Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
ONOLAST CARD
3682 Followers
The Chili Dog
665 Followers
Thomas Bishop
2887 Followers
Tweak And Trick
859 Followers
Away for a while
3984 Followers
Mohsin Zakaria
2487 Followers
Maxy Desoza
1511 Followers
Frank Smith
2069 Followers
elliotysAug 29, 2011
Like Perry even has the education or knowledge base to understand evolution. Asking him about evolution is like asking a 6 year old, they might have a colorful answer but it is based in naivity and of ignorance.
mtownAug 29, 2011
I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
dirtyfriesAug 29, 2011
I'd rather stay and tell Perry to take a hike.
drewdaddy213Aug 29, 2011
Dugg for Futurama reference.
big1984brotherAug 30, 2011
Dugg for catching the Futurama reference.
thechauvinistAug 30, 2011
Ok Doctor Manhattan
ridgerunner5Aug 29, 2011
Can you cite this, or are you just daydreaming and calling it fact?
sandersdamnitAug 29, 2011
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/08/rick-perry-evolution-presidential-race-/1
quadeAug 30, 2011
[citation accepted]
w116tjbAug 29, 2011
Boom! You just got lawyered.
4bitAug 29, 2011
BS. Evolution isn't that hard to understand. If he doesn't have the education to understand it, then he needs to go back to 4th grade...
(what? He went to school in Texas?... Really? They did what to their books...?)
Never mind. It appears you're right.
emkaysmithAug 30, 2011
He's from near Abilene, which is not an intellectual center, even of Texas. He went to A&M, a first-rate technical school (and has been for a long time -- don't let the Aggie jokes mislead you), but any good school lets a bozo slip through from time to time. And Perry barely made it out with an ag degree in animal science. His real major, I'm told, was yell leader, just as Dubya majored in booze and fraternities.
msagnosticaAug 30, 2011
Even a 6 year old can understand Evolution, seriously they can.
prmthsAug 30, 2011
Actually. my 6 year old daughter has a very firm grasp of evolution for her age... i'd say the religious contingent and the christianologists have a 2 year old's grasp on evolution.
booglefloopAug 29, 2011
Correction to his statement: Evolution is scientific theory, not philisophical theory and the only empty gap is between his ears.
cactus1erAug 30, 2011
Well said...
msbpodcastAug 29, 2011
You're not cynical enough.
Perry knows EXACTLY what evolution is, but he thinks the voters neither know nor care for it, so he postures and prances and does what he thinks will get him a shot at the through.
Likewise, his attitude towards health-care is the gummint's attitude. Don't let him tell tell you otherwise. He is still partaking while lying right in/to your face...
nysusAug 30, 2011
It's more complex than lying. Politicians like Perry have to believe the ideas and statements that get them the most votes, however ridiculous or groundless they may be. Otherwise they could not present them with such conviction. It's a kind of willful ignorance and self-deception. I don't think Perry thinks to himself, "boy, I really pulled the wool over their eyes with that speech."
That Perry is getting taken seriously as a contender for President is more a reflection of the high level of ignorance and stupidity in society more than anything else.
corezzAug 29, 2011
Technically, the republican party of the old (Lincoln, Jefferson, Andrew Jackson etc) are what people would call today: Liberal Democrats (look at their actions and beliefs e.g. killing the federal bank)...it was decades later when party beliefs switched (republicans are now for the rich only, democrats are now for the people purportedly). However, today democrats are considered radical right to what republicans were in the 1970's, while republicans today are just completely looney tunes.
The only way it seems to set both parties right is to do real campaign finance reform because its clear both parties, especially republicans, are being corrupted so badly by special interests (super rich and corporations) that voters have no say in US democracy.
America would also do nicely with a 3rd party, like they have in Canada (Liberals, Conservatives, NDP -- they have more but those are the big 3). This way Democrats will stop moving Right each year because of continued corruption.
The real leaders of America are long dead and I have lost all respect for both parties. It also breaks my heart that Obama is nothing more than yet-another corporatist, like republicans, and his eloquent speeches were just for show. I think many in America were inspired by Obama that we could return to the likes of our founding Fathers but were deceived. I will not be voting for Obama in 2012, nor will i be stupid enough to vote for a republican because they are an embarrassment. I will say i do like some of Ron Paul's truthfulness and Huntsman for being honest and believing in Science but as candidates on a whole I just cant vote for them either, but at least it shows some republicans have at least a few words of clarity some times.
johnnysoftwareAug 30, 2011
So waiting for another candidate to enter the race who drags the country more towards sanity/unity than toward dogma & special interest catering?
johnnysoftwareAug 30, 2011
It sounds like you have assessed each thing carefully, and in relative terms not just absolute terms.
Do you think Obama might have scored better in the independence-to-industry and taken reform/improvement of economic architecture of the US a little further if so much of the country had not been on "life support" or "at each others' throats".
A lot of Obama's efforts necessarily had to focus on keeping America from killing itself, as it had been politically gerrymander prior to his arrival is like some years the campaigns must deal with geographic gerrymandering.
While I admit he did not smoothly rebuild the unity of the country, I note he did two things that were actually a good splint and stitches in that area.
1. He did not encourage Americans to fear/hate/loathe each other or people of certain countries or beliefs in the world.
2. He did at least ask for cooperation and it was not just a hollow buzzword when he said it.
Those are true and relevant statements, right?
If he did those things, then I want to make a further medical analogy, as someone who has benefited from medicine at one point.
The bones are set and the flesh has grown back together again. So what is needed now is "physical therapy". The scar tissue needs to become supple again so it does not tear, the muscles that were damaged when the bones broke need to be strengthened again so the bones themselves do not take too much strain.
Obama just changed his economic advisor. I do not know if the medical analogy continues to hold, so I guess I will ask. Could the new one be a different type of "specialist" than the old one?
Looking back over what I said above, he accomplished one more thing. He followed a basic systems theory approach to leadership that fit well with the situation. He identified what systems are were failing, and made novel changes to systems that were in fail states [States is a formal word for status though a status with a sense of location such as in the phrase "how did we end up here?" where here is a state of affairs not a place on the map]. He then got those systems out of the "hard" fail state they were in, moving them to software error-recovery states that are at least halfway back to healthy.
I realize he did not fix the old Defense bloat/mission-creep problem ["yet"] and the mercenary approach to cyber-security is causing the same high-cost/multiplying-setbacks as it did for DoD over yonder. Both these areas seemed to destabilize the same year: 2001. They both seem to be capable of overturning all the other gains, and are threatening to do so but they haven't quite done so yet.
So, other than these two things, do you think he has basically done the ER job and also got the US in a position where it can do more therapy?
If so, should that be what he focusses on the next 12-months, along with perhaps addressing these 2 problems which seem to have grown onerous and very high risk?
dmh838Aug 30, 2011
In all fairness, we say there are some gaps in the bible.
rclearymakegudwaifuAug 30, 2011
Faith is beyond reproach.
martin92003Aug 29, 2011
Looks right on to me.
ickglueAug 29, 2011
This picture is based on the faulty theory of Evolution. And hence, Republicans would vigorously deny it on the basis of a bad science.
The picture would work better if it showed a bearded invisible man in the sky using his power to intelligently design the changes shown.
soupgfxAug 30, 2011
This is about right... What I hate is that the Republican party now caters to the most ignorant people of society. They say the most outrageous things just to get votes. They are becoming the epitome of bad politicians.
redscourgeAug 30, 2011
HOLY s**t
Ignorant people debating evolution here...seriously?
Anyone who is debating evolution here and has NOT yet read a book by one of the renowned students of evolution at least as recent as The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins, please shut the hell up immediately. There is no room for opinion based on nothing in a scientific field.
bigbert81Aug 30, 2011
Yes!!! redscourge here is the only non-ignorant person here!!! He is better than you all because he read a book and is no longer ignorant like the rest of you scum!!!
Nobody here is allowed an opinion except for him. You are all ignorant ignorant ignorant!!!
redscourgeSep 2, 2011
Of course everyone has the right to their own opinion, but when that opinion is based on zero actual knowledge, it's actually called "bulls**t". Believe it or not, but sometimes sharing bulls**t opinions does more harm than good. Creationism, which is firmly based on bulls**t, is a good example. Trying to convince creationists that evolution is real solely with bulls**t is like trying to put out a fire with a can of gasoline. THIS is why I say that people discussing evolution need to first read about it.
endgameAug 30, 2011
Anybody but Obama in 2012!
chassupAug 30, 2011
That's a terrible caricature of Perry!
rclearymakegudwaifuAug 30, 2011
It has some gaps in it.
cactus1erAug 30, 2011
LOL. Just wait for 2016... scary larva on a Chinese's boot.
Neuro207Aug 30, 2011
If I'm not mistaken, this argument that the theory of evolution "has some gaps in it" is not new. What exactly are these gaps?
davidg11Aug 29, 2011
HAHAHAHA!!!! So funnnnny!
Oh yeah....it's too bad you're going to lose the Senate and Presidency next year. Isn't it?
We tried it where the dems controlled the House, Senate and Presidency. All we got was a "stimulus package" that stimulated nothing and a health care package that no one is happy with. And zero leadership in the presidency.
Awesome.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
lmptkAug 29, 2011
Hey I remember when the Republicans had control of everything. How did that treat you? Awesome?
davidg11Aug 29, 2011
When was that? Not in recent history have the republicans controlled the Presidency, Senate and House.
lmptkAug 29, 2011
Are you kidding me?
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774721.html
ect5150Aug 29, 2011
Sorry, but you need to order this then:
http://www.amazon.com/Ginkgo-Biloba-500mg-180-capsules/dp/B0001DYWRI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1314643376&sr=8-1
number23Aug 29, 2011
Sure, do! Prior to 2006 America had 3+% growth and 5% unemployment.
4bitAug 29, 2011
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth
Compare with the Clinton years and tell me how awesome everything was.
number23Aug 29, 2011
I'm sorry, is English your primary language? I said PRIOR to 2006, your graph starts AT 2007. Start your graph at Jan 2002 and you'll see what I mean, you'll also see 6+% growth after the Bush tax cuts were enacted.
4bitAug 29, 2011
It is... is it yours smart ass? You'll notice I said to compare it to the Clinton years.
You obviously know how to set the drop downs (they don't stay set when you copy the link).
IN FACT, if you do look back then you'll see that we were moving back up and out until the republicans took over, and started bringing us back down.
vectorbAug 29, 2011
Yes it took several years for Bush and the Republicans to totally eff up the booming economy from the Clinton policies.
countess666Aug 30, 2011
6+% growth but NO jobs.
in terms of jobs bush was the worst president in recent history(since the end of ww2) in terms of job creation.
and that's true even if you take away the recessions!
you can take his best jobs growth year, apply that to all 8 years of is presidency and it would STILL be well below average.
ericschc1Aug 29, 2011
I'm sorry, but the state of an economy isn't defined by the incoming political majority, being Democrats, over the outgoing political majority, being Republicans. You're an idiot if you think NEWLY-ELECTED politicians of either party influence today's economic stability.
notorious84Aug 29, 2011
Anybody who honestly thinks that the theory of evolution doesn't have gaps is more ignorant than Rick Perry. There would be no need for any work to be done to continue its development if there weren't gaps.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
fleischnerAug 29, 2011
You have stated obvious scientific information... that contradicts whatever liberals are trying to shove down everyone's throat at the moment.
Therefore, you will be dugg down, called an idiot, a hater, and eventually, racist.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mattb123Aug 30, 2011
It's called reality.
bishopj2Aug 30, 2011
^^^hippy
mattb123Aug 30, 2011
And?
bishopj2Aug 30, 2011
just sayin
smedrickAug 29, 2011
Evolutionary timelines contain gaps simply because we've only uncovered a tiny fraction of all the fossils that have ever existed. The theory of evolution contains no gaps. Evolution has been proven out many times over through fossil study and laboratory testing. We may never be able to trace the exact lineage of every single species, but the mechanism of evolution exists as a known fact.
notorious84Aug 29, 2011
I agree that aspects of evolution have been proven without a doubt, such as mutation and natural selection leading to diversification. To say that the entire theory has been completely proven, however, is extremely naive. There are in fact huge gaps, not the last of which are the origin of the first reproducing cell, the origin of gender dichotomy, and the general increase of advantageous alleles in a genome. These are just three examples of areas of extensive evolutionary research currently ongoing. They are vital to the overall theory of origin, but are yet unresolved. Not that they won't be resolved, or that it is somehow impossible to resolve them, but if one is academically honest, one must admit that these are legitimate "gaps".
// btw, I'm from Texas and I think Ricky Perry's a fraudComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
smedrickAug 29, 2011
Evolution is a mechanism, not an event. You're referring to abiogenesis, not evolution.
notorious84Aug 29, 2011
Obviously, there are many definitions of evolution, so you have to be clear which one you are referring to. If you're referring to the mechanism that causes change over time, that's far different from say, universal common ancestry, but both are often used in different contexts as definitions for evolution. I don't actually believe that Rick Perry was simply referring to the mechanism of mutation and natural selection causing diversification and adaptation, because as far as I know, even the strictest ID proponents believe that.
smedrickAug 29, 2011
The theory of evolution is a rather distinct and published concept. I don't know where the other definitions are coming from, but only one is accepted by the scientific community. Evolution is just as concrete as gravity. If someone has another understanding of evolution, it's simply because they are ignorant.
notorious84Aug 29, 2011
Gotta reply to this, because your other one is unreply-able.
If strict evolutionists and strict creationists both believe that mutation and natural selection lead to diversification and adaptation, then obviously there is a semantic problem occurring. The fact is, Ricky Perry mostly likely was not referring to simply that mechanism, he was referring to the overarching theory of universal common descent based on a strictly materialistic world view, because when someone asks a politician about that subject, that's generally what they are implying.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
smedrickAug 29, 2011
So how can you claim one is ignorant of a topic that you have only made assumptions on? Science uses a very specific language for a reason.
notorious84Aug 29, 2011
Okay genius, do you actually believe Rick Perry does not believe what even the strictest creationists believe? I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt on this, even though I would never vote for him. And according to websters, there are six definitions of "evolution". The fact is that the word has far too many different possible meanings and contexts to be used by itself.
smedrickAug 29, 2011
I prefer not to call people ignorant just based on assumptions.
If a politician wanted to clarify their position on evolution, they have every chance in the world to. The truth is they never will because science is too much of a touchy subject for the extreme leftists and rightists that support them. Science...one of humanity's purest disciplines...is too controversial in American politics. That's f**king disgusting...and it's completely the fault of the American people. Politicians are simply playing to the ideology of their base.
So, no, I'm not going to play a guessing game with Perry on what his understanding of evolution is. Science (not Websters, not Rick Perry) has defined the theory of evolution. If you can't communicate your ideas properly, you don't deserve my vote.
johnnysoftwareAug 30, 2011
Evolution has gaps?
I see, so which counter-theor do you believe?
- genes do not exist?
- genes have nothing to do with hereditary?
- people who die before they reproduce still have children?
You should have picked this up in biology class back in high school.
If you did not take biology in high school, then that is your stumbling block, and you should not be debating whether the theory is implausible or complicated. In fact, it would be hard to discuss anything technical about living creatures since that is what biology is the "study of".
You can by biology text books which explain evolution in terms which a child can understand, and no one needs to be smarter than that to "get it".
After I got out of school, I still wanted to learn more about it.
So, I bought Charles Darwin's "Origin of Species". I did not find it hard going at all. It's shorter than most popular fiction novels.
It assumes pretty much just average intelligence. It introduces only a few new terms to the reader, such as "character" which in modern days we would probably read as "characteristic" as a layman or "phenotype" if we took high school biology as one of our classes.
Today, evolution is used in a lot of products, practices, and recreational uses. Not to mention just "going on" whether we life/notice it or not.
- "alife" [artificial life] games; see link at bottom of this post
- standard practice in the US: of not over-prescribing antibiotics so we don't wind up with [more] killer pathogens like MRSA [antibiotic resistant staff]
- biowarfare: you're really going to be hated if you create a pathogen that wipes out the rest of the human race after accidentally or purposely attacking a very tiny segment of the population, so a person in the industry who did not grasp evolution and was calling the shots would be a grade A threat
- invasive species: this is evolution, survival of the fittest AKA natural selection in its purest form; hardcore, uncut evolution -- not stepped down at all -- and that's why these guys are such a huge problem/danger
- "Sand Kings": scifi short story that does a good job of illustrating evolution in an exciting, suspenseful, tragic, and instructive tale [also made into couple episodes of modern/color "Twilight Zone" series] ... entertaining and an extremely good to consume just before reading "Origin of Species"
- genetic programming (GP): been used in computer science for decades
You can actually conjure up a "killer bug" by taking e. coli e.g. "bovine e. coli", adding plasmid [extra rings of DNA] to it, and spreading it into the wild". Cow poop. Everything but spilling it on your sneakers and tracking it into a cow pasture is standard practice in genetics research since about the 1970s. {do a search on workers tracking radioactive material in their halls/lobby/parkinglot/cars/homes at a food irradiation plant to assess how plausible it is for _some_ science industry professionals to do such a thing}
But if say it did happen, and you used a lot of antibiotics almost obsessively on cows, then the e. coli with extra plasmids would do fine and the weaker ones that lacked the extra plasmids -- the natural ones -- would be killed off by the antibiotics. As the saying goes, "only the strong survive". {plasmids act like cyclone wire on a fence to antibiotic material trying to get into a cell and jack it up good}
That's not really a history lesson but just an example of how things would go, if they happened, thanks to evolution.
History Lessons:
- Darwin; voyage of the HMS Beagle
- Mendel; pea heredity experiments
History References:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendelian_inheritance
ALIFE software stuff:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tierra_(computer_simulation)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatures_(artificial_life_program)
Programming stuff:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm
More studies:
- read up on "predator prey" relationships and/or simulations
- read up on biomes & niches so you understand competition aspect of natural selection
Concepts that will get you on track really fast:
- probability theory (statistics)
- recursion (math, programming)
- cellular automata (programing, like in John Conway's "Game of Life)
This information is very accessible to high school students and precocious junior high school students who like science, reading, experimenting, and thinking about how things work will probably enjoy it.
Who knows, maybe one of them will someday become governor in a post apocalyptic tropical state of some obscure country in the western hemisphere.
eatthebrainAug 30, 2011
Pretty much 99% of everything in science has gaps in it. Nothing is concrete, we believe it because there is a good amount of evidence and reasoning behind it.
Evolution has gaps, so does everything else.
sapana543Aug 29, 2011
This should be titled 'Evolution of Christians'. I vote republican and definitely don't believe in creationism.
4bitAug 29, 2011
http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/majority-republicans-doubt-theory-evolution.aspx
You're in the minority of Republicans. Barely, but in the minority.
sapana543Aug 29, 2011
I would guess Creationism supporters are more highly correlated with Christians than with Republicans.
4bitAug 30, 2011
And Republicans have folded in the religious right. So Republicans have become correlated with Christians.
So if the comparison was a Venn Diagram, with Republicans being the big circle, most of it would be filled with the christian, and most of that would be "don't believe in evolution" circle.
Now are there Christian Democrats? Of course. They just tend to not make religious standards and beliefs a platform for public policy.
prmthsAug 30, 2011
Abraham Lincoln was not christian.
roracle82Aug 29, 2011
Rick Perry does NOT support my world view, but I am of the republican mindset...and I'm tired of everyone thinking that one republican believes the same thing other republicans believe.
We aren't borg like the liberal democats, we don't all believe the same exact thing and jump exactly at the same time (unless we agree to do that in order to make the earth a little smaller) but other than terms of agreement, it's not automatic.
A republican takes all views and deliberates them. A democrat believes one thing and one thing only and has no room for open debate, just name calling or (in this case) visual disembowelment of their ideology.
Funny though how if you don't take evolution as fact you're called "retarded" or something, but I'm not the one sitting here BELIEVING a THEORY as if it's fact. Funny how that works huh?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
4bitAug 29, 2011
Nor does one democrat believe exactly what every democrat believes. No one doubts that.
But, the majority of your group (see here: http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/majority-republicans-doubt-theory-evolution.aspx) Fall under that catagory, guess what being a part of that group suggests about you?
As opposed to the left, summed up best by Will Rogers: "I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat."
Most of the scientific and educated minds in our country are democrats. Most university professors and scientists are lefties.
So tell me again how the right is super good at deliberating ideas.
Now, lets talk about theory....
A theory is not a fact. Never has been. A theory is a conclusion that is based on a series of facts. A theory attempts to explain a why, or a how.
Why are there no big animals in the same layers as the smaller animals in the geologic record?
How did these small animals get to be bigger animals?
Why do animals seem to develop different traits over time?
Etc.
These things are answered by theories, and if facts ever arise that disrupt these theories, they change to accompany the new facts, either by explaining why the new facts are in error OR by changing the theory.
So far no evidence has been presented that dispute evolution, and it does answer a lot of the questions I gave above while fitting all the facts we have.
Now, some people thing that theories can eventually become 'laws' in the science world. Laws, however, are not explanations of things, but rather expectations of things. The Law of Gravity is probably the best known example. It doesn't explain how gravity works, only that it does, and will every time.
Even that needed some changing as we discovered 'space' and the fact that go far enough away, and the earth's gravity doesn't work. This gives us theories of gravitational fields to explain why the law of gravity works. But the law works because we observe it working, and will continue to be a law until we don't. Theories on gravitational fields can change, without changing the law.
Deliberate on that for a while.
docholodayAug 29, 2011
I'm not going to digg you down, but I have to say, for someone who is tired of everyone lumping YOU together with the rest of the republicans, you certainly seem willing to lump "them", the democrats, all together for believing the "same thing". I guess the republicans are the only group with a variety of opinions, right? Good thing you're not "borg democats". lol.
Both sides are equally ridiculous. Yours included.
rattelerAug 29, 2011
That's like saying your a member of Al Quida or the Taliban who DOESN'T think all Americans need to die.
You are part of a Fascist Terror group dedicated to destroying the Constitution of the United States and waging class war against it's citizens in the name of wealthy Seditionists and foreign powers.
You're scapegoating of Liberal/Democrats is textbook fascist rhetoric.
No one "believes" in evolution. It is not a "theory".
They accept it as scientific fact proved by hundreds of years of evidence gathered from millions of years of research.
frumblerAug 30, 2011
Oh yeah, those democrats really voted as one block to get that perfect health plan done didn't they. Every heard of Blue Dog democrats? Look it up.
ridgerunner5Aug 29, 2011
Dupe
http://digg.com/news/politics/the_evolution_of_republicans
ericschc1Aug 29, 2011
Thanks, I just dugg both to help the visibility of either...& to piss your types off.