Well. Natural selection is all well and good. But *evolution* is
something quite different. The creation of new species via natural
selection. I've little doubt evolution could create divergent races. But
species come with problems.


Problem #1- chromosomes. Chromosomal data is complicated. Adding or
removing a chromosome results in failure as an organism. Without fail,
sterility. Typically death as well.

Chimps have 48 chromosomes. Humans 46. Technically, that makes them
genetically more complex. Obviously not as effective a species, for some
reason. This, in and of itself is not too big an issue. However- the
genetic leap was far too recent.


Dogs have been selectively bred for millenia. And they reproduce far
faster than humans. Technically, dogs should be about a million years
ahead of us in the evolutionary race. Yet they can still comfortably
breed with wolves- their ancestory. And they can defectively breed with
coyotes- a distant cousin of whatever became wolves.


Now. This isn't possible. Although evolution could possibly result in
one or the other- it can't do both. No more than gravity could allow one
item fall twice as far in half the time of another item.


What this means, obviously, is that there's a force that alters
evolution that has nothing to do with natural selection or natural
mutation. That could easily be the Creator pulling strings and sending
the right beings the right ways. And it could also, possibly, be another
undiscovered force that is perfectly natural. Either way, the Theory of
Evolution is incomplete.

What's a matterbaby?



Two birds with one stone.

I'm thinking a meet up and chat, hike, watch the sunset, get a light
dinner, do some stargazing. More talking.


Because I love good conversation and I love nature. And I REALLY love
girls who can appreciate both.

I'm thinking a meet up and chat, hike, watch the sunset, get a light
dinner, do some stargazing. More talking.


Because I love good conversation and I love nature. And I REALLY love
girls who can appreciate both.

Actually, no. We may have 10% of the current dictators to answer for.
But we do have the most brutal of them.

We weren't created "sinners".

We were created "free".

We humans have free will. Which means not even God can force us to do
something we do not wish to do. Humans have the power to create fantasy
worlds that we, ourselves, believe. Humans have the power to forcibly
ignore Truth itself. We can deafen ourselves to our own soul as it
screams at our cruelties. We can commit murder, rape, even suicide- and
we can convince ourselves it's holy.

Our freedom is so powerful that it can defy Nature, Evolution, God, our
own self interests, and all sensibility.


One must, of course wonder WHY we're created to have that kind of power
within us. It wasn't so that we would be sinners- although that was
certainly an obvious side effect. But what we're meant for is obvously
important.

His entire post was basically to be ironic (which, in this case, also
means insulting). He said so himself. Why are you bothering to treat it
seriously?

There was if he wanted his post read and/or taken seriously by the
majority of people. The slang approach works well enough for 12 year
olds playing with their cell phones. But we're supposed to be adults,
here.


I know I skipped right over his post. After the second line or so.
Right about when my vision blurred out on me.

Far as I'm concerned, if you commit a crime while intoxicated- you
should be charged as if you PREMEDITATIVELY committed the crime in
question. You chose to get drunk or stoned. You took the time to do it.
You planned it. And thus, you planned the consequences.

I asked him to rephrase the statement so it could be readily
understood. You're the one who read into it and drug everything to a
halt.

And how do you propose a "regime change" without starting World War
Three? Because unless we have a magical invisible teleporting cybernetic
supersoldier- there really isn't one.


The best move would simply be to ride it out. Everyone dies,
eventually.

It doesn't mean illegal immigration. It means *unlimitted* immigration.
It means it's wrong of us to put any requirements on those who want to
get into this country, other than that to prove they're not dangerous
criminals.

And we put over three times the restrictions on hispanic immigrants as
we do ANY other part of the world. Even in the post 9/11 world, we still
accept arabs more readily than mexicans.

What they're doing wouldn't BE illegal if we'd actually practice what
we claim.

And butchering the language is an act of disrespect in and of itself.
If and when I try and speak in another language- I do my best to get it
right. Or admit I cannot and show the respect of keeping out of it. Or,
if I really feel my opinion is valuable, I apologize for the shoddy
technique.

Besides. We're *america*. We don't have the privilege of turning
illegals away. Not while the Statue of Liberty still stands.


"Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breath
free"


So we either dismantel the statue or we let them in. Although it'd be
better if we'd just make it easy for them to get in legally. Or maybe an
"indentured servant" system. Something or another.

Yeah. Probably. If that's what it means to having standards and being
honest, then definately.

Of course. I'm at a loss on how to save Israel in this mess. Nothing
short of an act of God is going to save that country. Whether or not we
make friends with Iran. Because if it comes down to war- Jerusalum in
the first place in the world where the Islamic world is going to drop
the bomb.

And if we make friends with Iran.... heh. We might get lucky. We
probably won't.

Well, for one thing- Iran's getting the bomb. Nothing short of nuking
them right now will change that.

What we do is a full 180 turn. We get Iran involved. Encourage them to
start helping the industrialization/advancement of their own, and the
surrounding, nations. In echange, we start lifting sanctions (they don't
mean anything anyways).

Iran gets heavily involved in trade with surrounding nations. Makes it
extremely unprofitable to let someone blow themselves up next to your
multi-million dollar trade goods. Buisiness grows in Iran and
surrounding areas.

Iran, of course, ends up with the nuke- but with our *blessings*
instead of our meaningless and useless complaints. Of course, our
blessings are meaningless and useless, too- but at least they look good.


An industrialized Iran sees that the biggest economic gain is to be had
playing with America and Japan. So they engage trade with us- and
everyone makes money. Iran (and the surrounding nations) get wealthier.
And wealthy people don't like the idea of marching their children off to
war. Because they actually have HOPE FOR THE FUTURE. And that's the one
thing we need to give to the middle east. People who expect their lives
can mean something are far, far less likely to throw them away like
that.


Of course, it'd take decades to make all these changes take hold. But
they will take hold. It did in Europe- usually they call it the
Renaissance. And the Dark Ages was far uglier than the Middle East. It
took a thousand years for it to start. But once it started, it only took
decades to replace civilization. And Asia had her own version. So did
Africa.... unfortunately, they collapsed again.


The Middle East used to be the bastion of civilization. Their SLAVES
were better educated and cared for than the greatest western scholars of
the time. Once they start rebuilding- they'll remember that. And they'll
chase that old memory with enough passion to actually make it happen. At
first, simply to prove themselves better than us. But eventually- for
the simple sake of the love of learning itself.

Of course. His "grammar" (and I use the term loosely) gives me a
headache.

Nah. If teachers had guns. I'd have bullet wounds. Or a spot in the
morgue.

No, more guns isn't the answer. Getting the guns away from the
criminals and into the hands of honest, decent folk *is* the answer.