Fred on evolution

Fred, too, has his doubts:

The question of the origin of life interested me. The evolutionary explanations that I encountered in textbooks of biology ran to, “In primeval seas, evaporation concentrated dissolved compounds in a pore in a rock, a skim formed a membrane, and life began its immense journey.” I saw no reason to doubt this. If it hadn’t been true, scientists would not have said that it was.

Remember, I was fifteen.

In those days I read Scientific American and New Scientist, the latter then still being thoughtfully written in good English. I noticed that not infrequently they offered differing speculation as to the origin of life. The belief in the instrumentality of chemical accident was constant, but the nature of the primeval soup changed to fit varying attempts at explanation.

For a while, life was thought to have come about on clay in shallow water in seas of a particular composition, later in tidal pools with another chemical solution, then in the open ocean in another solution. This continues. Recently, geothermal vents have been offered as the home of the first life. Today (Feb 24, 2005) on the BBC website, I learn that life evolved below the oceanic floor. (“There is evidence that life evolved in the deep sediments,” co-author John Parkes, of Cardiff University, UK, told the BBC News website.”)

The frequent shifting of ground bothered me. If we knew how life began, why did we have so many prospective mechanisms, none of which really worked? Evolution began to look like a theory in search of a soup. Forty-five years later, it still does.

I’ll be interested to see how many people attempt to make the case that he’s an anti-evolutionist know-nothing like Joe Carter and I simply because he’s a Christian. This is one of the more complete demolitions of the essential silliness that is neo-Darwinian evolution that I’ve seen; it will be interesting to see what the True Believers at the Panda’s Thumb make of it.

It will be particularly interesting to see if they actually provide a direct answer to a single one of his questions.

Mailvox: Repent!

Ihatedashrub considers a new confession of faith:

Craig, you deal in generalities more than anyone who posts on this blog or did you forget the time you told me to repent for the mere fact I’m a registered Democrat.

Well, did you, Shrub? In case you forgot, this is ground zero for the Cthulhu 2008 campaign. Slogan: “Why Vote For The Lesser Evil?”

We’re still in negotiations with Azathoth with regards to the vice-presidency. Shub-Niggurath was eager to dip her many cloven toes into the pool, but the Mighty Tentacled One didn’t feel the nation is ready yet for two evil Elder gods wearing female form running for national office, considering the likelihood that “Hillary Clinton” will do so in 2008.

There is still some debate continuing over whether our slogan might be counterproductive, as both Susan Estrich and Ralph Reed agreed that there are many Americans who might view Mighty Cthulhu as the lesser evil when viewed in comparison with “Hillary Clinton”.

I got nothing

From Drudge:

“Siding with the GOP when you live in the bluest state around is almost like wearing a Boston Red Sox jersey at a New York Yankees’ home game,” says [Playgirl Editor-in-Chief Michele] Zipp in the April issue of PLAYGIRL. ”I cannot tell you how many times a person assumed I voted for John Kerry in 2004. Most of the time, I don’t have the heart to tell them, or the energy to discuss my reasons for going red this election year. But this is Playgirl magazine so it’s about time I was the one who bared what’s underneath.”

How could a member of the media who produces adult entertainment for women possibly side with conservatives from the red states? Zipp spells it out. “Those on the right are presumed to be all about power and greed – two really sexy traits in the bedroom. They want it, they want it now, and they’ll do anything to get it. And I’m not talking about some pansy-assed victory, I’m talking about full on jackpot, satisfaction for all.”

“The Democrats of the Sixties were all about making love and not war while a war-loving Republican is a man who would fight, bleed, sacrifice, and die for his country. Could you imagine what that very same man would do for his wife in the bedroom?” asks Zipp.


We need women in the military why?

Hack relates some high level hypocrisy:

“[Air Force general Thomas] Fiscus was known as the Darth Vader of the Air Force’s legal establishment for his zealous pursuit of sexual misconduct,” says retired U.S. Marines Corps Lt. Col. Roger Charles, who recently completed an exhaustive investigation of the former general’s formerly secret life.

Charles notes that several years ago, when a married female lieutenant colonel with an impeccable military record was nailed for adultery and her commander wanted to slap her on the wrist with an Article 15 nonjudicial punishment and let her retire, Fiscus fought for a general court-martial – at which she was found guilty and sentenced to be dismissed from the service. She committed suicide before the sentence was approved to preserve her retirement benefits for her family.

Last September, Jekyll was revealed as Hyde when the double life of the very-married, by-the-book senior enforcer caught up with him via an anonymous letter to the Air Force chief of staff. The investigation that ensued literally caught Fiscus with his pants down: He had almost as many uniformed playmates as the Air Force has B-2 bombers. He had sweet young things stashed everywhere, including on his Pentagon legal team – which allowed for quickies with the chosen, whom he also was kind enough to counsel about their careers and cook for while buck-naked.

Unless you’re personally acquainted with men in the services, you’re unlikely to grasp how completely out of control the fraternization problem is. The military wives hate it, especially the Navy wives, since the bored girls on ship don’t tend to differentiate between the married and the unmarried guys. The men hate it, since the women seldom pull their weight, which hurts both their unit rating and creates more work for them. And most of the women aren’t actually all that keen on anything that will land them in combat, as the spike in pregnancies immediately prior to announced deployments tends to suggest.

And should a draft be deemed necessary, as it likely will should a new front open while the Iraqi Occupation continues, it’s going to be hard to argue that young men have to serve when young women don’t. But what sort of father is going to allow his daughter to be drafted? None of the fathers I know.