Monday Morning Buffet

Sheep Grow Contrary to Evolutionary Principle, Blame Global Warming

Evolution is another of the “settled” scientific ideas that is still unsettled. A gene in humans that appears to be the combination of two genes from a primate could be evolution or it could mean that a Creator used the same model for different similar animals and changed the code slightly to give the observed differences. When evolution theory does not fit neatly in the science, an excuse is needed.

In Scotland, a breed of sheep is getting smaller. According to CBC News:

Evolutionary theory holds that species get bigger and stronger over time because larger, more dominant animals are more likely to reproduce. But wild sheep on the Scottish island of Hirta have baffled scientists since 2007 when the animals’ average size appeared to be shrinking.

So what could be the problem here? Well of course it is Global Warming. Scientists believe that “climate change” is responsible for this.

So the questions are, if evolution takes place over a period of time how could global warming since 2007 (a mere two years) effect such a rapid change? Also, if evolution involves adaptation of the sepcies and survival of the fittest, would not the sheep adapt to the warming? I guess one could claim that the smaller size is an adaptation but that brings us back to how it occurred so quickly?

About That Free Government Health Care

The Obama Administration is working on government run health care. It would cost a fortune and it would leave people waiting in line for services. There is no such thing as a free lunch, so the saying goes and this is true with government run health care. The government will use taxes and it will have to tax more. Medicare is poorly run despite claims of a 2% overhead. This is a fallacy resulting from creative accounting practices used by the government. You see, many government agencies perform functions for Medicare and the cost of those functions are not reported (how much does it cost for the IRS to collect Medicare from paychecks) but in private industry those costs must be directly borne and reported. Government has never run anything efficiently. Government will ration care to contain costs and if it needs more money it will raise taxes.

The wonderful British and Canadian systems are the subject of a John Stossel report:

In England, health care is “free”—as long as you don’t mind waiting. People wait so long for dentist appointments that some pull their own teeth. At any one time, half a million people are waiting to get into a British hospital. A British paper reports that one hospital tried to save money by not changing bedsheets. Instead of washing sheets, the staff was encouraged to just turn them over.

~snip

“People line up for care, some of them die. That’s what happens,” says Canadian doctor David Gratzer, author of The Cure. He liked Canada’s government health care until he started treating patients.

“The more time I spent in the Canadian system, the more I came across people waiting for radiation therapy, waiting for the knee replacement so they could finally walk up to the second floor of their house.” “You want to see your neurologist because of your stress headache? No problem! Just wait six months. You want an MRI? No problem! Free as the air! Just wait six months.”

Polls show most Canadians like their free health care, but most people aren’t sick when the poll-taker calls. Canadian doctors told us the system is cracking. One complained that he can’t get heart-attack victims into the ICU.

Video here

Biden Says Everyone Misread Economy

In an ABC interview, Joe Biden stated that the administration and everyone else misread the economy.

“The truth is, we and everyone else misread the economy,” Biden told me during our exclusive “This Week” interview in Iraq.

Of course Joe had to say that they misread how awful the mess was that Bush left them but quickly acknowledged that the mess was now all theirs.

Yes there was an economic mess when Bush left office. Bush’s abandonment of capitalism and acceptance of huge government bailouts made the problem worse than it would have been. If it had been left alone it might have begun to rebound by the time Obama took office or not long after. But the government meddled and made the problem it created worse. The government created the mess with the Community Reinvestment Act and government continued to push for practices that were disastrous. While many friends of the Democrats got rich, the country was heading south fast.

Contrary to what Joe Says, not everyone misjudged the economy. Some economists saw the downturn coming (Bush and McCain warned, a number of times, about impending doom with Freddie and Fannie). Others advocated doing little in regard to government intervention and that things would rebound, as they had plenty of times before. It is called an economic cycle for a reason.

The Obama Administration could not wait to get in and start spending. They could not let a crisis go to waste so they passed a nearly one trillion dollar stimulus that has done nothing to stimulate. Unemployment will be 10% before the end of Summer.

In the interview Biden admits they were overly optimistic when they predicted that unemployment would not go over (would peak at) 8% with the stimulus (that should settle the critics on this issue, there was no caveat. He spelled it out plainly for the Obamabots).

This was never about helping the economy. This was about spending for Democrat pet projects. This was about forcing more and more government involvement into the free market. This was an excuse to take over businesses and the banking system. This was an excuse to move us closer to Socialism. Obama did not misjudge anything.

He knows exactly what he wants to accomplish.

Big Dog

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

47 Responses to “Monday Morning Buffet”

  1. Blake says:

    Barama and his team used this crisis as an excuse to implement the socialist plans they wanted to cram down our throats, even though none of them will help us-
    And during that “ShamWow” commercial Hussein spewed all over ABC, Stossel wasn’t allowed to present the other side of the argument, just to balance the argument out, oh no- that might cause people to actually think about just what Hussein is leaving OUT of his plan, which is a lot.
    As far as the sheep- I have no idea, unless the gene coded for size can recognize an island circumstance, and sizes accordingly- I don’t see this as happening, but we shall let the GW nutjobs explain this. They have ALL the answers.

  2. Aresay says:

    The mainstream media wouldn’t do it. So we are trying to get your important messages to the American people. 64 This post is a suggested read at, http://aresay.blogspot.com/

  3. ‘Tops’ Tea Party!…

    This Independence Day we had another Tea Party, and it was the tops. I learned many thing from the April 15th Tea Party, and I tried to fix those mistakes. Well, on paper I did, but in really things just flowed smoothly even though I was disorgan…

  4. Darrel says:

    DAR
    This time I’ll just stand back and let your own CBC article refute your blatant distortions:

    ***
    BIGD: “if evolution takes place over a period of time how could global warming since 2007 (a mere two years) effect such a rapid change?”

    CBC article:
    “The researchers analyzed body size and life history data for Soay sheep on Hirta over a 24-year period beginning in 1985.

    They found that sheep on the island aren’t growing as quickly as they once did, and smaller sheep are becoming more likely to survive into adulthood, bringing the average sheep size down over time.

    …Average body size has decreased by about five per cent over the last 24 years, the data show.”

    BIGD: “scientists believe that “climate change” is responsible for this.”>>

    CBC article:
    “A study,… fingers climate change as *a possible* cause.”

    [How?]

    “[The lead researcher] suggests that shorter, milder winters, caused by global climate change, mean that lambs don’t need to put on as much weight in the first months of life to survive to their first birthday as lambs did when winters were colder.

    In the past, only the big, healthy sheep and large lambs that had piled on weight in their first summer could survive the harsh winters on Hirta,” he said. “But now, due to climate change, grass for food is available for more months of the year, and survival conditions are not so challenging.

    Even the slower-growing sheep have a chance of making it, and this means smaller individuals are becoming increasingly prevalent in the population.”
    ***

    D.

    • Blake says:

      So, in effect you are saying that because of the milder winters, the genetic defects, (recessive genes) are able to assert themselves and produce genetically inferior sheep?
      What will happen when the “Global Cooling” comes back?
      The sheep will have lost their ability to put on the necessary weight, and then there will be yet another species we will have to wet- nurse along until they finally become extinct.

      • Darrel says:

        BLK: “you are saying that because of the milder winters, the genetic defects, (recessive genes) are able to assert themselves and produce genetically inferior sheep?>>

        DAR
        Not even close.

        I am saying Bigd’s article, as usual, refutes his own claims.

        I’ll set SAV explain it to you. Maybe he can find a porky pig cartoon that can simplify it enough. Doubtful.

        Incidentally, you do realize that all of our cattle (and nearly all of our food) have been highly engineered by humans for thousands of years? No one said anything about this slight selection for size, on this time frame, causing a change of species. That’s ridiculous.

        Blake, let me extend an olive branch. If you would like to be polite and have a discussion like an adult about these things, I would be most pleased to participate. You guys set the tone. You have an opportunity to ask intelligent questions about this topic and perhaps learn something. SAV is an expert on this but his answers may be complex. I might be able to translate because I speak some “nerd” and little “common folk” too.

        D.
        ————-
        “Are you suggesting coconuts migrate!?”
        (Monty Python and the Holy Grail)

  5. Darrel says:

    BIGD: “The Obama Administration is working on government run health care. It would cost a fortune and it would leave people waiting in line for services.”>>

    DAR
    Stossel is good on skepticism, drug war issues and a few other things. He’s probably an atheist too, so it’s hard not to like the guy. But when he touches on free market stuff he just goes bonkers because as a member of the Ayn Rand cult, he has to toe the party line.

    Here’s what we know about Canadian/US comparisons. The Canadians are far more satisfied. They have better outcomes. They beat the US in any list of country healthcare comparisons. Because of the obvious efficiencies the cost to the nation is almost 1/3 less (and they cover everyone). The overall cost to the populace is maybe 90% less (premiums are laughably low, drugs cheap). They cover everyone. They pay exactly the same in taxes and, did I mention, they cover everyone?

    Imagine paying the same taxes we do now, and having, essentially, free health care. That’s what we could have now if we didn’t pour hundreds of billions (approaching a trillion) into feeding the for profit greed based insurance, and drug, and medical industry.

    In fact, we could have better health care since, after all, we’re Americans, so “we’re better.” And Americans want it fixed. I have given you EIGHT polls now showing solid majorities wanting a public option.

    But nooooo, better to sit around passing the same old debunked lies around!

    My uncle was telling me last night how he pays $1,200 a month ($14,000 a year) for him and his wife. With a $5,000 deductible. So he would have to drop $20 grand before they would even pay anything. And then, if he got sick/hurt in the Fall, his deductible resets in Jan (and every year), so add another $5k if your bills go on for a while, which of course they do.

    In Canada he would probably pay about the same income taxes (as I have shown), and he and his wife would probably have a monthly premium of, maybe, $150.

    Oh what a horror! You could tolerate the injustices of such a system?

    Oh, Bigd, you were saying something about medicare costs going up because of inefficiencies. Here is a chart showing why medicare is going to skyrocket:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Medicare_and_Medicaid_GDP_Chart.svg

    Fixing this, controlling costs, is not an option.

    BIDEN: “The truth is, we and everyone else misread the economy,”

    DAR
    So it is looking like Krugman was right. It wasn’t enough. We’ll need to spend more to get us out of the ditch.

    How come nobody is asking GW Bush for his opinion about what to do to fix this?

    Oh, I know why…

    D.

    • Big Dog says:

      From a new Gallup poll:

      Changes in public attitudes on healthcare reform have been mixed. The percentage of Americans in favor of maintaining the current healthcare system based on private insurance was 63% in 2004 but 56% in March 2009 — a drop of seven points for the traditionally conservative healthcare position. (Support for the alternative position — replacing the current healthcare system with a government-run system — grew from 32% to 39%.) At the same time, Gallup saw a seven-point increase, from 34% to 41%, in views that it is not the government’s responsibility to provide all Americans with healthcare coverage.

      56% (which is the majority) want to keep our current system based on private insurance (that does not mean they don’t think it needs improvement) and 41% (7% more than before) think it is NOT the government’s responsibility to provide coverage to all Americans.

      Only 39% want to replace what we have with government run care. The against is down 7% and the for is up 7% but the against are clearly in the majority.

      This is quite a bit different than the supposed 72% who want it which came from the biased and scientifically unsound NYT/CBS poll that was touted. The majority do not want what the government is peddling and 41% say government should not be providing it.

      But Obama will continue to try and ram it through which might explain why more people from all 3 parties are identifying as conservative since the election.

      From the poll:
      “Nearly 4 in 10 Americans say their views have grown more conservative”

      • Darrel says:

        BIGD: [Gallup]
        “(Support for the alternative position — replacing the current healthcare system with a government-run system — grew from 32% to 39%.)”>>

        DAR
        What FARCE! I am surprised they had ten percent. Who is suggesting “replacing the current healthcare system with a government-run system?”

        Not Obama, not me. It’s not even on the table! This is a ridiculous question and a completely different question from the one we were addressing and that is, having A “PUBLIC OPTION” in addition to keeping all the private stuff.

        I have given you eight mainstream polls, with non-idiotic questions, and they have all shown strong majorities for a public option. You can’t deal with this so you troll for nonsense like the above.

        BIGD: “At the same time, Gallup saw a seven-point increase, from 34% to 41%, in views that it is not the government’s responsibility to provide all Americans with healthcare coverage.”>>

        DAR
        Another stupid, loaded, question. What a joke.

        BIGD: 56% (which is the majority) want to keep our current system based on private insurance…>>

        DAR
        I want to keep private insurance. Do you think this means I don’t think we should have a public option? Of course not. DIFFERENT question.

        BIGD:
        This is quite a bit different than the supposed 72% who want it…>>

        DAR
        Different question! “Public option.” Pay attention. Strong majorities want a public option. Even most republicans, as I have already shown. You moved the goal posts, changed the questions and are now impressed as if you accomplished something. Thank goodness I am here to pull your pants down and show everyone what is going on eh?

        BIGD: more people from all 3 parties are identifying as conservative since the election.>>

        DAR
        We have 3 parties? The demos, the sane repubs and the crazy repubs. You’re right! I’ve already roasted this liberal/conservative category game. Two meaningless labels. I’m a “conservative” (on many issues). I have grown more “conservative.” Who do you think I am going to vote for in the next election Bigd? Demo’s self-identify at nearly TWICE the rate of repub’s. Those “conservatives” flooding the Demo party shore luv them some Obama don’t they. So who cares what they call themselves as long as they keep voting for sensible people like Obama.

        Note to Blake: the above Gallup poll gave Obama a job approval of 63%. At least they couldn’t muck up that question.

        Apparently those “conservatives” still luv them some Obama!

        D.

        • Big Dog says:

          Yes, they want a government run system and it will drive many health insurance companies out of business. That will replace what we have.

          As for questions, the polls you show have similarly loaded questions or they over sample a particular group.

          I am not sure that the people who answer that Obama is favorable (though that is now negative) are answering truthful or don’t want to be labeled racists. Also, when I was called (the only time I have ever been) and was asked about the job Obama was doing and when I answered they ended the questions.

        • Darrel says:

          BIGD: “Yes, they want a government run system…>>

          DAR
          That reminds me. The Gallup poll question was even more ridiculous than I realized above. It asked about a “government-run system.” Canada doesn’t even have that! They have single payer. So this stupid poll not only didn’t ask about a “public option” which was what we had been talking about, this stupid poll was asking people if they wanted a system, potentially, more socialized than Canada’s! And they still got 39%. Amazing.

          BIGD: it will drive many health insurance companies out of business.>>

          DAR
          We should be so lucky. We have what, about 18,000 dying a year because they have no insurance. We have tens of millions uninsured, and then we have this:

          “McGuire’s exit compensation from UnitedHealth, expected to be around $1.1 billion, would be the largest golden parachute in the history of corporate America.” Link.

          Our system finds it useful to compensate a single individual to the tune of over a billion dollars. The American people are getting ROYALLY shagged. How long are they going to put up with this?

          Bigd: the polls you show have similarly loaded questions>>

          DAR
          Show this. Explain.

          BIGD: or they over sample a particular group.>>

          DAR
          Flat wrong. They are all scientific, random polls. Each of the eight I have submitted. And they all show strong majorities.

          D.

  6. Savonarola says:

    DAR
    I’ll set SAV explain it to you.

    SAV
    Well, I teach upper-level stuff, meaning that the students who come to me are supposed to already have better than a fifth-grade science education. Thus, teaching these guys becomes more of a challenge, but even more so because they’ve allowed themselves to adopt severely flawed understandings of the science. To use an analogy, it’s like trying to explain quantum superposition to people who think that an electron is a fruit.

    DOG
    it could mean that a Creator used the same model for different similar animals and changed the code slightly to give the observed differences.

    SAV
    That would be an awfully deceptive creator. Repeatedly. We’re not talking about an example or two. The entire scenario fits, whether we’re talking about overall body shapes, karyotypes, or DNA sequences. This creator made things look exactly like they would if they had evolved? When you apply the same methods to things like written text and computer programs, you have no doubt as to their common “ancestry.” It’s yet another double standard: rather than come to the simple conclusion, you want to crowbar a deity into the explanation by saying, “God made it that way.” Yet that has no explanatory power. If nothing fit an evolutionary model, then you could still say “God made it that way.” It’s the coward’s way out: “Damn, that looks like evolution, but I’m still going to insist that God made things look that way (because God is a deceptive jerk, apparently).”

    DOG
    When evolution theory does not fit neatly in the science, an excuse is needed.

    SAV
    But is this the case? Let’s look at the actual claim:

    CBC
    Evolutionary theory holds that species get bigger and stronger over time because larger, more dominant animals are more likely to reproduce.

    SAV
    Blatantly, inexcusably false. Utter trash. Both statements are just wrong. Evolutionary theory does not hold that species necessarily get bigger and stronger over time, and it does not state that larger, more dominant animals are necessarily more likely to reproduce.
    Ants have been around for a long time. While there are many species of ants, we don’t see ants that are the size of human feet. First, evolutionary theory does not say that we should. Second, a hypothetical ant the size of a human foot would not be able to hold up its own body weight, effectively tunnel to create a colony, or be able to find enough food to sustain its own life.
    Don’t get your science information from the CBC, for crying out loud. I’ve been giving you the benefit of the doubt on lots of stuff, Dog, but that’s just stupid.

    BLAKE
    As far as the sheep- I have no idea

    SAV
    But I see that that’s not stopping you from sounding off about it. Does this help you understand why you come across as a complete idiot?

    BLAKE
    unless the gene coded for size can recognize an island circ**stance, and sizes accordingly- I don’t see this as happening,

    SAV
    Wow. The complete lack of understanding of the process of natural selection (and actually, the whole of genetics) shows through here. And I do mean complete. Blake doesn’t see this happening, but that’s okay, because neither do people who do know what they’re talking about.
    Here’s a tip, Blake: stop trying to pretend you understand what scientist think when you refuse to actually understand what scientists think.

    BLAKE
    So, in effect you are saying that because of the milder winters, the genetic defects, (recessive genes) are able to assert themselves and produce genetically inferior sheep?

    SAV
    No. Do not equate recessive genes with “genetic defects.” Blue eyes in humans are caused by recessive genes; do you consider blue eyes as arising from a “genetic defect”? What about green? Do you consider green-eyed persons or blue-eyed persons “genetically inferior”?
    Also, no. Milder winters do not magically transform recessive genes into dominant ones. You will not make any brown eyes blue by making somebody sad, or cold, or hot, or wet, etc.
    But wait, it gets worse for your slanted terminology, Blake. Are the smaller sheep “genetically inferior”? Certainly not, especially in the sense that they are more likely to survive the new environmental conditions. Such a blunder comes from the standard creationist canard that the CBC used, implying that evolution has some sort of “target characteristics” or “goal.” It doesn’t. The changes that occur and are propagated become frequent because those changes are beneficial for that particular situation. Thus, changes can happen in any “direction.” Darwin’s finches made this fact undeniable, even in lieu of the fact that such a consequence results from the very idea of imperfect replicators.
    In fact, we’re not even necessarily talking about elimination of genes. Let’s use humans as an example: There is no single short-or-tall gene in humans. Many characteristics are determined by a large number of genes, which produces a range of variation between quite short and quite tall. This is why we don’t see two groups, short and tall. The same applies to sheep. There is not a big-or-small gene. The phenomenon we see is a result of the lessening of a selective pressure that favored larger sheep, but there’s not necessarily an elimination of any gene or even any allele.

    Questions?

    • Savonarola says:

      My mistake: When I read CBC, I was thinking CBN. Still, CBC made an aggravatingly common journalistic error (and a favorite one of creationists) in terribly oversimplifying a scientific explanation for a layperson audience.

    • Darrel says:

      CBC
      Evolutionary theory holds that species get bigger and stronger over time because larger, more dominant animals are more likely to reproduce.>>

      SAV
      Blatantly, inexcusably false. Utter trash. Both statements are just wrong. Evolutionary theory does not…>>

      DAR
      Stupid GD Canadians! Couldn’t agree more. Some poor schlub journalist put this piece together and should have ran it by someone more knowledgeable about evolution.

      Just another example of how knowledge is specialized. The author’s claim is a common, rudimentary misunderstanding.

      D.

      • Darrel says:

        SAV: “aggravatingly common journalistic error”>>

        DAR
        I don’t know what it is. Over the years I have had a couple newspaper articles done about me/my unique profession, or the freethinkers. They take notes rather than make a recording and they don’t call back to clarify any questions. And the articles have *invariably* been *filled* with basic mistakes and misstatements of fact regarding the most mundane and straight forward things. It’s like in the little notes they scratchout they are interpreting/filtering what is being said rather than recording it. A five minute proof read by me would have cleared these things up. Listening to a recording of the interview would also. It’s like the details don’t matter. You would think getting the story straight would be the job they are trained to do!

        I pity public people that have to live daily with this constant human tendency of miscommunication, misunderstanding.

        D.

      • Darrel says:

        CBC: “Evolutionary theory holds that species get bigger and stronger over time because larger, more dominant animals are more likely to reproduce.”>>

        DAR
        If that were true, imagine how big bacteria would be by now.

        D.

  7. Big Dog says:

    Why would you be surprised? The media did the same thing with Obama. His life was portrayed as the media wanted it. Regardless of how you view him he received much better treatment than Hillary or any of the Republicans.

    The questions are, does not evolution take longer than 24 years? Is adaptation that quick?

    If there is more to eat wouldn’t they get bigger with lean muscle mass rather than stored fat (as in needed for lean times)?

    If evolution has survival of the fittest as one of its tenets, why do we work to save creatures from extinction? If they are the fittest wouldn’t they survive?

    • Savonarola says:

      DOG
      does not evolution take longer than 24 years? Is adaptation that quick?

      SAV
      Adaptation/evolution can occur each generation. (See Darwin’s finches.) People who fabricate a distinction between “microevolution” and “macroevolution” invariably allow such convolution to taint their understanding. If you’re having trouble seeing how one generation can be influenced by selection pressures, let me know.

      DOG
      If there is more to eat wouldn’t they get bigger with lean muscle mass rather than stored fat (as in needed for lean times)?

      SAV
      Not necessarily when there has been a change in the temporal availability of the food. There existed a selection pressure for fatter sheep who could survive long, food-scarce winters (or if you’d rather look at it the other way, there existed a selection pressure against smaller sheep who couldn’t survive the long, food-scarce winters). As food became more plentiful in times of the year when food was formerly unavailable, the smaller sheep stood a greater chance to make it through the winter. If those smaller sheep are surviving instead of dying, then we expect those genes to become more prevalent than they were before the food pattern changed.

      DOG
      If evolution has survival of the fittest as one of its tenets,

      SAV
      Stop. I’ve tried to tell you that this statement isn’t very good. Darwin disliked it, and for good reason. I suspect that when you think of the meaning of the word “fit,” that’s not the meaning biologists use. See sexual selection. Extract this phrase from your brain, at least in the context of an accurate representation of evolutionary principles. If you are so confused that you must replace it with something, try “perpetuation of the fittest.”

      DOG
      why do we work to save creatures from extinction? If they are the fittest wouldn’t they survive?

      SAV
      Why do you think that only the fittest creatures deserve to survive? Evolutionary theory doesn’t imply that less fit species ought to go extinct. This is a matter of ecology. Suppose a virulent spider virus spread throughout the world, exterminating spiders. If there were no spiders, the number of insects on the planet would skyrocket. (I’m not making this up; this relationship is common knowledge in ecological circles.) The insects would become a major problem, overwhelming other species, invading human residences. We’d have to fight off the insects just to maintain our own food sources, and the sheer number of insects would make it an incredibly tough job.
      That’s a tame example. The interrelationships between species in all sorts of ecosystems have been studied at length. Extinction of species often causes a dramatic shift in ecosystems that affect most or all other species in that ecosystem. It’s almost always in our best interest to maintain those relationships, not just for the benefit of other species but for the benefit of ours.

      • Big Dog says:

        But we can agree that it is good that dinosaurs became extinct…

        • Savonarola says:

          DOG
          But we can agree that it is good that dinosaurs became extinct…

          SAV
          Good for us. Didn’t work out so well for dinos.

          But to expound on this point, imagine the changes that resulted from the absence of dinosaurs. Quick little mammalian rodents then had a greater likelihood of survival. They could afford to be not-quite-as-quick. Eventually, there were primates, which likely wouldn’t have managed to make it with large carnivores all around. Again, that’s just one example. And consider resulting domino effects. Imagine how far-reaching the effects of this extinction were. Can we acknowledge that preventing the upset of what tends to be a delicate balance of an ecosystem where we are now is a good thing?

          BLAKE
          This is more a case of adaption, rather than true evolution,

          SAV
          Evolution is “a change in allele frequencies in a population.” This is case of adaptation that is evolution.

          BLAKE
          [evolution,] where a distinctly different biological imperative asserts it self-

          SAV
          No, Blake. You don’t know what you’re talking about. You’re in no position to tell us what evolution is or isn’t, because you’re just plain wrong almost every time you say anything about science. I’ve invited you to ask actual questions. I’ve asked you to stop pretending that you have even a rudimentary education regarding evolution. You refuse to do either. Thus, I get to call you an idiot.
          Evolution is not defined as “where a distinctly different biological imperative asserts it self [sic],” whatever the hell that means. In fact, such an event is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for evolution to take place. Translation: shut up, idiot.

          BLAKE
          I would suggest it has less to do with GW, and more to do with island limitations, i.e. size.

          SAV
          Let’s test your suggestion. Has the size of the island changed in the last 24 years? If no, then your suggestion cannot be true.

          BLAKE
          is this the body’s response to the question, “How can we have more when we need less?”

          SAV
          That is the organismic response to the situation where food is more readily available for a longer duration each year. If you could read at a sixth-grade level, you would know that already.

        • Blake says:

          Sav, you SO need a lesson in manners.

      • Blake says:

        This is more a case of adaption, rather than true evolution, where a distinctly different biological imperative asserts it self- this is a shift in the size of the creature, not the body functions of the creature- it does not suddenly develop webbed feet or wings, it just becomes smaller. I would suggest it has less to do with GW, and more to do with island limitations, i.e. size.
        Biological imperative requires new generations- is this the body’s response to the question, “How can we have more when we need less?”

        • Mike Radigan says:

          There’s some real important issues in this post; namely healthcare and more importantly the Dems misreading the economy and even Biden admitting it. And were’re talkin’ ’bout sheep. Sheep, were’re talking ’bout sheep.

        • Blake says:

          The island’s size had not changed, but the size of the herd that the islands food could sustain had increased, thus the size perhaps had ADAPTED to the changed imperatives here.

        • Savonarola says:

          BLAKE
          thus the size perhaps had ADAPTED to the changed imperatives here.

          SAV
          Stop using senseless terminology. If you want to talk evolution, then use language that actual scientists use. Drop “imperatives.” Species adapt. Size does not adapt. Neither do idiots like you.
          Nobody is arguing that adaptation did not take place. A change in allele frequencies took place. Therefore, evolution has taken place.
          Regardless, let’s call it a “change,” lest you pee your pants with rage at the assertion of evolution. What caused this change? You assert that the carrying capacity of the island increased. Does this assertion have evidential support? Did the sheep population of the island increase? Do you have that information, Blake?
          But hey, let’s throw Blake a bone. Let’s suppose that the sheep population of the island did indeed increase. Does that explain the change that we’ve observed? No. Whoops.

          BLAKE
          Sav, you SO need a lesson in manners.

          SAV
          Says the person who threatens me mortal bodily harm. What an idiot.

      • Blake says:

        There are species that are key to the interaction and control of other species, and there are species that are not so much- a good example is polar bears- the amount of seals they harvest would be harvested by orcas if polar bears went bye bye.
        Fortunately, they are thriving and their population is increasing to the point where people have to shoot them to maintain population controls.

  8. Blake says:

    The questions you are asking were the same ones I was asking, dumba$$- did the size of the herd increase? That might account for the size change. Also, a temporary adaption is not necessarily an evolutionary change, just a reaction to possibly temporary change i circumstances, like say, climate change- which is what climate does.
    This is why in certain winters, sheeps coats are thicker as a response to the weather, but this is not an evolutionary change in itself, just a reaction to a temporary weather phenomenon, no more no less.

    • Savonarola says:

      BLAKE
      [insult]

      SAV
      Please lecture me about my manners again, Blake. C’mon, do it.

      BLAKE
      the amount of seals they harvest would be harvested by orcas if polar bears went bye bye.

      SAV
      Yeah? Support this assertion with a source.

      BLAKE
      Fortunately, they are thriving and their population is increasing to the point where people have to shoot them to maintain population controls.

      SAV
      Yeah? Support this assertion with a source.

      BLAKE
      did the size of the herd increase? That might account for the size change.

      SAV
      And if they got liposuction, that might account for the size change, too. Can I just make stuff up, too?

      Read slowly, Blake.

      You (unsurprisingly) missed my point. You have no reason to believe that the population increased; you have no evidence. You’ve completely made up this “observation.”

      You (unsurprisingly) missed another point, which was that even if such a population increase occurred, it has no explanatory power. You’ve assumed a causal relationship, namely that an imaginary population size change altered the size of individuals. Who is to say that the causal relationship isn’t the reverse, that a decrease in individual size caused an increase in population? And hey, while we’re in the business of making stuff up, who is to say that space aliens aren’t responsible? Maybe the sheep are experiencing stress because of the tension in the Middle East?

      But the best part about your completely fabricated, presumptuous scenario is that the original, completely imagined causal change that you purport has happened remains absolutely unexplained! If all of this is the result of a change in population, why did the population increase? Why, Blake?

      In your zeal to reject the science, you’ve made stuff up, created imaginary causal relationships, ignored actual factors, and still failed to actually explain why the change has happened. Three cheers for anti-science science!

      BLAKE
      Also, a temporary adaption is not necessarily an evolutionary change,

      SAV
      It doesn’t matter if it’s temporary or not. If it’s a chance in the relative frequencies of alleles in a population, it’s evolution. Period.
      You have a severe problem with scientific definitions, don’t you?

      BLAKE
      This is why in certain winters, sheeps coats are thicker as a response to the weather,

      SAV
      But we’re not talking about the thickness of the coats, we’re talking about the sizes of the actual sheep — actually, the sizes of different generations of actual sheep. (I suspect that tidbit has escaped you.) Now, I could go into a discussion about having the genetic plasticity to produce said thick coats, but considering you’re stuck at the fifth-grade science level — and I suspect you either can’t or refuse to comprehend about 90% of what I’ve said above — I don’t think I’ll bother. If you’re interested in hearing it, respond with something that makes it clear that you’ve followed this information and ask for more.
      I’m not holding my breath.

  9. Big Dog says:

    The people from our government pushing this (and their surrogates) are all saying Government Run. I think that pretty much means they want a government run system.

    If they drove the insurance companies out of business, as you want, wouldn’t that make the government guilty of a monopoly?

    • Savonarola says:

      I can’t help but find it humorous that the people screaming “Boo socialism! Yay capitalism! Bring on the competition!” and “Those banks and car companies lost out in the capitalist market and should go bankrupt,” are the same people screaming “Are you crazy?! The insurance companies can’t have competition!”

      • Big Dog says:

        The insurance companies do have competition, against each other. The government would have an unfair advantage because it would be able to get capital without risk (just tax us) and it would not be accountable to anyone for results.

        The banks and car companies were victims of government intervention. Poor rules that allowed people who could not afford homes to buy them. Car companies were victims of greedy unions who demand more and produce less. They should fail if they cannot survive in a FREE market.

        Government is not a free market, does not belong in any business and getting itself involved would likely be unconstitutional.

        • Savonarola says:

          DOG
          The insurance companies do have competition, against each other.

          SAV
          And with flawless capitalism, this leads to people being really happy because we get a better system, right? This is why more than seven out of ten Americans think that the current system isn’t good enough, right?

          DOG
          The banks and car companies were victims of government intervention. Poor rules that allowed people who could not afford homes to buy them.

          SAV
          A lack of oversight allowed this. That’s not being a “victim of government intervention,” that’s what happens with a lack of government intervention. Are you really unable to grasp this simple point?

          DOG
          Car companies were victims of greedy unions

          SAV
          Ah, so unions are the government now.
          Hello, Dog, this is Earth. Have we met?

        • Darrel says:

          Bigd: “The insurance companies do have competition, against each other.”>>

          DAR
          Many states have very little competition. Some states have companies with 70% of the market locked up. And they are for profit and make a killing.

          We also, and perhaps more importantly, don’t have much competition in health care delivery. When I had surgery on my neck (2 inch by 1 inch section around melanoma mole) they wouldn’t even tell me the price before surgery. When you can’t get a quote, there is no “shopping around.”

          Plus, we have perverse incentives to waste and drive up costs. Note:

          “…high-quality, low-cost care is not financially rewarding. Indeed, the opposite is true. Hospitals and doctors can make more money providing inefficient, mediocre care, explains Goodman.

          In a normal market, entrepreneurs in search of profit would solve this problem by repackaging and repricing their services in order to make customer-pleasing adjustments. Yet in health care, contracts and prices are imposed by large impersonal bureaucracies. The individual physician has virtually no opportunity to offer a different bundle of services for a different price. As a result, very little entrepreneurship is possible, says Goodman.

          Source: John C. Goodman, “Perverse Incentives in Health Care,” Wall Street Journal, April 5, 2007.
          ***

          With health care in the US, the incentive is largely profit and greed. Perhaps the most perverse incentive of all.

          D.

          • Big Dog says:

            States have companies with markets locked up because of state mandates. My state mandates about 48 things be covered. Some insurance companies do not want to do that so they do not compete. States are interfering with the free market with mandates. I have addressed this before. There should be a minimal level of coverage that has to be offered. Catastrophic, wellness, emergency, dental and surgery. Then if people want more they can add the services and pay more. Why should a 23 year old male or non childbearing woman be forced to have abortion coverage? Why should aroma therapy or drug treatment be mandatory. Those of us who do not use drugs don’t need it and not everyone uses aroma therapy or sees a benefit to it.

            Make it like the cable bill. If government required all cable companies operating in a state to include all the premium channels then the cost of cable would be a lot higher than it already is. They offer a basic package and people can add on what they want and pay the increase. The people who do not watch NFL network or HBO are not paying for it because it has to be included. Same with health insurance. Single males do not need OB/GYN coverage or abortion services.

  10. Big Dog says:

    Sorry Sav but you do not appear competent enough to debate these things. You have shown your simple bias by touting these silly assertions that there was no oversight.

    The Congress established rules and government run entities allowed people to buy homes when they could not afford them. This is not a matter of people not checking on it, it is a matter of government encouraging it. That was the government policy under the CRA. The housing bubble developed and then burst under government mandated conditions.

    Capitalism is not flawless but it is always better than government intervention and when capitalism is left to work without all the government interference then things work out fien. Car companies that cannot make it should fail and be replaced.

    Government rules chase jobs away. Those rules create an atmosphere where things go bad. It is a simple concept that you should be able to grasp.

    Technically, unions and the government both own the car company but no, they are not the government. Union contracts add costs to the automobiles that cannot be made up. The labor costs are high and the overhead on an auto muct be high to recoup the cost. Non union auto makers can sell for less because they do not have the lucrative contracts to deal with. They pay their workers but don’t overpay them. There are now about 4 union retirees for every union worker and they are drawing a great retirement and great benefits. That costs the company.

    These rules that allow employees to not work (if there is none for them) and get 95% of their salaries. None of this is free market and it is not smart business. Yes, the unions brought down the car companies.

    • Savonarola says:

      DOG
      The Congress established rules and government run entities allowed people to buy homes when they could not afford them.

      SAV
      Well, I thought you might have an opportunity to educate me, but the Fed got the numbers.

      “The Fed study, however, found nearly 60% of higher-priced loans went to middle- or higher-income borrowers or neighborhoods outside of the scope of CRA lending. Additionally, the 20% of subprime loans that did go low- or moderate-income areas or borrowers were originated by nonbank lenders not covered by CRA obligations.

      “Our analysis found, in fact, that only 6% of all higher-priced loans were made by CRA-covered lenders to borrowers and neighborhoods targeted by the CRA,” said Duke, a former chairman of the American Bankers Association and former chief operating officer of Portsmouth, Va.’s Towne Bank. She also was once an executive vice president of Wachovia Corp.

      “She added that foreclosure rates for loans originated by CRA-covered lenders were significantly lower than those originated by independent mortgage companies.”

      So, no, not really. I’m reminded of the political cartoon depicting a fat guy behind a desk watching a guy on the other side signing a paper while saying, “Sure I’ll take the loan I can’t afford if you’re willing to give it to me.” The caption asked the reader to identify the stupid person in the frame. Plenty of people were stupid independent of the CRA.

      DOG
      Government rules chase jobs away. Those rules create an atmosphere where things go bad.

      SAV
      Sure, I can grasp the concept, but I haven’t been given reason to accept it as representative of reality.

      DOG
      [unions] are not the government.

      SAV
      So when you said that the car companies were victimized by the government, you meant that the car companies weren’t victimized by the government. Got it.

      • Big Dog says:

        No Sav, they were independent claims. Government and unions are a problem for car companies.

        The Fed? They are part of the problem. Here is something to help you.

        • Savonarola says:

          DOG
          Government and unions are a problem for car companies.

          SAV
          You said that the government victimized the car companies. Then you explained that the unions killed the car companies. We’ve established that the unions are not the government, and vice versa, yet you’re still blaming the government.

          DOG
          The Fed? They are part of the problem.

          SAV
          Let’s presume, for the sake of argument, that this claim is true. Does that mean that we can’t trust those data? How does this refute the conclusions?
          But this is even better. You point me to a page saying that the argument that the CRA is to blame isn’t really bought by people who understand the argument. The article essentially points out that banks voluntarily made stupid loans. Which was, uncoincidentally, the point of the data I posted earlier.

        • Savonarola says:

          I see now that I was reading a different page. My mistake. I’ll check out the correct one immediately.

        • Savonarola says:

          Okay, I’m back on track. And still not the least bit convinced. The real irony is that the page I mistakenly thought that Dog had linked disagrees virtually only in interpretation.

          This guy tries to explain that the CRA was the first domino, and even goes to great lengths to say that the CRA was not the sole factor. Despite this fact, he continues to try to tie nearly every factor back to the CRA, whether that’s reasonable or not, and pooh-pooh away the rest of the dominoes.

          When responding to claims that the CRA didn’t cause this or that, his argument often amounts to, “well, no, but yes,” followed by a train of tortured logic. Even his commenters rip him a new one, and his rebuttals are feeble to say the least.

          “Sure, the banks made stupid loans that weren’t mandated by the CRA, but they had to do it because everyone was doing it.” No they didn’t. They lowered their own lending standards because they wanted to suck in more money in the form of risky loans. That’s the bottom line.

          This author also has a page on how the CRA made these other banks make stupid loans. He gives three reasons, each of which is farcical. Here he repeats the “The banks didn’t have to make stupid loans, but they had to. You know. C’mon. C’mon.”

          The report from the Fed rebuts the entire line of argumentation, complete with demographic loan performance analysis and timeline scrutiny.

  11. Big Dog says:

    Walter E Williams:

    The blame for our current financial mess rests with government, with the major player being the Federal Reserve Board keeping interest rates artificially low

    He is well schooled in economics.

  12. Big Dog says:

    So is the Fed, with its numbers, taking into account all the sub prime mortgages that Freddie and Fannie picked up? In other words, are the figures for ALL the loans, event he ones that might have been bought up and repackaged by GSEs?

    The Democrats wanted the CRA to give these loans to people who could not afford them:

    June 1995

    Republicans had won control of Congress and planned CRA reforms. The Clinton administration, however, allied with Rep. Frank, Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., did an end-around by directing HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo to inject GSEs into the subprime mortgage market. Investor Business Daily

    I have no doubt that many banks were making loans they should not regardless of the pressure exerted on them by the race baiting groups. However, given the harassment and intimidating climate that many banks were under it is understandable why they would say screw it and just give the loans.

    Here is how it worked. Banks make risky loans. Fannie or Freddie buy up the loans. Loans now the responsibility of a government sponsored entity.

    • Savonarola says:

      DOG
      are the figures for ALL the loans,

      SAV
      Yes. You didn’t read, did you?

      DOG
      The Democrats wanted the CRA to give these loans to people who could not afford them:

      SAV
      I disagree with your characterization of the CRA, but it’s actually beside the point. If the purpose of the CRA was to turn rivers green, that doesn’t change what did or didn’t happen.

      DOG
      However, given the harassment and intimidating climate that many banks were under it is understandable why they would say screw it and just give the loans.

      SAV
      Still not buying it. They weren’t forced to give the loans. The argument here is that the banks were threatened with the possibility of requirement, so instead of not doing what they weren’t required to do and lobbying against bills that would enact those requirements (because the banks have no lobbying power, right?), they just caved and made the loans they didn’t want to make? Not even you believe this: you continue by saying that banks were voluntarily making bad loans.

      Let’s look at a few things together:

      DOG
      [Investor Business Daily link],

      I have no doubt that many banks were making loans they should not regardless of the pressure exerted on them by the race baiting groups.

      Banks make risky loans. Fannie or Freddie buy up the loans. Loans now the responsibility of a government sponsored entity.

      SAV
      You’ve blamed the CRA for creating risky loans. CRA loans suffered no worse fate than others. What others? The others — bad loans — that you “have no doubt” banks were making independently of “pressure” and the CRA. In fact, the numbers show the impact of these non-CRA loans was less than the others.
      Now that we’ve established that the CRA really hasn’t the responsibility the righties want it to have, you’re making HUD the scapegoat.

      Now let’s sum this up:

      DOG
      Here is how it worked. Banks make risky loans.

      SAV
      And regardless of the dominoes you try to place after this one, the bottom line is that this is to blame.