Evidences for Evolution, part 1: Chromosomes June 3, 2007Posted by Evil Bender in Origins, Religion, Science.
1 comment so far
A recent comment reminded me that at least a few of my readers insist on Young Earth Creationist beliefs despite the massive evidence to the contrary. I’ve repeatedly pointed those who accept the YEC anti-science nonsense to Talk.Origins’ 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. But I suspect that they’ve never actually taken the time to read even a little of that wonderful resource.
So I’ve decided to start a new series of posts explaining why scientists talk about the fact of evolution–descent with modification from a common ancestor. Please note: I am not a scientist. I am a liberal arts major who has a passionate interest in reason and science, but that makes me unqualified to give in-depth analysis of evolutionary theory. What I can provide, though, is a well-read layman’s understanding of the evidences of evolution. I would encourage anyone who wants to know more to read what scientists say on the matter, starting with works for mass audience and then, where possible, digging more fully into the source material.
So please, don’t take my word for any of this. But if you disagree, make sure to provide evidence. Appeals to religion won’t suffice.
Because YEC seem so desperate to believe that humans aren’t animals at all, my first post will be about a very human evidence of evolution: our chromosomes.
Drop down, reverse direction, increase speed! June 2, 2007Posted by Evil Bender in Uncategorized.
add a comment
[h/t to The Bronze Blog]
1 comment so far
Yup, just yesterday I agreed with Bill O’Reilly that evil progressives like me wanted to get rid of the white Christian male-centric power structure. I wondered–with Bill having finally shown something like insight, would I find myself agreeing with him more?
O’Reilly: Traditional values people put others on a par with themselves. That’s the Judeo-Christian tenet. Love your neighbor as yourself. Secular Progressives put themselves above all others. That philosophy says “Me first, then I’ll worry about you.”
Sure, Bill. If only this guy had found Jeebus he would have been a fine upstanding honest citizen like you–
Sweet Jesus, I think I agree with Bill O’Reilly June 1, 2007Posted by Evil Bender in bigotry, constiutional issues, Faux News, News and politics, wingnuts.
But do you understand what the New York Times wants, and the far-left want? They want to break down the white, Christian, male power structure, which you’re a part, and so am I, and they want to bring in millions of foreign nationals to basically break down the structure that we have. In that regard, Pat Buchanan is right. So I say you’ve got to cap with a number.
I didn’t think he’d ever actually admit that his real motivation was keeping white Christian males in power, but now that he did, I can say: Bill O, you’re absolutely right. I am thrilled with the idea of breaking down a power structure that allows tools like you to have a national voice for spreading lies when reasonable people are silenced due to their orientation, gender, skin color and religion.
Very nice, Bill, for spotting our real agenda. Just don’t forget what yours is.
When anti-choice strawmen attack! June 1, 2007Posted by Evil Bender in constiutional issues, reproductive rights, wingnuts.
1 comment so far
I couldn’t help but point out this post about how abortion is wrong because one woman sings to the fetus growing within her. There is almost nothing in Doug’s post that isn’t a lie, a distortion, or a strawman argument. It starts off bad with this total distortion of anyone’s actual position (words in quotes are supposedly those of us who believe in reproductive freedom):
“It’s really not that hard to understand-it’s all about a woman having control of her own body, not allowing the Government to dictate how she should live her life.”
Honestly, that’s the closest to a real argument he attributes to us. It’s actually about not letting the government force women to use their bodies to give birth. Simply put, it isn’t right to force someone to give up their body for another’s. End of story.
But it’s going to get so much worse.
“It’s just a fetus-not viable-it cannot survive outside of the woman’s body, so legally, it is not a baby. Life begins at birth-before that, it is a parasite.”
1) It’s not important whether it’s “legally” a baby; it’s important that it does not have a right denied to those of us who were born–to force another body into keeping it alive. 2) No one argues that life begins at birth. But “alive” doesn’t mean human. After all, each individual cell in our bodies contain our DNA. The fact that some of those cells can become human doesn’t make them human. 3) It is a parasite. By any legitimate biological standard, that’s a fact. That it makes Doug uncomfortable doesn’t change that.
But his real argument? Abortion is wrong because of singing. I kid you not.