It's not that they should not because evolution is how creatures gain advantages but that to evolve an emergence/reproductive cycle so extreme is pretty rare. That they were in a race with their prime predator (who may no longer even exist) speaks to their talent as evolutionary stars of a sort.
It's akin to armadillos looking around and noticing Buicks are cutting into their numbers and then all the armadillos evolved to look like Buicks.
I was speaking more about the assumptions that Eddie_T was making, specifically, the false assumption that evolutionary theory should select against a 13 to 17 year cycle, and that creationist theory explains the existence of that cycle better.
The fact is that creationism DOES fit the data better. It always will. "Why do polar bears have white fur?" "God did it". "Oh. OK." You can repeat this process with any biological factoid. What can be simpler than a theory that can be fully condensed into just 3 words?!? Evolutionary theory is quite simple, but one would be hard pressed to fully explain any particular product of evolution with just three words.
The problems with the creation approach become obvious when you try to make a useful prediction: "Huh. This antibiotic doesn't seem to be effective anymore. I wonder why."
Creationism: "God did it. Apparently, God doesn't want us using antibiotics. By trying to cure these sort of infections, we've incurred God's wrath. For our own safety, we must stop using antibiotics, lest God smite us as he has smitten so many before."
Evolution: "The antibiotic acted as a selective force, killing off the bacteria that was susceptible to it, but allowing for specialized, non-susceptible bacteria to thrive. To kill off this infection, we'll need a different antibiotic, one to which these specialized bacteria are susceptible."
__________________
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Creationism: "God did it. Apparently, God doesn't want us using antibiotics. By trying to cure these sort of infections, we've incurred God's wrath. For our own safety, we must stop using antibiotics, lest God smite us as he has smitten so many before."
OREGON CITY, Ore.(RNS) A jury on Thursday (Sept. 29) unanimously convicted an Oregon couple, Dale and Shannon Hickman, in the faith-healing death of their infant son.
Both parents were found guilty of second-degree manslaughter, a Class B felony that requires a sentence of at least six years and three months in prison under Oregon?s mandatory sentencing law. However, because of a religious exemption that was eliminated after the Hickmans were indicted, they could face less than 18 months in prison and a $250,000 fine.
The Hickmans are members of Oregon City?s Followers of Christ church, which has a long history of children dying from treatable conditions because their parents relied on faith healing rather than taking them to doctors. In response to such cases, legislators this year removed religious exemptions from Oregon?s criminal statutes.
As word got out that the jury had reached a verdict, the Clackamas County courtroom filled with about 80 friends and family from the Followers of Christ church. Among those present were Carl and Raylene Worthington, another Followers of Christ couple tried in the faith-healing death of a child. Carl Worthington was convicted of criminal mistreatment and sentenced in 2009 to six months in jail. Raylene Worthington was acquitted.
David Hickman was born on Sept. 26, 2009, and lived less than nine hours.
His mother, Shannon Hickman, went into labor two months before her due date. Instead of going to a hospital, she and her husband opted to have the baby in her mother?s home. At birth, he weighed 3 pounds, 7 ounces.
The Hickmans testified that David appeared healthy then took a sudden dire turn. Dale Hickman responded by holding his newborn son, praying for him and anointing him with olive oil. The parents said they never considered calling a doctor, and the baby died quickly.
Quote:
Clackamas County prosecutors said the baby would be alive and almost two years old today if his parents would have just made one call to a doctor.
This seems never ending. These freaks kill a kid and go to trial only to be replaced by new parent-murderers. This isn't religion, it's a cult of IGNORANCE.
This may shed some peripheral light on those prone to an egotistical psychosis;
Quote:
Smart ? Blind
Posted in Idiots on October 25th, 2010 by Phil ? 2 Comments
I just read this post over at Spasms of Accommodation and had to share it with you. Barbara talks about people that think they are very smart but are blind to the fact that they are actually stupid. Here is an example of a guy she found via a dating service.
?he claimed to be an intellectual and he only wanted to meet women ?if their smart.? He was online, so I started a chat with him. I opened with a remark that he?d attract more smart women if he knew the difference in ?their? and ?they?re.? Yet he kept talking to me. Turns out he believes in astrology, thinks the government has a secret 20 year plan to try to take away all rural land ownership to force people to live in cities, and he thinks global warming is a hoax to increase taxes. He honestly believes he is smarter than everybody else and wants to meet a smart woman.
I have developed a new litmus test for guys on the online dating site. I ask them, ?Who is the smartest person you know?? If they can?t think of anybody, that?s bad. If they say, ?Hmm, I?d have to say I am the smartest person I know.? Epic fail.
Quote:
Pay for prayer? Christian Scientists demand Oregonians fund ?spiritual health care?
The Christian Science church demands that the State of Oregon?s healthcare exchange require insurance plans to pay for ?spiritual health care? ? that is, prayer ? alongside real medicine.
August 1, 2011 /
__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
Fortunately, these are generally recognized as crimes. Fortunately, a lot of religious people recognize these as tragedies, rather than "God's Will"
What really upsets me is that these are treated as crimes, but raising a healthy child in a household where they'd die if they suffered a similar affliction is *not* child abuse. There was a case in California a few years back where a young teen with leukemia and a Jehovah's Witness upbringing was able to convince a judge that he was mentally capable of making the decision to choose a near-future death instead of the 80% chance he had at long-term survival with a series of blood transfusions.
To my way of thinking, when you convince a child to kill themselves by refusing life-saving treatment, you're a murderer.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Fortunately, these are generally recognized as crimes. Fortunately, a lot of religious people recognize these as tragedies, rather than "God's Will"
What really upsets me is that these are treated as crimes, but raising a healthy child in a household where they'd die if they suffered a similar affliction is *not* child abuse. There was a case in California a few years back where a young teen with leukemia and a Jehovah's Witness upbringing was able to convince a judge that he was mentally capable of making the decision to choose a near-future death instead of the 80% chance he had at long-term survival with a series of blood transfusions.
To my way of thinking, when you convince a child to kill themselves by refusing life-saving treatment, you're a murderer.
to put a different spin on the topic, consider circumcision, when it's female we consider it inexcusable, unmentionable and downright illegal even considering religious arguments for it (not to mention there is a medical study saying it helps reduce the risk of AIDS and other STD's even when taking into account different sexual habits/situations, but yet a hood portion of america feels that that act of genital mutilation is covered under freedom of religion to the point that in response to a local ban they passed a state law very quickly saying it couldn't be banned AT THE SAME TIME WE HAVE A FEDERAL LAW protecting girls....
In the end my point is much of america is quilty of this same line of thinking, these people think they are saving their child in eternity, while others think somehow mutilating their child's genitals will appease god or reduce std's (although teaching proper condom use would give far more protection [assuming there is any, many studies have shown no, or very little protective effect] and let them have the full sexual experience)
So it all depends on how you look at it, from our american perspective we somehow tend to view allowing circumcision of males as a freedom, while viewing circumcision of female as a an act of cruelty, while in other countries they view it as a rite of passage and a freedom to do so, as women choose to be and choose to have it or done to their daughters..... In america we have perfectly healthy boys that we cut off parts of their genitals for reasons that if they even exist don't benefit them till they are about 16 or so and could have some say in whether they want part of their body chopped off, but yet we view this as normal to force it upon them.
It's all in our perspective of how we view things, people can be convinced of anything, even child genital mutilation and pretend it's ok, I find it hard to believe that most proponents of male circumcision if they had grown up in the same atmosphere as these crazies wouldn't do the same to their child thinking they are saving them from something.....
Linear Mode
