed it.

Posted by: Meremortal at February 11, 2015 05:41 PM (1Y+hH)

162 ::: realizes the reality of a golf cart and a Weed Wacker :::

Posted by: torquewrench at February 11, 2015 05:35 PM (noWW6)

If only we would stop going to those tragic boating accidents ...

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at February 11, 2015 05:41 PM (0NdlF)

163 Actually, I believe that the entire universe was sneezed out of the nose of a being we call the Great Green Arkleseizure. I dread the coming of the Great White Handkerchief.

Posted by: Scott Walker at February 11, 2015 05:41 PM (MbqmP)

164 If your like me and haven't figured out this new fangled twitter thingy then go to Twitchy.com and read the beatdown given by Sean Davis of The Federalist re the press gotcha game.

Posted by: RustyG at February 11, 2015 05:41 PM (34Xjk)

165 the percentage of Americans that believe in original sin.

----

You might
Be aware of
The original sin

Posted by: INXS at February 11, 2015 05:41 PM (VAsIq)

166 The stock Republican response should be "I'm not going to bother the American people with my thoughts on every single subject, whether it be evolution or the NCAA tournament bracket."

Posted by: Emmett Milbarge at February 11, 2015 05:41 PM (nFdGS)

167
*snort*

Posted by: Hillary's Walker at February 11, 2015 05:41 PM (1Y+hH)

168 If they really believed in evolution, they'd be willing to admit that different ethnicities, growing up in different regions of the world, with different stresses and different food supplies, could have differences in innate intelligence just like they do for height, skin color, longevity, etc.

Posted by: Zap Rowsdower at February 11, 2015 05:41 PM (MMC8r)

169 SpaceX is giving it another try. They're into the T-13 polling, with launch scheduled for 6:02 pm EST.

Posted by: rickl at February 11, 2015 05:42 PM (sdi6R)

170 *serves Scott Walker a Pan-Galactic Gargleblaster*

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 11, 2015 05:42 PM (pTEmS)

171 MFM reporter: Do you think oral sex is an evolutionary gain or loss?

Posted by: Soona at February 11, 2015 05:42 PM (/HX7u)

172 6:03 pm.

Posted by: rickl at February 11, 2015 05:42 PM (sdi6R)

173 >>> The left has no problem with a watchmaker God it's about denying original sin.

Now there's where we disagree. The left is perfectly fine and content with the concept of Original Sin, provided it is packaged in the social justice concept of White Privilege. Aka, if you are white you are born into this world with a stain upon your soul, and it is up to us, your lefty masters, to absolve you once you show proper penance (and of course pay indulginces.)

But if you mean they deny Original Sin unless THEY are the one dictating the terms of it, they yes I agree 100%.

Posted by: LizLem at February 11, 2015 05:43 PM (yRwC8)

174 rickl, you got a link?

Posted by: All Hail Eris at February 11, 2015 05:43 PM (KH1sk)

175 Until average UK IQ scores peaked and began to decline.

----------

IQ scores in the UK began to decline in the late '70's with the advent of a Comprehensive (now where have I heard that word before) school system from the Secondary and Grammar school system.

Posted by: flmomof4 at February 11, 2015 05:43 PM (nSjrf)

176 I am going to be shooting heroin straight into my eye before we even get to June at this rate.

Posted by: alexthechick - Oh save us mighty SMOD at February 11, 2015 05:43 PM (IrByp)

177 McConnell is living proof that humans evolved from turtles.

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at February 11, 2015 05:43 PM (+lsX1)

178 Every time I see the picture of Walker on his horse I start singing Molly Hatchett songs.

Posted by: RustyG at February 11, 2015 05:44 PM (34Xjk)

179 *serves Scott Walker a Pan-Galactic Gargleblaster*
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 11, 2015 05:42 PM (pTEmS)
That will be four ningis, you may pay at the second window.

Posted by: Your Friendly Bartender who accepts fiddling small change at February 11, 2015 05:44 PM (MbqmP)

180 The left is perfectly fine and content with the concept of Original Sin,
provided it is packaged in the social justice concept of White
Privilege. Aka, if you are white you are born into this world with a
stain upon your soul, and it is up to us, your lefty masters, to absolve
you once you show proper penance (and of course pay indulginces.)

Nice, very nice.

Posted by: pep at February 11, 2015 05:44 PM (4nR9/)

181 I am going to be shooting heroin straight into my eye before we even get to June at this rate.

----

Right on.

Posted by: Rock Band Groupies at February 11, 2015 05:44 PM (VAsIq)

182 174 rickl, you got a link?

--
http://bit.ly/1z8VazF

(snarky answer)

Posted by: dan-O at February 11, 2015 05:44 PM (D0bIN)

183 Scott Walker @ScottWalker
Happy to field a variety of questions today at the Chatham House. Regarding one in particular...

Posted by: JackStraw at February 11, 2015 05:45 PM (g1DWB)

184 Posted by: LizLem at February 11, 2015 05:43 PM (yRwC

Wow. Nicely stated.

Posted by: Insomniac at February 11, 2015 05:45 PM (mx5oN)

185 http://www.spacex.com/webcast/

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html

Everybody doesn't have those bookmarked by now?

Posted by: rickl at February 11, 2015 05:45 PM (sdi6R)

186 Posted by: dan-O at February 11, 2015 05:44 PM (D0bIN)
---
Ha!

Posted by: All Hail Eris at February 11, 2015 05:45 PM (KH1sk)

187 >> Do they also sell fork handles?

??

Posted by: Gentlemen, This is democracy manifest at February 11, 2015 05:45 PM (LWu6U)

188 McConnell is living proof that humans evolved from turtles.

-----------

And Boehner is proof we share a link with orange trees.

Posted by: Turd Ferguson at February 11, 2015 05:45 PM (VAsIq)

189 Walker really should have said what Jack Straw suggested, and then said "now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time".

Posted by: pep at February 11, 2015 05:46 PM (4nR9/)

190 Oh I do like Jonah Goldberg's idea to respond with "I agree with the Pope on this" because you know full damn well that will result in immense amounts of hilarity.

Posted by: alexthechick - Oh save us mighty SMOD at February 11, 2015 05:46 PM (IrByp)

191 Ask the little journofuck who he thinks postulated the idea of the Big Bang anyway.

When he doesn't know, tell him you'll answer his question after he looks it up.

Posted by: Zap Rowsdower at February 11, 2015 05:46 PM (MMC8r)

192 Evolution can't explain how a flagellum motor with 42 separate parts evolves when none of the parts individually covey a survival advantage and get selected out.

Posted by: Hurricane LaFawnduh at February 11, 2015 05:46 PM (HBAcW)

193 IQ isn't real!! It's a lie. All those thousands of research papers are all financed by the Koch Brothers.

Lies! Tricksy lies!!

Posted by: Super Science Lefty at February 11, 2015 05:46 PM (ZPrif)

194 Unfortunately, they won't attempt to recover the first stage due to rough seas in the landing zone. They will try a soft landing on the ocean surface.

Posted by: rickl at February 11, 2015 05:46 PM (sdi6R)

195 In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form and void. And darkness was upon the face of the deep. and the SPIRIT of GOD moved upon the face of the waters. And GOD said 'Let there be light'. And there was light. Big Bang, baby, Big Bang!

Eromero, Presbyterian.

Posted by: Eromero at February 11, 2015 05:46 PM (go5uR)

196 Those maps of IQ around the middle east are interesting.

There's just one bright area in the region and they are surrounded by a bunch of morons, and not in the good hard drinking, breast loving, porn watching, happily fapping kind of way.

Although I wonder what the effect of cousins continually marrying cousins has on the IQ of the area. When your extended family tree is a pole...that can't be good.

Posted by: Stateless Infidel at February 11, 2015 05:46 PM (AC0lD)

197 >> The left is perfectly fine and content with the concept of Original Sin,

Exactly.
As many have said here many many times, they have not abandoned religion, they have only created a new on based on marx et al.

Posted by: Gentlemen, This is democracy manifest at February 11, 2015 05:46 PM (LWu6U)

198 Heroin in the eyeball?

*starts searching for BCochran for her Empress to abuse*

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 11, 2015 05:47 PM (pTEmS)

199 I am the god of helllfiiiire!

Posted by: Obamalama at February 11, 2015 05:47 PM (hSal7)

200 "...rough seas in the landing zone. They will try a soft landing"

----

Oh, Barry, I love it when you talk dirty.

Posted by: Reggie at February 11, 2015 05:47 PM (VAsIq)

201 "Kimmel asked Perry if the story was true that he had shot a coyote that had attacked his dog while he was out jogging. In an attempt to gotcha Perry, Kimmel then asked Perry, 'So you carry a gun when jogging?' Perry replied, 'I carry a gun when doing interviews.'"

Trying to imagine here an alternate reality where *that* fast and sharp Rick Perry was the one who showed up to the 2012 primary debates, instead of the floundering Rick Perry stoned off his gourd on pain meds.

Of course, the media and the establishment GOP would nevertheless probably have contrived to install the Mittbot 3000 as the nominee.

But still. It would have been at least entertaining.

Posted by: torquewrench at February 11, 2015 05:47 PM (noWW6)

202 Although I wonder what the effect of cousins
continually marrying cousins has on the IQ of the area. When your
extended family tree is a pole...that can't be good.

Posted by: Stateless Infidel

What? Why is everyone looking at me?

Posted by: Pakistan at February 11, 2015 05:48 PM (4nR9/)

203 Well if this blog would actually allow you to cut and paste without random freak outs I would have posted Walker's second tweet on this. If you are interested it's here.

https://twitter.com/ScottWalker/status/565636939559489538

Posted by: JackStraw at February 11, 2015 05:48 PM (g1DWB)

204 Although I wonder what the effect of cousins continually marrying cousins has on the IQ of the area.

----

Nothing but good things, my lad.

Posted by: Prince Charles the Eared at February 11, 2015 05:48 PM (VAsIq)

205 Actually a secular god has been tried before in the West. Try after Louis got his short haircut. It ended in disaster - Napoleon picked up the pieces.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 11, 2015 05:48 PM (pTEmS)

206 Although I wonder what the effect of cousins continually marrying cousins has on the IQ of the area. When your extended family tree is a pole...that can't be good.
Posted by: Stateless Infidel at February 11, 2015 05:46 PM (AC0lD)

dude, you expect us to marry effin strangers ? ? ? ?

Posted by: Islamic Culture 101 at February 11, 2015 05:48 PM (kI3bx)

207 A Cro-Magnon walks into a bar and orders a martini with two olives.

The bartender says ' I would have never guessed you would have ordered that kind of drink'

The Cro-Magnon replies ' What do you think I am , a Neanderthal?'

Posted by: Bob Belcher at February 11, 2015 05:49 PM (Xrson)

208 Imagine the gotcha questions available for Hillary.

Palin got the Bush doctrine question right, better than Charlie looking down over his glasses. Ask Hillary what the Obama Doctrine is.

Ask her how she knew Benghazi was caused by that video before they even announced Stevens was dead. It came from her office I believe. They got ahead of the bad news, by already announcing the BS scapegoat.

Ask her if she thinks Billy Bob Clinton is a womanizer, or a rapist.

Posted by: Illiniwek at February 11, 2015 05:49 PM (lUHnj)

209

But if you mean they deny Original Sin unless THEY are the one dictating the terms of it, they yes I agree 100%.

They do a similar thing with 'cultural values.'

They won't criticize Islam's treatment of women, because 'that's their culture.'

But we have to conform to cultural values that THEY define. They rewrite the culture and we're compelled to conform to them.

Posted by: Zap Rowsdower at February 11, 2015 05:49 PM (MMC8r)

210 This is a good example of a "scientific" paper you should read. Tricksy lies!!

IQ isn't real -- so how could there be genes linked to IQ? Science me that!!

Stuart Ritchie @StuartJRitchie Feb 3
Big news! Genome-Wide Association Study of >53,000 people finds genes linked to IQ: http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/mp2014188a.html

Posted by: Super Science Lefty at February 11, 2015 05:49 PM (ZPrif)

211 108 "84 I'm reminded of the genetic engineering rejects that Bashir tried to help on Deep Space Nine. "

I'm not sure what's more nerdy, the fact that you made this reference, or the fact that I immediately recognized it.
Posted by: Lauren at February 11, 2015 05:29 PM (HKshA)

Yes.

Posted by: Buzzion at February 11, 2015 05:50 PM (z/Ubi)

212 Molly Hatchet for the horde.
A thoughtful present.

Posted by: DaveA at February 11, 2015 05:50 PM (DL2i+)

213 I used to believe in Evolution but I now consider myself a Creationist.

I really have no problem with religion's coexistence with evolution. I honestly would prefer to be able to believe in evolution, but I just can't. The more I examine it, the more holes I see.

The biggest mistake Creationists made was the "young earth" theory, fortunately most though have abandoned that. That was incredibly easy to poke holes in.

I certainly don't think the GOP should push teaching Creationism, if I were giving advice to candidates, I would say answer something along the lines of not pushing religious beliefs in a science class but that you personally belief the Creation process was guided by the Hand of God.

Posted by: McAdams at February 11, 2015 05:50 PM (p1jSk)

214 Just remember folks, we all descended from Ark B.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 11, 2015 05:50 PM (pTEmS)

215 And what is a Journal of Molecular Psychiatry anyway? That's obviously just a made-up thing with Koch Brother lies!!

That's not real Science. Real Science is based on Love, not data.

Stuart Ritchie @StuartJRitchie Feb 3
Big news! Genome-Wide Association Study of >53,000 people finds genes linked to IQ: http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/mp2014188a.html

Posted by: Super Science Lefty at February 11, 2015 05:50 PM (ZPrif)

216 The answer to any gotcha question should be...
"Why don't we simplify this interview, you just ask all your questions and if/when you get to one that any sane person would take seriously because it is, in fact, a serious issue to the American people and the general well being of our country, then I will answer. I will just wave off the rest of your ridiculous nonsense. This should make the interview much shorter.

Posted by: madamemayhem at February 11, 2015 05:50 PM (WPm3x)

217 I like how atheistic "scientists" pose as intellectually superior to those who believe that the universe was created by an intelligent being.

What scientific evidence do they rely on to insist that the universe big banged itself into existence? Not one fucking thing. They rely on the reading of entrails.

If someone believes that the universe was created by a being who created it with an evolutionary aspect, they have punted and not thought as deeply as the real thinkers.

Right.

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at February 11, 2015 05:51 PM (IN7k+)

218 They are triangulating. evolution, Scopes trial, monkey, Obama....

see, Walker called Obama a monkey.

Posted by: MSM at February 11, 2015 05:51 PM (cZOkr)

219 I want to know more about Walker, especially on guns, but I like this answer. Why answer any gotcha questions posed by journalists?

The real problem is that few if any on the right are asking wedge issue questions to Democrats. and even if we did get them to say something stupid we may not have the means of disseminating it to the masses effectively.

Posted by: Achilles at February 11, 2015 05:51 PM (TpeIH)

220 Whorehorse, starring Sarah Jessica Parker.

Posted by: Cicero Kaboom! Kid at February 11, 2015 05:52 PM (cZOkr)

221 The biggest mistake Creationists made was the "young earth" theory, fortunately most though have abandoned that. That was incredibly easy to poke holes in.

Mistake? How does one verify million/billion year estimates?

(Hint: It involves making million/billion year observations)

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at February 11, 2015 05:53 PM (0NdlF)

222 That's a good point McAdams once the debate stops being about paleontology (which isn't an experimental science) evolution isn't the juggernaut it's presented to be.

Posted by: Sam Haysom at February 11, 2015 05:53 PM (UtEx8)

223 Here's how I would answer:

"Although I'm not a scientist, it's my understanding that evolution of species on earth is fairly well established. On the other hand, the reality of a process of selection for survival over time does not preclude the existence or participation of God. At the end of the day, we probably need both science and God to explain how we got here, and there's nothing wrong with that."

Posted by: The Regular Guy at February 11, 2015 05:53 PM (qHCyt)

224 And the Powerball jackpot annuity is now $500 million or $337.8 million cash. You still have a few hours to stand in line to get a ticket.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 11, 2015 05:54 PM (pTEmS)

225 This is a great question! I dream of being asked this question by a person holding a degree in journalism. (Ace, I'd honestly be interested in your answers to these, as someone who's both an avowed secular materialist and also a very bright guy who thinks well on a variety of topics.) Some possible responses, most (in the style of Jesus Christ) an answer in the form of another question:

"Do you believe in uniformatarianism? Do you know what uniformatarianism is and its importance to Darwinian thought?"

"Do you believe in materialism? Why?"

"Explain the Big Bang. What's its proper scientific name?" (A: a positive-curvature Robertson-Walker cosmological model) "What are its two underlying assumptions?" (A: universality of the laws of physics and the cosmological/Copernican principle) "Why must we assume the cosmological principle to be valid?"

"By 'evolution,' do you mean the idea that humans are a result of millions of years' progression of increasingly-complicated organisms from simpler organisms by means of random mutation, or do you mean observed variation within kinds?"

"Do you understand the difference between empirical science and forensic science? What metrics define empirical science?" (A: observable, repeatable, measureable) "Do you know who was the father of the scientific method?" (A: Francis Bacon) "Are you aware that Francis Bacon was a Biblical creationist?"

"Can you name a single example of a random mutation that imparts a benefit and adds de novo information to a genome?"

"Can you name a single undisputed transitional form, either extinct or extant?"

"What is radioisometric dating? What are its three assumptions?" (A: rate of decay is constant, starting ratio of parent/daughter isotopes is known, closed system)

"Do you believe in spontaneous generation of life from non-life? Which came first, proteins or nucleic acid? How many amino acids at a minimum must make up a functional protein?" (A: 80)

"Do you know what deoxyribonucleic acid is? Do you know who discovered it? Do you know what 'panspermia' is? Did you know that Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA, had such a problem with Darwinian evolution that he adopted a belief in panspermia? Do you disagree with the scientific conclusions of a co-discoverer of DNA regarding the origin of life?"

"Do you know what the entire title of Darwin's book is?" (A: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or, the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life) "Did you know that Darwin regarded Africans and Aboriginals as the least-evolved examples of the several human races that he identified? Do you disagree?"

"Do you know what an 'axiom' is?" (A: a presuppositional, foundational truth that requires no defense) "Do you know the axiom of the United States, found in the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence? (A: That "all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.") "Do you reject this axiom that presupposes a personal Creator of man?"

Posted by: Doctor Cynic at February 11, 2015 05:54 PM (rzggC)

226 Even secular atheists are having problems explaining the intelligent language of DNA and the sudden appearance of most animals, fully-formed, without any antecedents (Cambrian Explosion) 500 million years ago in the fossil record. That's not to mention the fine-tuning of the laws of physics which forces everyone to either believe in God or a multiverse. No one who does not believe in God can believe this is the only universe--it's too manifestly fine-tuned perfectly to allow for the formation of complex life.

In short, Scott Walker's answer is exactly right, both philosophically and politically.

Posted by: Shooter McGavin at February 11, 2015 05:54 PM (4lMK6)

227 The flagellum motor is interesting because if you take away any one of the 42 parts, it doesn't function, and thus doesn't convey any survival advantage at all.

Makes one wonder, then, "HTF did it evolve?"

Posted by: Hurricane LaFawnduh at February 11, 2015 05:54 PM (HBAcW)

228 ...cant understand it, under qualification i always put White Privilege.

Posted by: still Unemployed white guy at February 11, 2015 05:54 PM (hSal7)

229 A horse walks into a bar

The bartender says ' why the long face?'

The horse replies ' haven't you heard of evolution dumbass?'

Posted by: Bob Belcher at February 11, 2015 05:55 PM (Xrson)

230 So what I'm hearing is, the Horde needs to go on a cross-continental rampage. For the good of the species.

Posted by: All Hail Eris at February 11, 2015 05:30 PM (KH1sk)

This is, it seems to me, the logical conclusion to the questions being raised here.

Posted by: GGE of the Moron Horde, NC Chapter at February 11, 2015 05:56 PM (6fyGz)

231 "187
>> Do they also sell fork handles?

??

Posted by: Gentlemen, This is democracy manifest at February 11, 2015 05:45 PM (LWu6U)"

http://youtu.be/oaGpaj2nHIo

Posted by: Obnoxious A-Hole at February 11, 2015 05:56 PM (KDbAT)

232 605

Posted by: Islamic Culture 101 at February 11, 2015 05:56 PM (kI3bx)

233 In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the
earth. And the earth was without form and void. And darkness was upon
the face of the deep. and the SPIRIT of GOD moved upon the face of the
waters. And GOD said 'Let there be light'. And there was light. Big
Bang, baby, Big Bang!

Eromero, Presbyterian.

Posted by: Eromero at February 11, 2015 05:46 PM (go5uR)
Big Baaaaada Boom!

Posted by: Leeloo at February 11, 2015 05:56 PM (yRwC8)

234 176 I am going to be shooting heroin straight into my eye before we even get to June at this rate.
Posted by: alexthechick - Oh save us mighty SMOD
________________

Wow. Just wow. Yet another reason to stroll through these here parts on a regular basis.

Posted by: Furious George at February 11, 2015 05:57 PM (UlJ3l)

235 Walker is drawing a lot of flak on local news in Wisconsin. Must be getting close to the target. I fuckin hate the media in this leftist shithole.

Posted by: Chavez the Hugo at February 11, 2015 05:57 PM (ucDmr)

236 I am going to be shooting heroin straight into my eye before we even get to June at this rate.
Posted by: alexthechick - Oh save us mighty SMOD
________________

whut's in June

Posted by: Islamic Culture 101 at February 11, 2015 05:57 PM (kI3bx)

237 A horse walks into a bar

The bartender says ' why the long face?'

The horse replies 'because I'm John F'n Kerry, the horse-faced Secretariat of State.'

Posted by: Hurricane LaFawnduh at February 11, 2015 05:58 PM (HBAcW)

238 /sock

Posted by: I'm a cowboy baby... at February 11, 2015 05:58 PM (kI3bx)

239 Space chubby confirmed.

Posted by: All Hail Eris at February 11, 2015 05:58 PM (KH1sk)

240 221.

To me the light from the stars taking millions of years getting here I would say is one problem I have with the idea of the Universe only being 8k-10k years old.

I certainly don't think we have a number we can verify, but I see evidence that it's much older than the young earth theory.

That doesn't prove or disprove Evolution, I just think that's one area where I part ways with some in the Intelligent Design community.

Posted by: McAdams at February 11, 2015 05:58 PM (p1jSk)

241
Yeah, this is important.

Believe in whateverthefuck you want. How's that?

Evolution. Like it matters.

Posted by: Soothsayer And The Mysterious Zionist Plot at February 11, 2015 05:58 PM (41UtW)

242 "234 176 I am going to be shooting heroin straight into my eye before we even get to June at this rate. "

The pharmacy just gave us a million and one needles for my husband's injections. Not sure if heroin requires subq or IM needles though...

Posted by: Lauren at February 11, 2015 05:59 PM (HKshA)

243 Sorry, forgot a couple...

"What would successful carbon dating of diamond mean for Darwinian evolution? Are you aware that diamonds have been successfully carbon dated?"

"What would the existence of soft tissue in dinosaur bones mean for Darwinian evolution? Are you aware that soft tissue has been found in dinosaur bones?"

Posted by: Doctor Cynic at February 11, 2015 05:59 PM (rzggC)

244
As a real scientist, can I say how shockingly ignorant people sound when they ask if someoneBELIEVES in this or that scientific theory. I don't BELIEVE in any scientific theories. Belief is something that exists in the absence of data, evidence, etc.

I would say evolution seems to be correct, at least based on the evidence collected so far. It is only true in as much as it explains the data we are seeing. Absent a better theory, then there is nothing wrong with it.

Otherwise, who gives a shit?

Weird how these anti-religion types fall so deep and so easily into religious thinking...

Posted by: Dr. McCoy at February 11, 2015 05:59 PM (F192H)

245 Proof of evolution? Bruce Jenner transitioning into a Kardashian.

Posted by: Fritz at February 11, 2015 05:59 PM (UzPAd)

246 madamemayhew @ 216- Whoa baby, you are totally right! I could kiss you. Or buy you a drink, maybe. Whatever is proper.

Posted by: Eromero at February 11, 2015 06:00 PM (go5uR)

247 Walker is hardly my first choice but if he's intelligent enough to avoid the 'gotcha questions' -- which is an abbreviation of 'gotcha now you son of a bitch' then +1.

Posted by: se pa moron at February 11, 2015 06:00 PM (zxQ4h)

248
This is, it seems to me, the logical conclusion to the questions being raised here.
Posted by: GGE of the Moron Horde, NC Chapter at February 11, 2015 05:56 PM (6fyGz)
---
Occam's Reaver.

Posted by: All Hail Eris at February 11, 2015 06:00 PM (KH1sk)

249 Collective guilt might seem like an appropriation of original sin for the left, but it is very different. For one reason while original sin supports a prudent approach to renovating institutions because of a knowledge those instituons often evolved out of the crooked timber of humanity, left wing collective guilt does the opposite. It holds up a chimerical concept of justice as a blue print for whole sale political experimentation and social engineering. It's the original part that is important.

Also leftist whites don't actually believe that they are afflicted with original sin/ racial guilt. The opposite in fact--they can't be racist or behave in a driscimatory fashion because they love minorities.

Posted by: Sam Haysom at February 11, 2015 06:01 PM (UtEx8)

250 Proof of evolution? Bruce Jenner transitioning into a Kardashian.
Posted by: Fritz at February 11, 2015 05:59 PM (UzPAd)

so will he get big mellons or little mellons?

Posted by: I'm a cowboy baby... at February 11, 2015 06:01 PM (kI3bx)

251 I tried to up-read the comments, but to me, the fact that the Left is trying to play "Gotchabiblethumpingclinger" w/ Walker shows how f'ng terrified they are of a Walker candidacy. And, also how vulnerable they know Hillary! is. They're trying to smother his run in the crib. And yes, I intended that imagery.

Posted by: Brave Sir Robin at February 11, 2015 06:01 PM (5buP8)

252 The pharmacy just gave us a million and one needles for my husband's injections. Not sure if heroin requires subq or IM needles though...
Posted by: Lauren at February 11, 2015 05:59 PM (HKshA)

Go with subcut until you're hooked good & hard. It's a little easier on the ol body at first, you know.

Posted by: Anderson Cooper's Rascal Scooter Brigade at February 11, 2015 06:01 PM (MbqmP)

253 Oh AlextheChick -

http://www.ufunk.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Adrian-Dadich-illustration-14.jpg

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 11, 2015 06:01 PM (pTEmS)

254 So far so good.

Stage 1 is re-entering.

Posted by: rickl at February 11, 2015 06:01 PM (sdi6R)

255 I feel strangely compelled to cue up Molly Hatchet for my exercise-time playlist.

Posted by: Flirtin' with Disaster at February 11, 2015 06:01 PM (eTY+n)

256 Leftists believe:
we evolved from apes
And that evolution then stopped

Posted by: x at February 11, 2015 06:02 PM (uQZPO)

257 >>>"Do you know what the entire title of Darwin's book is?" (A: On the
Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or, the Preservation of
Favored Races in the Struggle for Life) "Did you know that Darwin
regarded Africans and Aboriginals as the least-evolved examples of the
several human races that he identified? Do you disagree?"

The left always takes science and twists it to nefarious ends. I would love if someone pushed back on a journalist in an interview by bringing up eugenics, for example. I have a feeling "next question!" would come up awfully fast...

Has anyone seen Pirates! Band of Misfits, the claymation movie? Overlooked but excellent. Their depiction of Darwin as a geeky conniving loner with a queen fetish was nothing like him in real life but I thought it was hilarious.

Posted by: LizLem at February 11, 2015 06:02 PM (yRwC8)

258 Proof of evolution? Bruce Jenner transitioning into a Kardashian.

Posted by: Fritz at February 11, 2015 05:59 PM (UzPAd)

so will he get big mellons or little mellons?

Posted by: I'm a cowboy baby...

Front or back?

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 11, 2015 06:02 PM (pTEmS)

259 To me the light from the stars taking millions of years getting here I would say is one problem I have with the idea of the Universe only being 8k-10k years old.

What if the speed of light in a vacuum is not, in fact, a constant? Maybe it slows down in interstellar space.

Posted by: toby928(C) at February 11, 2015 06:03 PM (evdj2)

260 @ 246... Whichever you like. I'm pretty flexible that way. I never say no to a Bloody Mary or being kissed. Hubbymayhem may have issues with people kissing me but I'm cool with it.

Posted by: madamemayhem at February 11, 2015 06:03 PM (WPm3x)

261 I want to hear Walker answer some media clown: I didn't waste my money on a journalism degree.

Posted by: Jean at February 11, 2015 06:03 PM (ztOda)

262 My advice to Republican candidates on these kind of gotcha questions:

"Let me get this straight... Terrorists are crucifying people in Iraq, the USA is $20 trillion in debt, 100 million working age Americans are unemployed, and when you get a chance to ask a presidential candidate any question in the world, this is the best you can do? Really? I think Americans are more interested in.... "

And then hammer your pet issues, or even any issue where you're polling ahead.

Posted by: Dante at February 11, 2015 06:03 PM (/Qw9A)

263 Stage 2 shutdown. It enters a coast phase, with a second shorter burn in about 20 minutes or so.

Posted by: rickl at February 11, 2015 06:04 PM (sdi6R)

264 They just announced Stage 1 splashdown.

Posted by: rickl at February 11, 2015 06:04 PM (sdi6R)

265 Posted by: Doctor Cynic at February 11, 2015 05:54 PM (rzggC)

This one is a really nasty one to ask leftists:

"Do you believe in evolution?"

"Are some human beings more evolved than other human beings?"

The Left always attacks because it cannot survive any scrutiny of its intellectual contradictions.

This here is why I believe in "men created equal" and skip the "evolution" stuff. If evolution is true, there is human life "unworthy" of life. The evils of such a view are self-evident.

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at February 11, 2015 06:04 PM (0NdlF)

266 Front or back?
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 11, 2015 06:02 PM (pTEmS)

a wise on you are.

let the horde vote?

Bruce Jenner gets a big ass and small knockers or big knockers and a small ass

can't have big knockers and a big ass Kim would bust his 67yo face in

Posted by: I'm a cowboy baby... at February 11, 2015 06:04 PM (kI3bx)

267 That doesn't prove or disprove Evolution, I just think that's one area where I part ways with some in the Intelligent Design community.
Posted by: McAdams at February 11, 2015 05:58 PM (p1jSk)

------------------------------------------

There's got to be some sort of intelligent design or else the mathematics of physics wouldn't exist. In other words it's too damn orderly to be only a series of random unrelated events.

Posted by: Soona at February 11, 2015 06:05 PM (/HX7u)

268 Posted by: I'm a cowboy baby... at February 11, 2015 06:01 PM (kI3bx)

Jenner's already turned into a big ass.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That at February 11, 2015 06:05 PM (RZzX3)

269 SpaceX webcast ending, but NASA TV is still going.

Posted by: rickl at February 11, 2015 06:05 PM (sdi6R)

270 "Well, [Reporter's name], I'll answer your question if you answer this: Do you believe cholesterol is bad for you?"

Posted by: Secundus at February 11, 2015 06:05 PM (bAg1C)

271 what happened, looked away for a second

Posted by: Jean at February 11, 2015 06:06 PM (ztOda)

272 NASA TV is starting launch replays.

That was a beautiful ascent into a sunset sky.

Posted by: rickl at February 11, 2015 06:06 PM (sdi6R)

273 I don't BELIEVE in any scientific theories. Belief is something that exists in the absence of data, evidence, etc.

It's so cute when you run into people who believe they don't have any beliefs.

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at February 11, 2015 06:07 PM (0NdlF)

274 The answer is. "If I switch careers to biologist, I'll let you know: it isn't relevant to the discussion we're having today"

Posted by: Mark Noonan at February 11, 2015 06:07 PM (Tdez0)

275 ::: realizes the reality of a golf cart and a Weed Wacker :::

As long as you've got the hairdo and speedo you'll be recognized.

Posted by: Cosplay Judge#7 at February 11, 2015 06:07 PM (DL2i+)

276 they weren't going to try a vertical landing today?

Posted by: Jean at February 11, 2015 06:07 PM (ztOda)

277 Dante has a point.
As I've been saying for a long time, the only way to deal with the press is to get in their faces and hammer them with facts.
Push them back.
Invade their space.
Make them uncomfortable.
Hold them accountable.

Posted by: Diogenes at February 11, 2015 06:08 PM (08Znv)

278 "There's got to be some sort of intelligent design or else the mathematics of physics wouldn't exist. In other words it's too damn orderly to be only a series of random unrelated events.
Posted by: Soona at February 11, 2015 06:05 PM (/HX7u)"

Exactly

Posted by: Shooter McGavin at February 11, 2015 06:08 PM (4lMK6)

279 >>> My advice to Republican candidates on these kind of gotcha questions:

"Let me get this straight... Terrorists are crucifying people in
Iraq, the USA is $20 trillion in debt, 100 million working age Americans
are unemployed, and when you get a chance to ask a presidential
candidate any question in the world, this is the best you can do?
Really? I think Americans are more interested in.... "
And then hammer your pet issues, or even any issue where you're polling ahead.
Posted by: Dante at February 11, 2015 06:03 PM (/Qw9A)

Why the potential GOP candidates are not searching here for possible press secretaries and/or speechwriters I'll never know, you guy are all on fire tonight.

Though I'll understand if they ignore the "and you have a small penis, next question," advice, though it is to their detriment...

Posted by: LizLem at February 11, 2015 06:08 PM (yRwC8)

280 I didn't waste my money on a journalism degree.
Posted by: Jean at February 11, 2015 06:03 PM (ztOda)

Neither did Brian Williams, curously.

Posted by: Just Some Guy at February 11, 2015 06:08 PM (vgIRn)

281 Posted by: LizLem at February 11, 2015 06:02 PM (yRwC

That's a huge one. Darwin thought the races were seperate subspecies. Didn't know that until I actually read the book; it got left out of all the classes and arguments I ever had, for some reason...

Posted by: Secundus at February 11, 2015 06:08 PM (bAg1C)

282 Nobody ever asks a politician if he believes in Maxwell's equations.

Or, more relevant, the Laffer curve.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 11, 2015 06:09 PM (L2xDv)

283 Late to the thread, but has anyone pointed out that Walker needs to get off that high horse he's on?

Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 11, 2015 06:09 PM (FsuaD)

284

If you look very very closely at the shield, someone scrawled "JUIF" on it.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 11, 2015 06:09 PM (CMkNk)

285 reality based yo...they just meant reality tv

Posted by: joe-impeachin44 at February 11, 2015 06:09 PM (ywH8N)

286
Do you believe?

What do you believe?

Are you a believer?

Grow the fuck up with this bullshit evolution shibboleth.

Posted by: Soothsayer And The Mysterious Zionist Plot at February 11, 2015 06:09 PM (41UtW)

287 Why are they never Personally asked to explain any Ideology?

Or the big Bang and what it entails?

Why are they allowed to spout any New idea as Troof and that's good enough?

I would like an explanation why They believe in Global warming.

explain it like they really do Understand what it means, and what caused it.

Posted by: willow at February 11, 2015 06:10 PM (nqBYe)

288 276 they weren't going to try a vertical landing today?

Posted by: Jean at February 11, 2015 06:07 PM (ztOda)

They had to call off the barge landing due to rough seas in the landing area. I read earlier that waves were breaking over the deck.

They did try a soft landing on the ocean surface, in order to obtain data for future attempts.

Posted by: rickl at February 11, 2015 06:10 PM (sdi6R)

289 I believe in Evolution in so much as it allows me to enjoy the Annual Darwin Awards ...

oy.

Back to the Arts Fest logistics ...

Posted by: Adriane the Pop Culture Critic ... at February 11, 2015 06:10 PM (P+IZm)

290 >>>so will he get big mellons or little mellons?<<<

Ah, a mystery yet to be solved. Possibly with a little plastic surgery, his little man-breast buds may yet be gargantuan. Or possibly a dominant female Kardashian my yet rip his head off like an oversexed praying mantis.

Posted by: Fritz at February 11, 2015 06:10 PM (UzPAd)

291 Walker needs to preface each of his answers with the phrase "You bunch of wankers..."

Posted by: OregonMuse at February 11, 2015 06:10 PM (I8YZX)

292 That's a huge one. Darwin thought the races were
seperate subspecies. Didn't know that until I actually read the book;
it got left out of all the classes and arguments I ever had, for some
reason...Posted by: Secundus at February 11, 2015 06:08 PM (bAg1C)

Because it was a truth that was....inconvenient?

Posted by: LizLem at February 11, 2015 06:11 PM (yRwC8)

293 Finally, we get back to the important stories.

Posted by: NBC News at February 11, 2015 06:11 PM (LISuA)

294 OT

Federal district court declares the ban on interstate transfers of firearms unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/202209/

Posted by: The Right to Keep and Bear Hats at February 11, 2015 06:11 PM (0Ew3K)

295 259
To me the light from the stars taking millions of years getting here I
would say is one problem I have with the idea of the Universe only
being 8k-10k years old.

What if the speed of light in a vacuum is not, in fact, a constant? Maybe it slows down in interstellar space.

Posted by: toby928(C)

That theory could have easily been proved or disproved by now. I'm not a physicist, but I've always known the speed of light to be constant. you could easily create a vacuum and test something like that.

I honestly think that the "age" question would have to be God "messing with us" and trying to throw us off if the Universe were in fact only 10k years old.

Posted by: McAdams at February 11, 2015 06:12 PM (p1jSk)

296 In fact i would Like our nrews sources to Explain the Messiah and halos during the 2008 compaign.

did they Hope for a messiah?

do they Believe in a man created Messiah?

what do they believe socialism is and what is the history?

why are THEY never made to explain their beliefs?

Posted by: willow at February 11, 2015 06:12 PM (nqBYe)

297 >>> Federal district court declares the ban on interstate transfers of firearms unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

So?

Posted by: Thugs, Gangstas and cartels from sea to shining sea at February 11, 2015 06:13 PM (yRwC8)

298 why are THEY never made to explain their beliefs?

Because they're Democrats.

Posted by: OregonMuse at February 11, 2015 06:14 PM (I8YZX)

299 "244

As a real scientist, can I say how shockingly ignorant people sound
when they ask if someoneBELIEVES in this or that scientific theory. I
don't BELIEVE in any scientific theories. Belief is something that
exists in the absence of data, evidence, etc.

I would say
evolution seems to be correct, at least based on the evidence collected
so far. It is only true in as much as it explains the data we are
seeing. Absent a better theory, then there is nothing wrong with it.

Otherwise, who gives a shit?

Weird how these anti-religion types fall so deep and so easily into religious thinking...

Posted by: Dr. McCoy at February 11, 2015 05:59 PM (F192H)"

This is not only reasonable but a pretty good answer for journalists trying to make their bones with gotcha questions. It might also be nice to point out that is good that leftist ass wipes like the questioner have rejected the theories of Trofim Lysenko.

Then move on to ask if he has any questions on political matters because it is kind of stupid for me to waste time discussing science or technology with a journalism school graduate who does not know why airplane wings make use of Bernoulli's Law or how a refrigerator works.

Posted by: Obnoxious A-Hole at February 11, 2015 06:15 PM (KDbAT)

300 Because it was a truth that was....inconvenient?
Posted by: LizLem at February 11, 2015 06:11 PM (yRwC

That, and in all probability they didn't know it themselves. A lot of these people seem to go for the Cliffs Notes version or skim the synopsis on Wikipedia.

Posted by: Secundus at February 11, 2015 06:15 PM (bAg1C)

301 Is it common for species to stay around for millions of years after they have evolved into something else?

That just shows how the common understanding of evolution is so stupid.

Species do not evolve. Evolution requires lots of death and lots of reproduction. The mutated organism manages somehow to survive, thrive and after trillions of instances of this, a subset of the species is unable to mate with the other species (if it's a sexually-reproducing species).

Posted by: AmishDude at February 11, 2015 06:16 PM (L2xDv)

302 new post

Posted by: jwb7605 at February 11, 2015 06:16 PM (ZALPg)

303 Nood, more high horses

Posted by: LizLem at February 11, 2015 06:17 PM (yRwC8)

304 KL pipeline passed the House 270-152.

House by party: R-246, D-188.

Bipartisan vote.

Easy to assume a veto here since if a majority of Americans want something, Obama is against it.

Posted by: Hillary's Walker at February 11, 2015 06:17 PM (1Y+hH)

305 Walker needs to preface each of his answers with the phrase "You bunch of wankers..."
Posted by: OregonMuse at February 11, 2015 06:10 PM (I8YZX)

Public trust in the media is in the cellar, IIRC. A lot of people don't trust journalists.

"To answer your question, you Brylcreemed hack, my position on etc..."

Posted by: Secundus at February 11, 2015 06:17 PM (bAg1C)

306 Dante has a point.

As I've been saying for a long time, the only way to deal with the press is to get in their faces and hammer them with facts.

Push them back.

Invade their space.

Make them uncomfortable.

Hold them accountable.

Posted by: Diogenes

AND auction off their spectrum allocations, let them compete with the cell phone companies

Posted by: Jean at February 11, 2015 06:17 PM (ztOda)

307 I think blindly believing in evolution is silly. Blindly believing in any theory is silly. Sounds an awful lot like faith and not science. Walker answered this correctly. Giving in on this makes it easy to ask why not give in on global warming. Let's face it - "science" - when used for political purposes doesn't have the best track record. This is a stupid game. I think he answered it well. If not the best answer (which I'm not sure it isn't), it shows he can play at this level. He's Lebron.

Posted by: SH at February 11, 2015 06:17 PM (gmeXX)

308 Ace thinks I'm silly. Oh well.

I believe that God created the earth and it's been evolving ever since. That's how Walker should've answered it.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 11, 2015 06:19 PM (u/Asb)

309 I will forever adore RD Brewer for coming up with that campaign poster.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 11, 2015 06:19 PM (DmNpO)

310 I liked the way my college chemistry professor put it: All science is is God revealing himself and his creation to us.

Posted by: Soona at February 11, 2015 06:19 PM (/HX7u)

311 Chickens coming back to Nood.

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at February 11, 2015 06:20 PM (0NdlF)

312
305 Walker needs to preface each of his answers with the phrase "You bunch of wankers..."
Posted by: OregonMuse at February 11, 2015 06:10 PM (I8YZX)

Public trust in the media is in the cellar, IIRC. A lot of people don't trust journalists.

"To answer your question, you Brylcreemed hack, my position on etc..."
Posted by: Secundus at February 11, 2015 06:17 PM (bAg1C)

Walker is too nice and polite. Right now he seems to be in over his head here back home

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 11, 2015 06:21 PM (u/Asb)

313 I believe that God created the earth and it's been evolving ever since. That's how Walker should've answered it.

----

I like this answer. I might only add that it has been evolving according to His will ever since.

Posted by: SH at February 11, 2015 06:21 PM (gmeXX)

314 "I honestly think that the "age" question would have
to be God "messing with us" and trying to throw us off if the Universe
were in fact only 10k years old.

Posted by: McAdams at February 11, 2015 06:12 PM (p1jSk)"

There is a supernatural being that is believed to behave that way but Loki is not part of either Christian or Jewish theology. There is a deceiver in Christian theology but that is not God.

Posted by: Obnoxious A-Hole at February 11, 2015 06:21 PM (KDbAT)

315 Besides Global Warming, is there any other scientific theory that disqualifies someone from basically the human race?

It just blows my mind that someone can get so angry over where they stand on that issue. It really is a "I need zero dissent otherwise I won't be able to sleep at night!"

There's all sorts of different theories on the source of gravity, why is that topic allowed to have competing theories without someone being ostracized?

Posted by: McAdams at February 11, 2015 06:21 PM (p1jSk)

316 The barge landing part of the Space X experiment always struck me as overeach. You don't take a rookie pilot in an unproven aircraft and ask him to carrier qual on his first landing.

Posted by: richard mcenroe at February 11, 2015 06:22 PM (XO6WW)

317 Posted by: McAdams at February 11, 2015 06:21 PM (p1jSk)

-----

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Posted by: SH at February 11, 2015 06:24 PM (gmeXX)

318 314
"I honestly think that the "age" question would have

to be God "messing with us" and trying to throw us off if the Universe

were in fact only 10k years old.

Posted by: McAdams at February 11, 2015 06:12 PM (p1jSk)"

There
is a supernatural being that is believed to behave that way but Loki is
not part of either Christian or Jewish theology. There is a deceiver in
Christian theology but that is not God.

Posted by: Obnoxious A-Hole

The other way to look at it would be it's just like how God chooses not to reveal himself in a supernatural way and makes faith a test for humans.

Sort of along the lines of "Blessed are those that believe without seeing."

Posted by: McAdams at February 11, 2015 06:25 PM (p1jSk)

319 The Bible also says this is second heaven and earth, so room for all the evolution in the first one. (third is wherein dwelleth righteousness)

Still can't put a flood covering all mountains in Noah's time, but interesting factoid nonetheless. Have to allow for some inaccurate science in the Bible ... but it is more about society.

And the big bangers have competition, they are even now working on other theories, since laws of physics only work AFTER the big bang. There is no more scientific reason for the big bang (or the perpetual forcing of forces like gravity, what energizes them?) than for a creation.

Believers believe in the beginning God
Bangers believe in the beginning ... ??? ... nothing??

Posted by: Illiniwek at February 11, 2015 06:26 PM (lUHnj)

320 You can still be an atheist and believe evolution is not random. But the kind of evolution taught in schools is completely nonsensical.

It's not even what Darwin believed, and it's counter to common sense.

My own personal belief is the process of evolution itself has evolved so that certain environmental triggers are more likely to effect particular mutations.

Posted by: some guy at February 11, 2015 06:26 PM (q177U)

321 "262
My advice to Republican candidates on these kind of gotcha questions:

"Let me get this straight... Terrorists are crucifying people in
Iraq, the USA is $20 trillion in debt, 100 million working age Americans
are unemployed, and when you get a chance to ask a presidential
candidate any question in the world, this is the best you can do?
Really? I think Americans are more interested in.... "

And then hammer your pet issues, or even any issue where you're polling ahead.

Posted by: Dante at February 11, 2015 06:03 PM (/Qw9A)"

This. This +100

Posted by: Obnoxious A-Hole at February 11, 2015 06:28 PM (KDbAT)

322 if evolution truly w*rked, there wouldn't be any lieberals...

just sayin'

Posted by: redc1c4 at February 11, 2015 06:33 PM (7vjeC)

323 "The other way to look at it would be it's just like
how God chooses not to reveal himself in a supernatural way and makes
faith a test for humans.

Sort of along the lines of "Blessed are those that believe without seeing."

Posted by: McAdams at February 11, 2015 06:25 PM (p1jSk)"

I think that it is a step too far to go from Christ having Thomas put his finger into the nail holes and then blessing those who have not seen but who believe and extending that to requiring faith in the face of contradictory evidence, particularly when the contradictory evidence has been manufactured by the One who requires faith. That just seems too malign of an act for an all good God.

Posted by: Obnoxious A-Hole at February 11, 2015 06:36 PM (KDbAT)

324 323.

I don't think it's much different than God not revealing himself in a grand fashion to Man and yet man is still supposed to deny all of his 5 Earthly senses and still believe.

Just to reiterate, I don't think God is manipulating the Universe to fool us, what I was saying was that you would almost have to believe that to subscribe to the theory that it takes millions of years for the light from stars to reach the Earth but that the Universe is actually only 10k years old.

Posted by: McAdams at February 11, 2015 06:43 PM (p1jSk)

325 Wouldn't the absolutely correct answer to a question about evolution be something along the lines of "eff you, you brain dead piece of trash "?

Posted by: Northernlurker at February 11, 2015 06:44 PM (xNkaN)

326 322 if evolution truly w*rked, there wouldn't be any lieberals...

just sayin'
Posted by: redc1c4 at February 11, 2015 06:33 PM (7vjeC)

Amen

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 11, 2015 06:45 PM (u/Asb)

327

----

I like this answer. I might only add that it has been evolving according to His will ever since.
Posted by: SH at February 11, 2015 06:21 PM

I agree with that

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 11, 2015 06:47 PM (u/Asb)

328
Just doing some Cowboy math...but, if only 19% of Americans believe in full-fledged evolution of the "first there was nothing, then it exploded" variety. Then, they must almost all be scientists, just based on what the text books say as in "Scientists agree."
Next you are going to tell me that the science is settled on Climate Global Warming Change...or whatever the brand name of the day is...

Posted by: What is a SCOAMT? at February 11, 2015 06:48 PM (MelgH)

329
BREAKING:

US Army scandal as Ft Hood installs Scott Walker statue as a despicably insubordinate insult to the world!

Also, rape. And the Crusades.

http://tinyurl.com/ow46vot

Posted by: Rolling Stone at February 11, 2015 06:48 PM (TIIx5)

330 269 "SpaceX webcast ending, but NASA TV is still going."

Spacex could stand to juice up their work a bit when it comes to keeping their many fans well informed.

Posted by: Ray Van Dune at February 11, 2015 06:54 PM (JDVdR)

331 The Sun Ain't Gonna Shine Anymore.

Posted by: Scott Walker at February 11, 2015 07:00 PM (jfUIE)

332 Face it folks, the media would go around and ask all "R" candidates do they like sprinkles or not and then spin that into an outrage.

Barack Obama was asked, what, when he thought human life begins (which is clearly a scientific fact, not a theory as is evolution and the big bang btw) (and I think that's what he was asked, not when a fetus becomes a person or some other more gray area type question) and he said "that's above my paygrade".

I guess that's ok because - Democrat. And negro, but mostly democrat.

Posted by: jocon307 at February 11, 2015 07:01 PM (8/8m5)

333 "first there was nothing, then it exploded" has nothing to do with evolution. The universe apparently got along just fine for billions of years without life of any kind, until of course it "just happened" and went on "just happening" until it started creating Saturn 5's and Mona Lisas...

Posted by: richard mcenroe at February 11, 2015 07:05 PM (XO6WW)

334 257, 265 - and it's just a few steps from there before you get them making awkward apologetics for Hitler. Fun!

Posted by: Doctor Cynic at February 11, 2015 07:06 PM (rzggC)

335 Posted by: McAdams at February 11, 2015 06:25 PM (p1jSk)

But how do we know?

It's said the greatest feat of the Devil has been making people believe he doesn't exist.

I believe there's a heresy that involves the idea that Satan has become God and we're all dancing to the tune of the Master Of Lies.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That at February 11, 2015 07:08 PM (RZzX3)

336 Liberals were put here as the flies were. To prevent mankind from becoming complacent.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That at February 11, 2015 07:10 PM (RZzX3)

337 That theory could have easily been proved or disproved by now. I'm not a physicist, but I've always known the speed of light to be constant. you could easily create a vacuum and test something like that.

But not in interstellar space. Maybe light move faster where gravity is greater, or the "ether" is thicker, or whatever.

Posted by: toby928(C) at February 11, 2015 07:10 PM (rwI+c)

338 you could easily create a vacuum and test something like that.

actually, no. the vacuum of interstellar space would be impossible to duplicate on Earth. We could come close at one of the LaGrange points or further out but even then until we actually reach interstellar space, we don't what or what isn't there.

Perhaps the stars gravity field condenses light but between stars where there is less gravity the light is more spread apart and travels slower.

Who the fcuk knows? It's all guesses and suppositions until someone goes to look. Or maybe a probe but even that may not work.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That at February 11, 2015 07:16 PM (RZzX3)

339 Well, the Media has to report on something, and they sure as heck are not going to go after moslems or after Obama.

Posted by: Null at February 11, 2015 07:24 PM (xjpRj)

340 The mock the most the one they fear the most. (Political fear I mean. Actual fear they WILL NOT say shit to)

Posted by: Brian Williams at February 11, 2015 07:29 PM (hTeQK)

341 Do you believe that pathogenic bacteria become resistant to antibiotics?

If yes, then you believe in evolution.

It's that simple.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at February 11, 2015 07:36 PM (oKE6c)

342 #338 If the speed of light (in a vacuum) weren't constant, we'd see discrepancies everywhere we looked, from orbital mechanics to supernovas. We'd have known about it for hundreds of years - just as we knew that there was something weird going on with the orbit of Mercury, even though we didn't know why until Einstein formulated Special Relativity.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at February 11, 2015 07:38 PM (2yngH)

343 #341 Yep. It really is that simple.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at February 11, 2015 07:38 PM (2yngH)

344 Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at February 11, 2015 05:51 PM (IN7k+)

Personally, I like how atheistic scientists ignore that it was a Cahtolic priest who came up with the Big Bang theory in the first place. And how they ignore the many, many Catholic clergymen- scientists - from Roger Bacon through Gregor Mendel to Stanley Jaki in the present day (google list of Catholic clergymen/scientists) to focus on Galileo, as if Galileo was the beginning and end of science and religion.

(Of course, they also ignore the nonCatholic Christian scientists who were very devout, like Isaac Newton.)

Doesn't fit The Narrative. And doesn't allow them to feel superior.

Posted by: Donna &&&&&& V. (brandishing ampersands) at February 11, 2015 07:43 PM (+XMAD)

345 Walker is brilliant, if anyone says otherwise, they are following some tired old liberal bullshit rubberstamp. He fixed the democrat-ruined economy and has a surplus. He passed concealed carry, he's a HERO

Posted by: John Doe at February 11, 2015 07:46 PM (/MYoX)

346 Do you believe that pathogenic bacteria become resistant to antibiotics?

If yes, then you believe in evolution.

Calling bacterial antibiotic resistance "evolution" is trying to pass off assumptions as observation.

Another word that describes that process just fine is "adaptation".

When humans get sick with a disease and then become immune to it, is that evolution? If you get a tan, is that evolution - or adaptation?

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at February 11, 2015 07:46 PM (0NdlF)

347 I think $900.00 is a hell of a bargain for that armor.

Posted by: Mr. Dave at February 11, 2015 07:52 PM (jL4C+)

348 #346 "Calling bacterial antibiotic resistance "evolution" is trying to pass off assumptions as observation. "

No. It's evolution.

"Another word that describes that process just fine is "adaptation". "

That's evolution.

"When humans get sick with a disease and then become immune to it, is that evolution? "

No, because immune response is not heritable.

"If you get a tan, is that evolution - or adaptation?"

Neither.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at February 11, 2015 07:56 PM (2yngH)

349 #344 "Personally, I like how atheistic scientists ignore that it was a Cahtolic priest who came up with the Big Bang theory in the first place. "

They don't "ignore" it; it's irrelevant. What Lemaitre personally believed doesn't matter; it's the theory he proposed and the evidence that supports it that counts.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at February 11, 2015 08:00 PM (2yngH)

350 "I believe in evolution and frankly think other answers are silly..."

Welp, that settles it. I'm no longer voting for Ace for president.

Posted by: Kevin at February 11, 2015 08:02 PM (Qhc3Z)

351 What do you even mean by "believe in evolution"? It's not a question about a hypothesis, in fact, it's not even a question about what one actually believes. "Evolution" is a meaningless weasel word like "climate change", chosen to make disbelief in a certain proposition seem like crackpots. OF COURSE things have evolved from the-things-that-were to the-things-that-are. Everyone believes in "evolution". NOT everyone believes in the proposition that ALL species acquired their current form ONLY through a Darwinian process of natural selection for favorable traits.

A weaker version of the proposition, that more people might accept, is that SOME features of current species were acquired in a Darwinian competition over time. But that's probably not enough for someone who asks you if you "believe in evolution". In fact, people who ask such a question tend to hold to an even stronger version of the proposition: not only does Darwinism ALONE explain ALL the evolution of species, it ALSO explains abiogenesis, the Big Bang, and the very existence of laws of physics. An obviously ridiculous belief -- but you're the crazy one, because you're an "evolution denier", right?

Posted by: joeclark77 at February 11, 2015 08:09 PM (KZ4+5)

352 "They don't "ignore" it; it's irrelevant. What Lemaitre personally believed doesn't matter; it's the theory he proposed and the evidence that supports it that counts."

Hardly irrelevant! The Big Bang would never have been proposed by an atheist, because of the obvious problems it creates for atheism if you acknowledge that the universe had a specific beginning. Atheists at the time responded with a combination of ridicule and despair. It amazes me when the New Atheists of today cite the Big Bang as if it were proof of atheism. They are just dumb.

Posted by: joeclark77 at February 11, 2015 08:11 PM (KZ4+5)

353 "Another word that describes that process just fine is "adaptation".

That's evolution.

Evolution as defined must be a subset of adaptation. Calling all adaptations evolution is a category error.

No, because immune response is not heritable.

Here, you have implicitly defined evolution as heritable adaptations.

So it's fine to call the antibiotic resistance "adaptation". Now the question is, what makes it evolution, versus "mere" adaptation?

Is heritability all there is to it?

"If you get a tan, is that evolution - or adaptation?"

Neither.

Wrong. Tanning is a human body's adaptation to a sunny environment/lifestyle, reducing the damage of prolonged sun exposure.

Apparently not enough for various medical publications, which suggest avoiding tanning altogether - but the reliable reaction of skin to sunlight still qualifies as an adaptation.

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at February 11, 2015 08:16 PM (0NdlF)

354 #353 Now you're just being dishonest. If you change the definition of words from one sentence to the next, sure, you can make any argument you like. But it doesn't make the argument correct. It makes it meaningless.

"Here, you have implicitly defined evolution as heritable adaptations.

So it's fine to call the antibiotic resistance "adaptation". Now the question is, what makes it evolution, versus "mere" adaptation? "

It's heritable. You said it yourself.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at February 11, 2015 08:19 PM (2yngH)

355 #352 "Hardly irrelevant!"

Entirely irrelevant.

"The Big Bang would never have been proposed by an atheist, because of the obvious problems it creates for atheism if you acknowledge that the universe had a specific beginning."

That's not a problem.

"Atheists at the time responded with a combination of ridicule and despair."

Some individuals responded with ridicule, yes. They were wrong twice over; wrong for the reason for their ridicule, and wrong in fact.

As I said, Lemaitre's personal beliefs were irrelevant. No matter who proposed the Big Bang theory, it was either supported by the evidence, or it was not.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at February 11, 2015 08:21 PM (2yngH)

356 Check me if I am wrong Sandy, but bacteria do not sexually reproduce. They divide. The survivors clone themselves in effect. Not evolution. At all. I do t even think you believe this. You are just trolling.

Posted by: simplemind at February 11, 2015 08:30 PM (hTeQK)

357 Now you're just being dishonest. If you change the definition of words from one sentence to the next, sure, you can make any argument you like. But it doesn't make the argument correct. It makes it meaningless.

Which word have I redefined dishonestly?

Evolution? Ha, the term is vague and dilute. This clarification is necessary to debunk the dishonest, "you believe in evolution"

It's heritable. You said it yourself.

Is there a word "devolution"? How does it differ from "evolution"? If evolution only meant "heritable change", it wouldn't be the hot button topic it is.

Because once we establish the difference here, we can then take note that some forms of antibiotic resistance comes with a survival cost; it involves degraded genetic mechanisms that normally process antibiotics with a lethal outcome.

Calling that evolution involves sneaking in some conclusions that the observation doesn't support.

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at February 11, 2015 08:31 PM (0NdlF)

358 #351 A weaker version of the proposition, that more people might accept, is that SOME features of current species were acquired in a Darwinian competition over time. But that's probably not enough for someone who asks you if you "believe in evolution". In fact, people who ask such a question tend to hold to an even stronger version of the proposition: not only does Darwinism ALONE explain ALL the evolution of species, it ALSO explains abiogenesis, the Big Bang, and the very existence of laws of physics. An obviously ridiculous belief -- but you're the crazy one, because you're an "evolution denier", right?

It's true that a lot of people on the left who "believe" in evolution have no understanding of the theory, just as with most of the people who reject it. They certainly have little understanding of the philosophy of science, or they wouldn't be phrasing the question that way.

Evolution is a theory and a fact. The fact is what we observe in all species; the theory explains our observations. It is one of the most successful of all scientific theories, up there with Relativity and Quantum Electrodynamics.

Or to choose another example, the Germ Theory of Disease. This is hardly controversial, but a lot of people implicitly or explicitly reject it. These people are idiots.

Some people claim that Relativity is false, yet they rely on GPS to find their way, and GPS is impossible without Relativity.

People who reject the Theory of Evolution are in the same boat.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at February 11, 2015 08:33 PM (2yngH)

359 Is there a word "devolution"? How does it differ from "evolution"? If evolution only meant "heritable change", it wouldn't be the hot button topic it is.

Evolution has no direction. It's natural selection action on genetic variations.

Because once we establish the difference here, we can then take note that some forms of antibiotic resistance comes with a survival cost; it involves degraded genetic mechanisms that normally process antibiotics with a lethal outcome.
It can do. So? It happens; it's real; it's evolution.

Calling that evolution involves sneaking in some conclusions that the observation doesn't support.
Baloney. It's natural selection acting on genetic variations.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at February 11, 2015 08:36 PM (2yngH)

360 Ugh, messed up the formatting in a comment thingy I wrote. Sorry.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at February 11, 2015 08:37 PM (2yngH)

361 Corrected version of my 359:

Is there a word "devolution"? How does it differ from "evolution"? If evolution only meant "heritable change", it wouldn't be the hot button topic it is.

Evolution has no direction. It's natural selection action on genetic variations.

Because once we establish the difference here, we can then take note that some forms of antibiotic resistance comes with a survival cost; it involves degraded genetic mechanisms that normally process antibiotics with a lethal outcome.
It can do. So? It happens; it's real; it's evolution.

Calling that evolution involves sneaking in some conclusions that the observation doesn't support.
Baloney. It's natural selection acting on genetic variations.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at February 11, 2015 08:38 PM (2yngH)

362 And just on that, evolution is not a hot-button topic among scientists. There's no controversy about the fact of evolution at all. There's arguments about relative importance of different environmental factors in speciation events, but there's no question at all that speciation happens, because we've seen it.

Saying that evolution is a "hot-button topic" is like saying that the gender of Nikita Krushchev is a hot-button topic among a kindergarten class where one of the girls is named Nikita.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at February 11, 2015 08:43 PM (2yngH)

363 Adaptation refers to a process in an individual; evolution refers to a process across a population, wherein the most fit for the extant environment are most likely to survive and reproduce.

"Check me if I am wrong Sandy, but bacteria do not sexually reproduce."

Incorrect. Bacteria reproduce by mitosis, but also exchange genetic information between individuals via conjugation. There is no romance, no candlelight, no moonlit walks on the beach, but operationally that close enough to sexual reproduction.

In any case, it's irrelevant to the discussion of evolution.

"Because once we establish the difference here, we can then take note
that some forms of antibiotic resistance comes with a survival cost; it
involves degraded genetic mechanisms that normally process antibiotics
with a lethal outcome.
"

Huh? This makes no sense. We're resistant to measles. We catch the disease, and it's a bummer, but few die. Other peoples - e.g., the American Indians and the Hawaiians - died like flies on exposure to measles. What was our survival cost?

Posted by: Jay Guevara at February 11, 2015 08:44 PM (oKE6c)

364 "Evolution is a theory and a fact. The fact is what we observe in all species; the theory explains our observations. It is one of the most successful of all scientific theories, up there with Relativity and Quantum Electrodynamics. "

Evolution is a weasel word, like climate change. State the actual proposition that you want us to assent to.

Posted by: joeclark77 at February 11, 2015 08:50 PM (KZ4+5)

365 Huh? This makes no sense. We're resistant to measles. We catch the disease, and it's a bummer, but few die.

Minor correction there; the death toll for measles is still over 100,000 a year worldwide - WHO gives the number for 2013 as 145,700 - and as recently as 1980 the number was over two million. It was a major killer within my lifetime.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at February 11, 2015 08:51 PM (2yngH)

366 Evolution has no direction. It's natural selection action on genetic variations.

That didn't answer the question. Is devolution not a word then? Even though it's in the dictionary, and the meaning is linked to a direction?

You called me dishonest, but are unable to articulate why.

What you're doing right here with the word evolution is demonstrably more dishonest than anything I've done in this thread, which is to clarify which terms are actually agreed upon.

I'll agree that antibiotic resistance is an adaptation. I disagree that I believe it's evolution, or that I believe in evolution - do you wish to insist that you know my beliefs better than I do?

It can do. So? It happens; it's real; it's evolution.

If the adaptation is better categorized as a degradation than an improvement, then it could be called devolution. It's objectively adaptation; calling it evolution is subjective.

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at February 11, 2015 08:53 PM (0NdlF)

367 Ace:

Caption King.

Posted by: Mongerel at February 11, 2015 08:57 PM (YqWfw)

368 "As I said, Lemaitre's personal beliefs were irrelevant. No matter who proposed the Big Bang theory, it was either supported by the evidence, or it was not."

------

Axioms also matter. Atheism is incompatible with acceptance of the Big Bang theory, evidence be damned. That's why most atheists today believe in a "multiverse" or some other nonsense which has nothing to do with ANY kind of evidence... because their metaphysics demands it. They cannot believe that the universe is arbitrary and contingent.

Posted by: joeclark77 at February 11, 2015 08:57 PM (KZ4+5)

369 Huh? This makes no sense. We're resistant to measles. We catch the disease, and it's a bummer, but few die. Other peoples - e.g., the American Indians and the Hawaiians - died like flies on exposure to measles. What was our survival cost?

If antibiotic resistance is linked to a degradation of cellular systems, then calling it "evolution" is questionable.

It'd be like calling genetic blindness "evolution", even though it represents a clear reduction in an organism's capability. It may be more "fit" for a particular environment, but it's not an improvement.

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at February 11, 2015 08:57 PM (0NdlF)

370 Pixy is simply defining everything that actually happens as "evolution" and citing the fact that it actually happens as "proof of evolution" so that he can make the case that only crazy people would deny "evolution".

Just. Like. "Climate change".

Posted by: joeclark77 at February 11, 2015 09:00 PM (KZ4+5)

371 Evolution is a weasel word, like climate change.
Nope.

State the actual proposition that you want us to assent to.
I don't want you to "assent" to anything.

If you like, I can give you a brief statement of the Theory of Evolution and a discussion of the evidence supporting it (which is absolutely overwhelming).

But that is absolutely uncontroversial; you can get it from Wikipedia in a few seconds.

If you have a specific question, I can try to answer it - though keep in mind that I'm a programmer, not a biologist. (If you want to talk about Behe's idiotic nonsense about "specified complexity", though, then I'm your guy.)

If you have a specific objection, I can try to address that too.

But you need to understand this: Evolution is a fact. It happened; it is how all life on Earth came to be the way it is. It is still happening. We can see it in nature; we can reproduce it in the lab.

The Theory of Evolution - the change in genetics in populations of animals (known as allele frequency) by the effects of natural selection on genetic variation - is absolutely uncontroversial and accepted by every competent biologist on the planet.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at February 11, 2015 09:01 PM (2yngH)

372 That didn't answer the question.
It's a stupid question.

I'll agree that antibiotic resistance is an adaptation. I disagree that I believe it's evolution
Antibiotic resistance is evolution. There is no other possible mechanism.

As with Lemaitre, I don't care what you believe. It's irrelevant. I care about what hypotheses you propose and whether the evidence supports them.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at February 11, 2015 09:03 PM (2yngH)

373 We can see it in nature; we can reproduce it in the lab.

Hahaha, no.

Get back to me when scientists reverse engineer the supposed constant line of genetic improvements going from single-celled organisms to human beings, and demonstrate that it can be accomplished within the lifetime of the universe by random mutation.

It's easier to do use a bunch of EMPs to randomly flip bits and re-create DOS to Win 3.1 to Win 95 to Win XP to Win7 to Win8, then to do that for life.

You're a programmer - you know how improbable the latter scenario is. But do tell me how factual the former is.

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at February 11, 2015 09:05 PM (0NdlF)

374 If the adaptation is better categorized as a degradation than an improvement, then it could be called devolution. It's objectively adaptation; calling it evolution is subjective.
I'll point it out again: Evolution has no direction. If natural selection acts on genetic variation among individuals, resulting in a change in allele frequency among a population, that is evolution.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at February 11, 2015 09:06 PM (2yngH)

375 It's a stupid question.

And that's how I know YOU are dishonest, which makes your accusation of dishonesty seem like projection.

You knew where the conversation was going, and rely on insult and obfuscation to hold to your precious evolutionary dogma.

By the way, "devolution" is still a word. And it means something, just like "evolution" does.

As with Lemaitre, I don't care what you believe.

Then quit telling me that I believe in evolution when I do not. That you insist on slapping the label "evolution" on a biological concept I understand does not make mine a belief in evolution.

You might as well slap the label "cat" on a dog. That's cute and all, but that doesn't make it a cat.

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at February 11, 2015 09:11 PM (0NdlF)

376 Axioms also matter.
True in itself. False axioms couple with flawless logic lead to nonsense.

Atheism is incompatible with acceptance of the Big Bang theory
No. Seriously, no. Where do you see the incompatibility?

The evidence strongly indicates that the observable Universe started to exist at some point. That's it. That's all.

We can't speak to anything beyond the observable Universe because by definition we can't observe it. It might be infinite. Our Universe might be an island in an endless sea of space. It might be the result of a quantum fluctuation in a field of unknown properties. It might be something we don't yet have the mathematics to describe.

It is literally impossible to know for sure, because our observations and experiments are inherently limited to precisely the thing whose origins we are trying to explain.

But none of that is in any way incompatible with atheism.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at February 11, 2015 09:13 PM (2yngH)

377 I'll point it out again: Evolution has no direction.

The Theory of Evolution, a theory of the history of life on earth, which posits that human beings are the descendants of far simpler creatures, would like to disagree with your definition here.

As does the dictionary.
"any process of formation or growth; development".

If evolution only meant variation and change, there would be no meaning to the Theory of Evolution. It'd be as meaningful a word as "Climate Change".

Gee, lifeforms aren't static. Animal husbandry has been practiced for how long before Darwin?

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at February 11, 2015 09:17 PM (0NdlF)

378 Until the modern news media was invented the smugness trait nearly went extinct. In ancient times I'd be some baron's eunuch.

Posted by: Brian Williams at February 11, 2015 09:22 PM (j1Wvr)

379 Then quit telling me that I believe in evolution when I do not.

Ah, I see, you're going back to Jay Guevara's post #341.

Here's the thing:

As evolution is actually defined, antibiotic resistance is unequivocally evolution.

If you disagree, then either you don't know what evolution is, or you don't know how antibiotic resistance works.

Populations of bacteria acquire antibiotic resistance by evolutionary processes. End of story. There's nothing to argue about there.

Attempting to introduce the word "devolution" does nothing. It doesn't mean anything in evolutionary theory, because, as I keep pointing out, evolution has no direction.

It doesn't matter if you thin that a particular change has gone "backwards" in some way. It's the mechanism and effects of the change that matters, and there's no question at all about that.

You have some bacteria. A sufficient does of penicillin will kill all of them. 0.1% have a genetic variation that makes them a little less susceptible, so that while a full course of penicillin will still kill them, they'll survive a partial dose while the rest die out. This variation isn't more common because it has a metabolic cost - but not enough of one for it to completely die out, either.

Patients don't take the full course of antibiotics; we know that they stop once they start feeling better. That means that they just selectively killed off the non-resistant bacteria, leaving a small number of resistant bacteria around. The immune system deals with most of those, but not all of them.

What you've done here is created an environment where the metabolic advantage of not being penicillin-resistant is now hugely outweighed by the advantage of being resistant. And thus resistance becomes more common over the whole population, until penicillin and related drugs stop working and you have an outbreak of MRSA.

That's evolution. No two ways about it, that's evolution.

And the thing is, exactly the same process - exactly the same underlying mechanism - are what gave rise to every living species in the world today. It just took a little longer.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at February 11, 2015 09:38 PM (2yngH)

380 Ugh, messed up the formatting in a comment thingy I wrote. Sorry.

The irony is palpable.

#twoweeks

Posted by: toby928(C) at February 11, 2015 09:44 PM (rwI+c)

381 And the thing is, exactly the same process - exactly the same underlying mechanism - are what gave rise to every living species in the world today. It just took a little longer.

"Evolution is just directionless change".

"Oh, and it creates all the diverse complex systems of life we observe today". From nothing, of course. (note: not talking about abiogenesis here)

You can't even make up your own mind on what the word means, but insist that your confused definition is the one true meaning.

Why do you think I reject your "it's just change!" definition? Because the latter use is the true meaning of the word and you both recognize and use it that way too.

Go argue with yourself until you agree on what "evolution" means, and then get back to me on which definition it really is.

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at February 11, 2015 09:47 PM (0NdlF)

382 The Theory of Evolution, a theory of the history of life on earth, which posits that human beings are the descendants of far simpler creatures, would like to disagree with your definition here.
Not at all.

That's just what's known in statistics as a Bounded Random Walk.

Life started out simply. As simple as it is possible to be and still arguably be called alive.

Random genetic variation and natural selection acts upon this.

The complexity can't go down from the starting point, because anything going down in complexity is no longer alive.

But of course it can go up. So, purely from random variation and natural selection, over time you will expect to find more complex species evolving, up to certain natural bounds (metabolism, physical strength, food supply).

And remember, while humans and tigers and blue whales all evolved from a single-celled creature that lived a billion years ago, so did all the single-celled creatures that live today. And there's a lot more of them than there are of us. By cell count, you are 90% bacteria.

As does the dictionary.
"any process of formation or growth; development".
And this is why I am saying your argument is dishonest. You don't get to choose your definition of the word "evolution" when you are discussing the Theory of Evolution.

You discuss the Theory itself.

If evolution only meant variation and change, there would be no meaning to the Theory of Evolution.
As I just said, you don't get to choose your own definition of "evolution" when discussing the Theory of Evolution.

The theory says that the reason that allele frequencies change in populations of living organisms over time is the action of natural selection on the genetic variations among individuals.

And this is correct. It explains antibiotic resistance in bacteria, it explains nylonase, it explains tiktaalik and mesohippus and proconsul and Lucy. (The australopithecus fossil, not the film. I have no explanation for that.)

Posted by: Pixy Misa at February 11, 2015 09:55 PM (2yngH)

383 Pixy, you're a programmer.

You understand that if I remove a bug by disabling software functionality, that is a different sort of improvement than actually fixing the bug. Similar result, but different type of change, and different end state when done repeatedly.

If I solve bugs by disabling all related software functionality, I'll end up with a crippled program, whereas actually fixing the bugs will result in fully functional software.

By insisting that there can be no distinctions between the two types of change, you are willfully blinding yourself. You can do that all you want, but I want no part of it, nor can I be shamed into doing so.

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at February 11, 2015 09:58 PM (0NdlF)

384 "Oh, and it creates all the diverse complex systems of life we observe today". From nothing, of course. (note: not talking about abiogenesis here)
See my above note on the properties of a Bounded Random Walk.

You can't even make up your own mind on what the word means, but insist that your confused definition is the one true meaning.
Again, this is why I say your argument is dishonest. You can look up any number of references on the Theory of Evolution in a matter of seconds, with a million links to examples and explanations and supporting evidence. You can ask specific questions about how things work; you can raise specific counterarguments.

But all you are doing is fiddling with the definition of words.

Why do you think I reject your "it's just change!" definition?
Again, this is dishonest. I didn't say that, I didn't change my definition, and you still haven't bothered to address what the Theory of Evolution actually says.

Go argue with yourself until you agree on what "evolution" means, and then get back to me on which definition it really is.
I have explained to you what evolution is. You have almost unlimited reference material at your fingertips.

You can address the point, or you can evade it and make a fool of yourself.

Your call.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at February 11, 2015 10:01 PM (2yngH)

385 The complexity can't go down from the starting point, because anything going down in complexity is no longer alive.

It can. Total extinction is an option. All the rest of your argument breaks on this first wrong assumption.

And this is why I am saying your argument is dishonest. You don't get to choose your definition of the word "evolution" when you are discussing the Theory of Evolution.

When you yourself use "evolution" as "change" AND "improvement", you have no business calling me dishonest. I am providing you a concrete definition that you are rejecting in favor of ambiguity so that you can switch terms whenever you want, depending on which definition makes your flawed theory sound more plausible.

As I just said, you don't get to choose your own definition of "evolution" when discussing the Theory of Evolution.

After you freely swapped between the two definitions in your own previous post, you've lost this argument.

That we don't agree on terms on this subject is because YOU changed the meaning of the word halfway through your own argument.

I'm using the term consistently; you are not. That hints at which definition is superior.

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at February 11, 2015 10:07 PM (0NdlF)

386 You understand that if I remove a bug by disabling software functionality, that is a different sort of improvement than actually fixing the bug. Similar result, but different type of change, and different end state when done repeatedly.
Yes.

If I solve bugs by disabling all related software functionality, I'll end up with a crippled program, whereas actually fixing the bugs will result in fully functional software.
Yes.

(I call this F1/F10 debugging, after an early IDE where F1 would compile until it hit an error, and F10 would delete the line of code. Keep doing that, and you always got a program that would compile.)

By insisting that there can be no distinctions between the two types of change, you are willfully blinding yourself. You can do that all you want, but I want no part of it, nor can I be shamed into doing so.
Here's the thing: When it comes to the Theory of Evolution, you are making objections that have no relevance to the theory or to anything in the real world.

There are genetic differences between individuals, owing to rearrangement of genes during sexual reproduction, and direct mutation. (On the average, each human alive has about three brand new mutations.)

Some of the resulting organisms are more likely to survive to reproduce than others.

If you die without reproducing, your unique genetic variations are lost to the gene pool.

That's the whole mechanism. That's it. There is nothing else. There is no how or why. Natural selection acting on individual genetic variability.

If you are born a mutant with key genes deleted so that you can't survive to reproduce (your debugging example)... Then you don't survive to reproduce.

That's evolution, and that's antibiotic resistance. The latter is one example of the former.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at February 11, 2015 10:09 PM (2yngH)

387 Again, this is dishonest. I didn't say that, I didn't change my definition, and you still haven't bothered to address what the Theory of Evolution actually says.

You are trying to define evolution as directionless change, as opposed to directional change.

But then you want to treat it as an explanation for how we got from simple to complex lifeforms.

That has an undeniably directional change over time, which you want to lump as directionless change. It isn't.

Maybe we need to come up with a new word "evolution-evolution" to describe directional change over time, as opposed to plain "evolution", which is directionless change. But that just highlights the absurdity you don't want to see.

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at February 11, 2015 10:14 PM (0NdlF)

388 It can. Total extinction is an option. All the rest of your argument breaks on this first wrong assumption.
Yes, extinction is always an option. Most species are extinct. But that isn't an argument, you're just repeating what I already said: anything going down in complexity is no longer alive.

Also, we know that not all life has gone extinct, so it's irrelevant.

When you yourself use "evolution" as "change" AND "improvement", you have no business calling me dishonest. I am providing you a concrete definition that you are rejecting in favor of ambiguity so that you can switch terms whenever you want, depending on which definition makes your flawed theory sound more plausible.
Once again, you're being dishonest. I've told you what evolution is, and you refuse to go anywhere near it.

After you freely swapped between the two definitions in your own previous post, you've lost this argument.
Since I didn't do that, are you asserting that I've "won"?

That we don't agree on terms on this subject is because YOU changed the meaning of the word halfway through your own argument.
Once again, there is a Theory of Evolution. I didn't define it. (I didn't change my definition either, but that's less important.) You have a million pages of reference material at your command, suited to every level of expertise.

You can discuss the Theory of Evolution, or you can waffle and prevaricate. But if you choose the latter, then you can't claim to have done the former.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at February 11, 2015 10:16 PM (2yngH)

389 You are trying to define evolution as directionless change, as opposed to directional change.
Evolution has no direction.

But then you want to treat it as an explanation for how we got from simple to complex lifeforms.
And I've explained not only how this could happen, but why it is impossible for it not to happen.

That has an undeniably directional change over time, which you want to lump as directionless change. It isn't.

And I've explained why you are categorically wrong on this. Modern humans evolved from single-celled creatures that lived a billion years ago. And modern single-celled creatures evolved from single-celled creatures that lived a billion years ago.

Because evolution has no direction.

Maybe we need to come up with a new word "evolution-evolution" to describe directional change over time, as opposed to plain "evolution", which is directionless change.
Or you could stop playing word games and discuss the Theory of Evolution.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at February 11, 2015 10:20 PM (2yngH)

390 Yes, extinction is always an option. Most species are extinct. But that isn't an argument, you're just repeating what I already said: anything going down in complexity is no longer alive.

You're using a system that always survives to model life, when real life can actually go completely extinct. Game over, please start over from scratch.

The reality-contradicting nature of this assumption undermines your argument on how life can always do a random bounded walk to more complexity. Bad model leads to garbage out.

Also, we know that not all life has gone extinct, so it's irrelevant.

This is an issue with the assumptions in your model for explaining how we get here. Life existing does not make your theory of life's evolution correct.

Since I didn't do that, are you asserting that I've "won"?

Go ahead and claim victory all you want. Third parties may disagree, though.

You have a million pages of reference material at your command, suited to every level of expertise.

When in doubt, appeal to consensus, authority, and "you don't know anything". Frame this as Science against ignorance, when it's something else entirely.

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at February 11, 2015 10:28 PM (0NdlF)

391 "But then you want to treat it as an explanation for how we got from simple to complex lifeforms."

And I've explained not only how this could happen, but why it is impossible for it not to happen.

So evolution will inevitably go from simple to complex. But "Evolution has no direction."

Make up your mind, please.

Or you could stop playing word games

The only one keeping this word game going is yourself.

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at February 11, 2015 10:32 PM (0NdlF)

392 "The Theory of Evolution - the change in genetics in populations of animals (known as allele frequency) by the effects of natural selection on genetic variation"

In other words, animals/plants (some? all?) have a different mix of genes now than different animals/plants did in the past because (what? some reproduced and some did not survive?) "caused" them to have a different mix of genes.

Literally no one in the world disagrees with this. You're just stating that heredity happens and/or that living things die. Since no one disagrees, and no one doesn't know this, again, you're doing two things: (1) avoiding the burden of having to state what you actually disagree with us about, and (2) trying to create the impression that we who disagree with you are crackpots not worthy of being debated.

It's "climate change" and we're "deniers".

Posted by: joeclark77 at February 11, 2015 11:09 PM (KZ4+5)

393 You know, there's a reason it's called the Theory of Evolution, and not the Law of Evolution.

Because 150 years after it was posited, it still hasn't technically been proven.

Those who "believe" in it, therefore, do so as a matter of faith.

Hell, I once argued that point with a friend, who informed me that he'd seen those peppered moths in person, and he just knew they proved evolution, and he was "in awe" at the sight.

You know... awe is a distinctly religious sentiment. Just saying.

Posted by: Prothonotary Warbler at February 12, 2015 12:52 AM (5pg79)

394 Mind you, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with believing in evolution as a matter of faith; I'm just saying that it's, you know, still a matter of faith.

Posted by: Prothonotary Warbler at February 12, 2015 12:54 AM (5pg79)

395 The thing is that "evolution" is one of those English words with a variety of meanings. For a lot of people I think that "evolution" is short-hand for "the universe does not contain God."

I think that this can be laid quite firmly at the feet of Sagan, Asimov (probably) and a couple of others... lately maybe Tyson, too. Prominent scientists (not biologists, curiously... maybe all of our Rock Stars are Physicists) who really were/are crusading on a "We don't *need* God to explain life and we don't *need* God for spiritual life either, because science is just that gosh darn amazing."

"Evolution" often means "origins" which often means "proof there is no God."

But trying to have a discussion seldom works. One person will say it's biological fact... life changes over time... and then all of a sudden you're stuck arguing against biology when what you thought you were arguing against was origins and it's just a big mess.

Posted by: Synova at February 12, 2015 01:11 AM (Ek0Xs)

396 How much awe do people feel about, say, the Law of Gravity? "I dropped that rock from my hand, and it fell to the ground. Man. I was in awe at the sight. Awe."

Posted by: Prothonotary Warbler at February 12, 2015 01:12 AM (5pg79)

397 I'm in awe of gravity. Can you even imagine if it didn't exist?

But I'm... odd. I actually think things like... wow... the softest things have the hardest bonds (covalent), the hardest things just sort of rub elbows because they have charges and like to hang out (ionic bonds), and the hugest things just fall together because they can, (gravity), and nothing actually holds them together at all. How weird is that?

Posted by: Synova at February 12, 2015 01:21 AM (Ek0Xs)

398 #397: I have to admit, I really like not doing that whole drifting through outer space thing, because science tells me that outer space is a shitty place to be.

"Oh, you like breathing, do you? Well, you can't do that out here."

Posted by: Prothonotary Warbler at February 12, 2015 01:26 AM (5pg79)

399 "29 Ace--The point is not to be convincing or even accurate. The point is to start to repeat the lie now so that by the time the election rolls around it will have become the truth."

A risky strategy for Guv'nr W. - Use the Alinsky playbook - Run Against the Press !

Posted by: Brian William's Panties at February 12, 2015 06:48 AM (aXCDY)

400 His answer should have been, "what does it matter now? We're here, right?"

Posted by: BikerDad at February 12, 2015 11:43 AM (tj7mE)

401 Evolution is a very interesting theory. Perhaps one of you secular humanists who believe in the scientific method explain how DNA came to exist? Can you cite a repeatable testable experiment that duplicates the natural conditions whereby DNA comes into being from an inorganic origin?

Posted by: Dave at February 12, 2015 01:33 PM (40GwO)

402 it is the leap from constrictor to venomous snake with toxicity levels capable of killing thirty rabbits that boggles my mind.

failure experience in hunting, but surviving? seeing a need for a new method of killing anyway? creativity in new method? planning? prognosticating a need for venom delivery? trial and error? etc etc

wow. really? is there an explanation for all of this?

is it one people can accept without thinking "we need more information"?

Posted by: i like anchors at February 12, 2015 09:40 PM (6E2VN)

403 How do you answer a question about a theory?

"Yes, I absolutely believe in that theory."

or

"No, I don't believe the Earth was created 7,000 years ago."

The theories are either the Earth was created 7 billion years ago or 7 days ago. Which is right?

To God, a day is as a billion years.

Posted by: Great Reagan's Ghost at February 12, 2015 10:49 PM (kfoLf)

404 Thanx, Ace! You just helped me remember why I so seldom visit this site anymore!

As Solomon so succinctly put it: "The fool hath said in his heart,'There is no God'."

Posted by: jdavid at February 13, 2015 02:22 PM (1M7hH)

405 God said, "Here, hold my beer and watch this!!"

Posted by: Heltau at February 14, 2015 09:18 PM (MXPs3)

Processing 0.06, elapsed 0.0623 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0248 seconds, 414 records returned.
Page size 235 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.