They Lie About Everything: Inherit the Wind, Evolution and the Scopes Monkey Trial [Warden]

Cultural Marxism relies heavily upon left-wing mythology. There's an entire series of heroic progressive narratives that have fixed themselves to our culture with the help of Hollywood, the media, and academia. All serve the same purpose--to prop up the intellectually and morally bankrupt ideology of progressivism while demonizing and discrediting oppositional individuals and institutions.

The seeding of our culture with these false narratives has been highly effective. It's accomplished by repetition, appeal to authority and manufactured consensus. Even the most cynical people believe some of these myths simply because they've never encountered a historically accurate account of the matter. People take most things at face value and the progressives understand this well.

One of the left's favorite and most effective myths is the Scopes Monkey Trial and its apparent triumph of reasoned, scientific thinking over the ignorant, backward foolery of Christian fundamentalism.

The story most Americans believe is the one portrayed in the movie, Inherit the Wind. Many of us were even shown this film, presented uncritically as a factual account of an American historical event, while in school and it remains the basic foundation for our culture's understanding of Darwinian Evolution.

What most people don't know is that both Inherit the Wind and the Scopes Trial itself were both calculating pieces of propaganda.

The Scopes trial was born out of the Butler Act, a Tennessee law that prohibited teaching "any theory that denies the Story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals." Breaking this law was a misdemeanor punishable by a fine from between $100 and $500 dollars.

Eventually John Scopes was brought to trial in Tennessee for breaking this law and teaching evolution to his students. Scopes, however, wasn't victim of persecution. He was recruited by the ACLU, to whom he admitted he couldn't remember if he'd taught evolution or not, for the very task of challenging the law.

Contrary to popular belief, Scopes wasn't a biology teacher. He taught algebra, chemistry and physics. His supposed role in teaching evolution only came during a two week stint as a substitute teacher.

The prosecuting attorney, William Jennings Bryan, was interested only in proving that John Scopes broke the law, but the leading defense attorney and militant atheist, Clarence Darrow, had been trying to lure Bryan into a public debate about Christianity for years and intended to use this forum to put Bryan's Christian beliefs on trial.

Darrow brought forth his own experts on evolution to testify, but the judge ruled that no expert testimony was necessary to answer the question of Scopes' guilt or innocence. Darrow was allowed to submit his expert testimonies as affidavits for appeal. This prevented Bryan from cross examining them. Bryan, perhaps frustrated by this event or possibly out of personal pride, then agreed to be cross examined by Darrow as an expert on the Bible.

Progressive mythology asserts that the scrappy underdog, Darrow, made a fool of the haughty, narrow-minded Bryan by cross examining him. A review of the actual transcript reveals nothing of the sort.

In fact, Darrow had played Bryan. In any cross examination, it is the examiner who has the advantage because it is he who controls the questioning. Bryan could only answer what was asked. He could not steer the debate. Darrow used his advantage to badger and mock Bryan repeatedly for his beliefs.

When Darrow was finished, he then escaped a return cross examination from Bryan by agreeing that Scopes was guilty. It had all been a ruse designed to embarrass Bryan and escape a similar examination of his own beliefs.

Decades later, Inherit the Wind takes advantage of fading memories to twist almost every salient fact about the trial.

In the movie, Henry Drummond is Cates's (Scopes's) sole attorney, portrayed as the underdog fighting the system-represented by the state, Brady (Bryan), and a bigoted judge. In real life, Clarence Darrow brought a team of lawyers to Dayton, including ACLU heavyweight, Arthur Garfield Hays.
In the movie, Brady is an ignorant bigot opposed to all science. He says: "The way of scientism is the way of darkness." In real life, Bryan was a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. What he really said about science during the trial was: "Give science a fact and it is not only invincible, but of incalculable service to man."
In the movie, Brady is completely unfamiliar with Darwin's works. In real life, Bryan quoted Darwin extensively, in both the courtroom and his own writings. In the movie, the prosecution objects when the defense tries to introduce Darwin's books as evidence. The bigoted judge agrees and excludes them. But in reality, not only were Darwin's books allowed as evidence, but Bryan himself introduced them.
In one of the movie's worst misrepresentations, the judge disallows any testimony from eminent scientists whom Drummond (Darrow) has brought to the trial. The judge declares that "zoology" (which he can barely pronounce) and other scientific topics are "irrelevant to the case."
In reality, after a zoologist testified at length, the prosecution correctly protested that testimony by Darrow's experts was irrelevant to the legal question (had Scopes violated the Butler Act?). Judge John T. Raulston agreed. However, Darrow argued that if the judge heard more scientific testimony, he would realize he was wrong. The court consented to hear more.

And, of course, Bryan's actual testimony is altered to reinforce the narrative that Darrow is brilliant thinker while Bryan is an ignorant, narrow-minded fool.

In the movie interrogation, Brady (Bryan) is a Biblical literalist:
Drummond: You believe that every word written in this book should be taken literally?
Brady: Everything in the Bible should be accepted, exactly as it is given there.
In real life, we discover Bryan's answer was lifted out of context:
Darrow: Do you claim that everything in the Bible should be literally interpreted?
Bryan: I believe everything in the Bible should be accepted as it is given there; some of the Bible is given illustratively. For instance, "Ye are the salt of the earth." I would not insist that man was actually salt, or that he had flesh of salt, but it is used in the sense of salt as saving God's people.10
In the movie, Drummond asks Brady how old the Earth is:
Brady: A fine Biblical scholar, Bishop Ussher, has determined for us the exact date and hour of the Creation. It occurred in the year 4004 B.C.
Drummond: Well, uh, that's Bishop Ussher's opinion.
Brady: It is not an opinion. It is a literal fact, which the good Bishop arrived at through careful computation of the ages of the prophets as set down in the Old Testament. In fact, he determined that the Lord began the Creation on the 23rd of October, 4004 B.C. at, uh, at 9:00 A.M.
Drummond: That Eastern Standard Time?
In real life, here's what was said:
Q: Mr. Bryan, could you tell me how old the earth is?
A: No, sir, I couldn't.
Q: Could you come anywhere near it?
A: I wouldn't attempt to. I could possibly come as near as the scientists do, but I had rather be more accurate before I give a guess.

Clarence Darrow was a sneering bully and a coward. His confidence in his ability to defend Darwinian evolution was so weak that he wasn't even willing to allow it to be tested.

Instead, he put his thumb on the scale and subjected William Jennings Bryan to a blistering cross examination that he dared not allow be inflicted upon himself. Yet even with this overwhelming advantage, Darrow needed Hollywood to lie about the facts of the case to create today's current mythology that he scored a humiliating victory over William Jennings Bryan and biblical beliefs.

This twisting of historic fact is not an isolated case. Progressive heroic mythology is a tool that's critical to the left's cultural domination. It's what they do. It's what they've always done.

They lie about everything. They have to because they can't win on the merits. It's a just one long con after another.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 04:38 PM

Comments

(Jump to bottom of comments)

1 I'll get the others

Posted by: The guy with the hair at December 02, 2016 04:39 PM (sUIwD)

2 I called them.

Posted by: The guy with the hair at December 02, 2016 04:41 PM (sUIwD)

3 Or I could be lieing

Posted by: The guy with the hair at December 02, 2016 04:41 PM (sUIwD)

4 What most people don't know is that both Inherit the Wind and the Scopes Trial itself were both calculating pieces of propaganda.

Most people think the Darwinists won. Any Christian who's seen it knows it was just a flat out attack on faith and Christianity.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at December 02, 2016 04:42 PM (39g3+)

5 th

Posted by: wth at December 02, 2016 04:42 PM (HgMAr)

6 I think I can see winning from here

Posted by: The guy with the hair at December 02, 2016 04:42 PM (sUIwD)

7 Darwinism was one of the left's greatest and earliest triumphs, and it follows the same pattern and system a global warming. The problem is by the modern internet era, it was too easy to find data that proved it was nonsense, and too many voices were opposed to it, so it never got as entrenched.

Today, Darwinism is treated as a shibboleth for the left: agree with this or you're a stupid mornon sister-marrying knuckledragging anti-science lunatic. And many, many who are not leftists buy into that exact thing.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at December 02, 2016 04:44 PM (39g3+)

8 I love Snopes. It's what I cite to counter every wingnut fact.

Posted by: Trigglyflake at December 02, 2016 04:45 PM (Tyii7)

9 I have a rule of thumb that has served me well. If a liberal quotes a statistic, it is a lie, either from the person who quoted it, or the source, possibly both.

Posted by: West at December 02, 2016 04:45 PM (1Rgee)

10 Interesting. I knew there was a lot of bullshit involved in this show trial, and the movie depiction of it, but didnt realize just how deeply it went.

Posted by: Insomniac at December 02, 2016 04:45 PM (0mRoj)

11 Evolution vs. Creationism? Yikes.

Maybe now would be a good time to interject a discussion of why the longbow is superior to the crossbow.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at December 02, 2016 04:46 PM (8ZskC)

12 Yes, I remember when a scholarly history of the trial, "Summer for the Gods" came out a few years ago. Enough people from our side of the aisle came out and "See? See? That's what we were talking about!" that when it went into paperback, the author (predictably lefty, need it be said) wrote a new forward that could have been subtitled "Don't shoot, I pinkie swear I'm not one of THEM". Hi-larious...

Posted by: SouthCentralPA at December 02, 2016 04:46 PM (Xs9BT)

13 I am proud to say that when they were studying ":Inherit the Wind" in school, my son informed me that the play was absolutely wrong (He likes to look up things about history and law cases) so that's one 16 year old they did brainwash

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at December 02, 2016 04:47 PM (tOcW/)

14 Having read a bit about the trial some years back, I think you could go one better and say the whole thing was a frame-up that got out of hand. Dayton was a booming, industrial "New South" town at this point; the civic leaders basically conspired with Scopes and local law enforcement to have him put on trial, to show that they weren't some backwards Southern hicktown but a forward-looking, modern place where the latest ideas were being discussed in schools and everything.

So they really thought the trial was going to result in a lot of good press for the town. They didn't reckon on the damage H. L. Mencken and all the other East Coast elites could do on these "flyover states" communities they despised. ("Flyover states" wasn't a term yet, but the idea behind it was very real even then.)

Posted by: T at December 02, 2016 04:47 PM (IKdzI)

15 Clarence Darrow is a silly little bitch.

Posted by: Moron Pundit at December 02, 2016 04:47 PM (xeeHA)

16 Evolution vs. Creationism? Yikes.

Maybe now would be a good time to interject a discussion of why the longbow is superior to the crossbow.

I'd rather discuss why Mary Ann is superior to Ginger.

Posted by: Blanco Basura at December 02, 2016 04:47 PM (4WhSY)

17 It is possible to think that the Earth is incredibly old, and that evolution and natural selection are real phenomena, and still be Christian.

My sincere belief, at any rate.

Posted by: tubal at December 02, 2016 04:48 PM (d6TTt)

18 Was Gene Kelly supposed to be H.L. Mencken?

Posted by: Bertram Cabot, Jr. at December 02, 2016 04:49 PM (IqV8l)

19 But of course, the best character in 'Inherit the Wind' is E.K. Hornbeck, based on masthead-author H.L. Mencken.

Posted by: broseidon king of the brocean at December 02, 2016 04:49 PM (kumBu)

20 >>Maybe now would be a good time to interject a discussion of why the longbow is superior to the crossbow.

I knew there were people out there who believed this, I just never thought I would meet one.

Posted by: JackStraw at December 02, 2016 04:49 PM (/tuJf)

21 Never did like that Butler Act.

Posted by: Benson at December 02, 2016 04:49 PM (PeNEi)

22 Chico Marx was great in that movie when they put him on the stand and he talked about elephants.

Posted by: Joe Biden at December 02, 2016 04:49 PM (8ZskC)

23 Posted by: West at December 02, 2016 04:45 PM (1Rgee)

Our resident LIV/lib comes out with the craziest "history" that mashes up queens and kings and characters from different centuries, to shoe horn into his preferred narrative, such as when he goes off on Christopher Columbus every October.

I actually know a little bit of history so when he talked about Anne Boleyn being Queen Isabella's daughter I said, "um, not really."

Posted by: kallisto at December 02, 2016 04:49 PM (jkmtt)

24 Bravo, Warden. Bravo.

Well done.

Posted by: DocJ at December 02, 2016 04:50 PM (NYS7S)

25 I hate fucking monkey trials.

Posted by: garrett at December 02, 2016 04:50 PM (PeNEi)

26 The whole science vs. religion thing is a wedge used by the left with no real historical significance.

How much science was preserved by the Catholics during the dark ages? Plenty. Until the Renaissance, a great scientist was very likely to be a religious figure.

But apparently now, you have to pick one or the other.

Posted by: Moron Pundit at December 02, 2016 04:50 PM (xeeHA)

27 You can add Rachel Carson's Silent Spring and the banning of DDTs to this list. Tell someone that Rachel Carson is responsible for millions of deaths from otherwise preventable malaria and watch the look of horror on their face that you could slander a saint of the environmental movement.

You can't even discuss the topic.

Posted by: scofflaw_x at December 02, 2016 04:51 PM (VBdU0)

28 The same ppl who claim to love Darwin will also tell you that gender has nothing to do with the 23rd chromosome pair.

Posted by: @votermom's phone at December 02, 2016 04:51 PM (AQWos)

29 >>The same ppl who claim to love Darwin will also tell you that gender has nothing to do with the 23rd chromosome pair.

But, homosexuality is genetic.

Posted by: garrett at December 02, 2016 04:52 PM (PeNEi)

30 But apparently now, you have to pick one or the other.
Posted by: Moron Pundit at December 02, 2016 04:50 PM (xeeHA)

Yeah that's sad. I pick both, and it works great for me.
When I go there around some people though, it's like a fricking minefield.

Posted by: tubal at December 02, 2016 04:52 PM (d6TTt)

31 Also, if anyone's read Liberal Fascism--I seem to recall Ace being mildly fond of that book--you might remember that Clarence Darrow, Mr. Poster-Boy-for-Civil-Liberties, said during WWI that in time of war, Congress had the final say on what was and was not a civil right, and it was the citizens' duty to fall in line with that. Something to throw at your liberal friends should they ever wax eloquent about that twerp.

Posted by: T at December 02, 2016 04:53 PM (IKdzI)

32 I hate fucking monkey trials.

Posted by: garrett at December 02, 2016 04:50 PM (PeNEi)

In my day you didn't even get a trial. You just bought the monkey and hoped for the best.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at December 02, 2016 04:53 PM (8ZskC)

33 I liked the guy in the movie who was promoting DEVOlution.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot, Jr. at December 02, 2016 04:53 PM (IqV8l)

34
27 You can add Rachel Carson's Silent Spring and the banning of DDTs to this list. Tell someone that Rachel Carson is responsible for millions of deaths from otherwise preventable malaria and watch the look of horror on their face that you could slander a saint of the environmental movement.

You can't even discuss the topic.
Posted by: scofflaw_x at December 02, 2016 04:51 PM (VBdU0)

"Jawol!"

- - Mergele und Sanger

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 02, 2016 04:53 PM (mbhDw)

35 Commenting before I read this long thread unlike last time.

Posted by: Skip at December 02, 2016 04:53 PM (5sOEp)

36 Henry Drummond: Ever been in love Hornbeck?

E. K. Hornbeck: Only with the sound of my own words, thank God.

Posted by: broseidon king of the brocean at December 02, 2016 04:53 PM (kumBu)

37 >>What most people don't know is that both Inherit the Wind and the Scopes Trial itself were both calculating pieces of propaganda.

Well, I never!

Posted by: Rosa Parks at December 02, 2016 04:54 PM (PeNEi)

38 Posted by: kallisto at December 02, 2016 04:49 PM (jkmtt)

Well isn't that an interesting theory of English history. LOL.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at December 02, 2016 04:54 PM (tOcW/)

39 Shock the monkey!

Posted by: Bertram Cabot, Jr. at December 02, 2016 04:54 PM (IqV8l)

40 The problem with evolution isn't that its a terrible theory or whatever. The problem is that people have taken it up like some kind of religious cause. You aren't called to don't believe evolution is the most likely explanation, you're called to "believe in evolution." Most people who are the most strident and insistent about the topic know very little about the actual biology and processes involved. Its not a scientific topic to them, its a way of feeling superior, to be better than those poor benighted people who reject naturalism as the explanation for all reality.

That's my concern. Believe what you wish, but don't turn it into a crusade or a cause to ram down the throats of everyone else, or ruin them for disagreeing. The pattern we see now with homo marriage cakes and whatever was established long before with Evolutionism. Believe this or you are an unperson.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at December 02, 2016 04:54 PM (39g3+)

41 21 Never did like that Butler Act.
Posted by: Benson at December 02, 2016 04:49 PM (PeNEi)

Because the butler did it.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 02, 2016 04:54 PM (mbhDw)

42 Most people who are the most strident and insistent about the topic know very little about the actual biology and processes involved. Its not a scientific topic to them, its a way of feeling superior, to be better than those poor benighted people who reject naturalism as the explanation for all reality.

Perfectly said.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at December 02, 2016 04:55 PM (8ZskC)

43 But, homosexuality is genetic.

Posted by: garrett at December 02, 2016 04:52 PM (PeNEi)

Unless that is inconvenient, in which case it's a choice.

But gender is always a choice.

Race is also a choice, unless it doesn't exist, in which case it isn't, until it is.

Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at December 02, 2016 04:55 PM (SRKgf)

44 The whole science vs. religion thing is a wedge used by the left with no real historical significance.

True, and it has caused almost incalculable harm to Science(tm) that those of us in the field are only starting to come to terms with. Too much hubris, too many corners cut, poor incentive structures, not nearly enough critical scrutiny - and far, far too much cash.

I don't think I'll live long enough to see this all get sorted out.

Posted by: DocJ at December 02, 2016 04:55 PM (NYS7S)

45 "Until the Renaissance, a great scientist was very likely to be a religious figure."

The adoption of the Gregorian calendar in 1582 is a good example.

The opening of the book of Genesis fairly comports with what we believe of the Big Bank, the formation of Earth and even evolution, no?

Posted by: Ignoramus at December 02, 2016 04:55 PM (SIY7D)

46 THEN WHO IS ORGAN GRINDER?

Posted by: That deplorable guy who always says... at December 02, 2016 04:56 PM (Tyii7)

47 Actually the Scopes Monkey Trial was even more of a fraud than that. I did some research for my "This day in History lead in for the VNN on the morning thread on the trial's last anniversary.

The data I saw was that the whole trial was a put up deal to attract tourists to the town because the town was enduring hard times. The who trial was a fraud scripted from start to finish.

And it was a fine publicity stunt because it worked.

Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at December 02, 2016 04:56 PM (mpXpK)

48 45 "Until the Renaissance, a great scientist was very likely to be a religious figure."

The adoption of the Gregorian calendar in 1582 is a good example.

The opening of the book of Genesis fairly comports with what we believe of the Big Bank, the formation of Earth and even evolution, no?
Posted by: Ignoramus at December 02, 2016 04:55 PM (SIY7D)

Dr. Zaius Hardest Hit (speaking of simians).

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 02, 2016 04:56 PM (mbhDw)

49 Shock the monkey!

Spank the monkey!

Posted by: rickb223 at December 02, 2016 04:57 PM (SgI6S)

50 I love to watch students heads explode when they make some statement and I tell them to footnote that. Cite the source.
Only about a third can (on a good day) and then I call BS on it. Just to see if they can apply any rational thought to the statement. Few can.

My favorite, "At its core, communism is really great for everyone."

Posted by: Diogenes at December 02, 2016 04:57 PM (0tfLf)

51 >>25 I hate fucking monkey trials.
Posted by: garrett at December 02, 2016 04:50 PM (PeNEi)

Well, stop doing it.

Posted by: Sage Advice at December 02, 2016 04:57 PM (DrC22)

52 >>Well, stop doing it.

It's the only way to qualify for Nationals!

Posted by: garrett at December 02, 2016 04:58 PM (PeNEi)

53 Never saw the movie, glad I didn't

Posted by: Skip at December 02, 2016 04:58 PM (5sOEp)

54 50 I love to watch students heads explode when they make some statement and I tell them to footnote that. Cite the source.
Only about a third can (on a good day) and then I call BS on it. Just to see if they can apply any rational thought to the statement. Few can.

My favorite, "At its core, communism is really great for everyone."
Posted by: Diogenes at December 02, 2016 04:57 PM (0tfLf)

I do not have a copy but I understand that Howard Zinn's "People's History of the USA" has absolutely zero footnotes. And it's our standard textbook.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 02, 2016 04:59 PM (mbhDw)

55 Without getting into the merits of science versus religion, let me just state that science can only study the "How" God works... and has nothing to say on the "why".

As for the left: they corrupt everything and are evil. But thats almost axiomatic, really.

Posted by: Vanceone at December 02, 2016 04:59 PM (J+l9K)

56 I just checked Wikipedia, which as of this moment mentions that Bryan was opposed to evolution because he thought it would lead to Social Darwinism and eventually wars based on false beliefs of racial supremacism, as well as a collapse of general morality.

He thought it was one of the causes of World War _1_.

They _have_ to lie about him because it was DAMN SURE one of the causes of WW2.

Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain at December 02, 2016 04:59 PM (t2063)

57 Never saw the movie, glad I didn't

Posted by: Skip at December 02, 2016 04:58 PM (5sOEp)

Do you like gladiator movies?

Posted by: Capt. Oveur at December 02, 2016 05:00 PM (8ZskC)

58 So monkeys run their courts like kangaroos do.

Posted by: Skip at December 02, 2016 05:00 PM (5sOEp)

59 53 Never saw the movie, glad I didn't
Posted by: Skip at December 02, 2016 04:58 PM (5sOEp)

Just pretend the town is San Francisco and the guy on trial is one of us.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 02, 2016 05:00 PM (mbhDw)

60 More punchable face, Laurence Krauss, Bill Nye or the notorious NDT?

Posted by: Kreplach at December 02, 2016 05:01 PM (+lv+r)

61 Love gladiator moves.

Posted by: Skip at December 02, 2016 05:01 PM (5sOEp)

62 Posted by: FenelonSpoke at December 02, 2016 04:54 PM (tOcW/)

This is the same guy who said that the ocean has salt water due to the elimination processes of all the sea creatures.

I said, "well then what about fresh water fish? They pee and poop too but their habitat remains non salty".

Posted by: kallisto at December 02, 2016 05:01 PM (jkmtt)

63 Hey, who left this big black monolith right in front of my cave?

Posted by: A Monkey at December 02, 2016 05:01 PM (8ZskC)

64 It's the only way to qualify for Nationals!

Another "sport" for "The Ocho"?

Posted by: Blanco Basura at December 02, 2016 05:01 PM (4WhSY)

65 58 So monkeys run their courts like kangaroos do.
Posted by: Skip at December 02, 2016 05:00 PM (5sOEp)

Zaius ain't so, Joe!

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 02, 2016 05:01 PM (mbhDw)

66 Sounds like evolution to me:

And there was evening, and there was morning -- the fifth day.

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.

25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Posted by: Ignoramus at December 02, 2016 05:01 PM (SIY7D)

67 Funky Winkerbean cartoon is re McCarthying.
non-sequitur went #NeverTrump.

The comics WERE the only useful part of the paper.

Posted by: DaveA at December 02, 2016 05:02 PM (8J/Te)

68 63 Hey, who left this big black monolith right in front of my cave?
Posted by: A Monkey at December 02, 2016 05:01 PM (8ZskC)

Also sprach threadwinner.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 02, 2016 05:02 PM (mbhDw)

69 But, homosexuality is genetic.
Posted by: garrett at December 02, 2016 04:52 PM (PeNEi)
*****

What evolutionary advantage does homosexuality confer?

Darwin was all about procreation. So... how does NOT being driven to procreate help further your species?

Posted by: Warden at December 02, 2016 05:02 PM (MZ8Zz)

70 I don't trust anybody who's cocksure how we got here or what, if anything, comes next.

Posted by: ScoggDog at December 02, 2016 05:02 PM (QDpP5)

71 Posted by: kallisto at December 02, 2016 05:01 PM (jkmtt)

Well, hopefully you get a laugh out of your conversations with him sometimes at least. :^)

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at December 02, 2016 05:02 PM (tOcW/)

72 >>And there was evening, and there was morning -- the fifth day.

GOD SAID. MAN SAID. DOT COM!

Posted by: garrett at December 02, 2016 05:03 PM (PeNEi)

73 I remember back in college reading an essay by Richard Weaver --- I think it was in The Ethics of Rhetoric --- about the Scopes Trial. Since all I knew was the Inherit-the-Wind myth, I was shocked to find out the actual trial was not at all like the movie.
That was a great experience for the development of my skepticism.

I also remember Weaver's main focus was on the legal/constitutional question of who should decide what a school teaches or forbids to be taught. If the school is supported by local tax-payers, shouldn't they decide rather than some "experts" at Harvard?
And of course that was the law and American tradition before the cultural revolution.

Posted by: Margarita DeVille at December 02, 2016 05:03 PM (Nox3c)

74 But...but..turtles and shit and islands...

My geology professor held up the Galapogo islands as definitive proof that there was no God.

Less than 1\2 of 1% of the land mass of the earth

Posted by: The guy with the hair at December 02, 2016 05:04 PM (sUIwD)

75 73 If the school is supported by local tax-payers, shouldn't they decide rather than some "experts" at Harvard?
And of course that was the law and American tradition before the cultural revolution.

Posted by: Margarita DeVille at December 02, 2016 05:03 PM (Nox3c)

May I present Secretary DeVos?

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 02, 2016 05:05 PM (mbhDw)

76 47: yes, i seem to recall reading that it was a publicity stunt cooked up in a diner (!) to bring in some tourist dollars during the summer.

i love diners!

Posted by: musical jolly chimp at December 02, 2016 05:05 PM (WTSFk)

77 What evolutionary advantage does homosexuality confer?

Darwin was all about procreation. So... how does NOT being driven to procreate help further your species?

Gheys are there to design the dresses that help women find an attractive mate.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at December 02, 2016 05:05 PM (8ZskC)

78 The only way to be is agnostic and caustic. How did we get here? I don't know and I don't give a damn!

(They played for the same baseball team, too.)

Posted by: broseidon king of the brocean at December 02, 2016 05:05 PM (kumBu)

79 Posted by: FenelonSpoke at December 02, 2016 05:02 PM (tOcW/)

Can't even count on him for laughs anymore, he stopped talking to me.

I'm glad you're better after your hospital stay.

Posted by: kallisto at December 02, 2016 05:05 PM (jkmtt)

80 Well written, Warden. Illuminating as hell.

Posted by: Pug Mahon, Gloaty McGloatface at December 02, 2016 05:06 PM (RwwCT)

81 (... never heard that scopes was set up by the aclu, although it's possible.)

Posted by: musical jolly chimp at December 02, 2016 05:06 PM (WTSFk)

82 77 What evolutionary advantage does homosexuality confer?

Darwin was all about procreation. So... how does NOT being driven to procreate help further your species?

Gheys are there to design the dresses that help women find an attractive mate.
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at December 02, 2016 05:05 PM (8ZskC)

Whenever I argue with a lib, I say I oppose homosexuality because it's anti-evolutionary.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 02, 2016 05:06 PM (mbhDw)

83 Gheys are there to design the dresses that help women find an attractive mate.
Posted by: Cicero
*****

Solid analysis

Posted by: Warden at December 02, 2016 05:07 PM (MZ8Zz)

84 My God, it's full of bananas!

Posted by: Hugh Ape at December 02, 2016 05:07 PM (IqV8l)

85 Darrow was a very bad man. He pioneered the idea of attacking the witnesses instead of adjudicating the evidence.

Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards at December 02, 2016 05:07 PM (UHLlC)

86 If any of you think I am just making shit up about that trial here is my source. Except that I got it from the dead tree version of the Smithsonian magazine:

http://bit.ly/2g28sxY

Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at December 02, 2016 05:07 PM (mpXpK)

87 >>ou can add Rachel Carson's Silent Spring and the banning of DDTs to this
list. Tell someone that Rachel Carson is responsible for millions of
deaths from otherwise preventable malaria and watch the look of horror
on their face that you could slander a saint of the environmental
movement.

Tens of millions of lives!
IIRC, Carson wrote the book while she was dying of cancer, which would explain why she was convinced that these toxins were killing us!!!!!
Heard that from a Jack Cashill speech on his book "Hoodwinked" which covers a number of these progressive myths/lies.

Posted by: Lizzy at December 02, 2016 05:07 PM (NOIQH)

88 Posted by: kallisto at December 02, 2016 05:05 PM (jkmtt)

Did he stop talking to you because you voted for Trump-if indeed you did. You're better off without friends like that.

Thanks for your kind thoughts.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at December 02, 2016 05:07 PM (tOcW/)

89 >>Whenever I argue with a lib, I say I oppose homosexuality because it's anti-evolutionary.

You really want to walk them around a bit before you force them to the conclusion that it is a Negative Mutation.

That really crushes their spirit.

Posted by: garrett at December 02, 2016 05:08 PM (PeNEi)

90 garrett Ihear those commercials all the time, been tempted to see it but haven't yet

Posted by: Skip at December 02, 2016 05:08 PM (5sOEp)

91 Darrow was a very bad man. He pioneered the idea of attacking the witnesses instead of adjudicating the evidence.

And you point is?

*hic*

Posted by: Hillary! 2016, Who Will Never Be President of the United States at December 02, 2016 05:08 PM (8ZskC)

92 81
(... never heard that scopes was set up by the aclu, although it's possible.)

Posted by: musical jolly chimp at December 02, 2016 05:06 PM (WTSFk)

It wasn't set up by the ACLU. It was set up by the town. It was FAKE.

Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at December 02, 2016 05:08 PM (mpXpK)

93 Darwin wasn't even the best or most accomplished scientist in his family - Francis Galton has him beat by a thousand finch's beaks.

Posted by: broseidon king of the brocean at December 02, 2016 05:08 PM (kumBu)

94 >>>I do not have a copy but I understand that Howard Zinn's "People's History of the USA" has absolutely zero footnotes. And it's our standard textbook.
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 02, 2016 04:59 PM (mbhDw)

The book is quite amusing in its own way. It is not in any sense a "people's history"--it's a history of the labor movement. Of course there wasn't much of one throughout most of our history because most people lived on farms. Hence there is an attempt to make really little things seem really big, which is funny only to people who have a sense of humor. Zinn was at BU when I studied there. The never-washers were the only ones who took him seriously. Best thing John Silber ever did was to thwart his attempt to bring that idiot Marcuse onto the faculty.

Posted by: Caliban at December 02, 2016 05:08 PM (DrC22)

95 Darwin was all about procreation. So... how does NOT being driven to procreate help further your species?

In cases of over-population ? Creating otherwise fully functional members of the tribe to hunt / gather / fight without adding to the population problem ?

Posted by: ScoggDog at December 02, 2016 05:08 PM (QDpP5)

96 It's always a mistake to look at older sensibilities through the modern cultural lens.

Still I can't look at the Butler Act without intense dislike, and it colors my view of the whole affair, despite how grotesque this rewriting of history is.

Still, there are a lot of really dumb atheists out their. Flash Fact.

Posted by: Max Power at December 02, 2016 05:09 PM (q177U)

97 In cases of over-population ? Creating otherwise fully functional members of the tribe to hunt / gather / fight without adding to the population problem ?

"We'd make them hunt but we can't pry them apart."

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at December 02, 2016 05:09 PM (8ZskC)

98 It's the only way to qualify for Nationals!

No points for legacies or demo tapes?

Posted by: DaveA at December 02, 2016 05:09 PM (8J/Te)

99 I love the fact that the cocksuckers who propound Darwinism as if it's a new superior religion are also the same cocksuckers who have endangered species lists and screw common citizens out of every resource upon which they can lay their greedy thieving hands.

Posted by: Fritz at December 02, 2016 05:09 PM (hOptz)

100 phooey. next thing I know you're going to tell us that "Tailgunner Joe" wasn't truthful.

Posted by: Mallfly ver 2.0001 at December 02, 2016 05:10 PM (2JQBv)

101 Did he stop talking to you because you voted for Trump

No, it was because I didn't wordlessly accept his factoids about everything that weighed on his mind.

Although after the election he said Republicans were racist, I told him I was Republican and where was his evidence that we were racist?

Posted by: kallisto at December 02, 2016 05:10 PM (jkmtt)

102 I'd rather discuss why Mary Ann is superior to Ginger.
Posted by: Blanco Basura at December 02, 2016 04:47 PM (4WhSY)

sCiEnCe!1111!!!!!

'Tis settled.

Posted by: Deplorable 98ZJUSMC at December 02, 2016 05:10 PM (MHq1d)

103 re 99: the same c-suckers who think that man can control the climate, if only the rest of us would sacrifice enough.

Posted by: Mallfly ver 2.0001 at December 02, 2016 05:11 PM (2JQBv)

104 Posted by: kallisto at December 02, 2016 05:10 PM (jkmtt)

I congratulate you, then, on losing such a "friend".

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at December 02, 2016 05:11 PM (tOcW/)

105 But, but, why do we like hot monkey sex if Darrow was wong?

Posted by: Puddin Head at December 02, 2016 05:11 PM (vV/gB)

106 >>In cases of over-population ? Creating otherwise fully functional members of the tribe to hunt / gather / fight without adding to the population problem ?

Ah, the ad hoc arguments of the pseudo-scientist.

Tell me, how do these mutations self select.

Posted by: garrett at December 02, 2016 05:12 PM (PeNEi)

107 "otherwise fully functional members of the tribe to hunt / gather / fight"

Hated it!

Posted by: Blaine and Antoine at December 02, 2016 05:12 PM (SIY7D)

108 But, but, why do we like hot monkey sex if Darrow was wong?

Have you tried cold monkey sex?

Posted by: Blanco Basura at December 02, 2016 05:12 PM (4WhSY)

109 re 101: because you voted Republican, that's all the proof some people need. No need to think about things when you've already been told what the troof is.

Posted by: Mallfly ver 2.0001 at December 02, 2016 05:12 PM (2JQBv)

110 I'd rather discuss why Mary Ann is superior to Ginger.

------------
Posted by: Blanco Basura at December 02, 2016 04:47 PM (4WhSY)

This hypothesis is fraudulent.

Posted by: eleven at December 02, 2016 05:13 PM (qUNWi)

111 That wasn't directed at the Commenter, but the trope argument.

Posted by: garrett at December 02, 2016 05:13 PM (PeNEi)

112 Something going on with the Michael Slager trial:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/hp98j4l

Mistrial declared.

Posted by: antisocial justice beatnik at December 02, 2016 05:13 PM (jV8Mq)

113 Darwin was all about procreation. So... how does NOT being driven to procreate help further your species?

In cases of over-population ? Creating otherwise fully functional members of the tribe to hunt / gather / fight without adding to the population problem ?

That almost sounds like intelligent design. AI. Some kind of plan.

Posted by: rickb223 at December 02, 2016 05:13 PM (SgI6S)

114 New Sci-Fi movie coming to Netflix. Spectral. At least it looks decent from the trailer.

https://youtu.be/rmC3ZhIHHi4

Posted by: buzzion at December 02, 2016 05:13 PM (z/Ubi)

115 56 I just checked Wikipedia, which as of this moment mentions that Bryan was opposed to evolution because he thought it would lead to Social Darwinism and eventually wars based on false beliefs of racial supremacism, as well as a collapse of general morality.

He thought it was one of the causes of World War _1_.

They _have_ to lie about him because it was DAMN SURE one of the causes of WW2.
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain at December 02, 2016 04:59 PM (t2063)
------------------------------------------
Bryan was no fool.

And here's an ironic thing---when he was defending the murderers Leopold and Loeb, Clarence Darrow himself cited Darwin and Nietzsche as bad influences on tender young minds. The poor boys' lives should be spared because they had been seduced by modern ideas of evolutionary superiority!

Posted by: Margarita DeVille at December 02, 2016 05:13 PM (Nox3c)

116 Mary Ann can't be superior to Ginger cuz she is shorter.

Posted by: Puddin Head at December 02, 2016 05:14 PM (vV/gB)

117 >>You can add Rachel Carson's Silent Spring and the banning of DDTs to this
list. Tell someone that Rachel Carson is responsible for millions of
deaths from otherwise preventable malaria and watch the look of horror
on their face that you could slander a saint of the environmental
movement.

You ban thank a letter from a woman in my old town for Silent Spring. One stupid letter from a non-scientist that claimed that DDT was killing the birds on her property.

Science!

Posted by: JackStraw at December 02, 2016 05:14 PM (/tuJf)

118 Mary Ann can't be superior to Ginger cuz she is shorter.
Posted by: Puddin Head at December 02, 2016 05:14 PM (vV/gB)

he means horizontally, and it's only for the opening shots.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at December 02, 2016 05:14 PM (8ZskC)

119 David Berlinski, hardly a Bible-thumper, wrote a great book about the flaws in Darwinian theory, "The Deniable Darwin." He has some great interviews on Peter Robinson's "Uncommon Knowledge," as well.

(If you've never seen Uncommon Knowledge, you owe it to yourself to at least watch some of the Thomas Sowell episodes - Robinson is a fantastic interviewer, highly informed but always letting his guest rightfully have the spotlight).

Posted by: broseidon king of the brocean at December 02, 2016 05:14 PM (kumBu)

120 I can't wait until for ACLU to defend the teachings of Ancient Aliens.

Posted by: Puddin Head at December 02, 2016 05:15 PM (vV/gB)

121 So, the question NOW, is: will there be riots in Charleston over a *mistrial*?

Posted by: antisocial justice beatnik at December 02, 2016 05:15 PM (jV8Mq)

122 92: vic, that's what i noted earlier, that the town set it up as a p.r. stunt, but i was commenting on the open blogger's statement that scopes was recruited by the aclu (above), which i'd never heard.

Posted by: musical jolly chimp at December 02, 2016 05:15 PM (WTSFk)

123 69
But, homosexuality is genetic.

Posted by: garrett at December 02, 2016 04:52 PM (PeNEi)

*****

What evolutionary advantage does homosexuality confer?

Darwin was all about procreation. So... how does NOT being driven to procreate help further your species?

Posted by: Warden at December 02, 2016 05:02 PM (MZ8Zz)

I discussed this topic with a Ph.D. geneticist once. He told me that any mutation that removed the holders of that trait from the gene pool could never be present in more than 2-3% of the population over the long term, because if the numbers were higher than that it would die out. That actually correlates to a very difficult-to-find-on-the-Internet study by UCLA that the exclusively homosexual population is about 1.8% and the bisexual population is about 1.8%.

Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at December 02, 2016 05:16 PM (jK8Z7)

124 But, but, why do we like hot monkey sex if Darrow was wong?

Darrow was Chinese?

Posted by: rickb223 at December 02, 2016 05:16 PM (SgI6S)

125 >>>What evolutionary advantage does homosexuality confer?

A genetically diverse and robustly experimental gene pool will, by definition, contain members who have a genetic profile that does not confer upon them any significant genetic advantages for survival. It's all about casting a wide net. This is just my opinion, I should add.

Posted by: Max Power at December 02, 2016 05:16 PM (q177U)

126 >>will there be riots in Charleston over a *mistrial*?

Let them Riot.

Winter is Coming.

Posted by: garrett at December 02, 2016 05:16 PM (PeNEi)

127 I hate fucking monkey trials.

Posted by: garrett at December 02, 2016 04:50 PM (PeNEi)

No kidding. And who the hell cares what kind of mouthwash they use?

Posted by: tu3031 at December 02, 2016 05:16 PM (qJhUV)

128 118 Mary Ann can't be superior to Ginger cuz she is shorter.
Posted by: Puddin Head at December 02, 2016 05:14 PM (vV/gB)

he means horizontally, and it's only for the opening shots.
----------------
Even horizontally Ginger is taller than Mary Ann.

Posted by: Puddin Head at December 02, 2016 05:16 PM (vV/gB)

129 Tell me, how do these mutations self select.

I have no idea ... just shooting the shit.

Like I said - I don't trust ANYONE that purports to know how we got here or what comes next.

Or how birds use "instinct" to migrate. Or why newborn animals are so much smarter at first than our young ... but can't keep up.

I don't think the "experts" know either.

Posted by: ScoggDog at December 02, 2016 05:16 PM (QDpP5)

130 IIRC, Carson wrote the book while she was dying of cancer, which would explain why she was convinced that these toxins were killing us!!!!!

Posted by: Lizzy at December 02, 2016 05:07 PM (NOIQH)

There's a fruitcake out here in Cali - a Berkeley Ph.D. in biochem, IIRC - that is leading the charge against flame retardants because her cat was taken off too young - 17 years old, again IIRC, a mere kitten - and the cat always slept on a couch that had been treated with flame retardants. QED.

I'm not making this up.

Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at December 02, 2016 05:17 PM (SRKgf)

131 well, I've seen the movie and I still don't know if the monkey was convicted or found innocent.

Posted by: Mallfly ver 2.0001 at December 02, 2016 05:17 PM (2JQBv)

132 I thnk all of the questions left open by Darwin were fully answer in the opening of 2001 - A Space Oddysey.

Posted by: Roy at December 02, 2016 05:17 PM (fWLrt)

133 126 Let them Riot.

Winter is Coming.

Posted by: garrett at December 02, 2016 05:16 PM (PeNEi)

Yeah, I'd better go dredge the lake just in case...

Posted by: antisocial justice beatnik at December 02, 2016 05:17 PM (jV8Mq)

134 Get ready to laugh, ya'll: https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/250709/#respond

Posted by: lowtech redneck at December 02, 2016 05:18 PM (egK2C)

135 I preferred "Lancelot Link: Secret Chimp," myself.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 02, 2016 05:18 PM (mbhDw)

136 >>Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at December 02, 2016 05:16 PM (jK8Z7)

This is what I was getting at.

There are all sorts of negative / dead end mutations.

Posted by: garrett at December 02, 2016 05:18 PM (PeNEi)

137 "well, I've seen the movie and I still don't know if the monkey was convicted or found innocent.

Posted by: Mallfly ver 2.0001 at December 02, 2016 05:17 PM (2JQBv) "

He plead down to poop-flinging in the 1st degree, a misdemeanor, and was sentenced to time served and a fine of 50 bananas. It's in the deleted scenes.

Posted by: broseidon king of the brocean at December 02, 2016 05:19 PM (kumBu)

138
Remember, it's Darwin's THEORY of evolution. I do believe in evolution as a biological process, it's just that his theory of how it works is flawed.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 02, 2016 05:20 PM (mbhDw)

139 Mary Ann looked better than Ginger because they pancaked up Ginger to make her look "Hollywood". Also she was 4 years older than Mary Ann (Dawn Wells).

Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at December 02, 2016 05:20 PM (mpXpK)

140 133 Little known fact: all progressives and Democrats are descended in direct line from the last monkey to touch the Monolith. It was pretty low on brain juice by then...

Posted by: richard mcenroeo at December 02, 2016 05:20 PM (rxtQa)

141 All monkeys are guilty.

Fry em.

Posted by: eleven at December 02, 2016 05:20 PM (qUNWi)

142 Mary Ann looked better than Ginger because they pancaked up Ginger to make her look "Hollywood". Also she was 4 years older than Mary Ann (Dawn Wells).

Puh-leeeze. Stop making excuses for the clearly inferior Ginger.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at December 02, 2016 05:21 PM (8ZskC)

143 I'm extremely thankful for this moment, to tell the truth. The left has completed a long March through media and academia, only to reach the summit at the very instant it becomes completely worthless. Without this Internet, you and I would have far less eloquent and convincing defenses of tradition and Trump would have lost in a landslide.

The truth is coming out. We have the chance to bud new institutions over the next four years, and cut off the government teat that our enemies thrive on. What a time to be alive.

Posted by: trev006 at December 02, 2016 05:21 PM (D6F1y)

144 Look, there's no way on earth that Ginger could make a better Sammich than Mary Ann.

Posted by: garrett at December 02, 2016 05:22 PM (PeNEi)

145 >>Puh-leeeze. Stop making excuses for the clearly inferior Ginger.

First you go for longbow over crossbow and now this?

I say Good Day, Sir!

Posted by: JackStraw at December 02, 2016 05:22 PM (/tuJf)

146 Wow.

All my new hash needs is a bag.

Posted by: garrett at December 02, 2016 05:22 PM (PeNEi)

147 "I thnk all of the questions left open by Darwin were fully answer in the opening of 2001 - A Space Oddysey.

Posted by: Roy at December 02, 2016 05:17 PM (fWLrt) "

On my Japan trip, we went to this building in Osaka that had about 25 different small establishments in efficiency-apartment sized rooms, about 18 of them of the libation-serving variety. Upon finding this out, I turned to my friend and said "My God - it's full of bars." He didn't get it. Gave me a major case of the sads.

Posted by: broseidon king of the brocean at December 02, 2016 05:22 PM (kumBu)

148 141 All monkeys are guilty.

Fry em.
Posted by: eleven

Monkey bad. Gorilla good.

Posted by: Zombie Harambe at December 02, 2016 05:22 PM (fWLrt)

149 142 Mary Ann looked better than Ginger because they pancaked up Ginger to make her look "Hollywood". Also she was 4 years older than Mary Ann (Dawn Wells).

Puh-leeeze. Stop making excuses for the clearly inferior Ginger.
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at December 02, 2016 05:21 PM (8ZskC)

Was that Tina Louise or tuna with cheese?

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 02, 2016 05:22 PM (mbhDw)

150 Hey, hey, we're the Monkees
And people say we monkey around
But we're too busy singing
To put anybody down

Posted by: The Monkeys at December 02, 2016 05:23 PM (DrC22)

151 The opening of the book of Genesis fairly comports with what we believe of the Big Bank, the formation of Earth and even evolution, no?
Posted by: Ignoramus at December 02, 2016 04:55 PM (SIY7D)

Not really.

There has been a great deal of straining on the part of Christians who want to virtue signal that they are not part of the knuckledragger clan.

But the Day-Age "theory", as such, does equal parts damage to the text as written, hermenutics, and systematic theology. That is, the sequence is off, and not by a little, if you compare it to the generally posited order of appearance of various forms of life.

And to get to the idea of a day-age theory, you have to do things to textual interpretation that we would never allow in any other part of the text. Full stop.

Finally, it's really impossible to square a world in which God shaped the world through death pretty much exclusively, which is what natural selection and the extermination of the weak requires, with a doctrine of death entering the world through an original sinner.

Those who try to make Adam a concept instead of an individual make a hash or original sin, and distort everything that we're told about the way God created. One really cannot then also have salvation come through an individual, the God-man Jesus, as scripture makes very, very clear. They try, for sure. But it's an internally inconsistent and incoherent approach.

Frankly, all that's left is mystery, as unsettling as that may be. I'm not saying I have it figured out, but I have some comfort in the fact that no one does.

Posted by: TexasDan, Standard Deplorable Redneck at December 02, 2016 05:23 PM (yL25O)

152 Article recently stated that the town, Dayton, used it for publicity to draw in tourists.

Posted by: gNewt at December 02, 2016 05:23 PM (ykL1t)

153 All monkeys are guilty.

Fry em.

Can we bake a few?

Posted by: rickb223 at December 02, 2016 05:23 PM (SgI6S)

154 >>>The left has completed a long March through media and academia, only to reach the summit at the very instant it becomes completely worthless.

When they finally got to WIRED magazine, man I was fucking pissed.

Posted by: Max Power at December 02, 2016 05:23 PM (q177U)

155 WaPo's Chris Cillizza response to Trump calling out the dishonest press at yesterday's Thank You rally in Ohio:

"Boo the press if you want. Then imagine what society would be like without a free press."

The cluelessness is strong with this one.

Posted by: Ignoramus at December 02, 2016 05:23 PM (SIY7D)

156 Fine. Mary Ann makes the sammich.

Ginger gives me a BJ while I eat it.

Posted by: Mr. Peebles at December 02, 2016 05:23 PM (OkKDg)

157 If homosexuality were purely genetic, then identical twins would invariably share the trait, which they do not.
Perhaps a propensity is genetic. Perhaps the trait is just congenital, something that happens during development in the womb. Perhaps there are important environmental factors.

Perhaps it has something to do with the Tooth Fairy.
Frankly, I have always wondered about xem.

Posted by: Margarita DeVille at December 02, 2016 05:23 PM (Nox3c)

158 Ginger and Mary Ann are a battle of evolutionary superiority.

Big, giant funbags or a tasty banana-coconut cream pie? Which is most alluring to a mate?

Posted by: Warden at December 02, 2016 05:24 PM (MZ8Zz)

159 There's a fruitcake out here in Cali - a Berkeley Ph.D. in biochem, IIRC - that is leading the charge against flame retardants because her cat was taken off too young - 17 years old, again IIRC, a mere kitten - and the cat always slept on a couch that had been treated with flame retardants. QED.

#1. 17 is OLD for a cat.
#2. With that fruitcake, the cat was ready to go.

Posted by: rickb223 at December 02, 2016 05:24 PM (SgI6S)

160 155 WaPo's Chris Cillizza response to Trump calling out the dishonest press at yesterday's Thank You rally in Ohio:

"Boo the press if you want. Then imagine what society would be like without a free press."

The cluelessness is strong with this one.

Posted by: Ignoramus at December 02, 2016 05:23 PM (SIY7D)

Imagine it? Hell, we've been LIVING it.

He really is ovoid, with the emphasis on "void."

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 02, 2016 05:24 PM (mbhDw)

161 125 >>>What evolutionary advantage does homosexuality confer?
A genetically diverse and robustly experimental gene pool will, by definition, contain members who have a genetic profile that does not confer upon them any significant genetic advantages for survival. It's all about casting a wide net. This is just my opinion, I should add.
Posted by: Max Power at December 02, 2016 05:16 PM (q177U)

I doubt very much that there is a gene for homosexuality. My guess is that there is genetic variation in sensitivity to sex hormones in utero, or production of sex hormones by the mother, and that influences sexual differentiation of the fetus.

All fetuses start out female, but those with XY chromosomes differentiate into males under the influence of maternal testosterone. Lack of sensitivity could then lead to homosexual males, i.e., ones who have incompletely differentiated into males, whereas excessive sensitivity in XX fetuses could lead to hyper-masculinized females.

Note that this conjecture would handily explain not only why homosexuality has not been selected out genetically, but also why some fetuses are born with ambiguous genitalia for their genetic makeup.

But all this is just a guess, of course.

Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at December 02, 2016 05:24 PM (SRKgf)

162 You people are making me insane with anger!

Posted by: eleven at December 02, 2016 05:25 PM (qUNWi)

163 First you go for longbow over crossbow and now this?

I say Good Day, Sir!
Posted by: JackStraw at December 02, 2016 05:22 PM (/tuJf)

You want the truth? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!!

*tosses binkie and can of Play-doh*

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at December 02, 2016 05:25 PM (8ZskC)

164
Big, giant funbags or a tasty banana-coconut cream pie? Which is most alluring to a mate?

I would say being on an island with both, along with three gay guys and two octogenrians

Posted by: Roy at December 02, 2016 05:25 PM (fWLrt)

165 I would say being on an island with both, along with three gay guys and two octogenrians

I missed the episode with the octogenrian. Did it catch anyone?

Posted by: Joe Biden at December 02, 2016 05:26 PM (8ZskC)

166 Ginger wouldn't know which side of the bread to put the mayo on.

Posted by: Skip at December 02, 2016 05:26 PM (5sOEp)

167 I can find no flaw in Roy's perspective or argument.

Posted by: garrett at December 02, 2016 05:27 PM (PeNEi)

168 It's so tough to even talk to people about ... well, anything even remotely political, since their "base assumptions" are often SO FUCKING WRONG.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at December 02, 2016 05:27 PM (cJrMO)

169 "I would say being on an island with both, along with three gay guys and two octogenrians

Posted by: Roy at December 02, 2016 05:25 PM (fWLrt) "

Yeah, but right before you seal the deal with both of them, the Harlem Globetrotters show up and ruin your fun. Awful lot of people seem to show up for a deserted isle in the middle of nowhere.

Posted by: broseidon king of the brocean at December 02, 2016 05:27 PM (kumBu)

170 Gheys are there to design the dresses that help women find an attractive mate.
Posted by: Cicero

Women don't dress for men. They dress for other women. Proof: schoolgirls only dress up in those outfits if forced to by the school.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at December 02, 2016 05:27 PM (39g3+)

171 I understand the whole Mary Ann v. Ginger thing, but two other things always bugged me about that show: 1) why the professor couldn't fix a hole in a boat but do anything else and 2) why Gilligan wasn't thrown into a volcano by episode 2.

Posted by: Roy at December 02, 2016 05:27 PM (fWLrt)

172 I would say being on an island with both, along with three gay guys and two octogenrians

No shit. If stranded on an island - I will build a hut. No fucking way I'm gonna have a room mate.

Posted by: ScoggDog at December 02, 2016 05:27 PM (QDpP5)

173 Cultural Marxism, you say? Heh. It's not like eugenics is peddled now as "reproductive rights", pederasty as "gay rights", free speech as "hate", etc.?

Posted by: Zettai Ryoiki, #FreeCthulhuAlreadyFFS at December 02, 2016 05:27 PM (kP16F)

174 Oh, Lovie ain't getting out of this unscathed.

Posted by: eleven at December 02, 2016 05:28 PM (qUNWi)

175 Don't forget about the myths that surrounded the Rosenbergs. Thank god, that eventuality blew up in thier faces.

Posted by: Thursby at December 02, 2016 05:29 PM (1wofY)

176 hey! donald trump is on a "deal or no deal" rerun on the game show network right now!

wow! and he beat hillary clinton!

and she has to live with that the rest of her life!

Posted by: musical jolly chimp at December 02, 2016 05:29 PM (WTSFk)

177 This isn't a close call.

Ginger is a tall, Hollywood (she goes) redhead which means she is crazy like that.

Mary Ann is a short, sweet, every girl.

If I'm trapped on a deserted island I'm going with the crazy sex fiend redhead. Besides, what the hell kind of sandwich are you gonna get on a deserted island? A coconut and sand hoagie?

Science is with me on this one.

Posted by: JackStraw at December 02, 2016 05:29 PM (/tuJf)

178 >> Lovie ain't getting out of this unscathed.

I threw her dentures in the lagoon, the minute she fell asleep, on the first night.

Posted by: Thurston Howell III at December 02, 2016 05:29 PM (PeNEi)

179 171
I understand the whole Mary Ann v. Ginger thing, but two other things
always bugged me about that show: 1) why the professor couldn't fix a
hole in a boat but do anything else and 2) why Gilligan wasn't thrown
into a volcano by episode 2.

Posted by: Roy at December 02, 2016 05:27 PM (fWLrt)

I don't understand why Skipper's hat wasn't a piece of a tattered rag by the final episode.

Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at December 02, 2016 05:29 PM (mpXpK)

180 I would say being on an island with both, along with three gay guys and two octogenrians

Here's the thing: the Howells were probably in their 50s at the oldest. Listening to old radio shows is an eye opener. They'll say its some old lady in her 60s and granny creaky voice one step out of the grave is the voice actor. What used to be really old is not particularly so any longer.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at December 02, 2016 05:30 PM (39g3+)

181 Eh. At least we can talk about creation and evolution without everyone saying there might be something to this whole Creator business getting banned.

Posted by: Insomniac at December 02, 2016 05:30 PM (0mRoj)

182 Well, so, there ISN'T a mistrial.

Change of heart by the jury, I guess. Back to deliberation.

Posted by: antisocial justice beatnik at December 02, 2016 05:30 PM (jV8Mq)

183 [i had some extra exclamation points lying around.]

Posted by: musical jolly chimp at December 02, 2016 05:30 PM (WTSFk)

184 OT re Mis Hum's sidebar link on Iran's mullahs being annoyed at us - I hope Trump farts in their direction and drops a nuke on their heads.

Posted by: IC at December 02, 2016 05:30 PM (a0IVu)

185 Many people say if they could go back in time they would kill some evil figure - but no one ever thinks of Williams Jenning Bryan.

Williams Jennings Bryan, the real Wizard of Oz, is the root of all our Progressive woes. He is the architect of the 16th, 17th, and 18th Amendments, and the policies which ushered in the worst and most persistent Presidency - the Wilson Administration who caused the Great Depression, and the omnipotent FDR administration.

Jennings Bryan is the Progressive Party of today in every way.

Posted by: batterup at December 02, 2016 05:30 PM (mtGE/)

186 >>>175 Don't forget about the myths that surrounded the Rosenbergs

Help! We're surrounded!

Posted by: The Rosenbergs at December 02, 2016 05:31 PM (DrC22)

187 175
Don't forget about the myths that surrounded the Rosenbergs. Thank god, that eventuality blew up in thier faces.

Posted by: Thursby at December 02, 2016 05:29 PM (1wofY)

From this morning's VNN

The Rosenberg children are at it again. They want O'Choom to issue a "Presidential Proclamation" that the government lied and improperly convicted Ethel Rosenberg of spying for the Russians and that she was wrongly executed. They are planning to deliver a "letter" signed by a host of other modern day commies to O'Choom before he slimes his way out of the WH. Oh, they do not want a "pardon", that implies guilt. And somehow Faux manages to get an snti-Trump dig in here with a sort of implication that he ism associated with these "lies".

http://fxn.ws/2gTKeDM

Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at December 02, 2016 05:31 PM (mpXpK)

188 why the professor couldn't fix a hole in a boat but do anything else

I can buy a professor unable to fix anything useful, but two sailors could build homes for everyone including functional doors, but not fix a 3-foot hole in a boat?

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at December 02, 2016 05:31 PM (39g3+)

189 Remember, it's Darwin's THEORY of evolution. I do
believe in evolution as a biological process, it's just that his theory
of how it works is flawed.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 02, 2016 05:20 PM (mbhDw)

I don't have any problem with natural selection meaning that white birds predominate in a snowy environment and brown ones predominate in a wooded environment, or whatever. I recognize that at the bacterial and microbial level we see the effects of natural selection and evolution all the time -- such as in the emergence of antibiotic-resistant strains of certain diseases. However, there is exactly zero evidence of a multicellular organism species becoming another species, let alone the number of chromosomes changing from parent to offspring (and the new mutation in chromosomal number being a trait that survives and is reproduced into future generations).

Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at December 02, 2016 05:31 PM (jK8Z7)

190 If the "gay gene" did exist and reliable prenatal test for it also existed, abortion would be banned before the Sun rose tomorrow...

Posted by: Zettai Ryoiki, #FreeCthulhuAlreadyFFS at December 02, 2016 05:32 PM (kP16F)

191
I can buy a professor unable to fix anything useful, but two sailors could build homes for everyone including functional doors, but not fix a 3-foot hole in a boat?
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor

No shit. That's their job.

Posted by: Roy at December 02, 2016 05:32 PM (fWLrt)

192 As a teen, I used to fap to a Darwin pinup.

Posted by: Neil Tyson DeChicken at December 02, 2016 05:32 PM (Tyii7)

193
Buzz Aldrin was eaten by a polar bear?

Posted by: Soothsayer at December 02, 2016 05:32 PM (Wr3DZ)

194 #1. 17 is OLD for a cat.
#2. With that fruitcake, the cat was ready to go.
Posted by: rickb223 at December 02, 2016 05:24 PM (SgI6S)

Of course. That's what made it laughable. In subsequent interviews, the fruitcake in question has feathered talk of the cat, but her original assertion lives on in an LAT interview. She claimed that her vet assayed the cat's blood for flame retardants and found evidence of them.

Now where to start on THAT one? Assuming any of this actually happened ...

First, her vet is an expert in analytical chemistry, and in his/her spare time developed, validated, and calibrated an assay for perbrominated biphenyls? Really?

Second, how many different blood samples from different cats did the vet analyze? How did he/she know what a normal,non-pathological level would be?

Third, what evidence is there the measured level was harmful? Every sample of peanut butter has detectable levels of aflatoxin (a potent hepatocarcinogen produced by a mold on peanuts, IIRC) in it, but is liver cancer from peanut butter a BFD?

Fourth, what was the vet's name, qualifications to carry out this assay, and methodology for doing so?

And this fruitcake is a Berkeley Ph.D. in the sciences?? She should have been washed out on day #1, and/or she should now be under psychiatric care.

Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at December 02, 2016 05:33 PM (SRKgf)

195 I heard Ginger does butt stuff.

Posted by: Max Power at December 02, 2016 05:33 PM (q177U)

196 There is a hilarious, even poignant at times, docudrama/docucomedy telling the whole background story of Gilligan's Island.

Starring Dawn Wells and a then still living Russell Johnson and Bob Denver as narrators.

Minor actors and actresses whose names escape me replay the various castaways in their younger days, quite well at that.

On YouTube free. Check it out.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at December 02, 2016 05:33 PM (ujg0T)

197 193
Buzz Aldrin was eaten by a polar bear?
Posted by: Soothsayer

He caught cold f*cking a penguin.

Posted by: Roy at December 02, 2016 05:33 PM (fWLrt)

198 187
175

Don't forget about the myths that surrounded the Rosenbergs. Thank god, that eventuality blew up in thier faces.

Posted by: Thursby at December 02, 2016 05:29 PM (1wofY)

From this morning's VNN

The
Rosenberg children are at it again. They want O'Choom to issue a
"Presidential Proclamation" that the government lied and improperly
convicted Ethel Rosenberg of spying for the Russians and that she was
wrongly executed. They are planning to deliver a "letter" signed by a
host of other modern day commies to O'Choom before he slimes his way out
of the WH. Oh, they do not want a "pardon", that implies guilt. And
somehow Faux manages to get an snti-Trump dig in here with a sort of
implication that he ism associated with these "lies".

http://fxn.ws/2gTKeDM

Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at December 02, 2016 05:31 PM (mpXpK)

Could have got it from the Clintons, IYKWIMAITYD

Posted by: Marc Rich at December 02, 2016 05:33 PM (jK8Z7)

199 "No shit. That's their job.

Posted by: Roy at December 02, 2016 05:32 PM (fWLrt) "

But like you said, they had reasons to want to stay on the island. It was a, y'know, 'intimate' environment.

Posted by: broseidon king of the brocean at December 02, 2016 05:33 PM (kumBu)

200 Speaking of Gay Genes:

You think Ace went shopping for Skinny Jeans, today?

You know, to go with his Messenger Bag.

Posted by: garrett at December 02, 2016 05:33 PM (PeNEi)

201 Well the whole premise is flawed since the boat sunk on the beach.

Not quite sure how that happened.

Posted by: eleven at December 02, 2016 05:34 PM (qUNWi)

202 Why is no one ever trapped on a DESSERT island?

Posted by: Max Power at December 02, 2016 05:34 PM (q177U)

203 195 I heard Ginger does butt stuff.

I always thought her redhead was dyed. Guess it was legit then.

Posted by: Roy at December 02, 2016 05:34 PM (fWLrt)

204 They forgot to bring along the ship's carpenter

Posted by: Skip at December 02, 2016 05:34 PM (5sOEp)

205 138
Remember, it's Darwin's THEORY of evolution. I do believe in evolution as a biological process, it's just that his theory of how it works is flawed.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 02, 2016 05:20 PM (mbhDw)

I never really like going its just a "Theory." Because in the layman terminology "theory" essentially means what in science would be called the "hypothesis." Scientifically speaking Theory is pretty important. So the Theory of Evolution is not going to be perfect, but you can't discount because its just a theory. Now you can work to find more evidence and data to revise that theory, or maybe even find enough to completely push it to other discarded scientific theories for one that works better.

But you're never going to have a Theory become a Law in science. They're not along same intellectual path.

Posted by: buzzion at December 02, 2016 05:34 PM (z/Ubi)

206 The story most Americans believe is the one portrayed in the movie, Inherit the Wind. Many of us were even shown this film, presented uncritically as a factual account of an American historical event, while in school

They showed it to us in school at the end of the movie all I wanted to do was punch Spencer Tracy in the face

Posted by: TheQuietMan at December 02, 2016 05:35 PM (493sH)

207 185 Many people say if they could go back in time they would kill some evil figure - but no one ever thinks of Williams Jenning Bryan.

Williams Jennings Bryan, the real Wizard of Oz, is the root of all our Progressive woes. He is the architect of the 16th, 17th, and 18th Amendments, and the policies which ushered in the worst and most persistent Presidency - the Wilson Administration who caused the Great Depression, and the omnipotent FDR administration.

Jennings Bryan is the Progressive Party of today in every way.
Posted by: batterup at December 02, 2016 05:30 PM (mtGE/)

To their credit, the makers of "The Men Who Built America" docudrama made William Jennings Bryan out to be a late 19th century version of Bernie Sanders.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at December 02, 2016 05:35 PM (ujg0T)

208 Ginger was one of the few redheads who didn't do it for me.
Lucille Ball did for crying out loud.

Posted by: Tilikum KAW at December 02, 2016 05:35 PM (uhftQ)

209 Science is with me on this one.
Posted by: JackStraw at December 02, 2016 05:29 PM (/tuJf)

Science also says a boner lasting several hours could kill you.

To hell with science.

Brunettes are the best. And Mary Anne won't argue with you the rest of the day.

Posted by: lowtech redneck at December 02, 2016 05:35 PM (egK2C)

210 The Minnow would be lot. The Minnow would be lost.

Posted by: Neil Tyson DeChicken at December 02, 2016 05:35 PM (Tyii7)

211 204 They forgot to bring along the ship's carpenter
Posted by: Skip

I was busy on another show.

Posted by: Noah at December 02, 2016 05:35 PM (fWLrt)

212 Ginger, of course, has no soul.

Posted by: Mr. Peebles at December 02, 2016 05:35 PM (OkKDg)

213 155 WaPo's Chris Cillizza response to Trump calling out the dishonest press at yesterday's Thank You rally in Ohio:

"Boo the press if you want. Then imagine what society would be like without a free press."

The cluelessness is strong with this one.

Posted by: Ignoramus at December 02, 2016 05:23 PM (SIY7D)

Looking at it right now.

Posted by: buzzion at December 02, 2016 05:36 PM (z/Ubi)

214 lost...sheesh

Posted by: Neil Tyson DeChicken at December 02, 2016 05:36 PM (Tyii7)

215 208 Ginger was one of the few redheads who didn't do it for me.
Lucille Ball did for crying out loud.
Posted by: Tilikum KAW

What's that? butt stuff?

Posted by: Noah at December 02, 2016 05:36 PM (fWLrt)

216 I never understood this Ginger vs. Mary Ann conundrum. Why not both, for Chrissakes? I hear coconut milk is great for hydration.

Posted by: Fritz at December 02, 2016 05:36 PM (hOptz)

217 Why is no one ever trapped on a DESSERT island?

Don't know that, but I been trapped on Pedo Island for about a month! It's awesome!

Posted by: Mr. Hillary Clinton at December 02, 2016 05:36 PM (qJhUV)

218 When I was younger, I used to engage in the Ginger vs. Maryann debate, but as I've grown older I've come to realize that Mrs. Howell was quite doable.

Posted by: Iowa Bob at December 02, 2016 05:36 PM (tu3iY)

219 >>Well the whole premise is flawed since the boat sunk on the beach.

Yea, that was the flaw.

Posted by: JackStraw at December 02, 2016 05:37 PM (/tuJf)

220 off old wet sock

Posted by: Roy at December 02, 2016 05:37 PM (fWLrt)

221 It bothers me that people easily recognize the fallacy in the "97% of scientists believe in global warming" in its various forms but immediately turn around and use something like it for Evolutionism. Everyone believes this, how can it be false? Only stupid creationists think otherwise!

Science is very set in stone: its never decreed by majority vote, and always up to debate. No matter what the topic.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at December 02, 2016 05:37 PM (39g3+)

222 Don't shed any tears for Bryan. He was a progressive tool, too.

Posted by: Bea Arthur's Dick at December 02, 2016 05:37 PM (0xzXo)

223

Fake history, now there is something new.

Posted by: Sidmon Money at December 02, 2016 05:38 PM (yTmoh)

224
I don't understand why Skipper's hat wasn't a piece of a tattered rag by the final episode.
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at December 02, 2016 05:29 PM (mpXpK)

Really? You're wondering why the skippers hat wasn't a tattered rag with Ginger on the island.

Posted by: Deplorable Male Logic at December 02, 2016 05:38 PM (lKyWE)

225 as I've grown older I've come to realize that Mrs. Howell was quite doable.

Maryanne you keep around for the housework and eye candy but Mrs Howell was the keeper.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at December 02, 2016 05:38 PM (39g3+)

226 Remember, it's Darwin's THEORY of evolution. I do believe in evolution as a biological process, it's just that his theory of how it works is flawed.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 02, 2016 05:20 PM (mbhDw)

I have to point out that there is yawning chasm of difference between how scientists use the term "theory" and how laymen use it.

Laymen use it to mean any wild-assed guess whatsoever. That is more properly termed a "conjecture," i.e., a proposal that has yet to be tested rigorously, or that may not even admit of rigorous testing.

Scientists use "theory" to refer to a hypothesis that has been borne out repeatedly by numerous rigorous experiments under many conditions. Hence, the theory of relativity, the theory of quantum mechanics, etc.

Big difference.

Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at December 02, 2016 05:38 PM (SRKgf)

227 Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 02, 2016 05:24 PM (mbhDw)

Big headline on Drudge -- Obama Lead the Press. Obama considering a post presidential digital media career. Words Fail.

This man considers himself a great orator/messenger. And then every time the Administration failed he blamed it on the failure of the message. And who can forget Mooch's brilliant #Save our Girls

Posted by: gracepc at December 02, 2016 05:38 PM (OU4q6)

228 whatever, Warden. it was still a stupid law, and striking it down was still the right thing to do. it doesn't matter if the ACLU or the devil himself brought the suit. it doesn't matter if Lovitz's pathological liar wrote the screenplay.

wasnt Bryan a Democrat, too? like the Klan? hey creationism makes you a real racist! lol.

why are we fighting this battle now anyway?

Posted by: Boulder terlit hobo at December 02, 2016 05:38 PM (DJbhY)

229 When I was younger, I used to engage in the Ginger vs. Maryann debate, but as I've grown older I've come to realize that Mrs. Howell was quite doable.

Aw, you're just buttering her up to get at that steamer trunk full of cash.

Which they bought with them on a three-hour tour.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at December 02, 2016 05:38 PM (8ZskC)

230
Many of us were even shown this film, presented uncritically as a factual account of an American historical event, while in school

They could have shown Zardoz.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot, Jr. at December 02, 2016 05:38 PM (IqV8l)

231 I must crack the Minx 0.7 alpha algorithm before I die.

Posted by: Neil Tyson DeChicken at December 02, 2016 05:39 PM (Tyii7)

232 Well the whole premise is flawed since the boat sunk on the beach.

Huh? It was a storm, the boat blew ashore there on the storm surge and then the seas retreated. That much was the last part of the show that actually made sense.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at December 02, 2016 05:39 PM (39g3+)

233 It's not always the redheads who are freaky. Pretty sure we proved on one of the ONT's that Daphne is a prude but Velma's lesbian shtick is an act and she definitely does butt stuff.

Posted by: broseidon king of the brocean at December 02, 2016 05:39 PM (kumBu)

234 I understand the whole Mary Ann v. Ginger thing, but two other things always bugged me about that show: 1) why the professor couldn't fix a hole in a boat but do anything else and 2) why Gilligan wasn't thrown into a volcano by episode 2.

Posted by: Roy at December 02, 2016 05:27 PM (fWLrt)

In the move Back to the Beach from the 80s. A sequel to the Frankie and Annette movies. Bob Denver shows up in a scene and says something like he was on a island with a guy who could build a nuclear reactor out of 2 coconuts but couldn't figure out how to fix a 3 foot hole in a boat.

Posted by: TheQuietMan at December 02, 2016 05:39 PM (493sH)

235 Of course, Trump will happily issue a 'presidential proclamation' that Granny Rosenberg was a filthy commie who blew Stalin in the back of a Trabant for pocket change.

Posted by: Mr. Peebles at December 02, 2016 05:39 PM (OkKDg)

236 222 Don't shed any tears for Bryan. He was a progressive tool, too.

Posted by: Bea Arthur's Dick
************

Yeah, but I care about correcting the record.

Posted by: Warden at December 02, 2016 05:39 PM (MZ8Zz)

237 ...or maybe just autocucumber.

Posted by: Neil Tyson DeChicken at December 02, 2016 05:39 PM (Tyii7)

238 Really? You're wondering why the skippers hat wasn't a tattered rag with Ginger on the island.

Yeah. His sock should have been the tattered rag.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at December 02, 2016 05:39 PM (8ZskC)

239 But like you said, they had reasons to want to stay on the island. It was a, y'know, 'intimate' environment.

Posted by: broseidon
****

We're all alone again. Come here little buddy.

Posted by: Skipper at December 02, 2016 05:39 PM (0x/TW)

240 Minnow Fun Fact:

The little man in the boat was not named Gilligan.

Posted by: Fritz at December 02, 2016 05:39 PM (hOptz)

241 >>Yea, that was the flaw.

Theme song cleared all that up.

The weather was rough.
Tiny boat got tossed.
Luckily, the crew was fearless.
The Minnow was not lost.

Posted by: garrett at December 02, 2016 05:39 PM (PeNEi)

242 The resident 'scholar' doesn't care about the truth. Lulz.

Posted by: Eleanor Norton Holmes at December 02, 2016 05:40 PM (FqgrG)

243 See Drudge. Are you ready for the Obama News Network? Obama TV? Barky is thinking about getting into a media career after he leaves office.

We knew he was going to be "president in exile", sniping at Trump and all that. But we never knew just how YUGE this was going to be.

He's been talking with the heads of the media Borg.

Posted by: publius (not Breitbart publius) at December 02, 2016 05:40 PM (DW+jj)

244 it was calked the s.s. minnow in a sly reference to the head of the f.c.c., a mr. minow, who coined the phrase "great wasteland" to describe tv and entertainment like "gilligan's island".

Posted by: musical jolly chimp at December 02, 2016 05:40 PM (WTSFk)

245 >>Posted by: Bea Arthur's Dick

Well, something punched a 3 foot hole in the hull.

Posted by: garrett at December 02, 2016 05:40 PM (PeNEi)

246 I don't have any problem with natural selection meaning that white birds predominate in a snowy environment and brown ones predominate in a wooded environment, or whatever. I recognize that at the bacterial and microbial level we see the effects of natural selection and evolution all the time -- such as in the emergence of antibiotic-resistant strains of certain diseases. However, there is exactly zero evidence of a multicellular organism species becoming another species, let alone the number of chromosomes changing from parent to offspring (and the new mutation in chromosomal number being a trait that survives and is reproduced into future generations).
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at December 02, 2016 05:31 PM (jK8Z7)

But we MIGHT discover such EVIDENCE in the future.
Threrefore, we came from Monkeys.

Posted by: Pepe, Proud American Nationalist at December 02, 2016 05:40 PM (sFofr)

247 Scientists use "theory" to refer to a hypothesis that has been borne out repeatedly by numerous rigorous experiments under many conditions.

Accurate, but a theory is still unproven and subject to debate. It can seem very accurate and functional but later be demonstrated to be flawed or false. Essentially Evolutionary Theory is a method of interpreting data at this point, not a true scientific theory. When new data and information shows up, they plug it into evolution to see how it works rather than the other way around.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at December 02, 2016 05:41 PM (39g3+)

248 >>off old wet sock

What I wouldn't have given for a sock on that island!

Posted by: The professor at December 02, 2016 05:41 PM (PeNEi)

249
Altough I do wonder why the skipper on a diet of fish and tropical fruit couldn't manage to lose a few pounds

Posted by: Deplorable Male Logic at December 02, 2016 05:41 PM (lKyWE)

250 ... his name was newton minos and he called tv a "vast wasteland". o.k.

Posted by: musical jolly chimp at December 02, 2016 05:41 PM (WTSFk)

251 Scientists use "theory" to refer to a hypothesis that has been borne out repeatedly by numerous rigorous experiments under many conditions. Hence, the theory of relativity, the theory of quantum mechanics, etc.

Big difference.

The theory that Ginger did butt stuff.

Posted by: rickb223 at December 02, 2016 05:41 PM (SgI6S)

252 My guess is that if you gave a live chicken to Mary Ann a few hours later you would be eating fried chicken to die for.

Posted by: Skip at December 02, 2016 05:41 PM (5sOEp)

253 243 See Drudge. Are you ready for the Obama News Network? Obama TV? Barky is thinking about getting into a media career after he leaves office.

We knew he was going to be "president in exile", sniping at Trump and all that. But we never knew just how YUGE this was going to be.

He's been talking with the heads of the media Borg.
Posted by: publius (not Breitbart publius) at December 02, 2016 05:40 PM (DW+jj)

Please buy The Blaze.

Posted by: Glenn Beck at December 02, 2016 05:42 PM (sFofr)

254 Of course, Trump will happily issue a 'presidential proclamation' that Granny Rosenberg was a filthy commie who blew Stalin in the back of a Trabant for pocket change.

Complete bullshit. It was a Lada.

Posted by: Joe Stalin at December 02, 2016 05:42 PM (4WhSY)

255 Bryan was also very progressive and a typical politician in that he couldn't accept that the people could reject his brilliance - hence being a perpetual candidate. Not quite Harold Stassen levels, but he still couldn't get it through his skull that the country didn't want him to be POTUS.

Posted by: broseidon king of the brocean at December 02, 2016 05:42 PM (kumBu)

256 Altough I do wonder why the skipper on a diet of fish and tropical fruit couldn't manage to lose a few pounds

A steady diet of banana creme pies and Ginger would inhibit weight loss, probably.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at December 02, 2016 05:42 PM (8ZskC)

257 Went over the line last evening into Boulder county, and grabbed a free copy when leaving the restaurant of the magazine "Boulder."

There is an article in it, written by a professor at CU, which is what they call the University of Colorado here (a sign of backwardness), about how the media distorts the issue of climate change, and does not permit the truth to get out.

He is a professor of climate science. Yeah, science.

He sounds in the article like Obama braying about Fox News.

Posted by: the littl shyning man at December 02, 2016 05:42 PM (U6f54)

258 The weather was rough.
Tiny boat got tossed.
Luckily, the crew was fearless.
The Minnow was not lost.
Posted by: garrett at December 02, 2016 05:39 PM (PeNEi)

I believe it was
"the weather started getting rought
The tiny ship was tossed
If not for the courage of the fearless crew
The minnow would be lost"

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at December 02, 2016 05:43 PM (cJrMO)

259 See Drudge. Are you ready for the Obama News Network? Obama TV? Barky is thinking about getting into a media career after he leaves office.
**********

Makes sense. The only thing he's good at is running that cocknibbler of his.

Posted by: Warden at December 02, 2016 05:43 PM (MZ8Zz)

260 Altough I do wonder why the skipper on a diet of fish and tropical fruit couldn't manage to lose a few pounds

::scratches head::

Posted by: eleven at December 02, 2016 05:43 PM (qUNWi)

261 "Complete bullshit. It was a Lada.

Posted by: Joe Stalin at December 02, 2016 05:42 PM (4WhSY) "

Complete bullshit. A married Jewish woman giving a BJ?

Posted by: broseidon king of the brocean at December 02, 2016 05:43 PM (kumBu)

262 #95

It's been proposed that this is the mammal's answer to the insect colony, where vast numbers of non-reproducing members labor for the queen who shares their genome.

The prehistoric human norm is for each female to produce as many children as she can manage, whether with one mate or many. If her generation includes a sibling or two who do not produce children but instead participate in the well-being of the extended family who shares their DNA, this is a worthwhile investment in group survival.

The mechanism continues long after the majority of human stopped living that sort of baseline existence. Since it is a potential rather than a hard coded trait, the conditions selecting for or against it are far harder to determine than something like a mutation that allows digestion of lactose well into adulthood and allows the bearer to thrive in an environment other humans could not.

Posted by: Epobirs at December 02, 2016 05:43 PM (AK5Ni)

263 Micro-Evolution = yes observed, evidence, and proven

Macro-Evolution= No never observered, zero evidence, never proven

Posted by: Pepe, Proud American Nationalist at December 02, 2016 05:44 PM (sFofr)

264 247 Scientists use "theory" to refer to a hypothesis that has been borne out repeatedly by numerous rigorous experiments under many conditions.

Accurate, but a theory is still unproven and subject to debate. It can seem very accurate and functional but later be demonstrated to be flawed or false. Essentially Evolutionary Theory is a method of interpreting data at this point, not a true scientific theory. When new data and information shows up, they plug it into evolution to see how it works rather than the other way around.
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at December 02, 2016 05:41 PM (39g3+)

An example of a layman's understanding of theory.

Posted by: buzzion at December 02, 2016 05:44 PM (z/Ubi)

265 249
Altough I do wonder why the skipper on a diet of fish and tropical fruit couldn't manage to lose a few pounds
Posted by: Deplorable Male Logic at December 02, 2016 05:41 PM (lKyWE)

little known fact: the skipper had a years supply of freeze dried survivalist food hidden on the minnow. He used it to supplement his diet.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at December 02, 2016 05:44 PM (cJrMO)

266 I want to know why after three seasons why the Skipper was still a fatass on an all-vegan diet.

Posted by: Mr. Peebles at December 02, 2016 05:44 PM (OkKDg)

267 The simplest chemical reaction in the human body is so complicated with so many different chemicals interacting in a particular order, that it's amazing that anyone believes that we are anything other than designed.

Posted by: Sharkman at December 02, 2016 05:44 PM (AWnMe)

268
True Fact.

My wife went to Williams Jennings Bryan High School

Posted by: fixerupper at December 02, 2016 05:45 PM (JmjOe)

269 >>I believe it was

I suffer for my art and this, this is what I get.

Posted by: garrett at December 02, 2016 05:45 PM (PeNEi)

270 208 Ginger was one of the few redheads who didn't do it for me.
Lucille Ball did for crying out loud.
Posted by: Tilikum KAW

What's that? butt stuff?

Posted by: Noah
****
Lucy = loosie

Posted by: Tilikum KAW at December 02, 2016 05:45 PM (m3iiU)

271 221 It bothers me that people easily recognize the fallacy in the "97% of scientists believe in global warming" in its various forms but immediately turn around and use something like it for Evolutionism. Everyone believes this, how can it be false? Only stupid creationists think otherwise!

That's not really fair. Scientists (real ones) support the theory of evolution because it comports well with experimental observations, and has done so without fail for over a century. Do you believe pathogenic bacteria become resistant to antibiotics? Then you believe in evolution through natural selection too.

AGW, OTOH, has NOT been tested experimentally (partly because it not obvious how to do so, a fundamental and recurring problem with an observational science), and has NOT yielded any predictions that have been borne out by observation.

Totally different situation.

Science is very set in stone: its never decreed by majority vote, and always up to debate. No matter what the topic.
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at December 02, 2016 05:37 PM (39g3+)

This statement is most certainly true. Scientific debates are never settled by a show of hands. They're settled by dispositive data. Period.

Two recent examples of shocking reversals in scientific thinking: the downfall of the conservation of parity in 1956, heretofore a bedrock principle of physics alongside conservation of energy, and the discovery in the 1980s that stomach ulcers resulted not from stress, but from infection with Helicobacter pylorii, contra the views of the great and good.

Each of these resulted in richly deserved Nobel Prizes (real ones, not Peace of literature).

Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at December 02, 2016 05:45 PM (SRKgf)

272 Complete bullshit. A married Jewish woman giving a BJ?

She wasn't married to me.

Posted by: Joe Stalin at December 02, 2016 05:45 PM (4WhSY)

273 nood french chick

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at December 02, 2016 05:45 PM (cJrMO)

274 266 I want to know why after three seasons why the Skipper was still a fatass on an all-vegan diet.
Posted by: Mr. Peebles

They had a good commissary on set back in the 60s.

Posted by: Roy at December 02, 2016 05:45 PM (fWLrt)

275 The simplest chemical reaction in the human body is so complicated with so many different chemicals interacting in a particular order, that it's amazing that anyone believes that we are anything other than designed.

Could have designed the fart locker a little better.

Posted by: rickb223 at December 02, 2016 05:46 PM (SgI6S)

276 The simplest chemical reaction in the human body is so complicated with so many different chemicals interacting in a particular order, that it's amazing that anyone believes that we are anything other than designed.
Posted by: Sharkman at December 02, 2016 05:44 PM (AWnMe)

-----

Think of DNA and RNA as organic computer code.

Posted by: fixerupper at December 02, 2016 05:46 PM (JmjOe)

277 221
It bothers me that people easily recognize the fallacy in the "97% of
scientists believe in global warming" in its various forms but
immediately turn around and use something like it for Evolutionism. Everyone believes this, how can it be false? Only stupid creationists think otherwise!

Science is very set in stone: its never decreed by majority vote, and always up to debate. No matter what the topic.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at December 02, 2016 05:37 PM (39g3+)

That entire introduction and summary of the AGW study from the UN was done by politicians. Not only was it not done by the "scientists involved with the study, but it actually had crap in it that the actual study did not have and stuff that disagreed with what the scientists wrote.

But every single quote you ever saw from the media or the Democrat and other warmies came out of the summary.

Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at December 02, 2016 05:46 PM (mpXpK)

278 >>Micro-Evolution = yes observed, evidence, and proven

Our own AtC is a particularly adorable example of this.

Posted by: garrett at December 02, 2016 05:46 PM (PeNEi)

279 newton minow. damn splchk

Posted by: musical jolly chimp at December 02, 2016 05:46 PM (WTSFk)

280 Come on you guys you've all seen pictures of big fat Polynesians. It is possible.

I bet Mary Anne made great creme pies. Sigh.

Posted by: f'd at December 02, 2016 05:47 PM (BO/km)

281 I'd like to give Mary Ann a cream pie.

Posted by: publius (not Breitbart publius) at December 02, 2016 05:48 PM (DW+jj)

282 This is OT, but discovered it tooling around on YouTube.

Scankles went off after Lauer asked her one unapproved question. She ranted at Donna Brazile, calling her a "braindead buffalo".

Because she's tolerant and divine and light itself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfGeXth-Do4

Posted by: kallisto at December 02, 2016 05:48 PM (jkmtt)

283 That's not really fair. Scientists (real ones) support the theory of evolution because it comports well with experimental observations, and has done so without fail for over a century.

I'm not referring to how scientists talk about evolutionary theory. I'm talking about how ordinary people do. They use exactly the same language and concepts. However there are parallels: most scientists presume evolution to be true not because they personally study or understand biology, but because they presume the people who do know what they are talking about.

Much the same as the 97% of scientists. When the physicist studying nuclear bonds for a living is asked about AGW, he will say 'well I guess its true, they say so" because he has neither the time or inclination to find out himself. At least, until the emails came out showing how unscientific and sloppy and even anti-science the supporters were acting.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at December 02, 2016 05:48 PM (39g3+)

284
Threrefore, [sic] we came from Monkeys.
------------------------------

I suspect it's sarcasm, and I know it's pointless to argue, but we 'come from monkeys', or even primates is not what evolution suggests.

They are cousins, not ancestors.

Posted by: Sidmon Money at December 02, 2016 05:49 PM (yTmoh)

285 276: the argument that complexity proves design and a designer is wrong in my view. a designer would design the simplest mechanisms and interactions. complexity confirms evolution, to me.

Posted by: musical jolly chimp at December 02, 2016 05:49 PM (WTSFk)

286 "I want to know why after three seasons why the Skipper was still a fatass on an all-vegan diet.

Posted by: Mr. Peebles at December 02, 2016 05:44 PM (OkKDg) "

He had some supplemental protein in his diet.

Posted by: broseidon king of the brocean at December 02, 2016 05:49 PM (kumBu)

287 Well... If both Maryann and Ginger can't have me at the same time, then neither shall have me!

Posted by: Zettai Ryoiki, #FreeCthulhuAlreadyFFS at December 02, 2016 05:50 PM (kP16F)

288 I'm going to go see the nood French chick

Posted by: Skip at December 02, 2016 05:51 PM (5sOEp)

289 "Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at December 02, 2016 05:45 PM (SRKgf) "

Yeah, the ulcer guy definitely deserved a prize for that. He suffered for his art.

Posted by: broseidon king of the brocean at December 02, 2016 05:51 PM (kumBu)

290 Accurate, but a theory is still unproven and subject to debate. It can seem very accurate and functional but later be demonstrated to be flawed or false. Essentially Evolutionary Theory is a method of interpreting data at this point, not a true scientific theory. When new data and information shows up, they plug it into evolution to see how it works rather than the other way around.
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at December 02, 2016 05:41 PM (39g3+)

An example of a layman's understanding of theory.

Posted by: buzzion at December 02, 2016 05:44 PM (z/Ubi)

Yep.

First, no theory or anything else is ever proven. Some notions have just not been disproven - yet. That's the best any such notion can hope for.

Second, all theories (and hypotheses, too) are a conceptual framework in which to interpret data. A theory or hypothesis remains in play as long as it's not contradicted by empirical observations, after which point it has to be either modified or rejected entirely.

Third, what exactly would constitute a "true scientific theory?"

Fourth, I'm not aware of any new data or information that has called the theory of evolution into serious question. If such data come to hand, another story.

Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at December 02, 2016 05:51 PM (SRKgf)

291 Macro-Evolution= No never observered, [sic] zero evidence, never proven
------------------------------------------------------

Russian experiments in domesticating wild foxes to the contrary.

Posted by: Sidmon Money at December 02, 2016 05:51 PM (yTmoh)

292 An actual ace thread upstream.

Posted by: Max Power at December 02, 2016 05:54 PM (q177U)

293 Michael Flynn has a great series of articles on the Church and science.

http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown-table-of.html

http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2011/09/adam-and-eve-and-ted-and-alice.html

Posted by: Colorado Alex In Exile at December 02, 2016 05:54 PM (FYrz1)

294 Yeah, the ulcer guy definitely deserved a prize for that. He suffered for his art.

Posted by: broseidon king of the brocean at December 02, 2016 05:51 PM (kumBu)

The two Nobel Laureates (Australian physicians, IIRC) were laughed at for years by the "experts." Oops.

A similar thing happened to Van Allen, when he proposed a radiation belt around the earth. Prominent scientists pooh-poohed him because he was at Iowa State (IIRC). Oops again.

Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at December 02, 2016 05:54 PM (SRKgf)

295 291 Macro-Evolution= No never observered, [sic] zero evidence, never proven
------------------------------------------------------

Russian experiments in domesticating wild foxes to the contrary.
Posted by: Sidmon Money at December 02, 2016 05:51 PM (yTmoh)

The domesticated foxes didn't become cats though did they.

Posted by: buzzion at December 02, 2016 05:55 PM (z/Ubi)

296 the argument that complexity proves design and a designer is wrong in my view. a designer would design the simplest mechanisms and interactions. complexity confirms evolution, to me.
Posted by: musical jolly chimp at December 02, 2016 05:49 PM (WTSFk)

Unless God is a German.

Posted by: Colorado Alex In Exile at December 02, 2016 05:55 PM (FYrz1)

297 263 Micro-Evolution = yes observed, evidence, and proven
Macro-Evolution= No never observered, zero evidence, never proven
Posted by: Pepe, Proud American Nationalist at December 02, 2016 05:44 PM (sFofr)

Nothing in science is EVER proven. Ever.

Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at December 02, 2016 05:55 PM (SRKgf)

298 The domesticated foxes didn't become cats though did they.
----------------------------

They are a different species of fox, however.

Posted by: Sidmon Money at December 02, 2016 05:56 PM (yTmoh)

299 the argument that complexity proves design and a designer is wrong in my view. a designer would design the simplest mechanisms and interactions. complexity confirms evolution, to me.
Posted by: musical jolly chimp at December 02, 2016 05:49 PM (WTSFk)

Flunks Occam's Razor. No need to invoke a designer, much less speculate on a designer's motivation or competence.

Here's how a scientist approaches this: pathogenic bacteria become resistant to antibiotics after repeated exposure. How can we understand that?

We could postulate that the bacteria radio Martians to beam down and protect, but that flunks Occam's Razor too.

Or we could say that through biological variation - which most certainly exists, as individuals of any species are not identical - some individual bacteria by chance have some resistance to a given antibiotic, and survive exposure to it that kills off most of their fellows.

Repeated exposure selects again among those individuals for those that have more resistance than the others. Rinse. Lather. Repeat. Eventually, a strain evolves that is resistant, because non-resistant members have been killed off.

Now does that hypothesis explain the observations? Why yes, yes it does. And it has for 150 years, through innumerable experiments and observations.

Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at December 02, 2016 06:02 PM (SRKgf)

300 298 The domesticated foxes didn't become cats though did they.
----------------------------

They are a different species of fox, however.
Posted by: Sidmon Money at December 02, 2016 05:56 PM (yTmoh)

You sure of that? Dogs and wolves are the same species. Dogs are considered a subspecies of wolf, but they're both Canis lupus.

Posted by: buzzion at December 02, 2016 06:02 PM (z/Ubi)

301 228 whatever, Warden. it was still a stupid law, and striking it down was still the right thing to do.

Posted by: Boulder terlit hobo at December 02, 2016 05:38 PM (DJbhY)
------------------------------
Um, the law was upheld.

The legislature of the state of Tennessee had the authority to set whatever standards they wanted in their schools.
If they wanted to teach that the moon is made of green cheese and orange juice causes syphilis, they could.
Likewise they could forbid teachers to teach tap dancing or Japanese on school property.

That was the LEGAL question, which got lost in all the hoopla about evolution.

The way to get rid of a stupid law is to pass a less stupid one in the legislature.

Posted by: Margarita DeVille at December 02, 2016 06:05 PM (Nox3c)

302 Fox reporting that Berghdahl requesting a pardon from Barry. Odds of success?

Posted by: Duke Lowell at December 02, 2016 06:08 PM (kTF2Z)

303 "They lie about everything. They have to because they can't win on the merits. It's a just one long con after another."

This. SO MUCH this.

Without lies, without a media to cover for them, lie for them, shill for them, and attack their enemies for them, the Left would never win a national election again.

And Trump may well have broken their back (figuratively).

Even if the Left were held to the rules they bludgeon the Right with, they would lose horribly.

Posted by: acethepug at December 02, 2016 06:09 PM (539ql)

304 The simplest chemical reaction in the human body is so complicated with so many different chemicals interacting in a particular order, that it's amazing that anyone believes that we are anything other than designed.
Posted by: Sharkman at December 02, 2016 05:44 PM (AWnMe)

Not really. Studied one reaction at a time, it's not that daunting, nor that complicated. In fact, it's pretty straightforward. Chemists do it all the time in isolated systems. Carbonic anhydrase, a zinc enzyme, catalyzes the hydration of CO2 to produce carbonic acid, and of course vice versa. That is involved in letting us maintain the homeostasis of the pH of the blood; too acidic, carbonic acid goes to CO2, we pant a bit, off goes the CO2, the blood pH goes back up to normal. At some level it's not that complicated.

In aggregate, there are a whole bunch of simple reactions that, taken together, form an imposing edifice, but each of the pieces is pretty simple, and readily understood. The interaction between the pieces is being worked out now.

Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at December 02, 2016 06:11 PM (SRKgf)

305 Darrow was a very bad man. He pioneered the idea of attacking the witnesses instead of adjudicating the evidence.
Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards

Are you fucking kidding me?

Posted by: Socrates at December 02, 2016 06:14 PM (1G5R8)

306 The simplest chemical reaction in the human body is so complicated with so many different chemicals interacting in a particular order, that it's amazing that anyone believes that we are anything other than designed.
Posted by: Sharkman

Unforts, that just a variation of the Argument from Ignorance.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at December 02, 2016 06:17 PM (1G5R8)

307 The issue at hand in the Scopes trial was social Darwinism. The specific book Scopes had allegedly used during his stint as substitute teach was Civic Biology by George Hunter, which explicitly taught eugenics and white supremacy -- more than that, it taught them as scientific facts, part of the theory of evolution. This was in fact widespread: most defenders of evolution at the time took it to at least imply that certain ethnicities were more evolved and thus superior to others. So for both sides you either accepted evolution AND social Darwinism, or neither. So the reason the law had been passed in Tennessee was because people didn't want social Darwinism taught to children as proven scientific facts. The ignorant southern hicks, it turns out, were actually taking a stand against racism and white supremacy.

Posted by: Jim S. at December 02, 2016 06:17 PM (Khwdv)

308
Complete bullshit. A married Jewish woman giving a BJ?
Posted by: broseidon king of the brocean at December 02, 2016 05:43 PM (

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

As an aside, scotch makes. Very good iPad cleaner.

Posted by: Duke Lowell at December 02, 2016 06:23 PM (kTF2Z)

309 The China Syndrome was a much better movie and killed off an entire industry that could have been an amazing success of science. The dumb seem to always lead the smart. But what do I know? I got into Teddy's car.....

Posted by: Mary Jo Kopechne at December 02, 2016 06:27 PM (/JLAS)

310 Well Ace you should send a copy of this article to Mel Gibson or Clint Eastwood and see if they would be willing to make a more accurate movie. I'm sure liberals of all stripes would condemn such a picture as folly, just like they did; "The Passion of Christ", "Gran Torino", and "American Sniper".

Posted by: desicat at December 02, 2016 06:28 PM (ksmhR)

311 @307 Jim S.

BOOM.
Status: lowered.

Posted by: Stringer Davis at December 02, 2016 06:30 PM (H5rtT)

312 Bad news? Liberals of all stripes would condemn such a picture as folly.
Good news? First, they would blow you.
Bonus, they'd be...off your lawn.

Posted by: Stringer Davis at December 02, 2016 06:33 PM (H5rtT)

313 Who is this Open Blogger you speak of?
Pretty ferkkin' good!

Posted by: JEFF smith at December 02, 2016 06:38 PM (25AzT)

314 "They lie about everything. They have to because they can't win on the merits. It's a just one long con after another."

Be that as it may, they win. Until someone comes up with a way to make it so painful for them that they can no longer use this tactic, they'll continue to win.

Posted by: FaCubeItches at December 02, 2016 06:42 PM (rznWS)

315 Jeannie.

Posted by: End of Discussion at December 02, 2016 06:49 PM (n3MnG)

316 Whether or not the Scopes rial discredited the Butler Act, it effectively shut down the teaching of evolution an US high schools for decades.

Posted by: Jim at December 02, 2016 06:56 PM (golr6)

317 I used to think that Trump was Al Czervik, now I think he's at least partly Thornton Mellon.

Posted by: Mr. Peebles at December 02, 2016 06:56 PM (OkKDg)

318 I would suggest to Openblogger that he read the eulogy of Bryan written a few days after his passing by a journalist who covered the Scopes Monkey Trial from beginning to end, one H.L. Mencken.
You have heard of the man, I presume?

http://history.msu.edu/hst203/files/2011/02/Mencken-In-Memoriam-WJB.pdf

Posted by: jbspry at December 02, 2016 06:57 PM (mCOPv)

319 154
Sorry to hear that, Max Power. For me it was Time magazime- but it's only as an adult that I realized how long they had sucked. I've outgrown it, and in turn maybe their archives will be worth buying at bargain prices. Maybe.

As for Choomy: I INSIST he stay. Wookie wife and bratty daughters do not have the stuff of dynasty, and the more Americans hear his smug voice the more they will admit to hating him. More, it will cripple the Democrats trying to define themselves as anything but the Minority party for at least a decade.

Posted by: trev006 at December 02, 2016 07:20 PM (D6F1y)

320 My moms family was VERY southern , and as a result, many people in her family were named after famous people. My grandfathers were Benjamin Franklin-----, my other grandfather was Napoleon Bonaparte -------. There are lots of other examples but the reason I am sharing this is my uncle William Jennings Brian----. My twin uncles Grover and Cleveland had to share being named after Grover Cleveland.

I doubt if southerners do this anymore.

Posted by: Chilling the most at December 02, 2016 07:23 PM (Cl52v)

321 "The opening of the book of Genesis fairly comports with what we believe
of the Big Bank, the formation of Earth and even evolution, no?"

Yet the Big Bang is the greatest creation myth yet - it's the miracle that invented science. We have more of a semantic problem than a valid origins theory there.

Posted by: Ten at December 02, 2016 07:44 PM (JW07Y)

322 So many lies have become "conventional wisdom" and thus are considered "truth" by all sides in political discourse that they twist all arguments in some way.

Mostly to the left's benefit but even when the conservatives benefit from some old lie that has become believed they still, by using it, more thoroughly embed left leaning thought in to all that we think and do.

Firesign Theater was correct when they said "Everything you know is wrong." They just were wrong about which side was spreading the lies.

Posted by: geoffb5 at December 02, 2016 07:53 PM (d3wbb)

323 "No need to invoke a designer, much less speculate on a designer's motivation or competence."

Through all processes, whether physical or mental, to exist is to possess purpose, which invokes choice which invokes reason which invokes mind. Understanding even a tree's complete biology does not answer the why of what even for a tree is evident motivation.

By the time you then get to mind consciousness has well formed. To consciously exist is inherently to be an active functionary in a reasoning system and reason cannot but involve an accountable component. It may involve speculation - a common entity - but it creates motivation and competence as absolutely as the words themselves exist.

Posted by: Ten at December 02, 2016 07:57 PM (JW07Y)

324 Ginger took way better care of her stockings and apparently had an excess of makeup. Who knew?

Posted by: micky at December 02, 2016 07:59 PM (o5vMc)

325 Well they are dead now and so they have much more information than at the time of the trial.

After all none of us have to suffer fools longer than about 80 years or so.

Posted by: petunia at December 02, 2016 10:38 PM (VoCyE)

326 The real story of Rosa Parks is rather different, too...

Posted by: WARPIG at December 02, 2016 10:47 PM (KL5Ns)

327 Don't know if anyone has mentioned this but the reason the great defender Clarence Darrow never lost a case is that he represented the Chicago mobs; first the north side gang, later Capone's outfit. The prosecutor's officewould share lists of witnesses to be called with the defense. The defense either passed the names on or allowed the list to be viewed and witnesses were either bribed or intimidated. I forget the exact number of gang related homicides in Chicagoland during Prohibition but the number of criminal convictions was exactly zero.

Posted by: Peter Schneider at December 02, 2016 11:47 PM (El+Jz)

328 "Truth" was on a few weeks ago. Fascinating to watch as a piece of propaganda, knowing all the lies, big and small, and the omissions and distortions. Will Truth become the equivalent of Inherit the Wind in a few decades? I hope not ... but clearly that was the idea. The Left. Never. Stops. Lying. Never. D.GOOCH

Posted by: GOOCH at December 03, 2016 01:28 AM (Vj3Ev)

329 Fantastic post, Warden.

I'm not surprised, though I didn't know this story. I do know that Rosa Parks, like Scopes, was an activist and her revolt on the Birmingham bus was planned. She was a Communist Party member and an employee of the NAACP, and the whole thing was staged:

http://rense.com/general68/rosa.htm

Posted by: Beverly at December 03, 2016 02:55 AM (L3AAT)

330 Per that link I found in the preceding comment: that is a mix of good information (who was a Party member) and some ungood stuff, about the origins of Communism.

Sigh. The internet. Whaddaya gonna do.

Posted by: Beverly at December 03, 2016 02:58 AM (L3AAT)

331 If you're dealing with a person who uses "Evolution!" as a bludgeon against Christians, just board them on the topic of cladistics and punctuated equilibrium, and see how fast their eyes cross.

But just remember, they're always the Smartest Persons In the Room.

Posted by: Beverly at December 03, 2016 03:25 AM (L3AAT)

332 FAKE NEWS! isn't "ripped from today's headlines". It IS the headlines. And yesterday's headlines, too, judging from the Darrow "case".

Good history, good post, OB.

Posted by: The Gipper Lives at December 03, 2016 06:07 AM (Ndje9)

333 1. (301) "The legislature of the state of Tennessee had the authority to set whatever standards they wanted in their schools.
If they wanted to teach that the moon is made of green cheese and orange juice causes syphilis, they could.
Likewise they could forbid teachers to teach tap dancing or Japanese on school property.

That was the LEGAL question, which got lost in all the hoopla about evolution. '

Not many know that H L Mencken, who in every other respect was on Scopes's side, agreed with this.

2. Emma Peel. All the rest are also-rans.

Posted by: George LeS at December 03, 2016 08:34 AM (+TcCF)

334 The film's director, Stanley Kramer, was a typically sanctimonius Hollywood liberal. He ruined "On the Beach" with the same sort of posturing. His biggest sin, however, was that "....Mad, Mad World" is, at best, amusing, considering that one will never have so many great comic actors in one film ever again.

Posted by: Darwin Akbar at December 03, 2016 09:43 AM (p8p1O)

335 Progressives will only truly be progressive when the progress beyond the demonstrably failed 19th century theory of marxism and socialism, and the heavy jackboots of government generally, as their one size fits all solution to all social problems. Just sayin'

Posted by: Random Thought Generator at December 03, 2016 01:12 PM (XfHd6)

336 The original title of Darwin's work was "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

Not very PC but Margaret Sanger thought it catchy.

Posted by: Freddie Sykes at December 03, 2016 01:33 PM (PXZ1i)

337 Willaim Jennings Bryan had no business stepping into that arena as he was not qualified to argue that case. That was half the problem, sending someone who was popular but not necessarily the right man for the job.

A Hundred years later, the studies in DNA and genetics has effectively destroyed evolution for good, showing it to be about as possible as global warming. But they'll hang on to that narrative until they've squeezed every last dime out of the system that they can, just like the evangelists that hang on to questionable doctrines to squeeze money out of the church for themselves. And I say that as a devout christian.

Posted by: akelm88 at December 03, 2016 03:39 PM (km/D2)

338 17
It is possible to think that the Earth is incredibly old, and that
evolution and natural selection are real phenomena, and still be
Christian.

My sincere belief, at any rate.

Posted by: tubal at December 02, 2016 04:48 PM (d6TTt)

Agreed. I don't see why so many people perceive them to be mutually exclusive. I believe God created the laws of the universe, (which is magnificent), and set it all in motion, and we have the elegant, complex and amazing world we live in, with God as the architect and laws and rules for us to discover in order to understand how it is constructed.

Posted by: atomicplaygirl (Gab: atomicplaygirl) at December 03, 2016 04:57 PM (Gim9y)

339 I'm a contrarian. While most think we've evolved from apes, I'm evolving into an ape. GAINZZZZ bro.

Posted by: Regular joe at December 03, 2016 06:14 PM (ROIz5)

340 Let's have a reality check.

Christianity and all religions are logically and objectively (for lack of a more accurate description) bullshit.

The opinions, ideas and beliefs of its practitioners are thus exactly the same.

Any political, economic or social structure that vindicates the promulgation of bullshit (allows bullshit to exist unabated) is therefore logically and objectively wrong.

In my opinion taking all this to a more utilitarian conclusion..Christians do not actually have any right to exist and neither do their opinions.

The "liberals" (as you put it) are conspiring to stifle their bullshit.

If I were you I'd be grateful it's mere stifling (owing mostly to the utter erroneousness of democracy). Ideally it should be eradication with absolute prejudice.

Posted by: Pepe at December 03, 2016 09:10 PM (8zZYt)

341 One of the Belief's is that Hitler's main purpose in destroying the Jews was to eradicate Monotheism by destroying God's promise to Abraham. Logic in the hands of someone who does not correctly see reality does more harm then good. The funny thing in the parable of the Good tree vs the Bad tree is that both trees have perfectly functioning systems, but one is rooted in darkness and the other in light. One brings destruction and the other healing.

In these things its not the facts that are at issue, but the interpretation of facts, and the sleight of hand used to hide things that people don't want you to see. When you get to the ground of their assumptions, then their case comes under fire. The bottom line is the science is not settled on anything, far from it in fact. It is just hubris.

Posted by: akelm88 at December 04, 2016 01:19 AM (km/D2)

342 Pepe is an excellent example of a tolerant , inclusive, compassionate, leftist that believes in diversity, you know just like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro and all of the other leftist (yes Hitler was a leftist, a socialist who believed in a very strong and dictatorial federal government, the total control of industry, a one party system, and speech control).

I would ask Pepe to explain how natural selection results in converting a leg into a wing, or developing interdependent irreducibly complex systems such as the human eye. No scientists have been able to postulate how these and many other complex systems happened by a slow random process of thousands of minute beneficial changes happening over millennia and that is why the new theory of punctuated equilibrium has come in to vogue. While punctuated equilibrium solves some of the problems associated with uniformitarianistic natural selection (such as listed above and the lack of transitional types in the fossil record) it presents a whole new set of problems (such as how do you get a new functioning species out of a catastrophic mutation causing event).

Uniformitarianism natural selection postulates that homo sapien sapien evolved by millions of small random mutations over billions of years starting from a very simple single prokaryotic cell. That is some what like saying that a working watch evolved from scrap metal over billions of years (only we are far more complex than any watch). Punctuated equilibrium postulates that humans evolved by numerous random large mutations caused by natural catastrophes and that these resulting mutation stayed stable for very extended times until another natural event caused a new set of mutations. That is some what like saying that a bomb is set off in a junk yard and a working watch results.

However I do believe that evolution did take place, but no one has come up with the mechanism that caused life to form in the first place or how life evolved into its incredible complexity. The only logical conclusion is that there was some form of control and guidance in the process. Now Pepe would no doubt exclude such a possibility and even would wish to ban anyone from even suggesting such a thing. But let him solve the mystery that the best minds have yet to solve, they simply state that evolution is a fact but cannot state exactly how life started or how it evolved other than the debunked process of natural selection or the equally flawed punctuated equilibrium theory. And the best scientists have been trying to create the simplest form of life, a single prokaryotic cell, for over a hundred years under laboratory conditions, with organic compounds, without success. And even if some day they do succeed, what would that say? It would say that it took highly intelligent beings years, working under laboratory conditions, to do what was supposed to happen in the natural environment by random chance.

Posted by: The Architect at December 05, 2016 01:47 AM (ioC7W)

343 excellent. they lie about everything and when the american voter laughs in their face they simply take their lies to the federal courts upon which their allies in treason sit.

Posted by: Henry Wilson at December 05, 2016 11:44 AM (2CcBn)

Processing 0.04, elapsed 0.0559 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0187 seconds, 352 records returned.
Page size 198 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.