I'd use credit cards as a buffer but I got rather into trouble with them. I wasn't taught very good money management growing up. My parents were terrible with money and I've learned the hard way. (Still paying for the lessons.)
So, I know to the penny what's in my checking account. I'd have trouble sleeping at night if I didn't.
Mint makes me nervous. I don't like the idea of a website having all of my financial data from multiple banks and accounts. But, I'm a bit paranoid about things like that.
Well, if it was real, it would definitely cast a lot of things into some serious doubt, so the second part of that isn't too wrong. It's probably a better tactic to make up facts when the real facts aren't in your favour than to try to make up absurd justifications.
Even if it were real, I don't see what difference it would make. First of all, while the Loch Ness Monster resembles a plesiosaur, until one is actually caught (again, assuming it even is real), there's no way to confirm if it's a plesiosaur or just an animal that resembles one via convergent evolution. Even if it was a plesiosaur, that's actually a genus, not a species -- so it's entirely possible that it's a modern species of plesiosaur of the same genus as the prehistoric lineage but not an actual ancient species. This isn't so far fetched as crocodilians and turtles have also existed since dinosaur times and sharks pre-date dinosaurs. The difference is that none of the modern species actually existed back then -- they are all descendants of those species.
The trick about evolution is that things generally don't evolve for the sake of evolving. They evolve because their environment selects those that are best adapted for said environment. If an ancient plesiosaur species happened to hang around/migrate to/etc. areas whose environments they are still well-adapted to even after millions of years, that's still just evolution doing its thing as science predicts.
What that Lou guy said. The argument that a Loch Ness monster disproves evolution is flawed in so many ways that I don't know where to begin. Evolution is not a "rising tide lifts all boats" situation.
None of those explanations would, on their own, be at all satisfactory given the lack of evidence for any creature anything at all like it anywhere for a really long time.
Granted, maybe the Loch Ness Monster isn't as absurd as, say, a crocoduck (which would be pretty serious trouble if it was real), but it can hardly be easily explained in the face of current evidence. Since the Loch Ness Monster is something we very much don't expect to find given current evidence and theory, there would be some serious doubts if one suddenly turned up.
Of course, if we did find an actual Loch Ness Monster the best guess would probably be something like "someone with some serious technology is fucking with us big-time".
None of those explanations would, on their own, be at all satisfactory given the lack of evidence for any creature anything at all like it anywhere in recent history.
That's what they said about the coelacanth, a creature that was contemporary with the plesiosaur. However, coelacanths are real.
Granted, maybe the Loch Ness Monster isn't as absurd as, say, a crocoduck (which would be pretty serious trouble if it was real), but it can hardly be easily explained in the face of current evidence. Since the Loch Ness Monster is something we very much don't expect to find given current evidence and theory, there would be some serious doubts if one suddenly turned up.
I think you need to cite some sources that support this assertion. If a prehistoric species has been surviving in Loch Ness for millions of years, how does that effect evolutionary theories whatsoever? LOTS of prehistoric species have survived, as has been said by others. Further, the fact that a Loch Ness monster would not have predators (except humans, which obviously she's very good at avoiding) and very little credible competition for food, there would be few environmental pressures on it to die off in favor of superior species.)
Wow, after typing that all out I've realized this is a REALLY dumb conversation. :-)
In simple terms my argument boils down to this: The more improbable something is on the basis of your current model of reality, the more that model needs to be revised if it turns out that absurd thing is actually true.
I think you need to cite some sources that support this assertion. If a prehistoric species has been surviving in Loch Ness for millions of years, how does that effect evolutionary theories whatsoever?
This isn't a question of "prehistoric species" (which is a pretty poor choice of term), it's a question specifically of a creature possessing the purported properties of the Loch Ness Monster. I never said anything stupid like "there's no way there would be a creature that similar to something from millions of years ago", which is especially stupid in the context of just how meaningless a term like "similar" is in this context.
Further, the fact that a Loch Ness monster would not have predators (except humans, which obviously she's very good at avoiding) and very little credible competition for food, there would be few environmental pressures on it to die off in favor of superior species.)
Predators are quite far from the only relevant factor here; nor is dying off. The most important thing that comes to mind is the (lack of) ability of the lake to support a viable population carnivorous creatures of that size.
In any case, perhaps an actual real Loch Ness Monster isn't absurd enough that its being real would do any real damage to evolution, but I think it would require some pretty serious explaining. To argue otherwise is to argue, by extension, that there's a decent chance of it being real.
None of those explanations would, on their own, be at all satisfactory given the lack of evidence for any creature anything at all like it anywhere in recent history.
That's what they said about the coelacanth, a creature that was contemporary with the plesiosaur. However, coelacanths are real.
A good point; thanks for bringing that up.
As a side note, it seems to me that you're consistently one of the most well-reasoned people on this forum, which is pretty solid considering we already have pretty good standards around here.
The trick about evolution is that things generally don't evolve for the sake of evolving. They evolve because their environment selects those that are best adapted for said environment. If an ancient plesiosaur species happened to hang around/migrate to/etc. areas whose environments they are still well-adapted to even after millions of years, that's still just evolution doing its thing as science predicts.
I agree with you here, but from what I gather any creature at all like a plesiosaur would, in fact, be nowhere near well-adapted to those conditions.
Well, if it was real, it would definitely cast a lot of things into some serious doubt, so the second part of that isn't too wrong. It's probably a better tactic to make up facts when the real facts aren't in your favour than to try to make up absurd justifications.
As for the being real part, I've seen it reported around, I was just lazy and grabbed the first website I saw that had it published. Shitty source linked, but I'm reasonably sure it's genuine.
Predators are quite far from the only relevant factor here; nor is dying off. The most important thing that comes to mind is the (lack of) ability of the lake to support a viable population carnivorous creatures of that size.
In any case, perhaps an actual real Loch Ness Monster isn't absurd enough that its being real would do any real damage to evolution, but I think it would require some pretty serious explaining. To argue otherwise is to argue, by extension, that there's a decent chance of it being real.
I'll give you that, but I don't see how it would affect evolution. It may affect what kind of population size is needed to be "viable," but that's more a genetics thing than an evolution thing.
Also, we're operating under the assumption that the Loch Ness monster, if real, is in fact a plesiosaur. There have been many other proposed explanations for the monster that are much more mundane than a living fossil. For example, if Nessie turns out to be real, but is in fact some weird species of eel (eels are known to live in the Loch), then all it means is that people have been misidentifying a mundane creature as something extraordinary all these years.
As a side note, it seems to me that you're consistently one of the most well-reasoned people on this forum, which is pretty solid considering we already have pretty good standards around here.
You flatter me. Thanks!
The trick about evolution is that things generally don't evolve for the sake of evolving. They evolve because their environment selects those that are best adapted for said environment. If an ancient plesiosaur species happened to hang around/migrate to/etc. areas whose environments they are still well-adapted to even after millions of years, that's still just evolution doing its thing as science predicts.
I agree with you here, but from what I gather any creature at all like a plesiosaur would, in fact, be nowhere near well-adapted to those conditions.
That is another good point... Did some quick research on the Loch prior to my last post above and saw that, yeah, the Loch is too cold for a cold-blooded plesiosaur to survive and doesn't have enough food for a warm-blooded plesiosaur to survive. The problem here isn't the possibility of a plesiosaur living in this day and age, but with one living in Loch Ness.
For example, if Nessie turns out to be real, but is in fact some weird species of eel (eels are known to live in the Loch), then all it means is that people have been misidentifying a mundane creature as something extraordinary all these years.
Ah, but I rather doubt that that's what Churba's quoted source meant by "some children are being taught the Loch Ness monster is real". Here's a better quote from the article:
The schools believe that if it can be proved that man once walked the Earth with dinosaurs, then Darwin's theory of evolution will be disproved.
That, I can pretty much agree with; although "disproved" is perhaps a little too strong, massive overhaul would be in order.
Evolution is well established and supported by reams and reams and reams of peer reviewed work. No public school in the United States has any business teaching Creationism or Creationist dogma. Science class is for science.
Federal intervention would be appropriate for schools doing this.
They're not public schools, and there's really no infrastructure in place for adequately reviewing private curricula. I agree that there should be some curricular mandates for schools that get public funding, but there's no way to enforce it.
Also, Yahoo news fails to mention in what way the schools are publicly funded, through direct funding support or through school vouchers.
Also, this is what you get when you set up school voucher programs outside of major cities.
In my life, I have encountered one creationist. I disagree with her on absolutely everything, but my school tends to teach liberal opinions as truth, so her tendency to play Devil's Advocate on everything from the Israeli-Palistine conflict to Imperialism and win has made us fairly quaint friends. I used to hate creationists, but I can't anymore.
I was making a general statement. Generally, liberal beliefs correlate very closely with reality, that is, scientifically documented and validated social theory, economic theory, and political theory. The remainder is mostly an issue of empathy.
I didn't make any comment about the specific claims you're complaining about, although I did hazard a bit of a guess.
You realize this is the hive-mind party-prejudice that Fox News uses against you, right? I recall Rush Limbaugh being a proponent of The Lord's Resistance Army because he didn't know anything about what he was talking about.
No, I don't think it's based in propaganda to say that Liberals tend to value social and political science and factor those into their opinions, making them generally more informed than most conservatives. Most conservative areas are also areas of low education and high isolation, culturally speaking. This is not entirely subjective stuff.
Liberals can be hive-minded, but as a group they're also far more likely to do their own research and independently verify than conservatives. That's why the Republican party in the US votes in lockstep and the Democratic party is like herding cats (and is becoming less liberal by the day as a result.)
Statistically, people who consider themselves political "liberals" in the United States have been shown to have very slightly better critical thinking skills and to be marginally more informed than people who consider themselves conservatives.
However, most liberal positions are subject to the same problems of groupthink and information bias that conservative positions have.
The difference may be statistically significant, but that doesn't mean the difference is sizable.
The modern world is one filled with conservatives living in a circle-jerk think tank and liberals that think they're better because they live in a different one. I don't trust anyone but a few of my friends to interpret news for me. I read the direct text of bills, watch C-SPAN, and read the AP. Where do you get your news, Muppet?
You only have to look at the current social and economic conditions to see the end game of 10 years of mostly unfettered conservative politics. Citizens United, PATRIOT Act, Guantanamo Bay, DHS, TSA, bank lobbyists being allowed to rewrite bankruptcy protections (unfavorably) for middle class famillies...
I get my news from a variety of places. I pull feeds from CNN (usually a waste of time), FOX (to see what's being fed to people), NPR, BBC, Al Jazeera, and a smattering of progressive papers like Mother Earth News. I also read news on aggregators like reddit and read (and participate in) as much of the commentary and analysis on important stories as I can get to.
"A few trusted friends" seems like a risky source of your worldview, to me, but maybe your friends are economists and political scientists?
Comments
So, I know to the penny what's in my checking account. I'd have trouble sleeping at night if I didn't.
Mint makes me nervous. I don't like the idea of a website having all of my financial data from multiple banks and accounts. But, I'm a bit paranoid about things like that.
The trick about evolution is that things generally don't evolve for the sake of evolving. They evolve because their environment selects those that are best adapted for said environment. If an ancient plesiosaur species happened to hang around/migrate to/etc. areas whose environments they are still well-adapted to even after millions of years, that's still just evolution doing its thing as science predicts.
Granted, maybe the Loch Ness Monster isn't as absurd as, say, a crocoduck (which would be pretty serious trouble if it was real), but it can hardly be easily explained in the face of current evidence. Since the Loch Ness Monster is something we very much don't expect to find given current evidence and theory, there would be some serious doubts if one suddenly turned up.
Of course, if we did find an actual Loch Ness Monster the best guess would probably be something like "someone with some serious technology is fucking with us big-time".
Wow, after typing that all out I've realized this is a REALLY dumb conversation. :-)
The more improbable something is on the basis of your current model of reality, the more that model needs to be revised if it turns out that absurd thing is actually true. This isn't a question of "prehistoric species" (which is a pretty poor choice of term), it's a question specifically of a creature possessing the purported properties of the Loch Ness Monster. I never said anything stupid like "there's no way there would be a creature that similar to something from millions of years ago", which is especially stupid in the context of just how meaningless a term like "similar" is in this context. Predators are quite far from the only relevant factor here; nor is dying off. The most important thing that comes to mind is the (lack of) ability of the lake to support a viable population carnivorous creatures of that size.
In any case, perhaps an actual real Loch Ness Monster isn't absurd enough that its being real would do any real damage to evolution, but I think it would require some pretty serious explaining. To argue otherwise is to argue, by extension, that there's a decent chance of it being real.
As a side note, it seems to me that you're consistently one of the most well-reasoned people on this forum, which is pretty solid considering we already have pretty good standards around here. I agree with you here, but from what I gather any creature at all like a plesiosaur would, in fact, be nowhere near well-adapted to those conditions.
Also, we're operating under the assumption that the Loch Ness monster, if real, is in fact a plesiosaur. There have been many other proposed explanations for the monster that are much more mundane than a living fossil. For example, if Nessie turns out to be real, but is in fact some weird species of eel (eels are known to live in the Loch), then all it means is that people have been misidentifying a mundane creature as something extraordinary all these years.
Federal intervention would be appropriate for schools doing this.
Also, Yahoo news fails to mention in what way the schools are publicly funded, through direct funding support or through school vouchers.
Also, this is what you get when you set up school voucher programs outside of major cities.
You realize you're defending claims that you haven't heard, right?
I didn't make any comment about the specific claims you're complaining about, although I did hazard a bit of a guess.
I understand your claim, but it leads to dangerous thinking, muppet.
Liberals can be hive-minded, but as a group they're also far more likely to do their own research and independently verify than conservatives. That's why the Republican party in the US votes in lockstep and the Democratic party is like herding cats (and is becoming less liberal by the day as a result.)
However, most liberal positions are subject to the same problems of groupthink and information bias that conservative positions have.
The difference may be statistically significant, but that doesn't mean the difference is sizable.
"A few trusted friends" seems like a risky source of your worldview, to me, but maybe your friends are economists and political scientists?