A Happy Story for Friday
This is just cool. From a site called "Inhabitat" (motto: "Green design will save the world"), this story of a smart kid.
Lots of the biggest breakthroughs of the past few decades have involved what they call here "biomimicry," where living things and natural systems provide inspiration for scientific ideas and innovations. Nature has solved most of the engineering problems we will ever have to deal with, if we can only recognize the correspondence between our problem and something we see around us. Sounds like this kid looked at an old problem with a new eye.
I would point out another interesting thing about tree-branching. It isn't just a Fibonocci sequence, it's a random Fibonacci sequence. It would be very weird to walk through a forest where every tree had exactly the same pattern of branches. There is probably a survival advantage in growth by stochastic algorithm as opposed to the DNA simply storing a pattern that would be followed every time. Trees branch in a way that is typical for their species but unique for each individual. You can recognize a pine tree, say, or an oak tree in the distance by its shape, which emerges from the lower-level process of branching, yet every tree of a species is different from every other one.
Finally, the wrap-up:
Everything about this story is good, at a time when we need some good news. I love the fact that a middle-school kid is able to make the observation and the connection between the solar collection of trees for photosynthesis and solar panels for collecting energy for human consumption. I also love the idea of learning from nature. A couple billion years of evolution has been a good learning process, our trivial lifetimes are nestled in a wise environment that can teach us a lot, if only we open our eyes to see.
While most 13-year-olds spend their free time playing video games or cruising Facebook, one 7th grader was trekking through the woods uncovering a mystery of science. After studying how trees branch in a very specific way, Aidan Dwyer created a solar cell tree that produces 20-50% more power than a uniform array of photovoltaic panels. His impressive results show that using a specific formula for distributing solar cells can drastically improve energy generation. The study earned Aidan a provisional U.S patent – it’s a rare find in the field of technology and a fantastic example of how biomimicry can drastically improve design. 13-Year-Old Makes Solar Power Breakthrough by Harnessing the Fibonacci Sequence
Lots of the biggest breakthroughs of the past few decades have involved what they call here "biomimicry," where living things and natural systems provide inspiration for scientific ideas and innovations. Nature has solved most of the engineering problems we will ever have to deal with, if we can only recognize the correspondence between our problem and something we see around us. Sounds like this kid looked at an old problem with a new eye.
Aidan Dwyer took a hike through the trees last winter and took notice of patterns in the mangle of branches. His studies into how they branch in very specific ways lead him to a central guiding formula, the Fibonacci sequence. Take a number, add it to the number before it in a sequence like 1+1=2 then 2+1=3 then 3+2=5, 8, 13, 21 and so on a very specific pattern emerges. Turns out the pattern and its corresponding ratios are reflected in nature all the time, and Aidan’s keen observation of how trees branch according to the formula lead him to test the theory. First he measured tree branches by how often they branch and at what degree from each other.
To see why they branch this way he built a small solar array using the Fibonacci formula, stepping cells at specific intervals and heights. He then compared the energy output with identical cells set in a row. Aidan reports the results: “The Fibonacci tree design performed better than the flat-panel model. The tree design made 20% more electricity and collected 2 1/2 more hours of sunlight during the day. But the most interesting results were in December, when the Sun was at its lowest point in the sky. The tree design made 50% more electricity, and the collection time of sunlight was up to 50% longer!”
I would point out another interesting thing about tree-branching. It isn't just a Fibonocci sequence, it's a random Fibonacci sequence. It would be very weird to walk through a forest where every tree had exactly the same pattern of branches. There is probably a survival advantage in growth by stochastic algorithm as opposed to the DNA simply storing a pattern that would be followed every time. Trees branch in a way that is typical for their species but unique for each individual. You can recognize a pine tree, say, or an oak tree in the distance by its shape, which emerges from the lower-level process of branching, yet every tree of a species is different from every other one.
Finally, the wrap-up:
His work is certainly piquing the interest of the solar industry, and even more impressively he is demonstrating the power of biomimicry — a concept that many see as the pinnacle of good design, but one that thus far has been exceptionally difficult to achieve. Way to go!
Everything about this story is good, at a time when we need some good news. I love the fact that a middle-school kid is able to make the observation and the connection between the solar collection of trees for photosynthesis and solar panels for collecting energy for human consumption. I also love the idea of learning from nature. A couple billion years of evolution has been a good learning process, our trivial lifetimes are nestled in a wise environment that can teach us a lot, if only we open our eyes to see.
posted by JimK at 10:31 AM
46 Comments:
That's fantastic! Its one of those things where I think that would have never occurred to me, but it should have, its kind of obvious once you hear about it.
we can learn from nature because it is a revelation from its designer
any "evolution" that took place is part of his design
otherwise, a cool story
the scientific method was invented by devotees of the Creator, seeking to know him better through what was made
religion and science together produce endless miracles
science alone, dependent as it is on the integrity of scientific researchers, is a dead end
"religion and science together produce endless miracles".
Religion has never produced any miracles, technology, or breakthroughs. Religion has opposed science repeatedly though, a perfect example is your denial of evolution. There is no dispute amongst the scientific community, evolution is a fact, but relgionists like you won't accept reality,you have to attempt to pollute science with your religion, to ignore what a plain reading of the evidence says in favour of inisting on a pre-judged conclusion.
There's a reason why 93% of the American Academy of Science are atheists - the theory that there is a god is an unnecessary step for an explanation of the facts we see.
Bad anonymous, science alone produced the computer and internet you comment with. If you think science by itself is a dead end you should decline to use the products that resulted from it - go back to living in caves and casting out demons to cure illness.
"religion and science together produce endless miracles"
Science flourishes despite the church's view that certain scientific observations are heresy. That's why in 2000, Pope John Paul II issued a formal apology for all the mistakes committed by some Catholics in the last 2,000 years of the Catholic Church's history, including the trial, conviction and forced recantation of Galileo nearly 400 years earlier, among others.
oh, look
it's nasty Priya, posting three out of five
at least that's what it looks like
the first post was uncharacteristically pleasant so perhaps she was hacked
then, the next two are the ignorantly obnoxious stuff we are used to seeing from her
"Religion has never produced any miracles, technology, or breakthroughs."
you are aware that science, as an organized effort, arose in one part of the world alone, Christendom, right?
the scientific method was developed by Francis Bacon who said, "a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion."
that sounds like you, nasty Priya
a "little" understanding
"Religion has opposed science repeatedly though,"
actually, more often, the scientific establishment has opposed true science
the examples are numerous but one is the resistance to the Big Bang theory from the scientific community
why is skepticism from scientific establishments considered noble and skepticism from religious establishments considered ignoble?
it's irrational
"a perfect example is your denial of evolution."
oh, people mean many things by "evolution" not all of which were part of Darwin's theory or, for that matter, proven
one example is that idea that life developed spontaneously from a puddle of primordial goop
it's in the "evolution" section of textbooks across the country
not in Darwin's theory nor is there a shred of evidence proving it and, yet, people like nasty Priya believe it
why doesn't it qualify as myth, when it is unproven and unlikely ever to be proven?
how about the idea that new species evolve from natural selection?
not proven
how about the idea that parts of inter-related biological systems that confer natural advantage together but not seperately will evolve toward each other?
not only unproven, but completely irrational
what everyone can agree on is that species adapt to their environment
beyond that, most of what is called "evolution" is myth
"There's a reason why 93% of the American Academy of Science are atheists"
really?
is there a reason no organization named that arises from a Google search?
maybe you forgot the "s" on "Science"
if so, there is an organization named that, with an amateurish looking website that identifies the organization as "a non-profit organization approved by the governments of the United States"
what's up with that?
I'm not impressed
"the theory that there is a god is an unnecessary step for an explanation of the facts we see"
as Bacon said, it may not be necessary for a "little" understanding, just an in-depth one
scientists who have studied the universe closely have recognized a structure that appears designed
"anonymous, science alone produced the computer and internet you comment with."
it didn't do so alone
it was supported in this research by the our Judeo-Christian societal structure
at the time of the invention of the internet, there was a vast atheist empire which did not produce the internet and a predominantly Judeo-Christian society that did
indeed, even today, the largest atheist government in the world, China, actively tries to suppress the internet
face it, the internet would never have been invented in a society without a Judeo-Christian foundation, with its emphasis on reason and discussion
"If you think science by itself is a dead end you should decline to use the products that resulted from it"
well, that wouldn't be rational
but it's a rhetorical question since few, if any, such products exist
"go back to living in caves and casting out demons to cure illness"
never lived in a cave and am not a doctor, although I'm told exorcism is used to alleviate demonic possession, not physical illness
"Science flourishes despite the church's view that certain scientific observations are heresy. That's why in 2000, Pope John Paul II issued a formal apology for all the mistakes committed by some Catholics in the last 2,000 years of the Catholic Church's history, including the trial, conviction and forced recantation of Galileo nearly 400 years earlier, among others."
sometimes, you'll find religious believers that insist that specific revelation stands alone without any consideration of general revelation
that isn't scriptural, just as it wasn't scientific when the scientific community attacked those who developed the Big Bang theory
there's a reason why Galileo is so often referred to by atheists
there aren't many other examples like it
the truth is that a lot more was going on in the Galileo case than religious authorities trying to defend scripture
the scientific community of the time believed in Aristotelean ideas and felt Copernicanism was a threat to their world view and they worked within the authority of the time, the Catholic Church, to fight against Galileo
most of the ideas we have of the incident arise from a play written by Bertolt Brecht in the 1940s, and are fictional and written from a subjective point of view
you could call them a myth
help!
I posted a comment which disappeared
here's a stupid comment from nasty Priya this week:
"Trouble is now the heads of oil companies pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries. Now its gone to the other extreme and the teabaggers have the poor subsidizing the rich. If the teabaggers had their way people earning less than $100,000 a year would be paying all the taxes and the rich would pay none"
rest assured that oil company heads are paying much more tax than their secretaries
what difference does the "rate" make?
the Tea Party favors keeping tax rates as low as possible across the board
because of Republican tax cuts, the least-wealthy 47% of American households pay no tax at all
the idea that the rich are exploiting the poor in America is ridiculous
Anon asserted:
“you are aware that science, as an organized effort, arose in one part of the world alone, Christendom, right?”
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.
Wrong answer Anon. -1000 points for you.
From http://www.experiment-resources.com/history-of-the-scientific-method.html
“THE BEGINNING OF THE HISTORY OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
At the time when the two great cultures of Ancient Greece and Ancient Persia were seeking dominance and fighting wars at Thermopylae and Platea, it is easy to forget that these two cultures also had a deep mutual respect, and traded ideas and knowledge.
Unsurprisingly, and fittingly, our history of the scientific method will start here, although we must point out that knowledge knows no boundaries. Whilst Babylonian, Indian and Egyptian astronomers, physicians and mathematicians developed some empirical ideas, the Greeks were the first to develop what we recognize as the scientific method…
Aristotle, regarded as the father of science, was the first to realize the importance of empirical measurement, believing that knowledge could only be gained by building upon what is already known.
Measurement and observation, the foundations upon which science is built, were Aristotle’s contribution. He proposed the idea of induction as a tool for gaining knowledge, and understood that abstract thought and reasoning must be supported by real world findings.
He applied his methods to almost everything, from poetry and politics to astronomy and natural history. His ‘proto-scientific method’ involved making meticulous observations about everything…
Aristotle’s methods can be summed up as follows.
Study what others have written about the subject.
Look for the general consensus about the subject
Perform a systematic study of everything even partially related to the topic.
This is the first sign of a scientific method, with literature reviews, consensus and measurement. The Greeks were the first to subdivide and name branches of science in a recognizable way, including physics, biology, politics, zoology and, of course, poetry!
In about 200 BC, the famous library at Alexandria saw the first introduction of library cataloguing, essential for any scholar conducting a peer review.”
It should be noted that Aristotle lived approximately from 384 to 322 BCE, and hence simply could not have been a Christian.
It was the Arabs, Persians, an Indians that the translated and built upon the scientific knowledge of the Ancient Greeks, and then later passed in on to “Christendom” in the late Middle Ages. The Christians had been asserting their power after the fall of the Roman Empire for a few centuries, and much of the science of the ancients had been lost.
We can trace our decimal number system (invaluable in the day to day workings of math, science, and engineering) back through the Arabs to the Indians. This eventually replaced the hopelessly difficult to use (for arithmetic) Roman numeral system being used by inhabitants of what was previously the Roman Empire.
This page lists over a dozen notable Islamic scientists all of whom died roughly 300 to 800 years before Francis Bacon was ever born:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_science
It is interesting to note that the Mayans developed a more accurate calendar than the one foisted upon the world by Pope Gregory XIII. Although the Mayans are more noted for their architecture and human sacrifice than their use of scientific methods and observations, it is difficult to argue that the developed this feat before Christ was born without careful observation and recording techniques that we would now call “scientific.”
Anon asked:
“how about the idea that new species evolve from natural selection?
not proven”
Again your knowledge of scientific topics shines through like a burnt-out light bulb.
Technically speaking, no scientific theory can every be “proven.” They can only be disproven.
Even gravity is just a theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_gravity
Think about that for a moment. Especially before the next time you claim any scientific position is “not proven.”
Technically speaking, Newton’s law of universal gravitation is WRONG.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation
However, that doesn’t mean it isn’t a highly accurate formulation for many, many measurements. Newton’s laws hold particularly well for most of the planets in our solar system. However, it’s off a few percentage points when you look at the orbit of Mercury. This can be accounted for if we include the warping of space time according to Einstein’s general theory of relativity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_theory_of_relativity
However, even this theory fails to account for everything, and fails when we approach the quantum level.
Anon asked:
“why is skepticism from scientific establishments considered noble and skepticism from religious establishments considered ignoble?”
Because everyone knows that the scientific method will eventually figure out which answer is correct as long as we can think of experiments to test each theory.
Religious arguments can go around in circles for centuries because no one can prove many of the assertions by any empirical test or observation.
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
Correction for Vituperative "Anonymous":
"...then, the next two are the ignorantly obnoxious stuff we are used to seeing from her...")should read:"obnoxious stuff I am used to seeing from her"
Speak for yourself when you attack Priya Lynn with such venemous attacks. You do not speak for the rest of us!!!
"we" was correct
will deal with Cinco's disinformation later
going out to examine the effects of global warming on our gloriou planet now
Got to love that Fibonacci sequence.
a couple of new studies reveal that if you take out the factor of suppressed minorities, the more educated you are, the more religious you are likely to be
those who have stopped participating in religion are likely to be less educated:
"While overall church attendance has declined slightly in the United States in recent decades, a new study says attendance at religious services among white Americans who did not go to college has fallen more than twice as quickly as it has among more highly educated whites.
The study, released Sunday by the American Sociological Association, draws on decades of data from the General Social Survey and the National Survey of Family Growth to conclude that "moderately educated whites," defined as people with high school degrees, attended religious services in the 1970s at about the same rate as whites with degrees from four-year colleges. In the last decade, however, they attended much less frequently.
“Our study suggests that the less educated are dropping out of the American religious sector,” says researcher W. Bradford Wilcox, a professor of sociology at the University of Virginia.
The research shares some conclusions with a recent study by a University of Nebraska-Lincoln professor whose findings contradicted the common myth that less-educated people are more religious. That study, released in early August, concluded that a college degree does not make a person less religious, but that more education does make people more accepting of the validity of religion. Both studies used data from the General Social Survey, which is an ongoing survey of American' attitudes and behaviors that began in 1972.
Wilcox says his study focuses on whites because attendance rates at religious services among minority groups such as blacks and Latinos is less likely to be linked to education and income. The study is limited to people ages 25 to 44, it says, because those years encompass the "stages of life most closely associated with career development and family formation."
According to the study, in the 1970s, 51 percent of college-educated whites attended religious services monthly or more, compared to 50 percent of moderately educated whites and 38 percent of the least educated whites. In the 2000s, 46 percent of college-educated whites attended on at least a monthly basis, compared to 37 percent of moderately educated whites and 23 percent of the least educated. The study defines the "least educated" as people without high school degrees."
just to repeat a key phrase:
"The research shares some conclusions with a recent study by a University of Nebraska-Lincoln professor whose findings contradicted the common myth that less-educated people are more religious."
that's right, myth
much of what Priya cuts and pastes here from the Sam Harris atheist evangelism websites is....myth
93% of scientists?
please
I have many successful scientists among my friends and acquaintances, including one who has won a Nobel prize, and none are atheists
There is, in our society, a wide range of people who identify as religious, from fundamentalists to the very progressive. One of our best friends won the Nobel Prize in Physics and if very active in his Methodist Church. He and his family also share just about all (if not all) of our political views.
If being "educated" means you have a college degree, one should be leery about what simply having a degree means. Apparently Governor Perry's transcript from Texas A & M is on the internet. See http://www.scribd.com/doc/61684192/Rick-Perry-s-Texas-A-M-Transcript
I cannot independently vouch for the accuracy of this website, but if it is inaccurate, I am sure his Campaign will let us know.
It is not, to say the least, impressive. Here are the courses he took that would seem to have relevance with respect to the office of President of the United States, along with the grades he earned:
History of the U.S. -- D
Principles of Economics -- D
Business Law -- B
World Military Systems -- C,B,A,C
(his only other A was in an
Education Course called
Improvement of Learning)
The Professional Officer C, C
Summary of Accounting C
Maybe he was a late bloomer.
I don't think you can attack Perry's grades without asking to see Obama's, do you ? After all, fair is fair.
Obama has never released his...
I wonder why ?
I know this will cause academics here to howl, but grades don't necessarily correlate with intelligence
as matter of fact, they don't mean much, other than that one jumped through the hoops set up by a particular professor
judge fifty-year-old men on the reasoning skills they use now and forget the unexplained records of thirty years ago
that's what is done in all other vocations
why not the presidency?
the reason Obama records haven't been looked at is because conservatives tend to make serious arguments because logic is on their side while liberals are usually desperately looking for ways to attack individuals because their arguments don't usually reasonate with the voters
am I right, people?
Cinco
Decided to follow your command yesterday and had a nice day.
So much fun, in fact, that I did it again today.
"Aristotle’s methods can be summed up as follows.
Study what others have written about the subject.
Look for the general consensus about the subject
Perform a systematic study of everything even partially related to the topic.
This is the first sign of a scientific method"
well, I guess that's some beginning but not what is currently meant by the scientific method, which was formulated first by Bacon, who impressed religious authorities so much that he was invited to join a monastic order to focus on his studies full time
"It should be noted that Aristotle lived approximately from 384 to 322 BCE, and hence simply could not have been a Christian."
well, Aristotle did develop empricism and, though he lived in a polytheistic culture, independently reasoned a belief in monotheism
it should also be noted that virtually all the world's major universities, that educated people worldwide send their kids to, began as Judeo-Christian schools
this was science as an organized effort
"It was the Arabs, Persians, an Indians that the translated and built upon the scientific knowledge of the Ancient Greeks, and then later passed in on to “Christendom” in the late Middle Ages."
this is a modern myth
if you seek to be enlightened, read "The Lost History of Christianity: The Thousand-Year Golden Age of the Church in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia--and How It Died" written by Penn State historian Phil Jenkins
you'll find that Christianity reached China and Japan before Buddhism and was an empire stretching across Asia and Africa that preserved knowledge, which is why the Islamic world tolerated it for so long- they needed Christians because of their academic strength
"Technically speaking, no scientific theory can every be “proven.” They can only be disproven.
Even gravity is just a theory."
except for evolution, right?
any student who questions any aspect of evolutionary theory is blackballed by the scientific establishment, just like Galileo was
"Because everyone knows that the scientific method will eventually figure out which answer is correct as long as we can think of experiments to test each theory."
anyone who thinks of an experiment to test whether evolution is correct will be shunned and attacked by the scientific establishment
the religious establishment, however, will continue to apply reason and there will always be a variety of opinion
"Religious arguments can go around in circles for centuries because no one can prove many of the assertions by any empirical test or observation"
I thought you said scientific theories can't be proven either
make up you mind so we can have a intelligent conversation, without the impediment of your contradictory thought processes
Have a thoughtful evening!!
I agree that academic achievement is not necessarily a precursor of wisdom. But academic achievement does, most of the time, indicate intelligence and a strong work ethic.
As to Obama's grades, that would hardly seem necessary, given that he made law review at Harvard Law School, and then was elected its president by his colleagues (both conservative and liberal). Having been a middle-of-the-pack student there, I can attest that those who made law review were very, very bright and very hard-working.
My paper advisor was Professor Laurence Tribe, one of the most brilliant and also genuinely nice and thoughtful people I have ever known. Tribe selected Obama to be his researach assistant, and later said that Obama was the most impressive student he ever had.
Again, intellectual brilliance is never the whole story. But it certainly helps.
don't get me wrong, David
I think Obama is a very intelligent guy
but his grades in school are not what makes me say that
it's obvious from hearing him speak and reading his books
my point was simply that Democrats are more inclined to attack personal qualities of their opponents than the arguments of their opponents because the arguments of their opponents are usually the same as the consensus of our society
hence, we are already seeing the same kind of attacks on Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry that we saw being used on Sarah Palin
it's the only shot Dems have of winning
one other interesting thought arising from your comments: in the seventies, Harvard was a place subject to grade inflation, due to the student defferment policies of the draft, and Texas A & M was not
not necessarily appropos to this discussion but interesting
btw, I didn't know you went to Harvard
impressive, regardless of the grading policy
Even gravity is just a theory."
except for evolution, right?
any student who questions any aspect of evolutionary theory is blackballed by the scientific establishment, just like Galileo was
Anyone who questions whether a lead ball will float in the air when dropped on Earth would be blackballed by the scientific establishment too.
Humans started domesticating and cultivating food crops like emmer wheat approximately 10,000 BC and maize approximately 5,000 BC. Ancient scientists who studied nature and increased the yield of food crops enabled civilizations and religions to grow.
the arguments of their opponents are usually the same as the consensus of our society
The consensus of 72% of Americans is that we should tax everyone, including the rich like we did during the Clinton Administration, that is, eliminate the Bush tax cuts that add hundreds of billions of dollars to our deficit. Anyone arguing against increasing taxes to Clinton levels, including Perry, Bachmann and every office holding signer of the Grover Norquist pledge, is arguing against America's consensus on this point. Further, Norquist pledge signers' fixed partisan position on taxes, which means it will take us years longer to get out from under the Bush Adminstration's deficits-don't-matter-debt, is part of the reason given by S&P for downgrading our credit rating.
It's time for America to Stop Coddling the Super-Rich It's time for every American to share the sacrifice to pay off the debt.
"The consensus of 72% of Americans is that we should tax everyone, including the rich like we did during the Clinton Administration, that is, eliminate the Bush tax cuts that add hundreds of billions of dollars to our deficit. Anyone arguing against increasing taxes to Clinton levels, including Perry, Bachmann and every office holding signer of the Grover Norquist pledge, is arguing against America's consensus on this point."
funny how that "72%" never votes
they must be embarassed to be against the opinion of the experts:
"NEW YORK -- The majority of economists surveyed by the National Association for Business Economics believe that the federal deficit should be reduced only or primarily through spending cuts.
The survey out Monday found that 56 percent of the NABE members surveyed felt that way, while 37 percent said they favor equal parts spending cuts and tax increases. The remaining 7 percent believe it should be done only or mostly through tax increases.
As for how to reduce the deficit, nearly 40 percent said the best way would be to contain Medicare and Medicaid costs."
sounds like the experts agree with the Tea Party
Anon,
Grade inflation had nothing to do with Viet Nam. All you had to do to get a deferment was to be enrolled. The federal government did not base deferments on students' GPAs.
Both parties use personal attacks. The Democrats' rationale for their approach to government is more complex, and recently they have not been effective in presenting it. The Democratic Party and the President should present the 2012 election as a fundamental choice between two different views of how we should govern ourselves: Do we trust that an unfettered market (with all that that implies with respect to, for example, the environment and predatory corporate practices) will lead to the best long term results or whether a wisely regulated market will lead to the best long term results.
In any event, there is a difference between relevant and irrelevant "personal attacks." Pointing out actual deficiences in a candidate's intellectual capacity or effort (Gov. Perry's low grades could simply mean he was lazy, not very smart) is not an irrelevant "personal attack." We want our elected officials to be both smart and hard working.
"Anyone who questions whether a lead ball will float in the air when dropped on Earth would be blackballed by the scientific establishment too."
you can visually observe the force of gravity in process
and while it's pretty obvious that species evolve, there is much else that is thrown under the evolution umbrella which remains open to further analysis and which you certainly can't visually observe
the scientific community has dug in its heels about Darwinism in the same way the scientific community in Galileo's day dug in its heels about Aristotelianism
"Humans started domesticating and cultivating food crops like emmer wheat approximately 10,000 BC and maize approximately 5,000 BC. Ancient scientists who studied nature and increased the yield of food crops enabled civilizations and religions to grow."
isn't that about the same time that religions began to surface?
"the Bush Adminstration's deficits-don't-matter-debt, is part of the reason given by S&P for downgrading our credit rating"
the S&P, currently fighting for its rep after same shoddy mathematics, says it took action because we didn't cut enough from future deficits
government spending was significantly less under Bush than now
we need to cut back to the spending level pre-stimulus, cut regulations and cut marginal tax rates on the wealthy to get our economy moving
also, we need to elect a new President
"It's time for America to Stop Coddling the Super-Rich It's time for every American to share the sacrifice to pay off the debt."
this a lie you keep repeating
the poorest 47% of American households PAY NO TAX AT ALL
those considered wealthy by Bea already have tax hikes coming and already fund most of the governmental services received by everyone else
"Grade inflation had nothing to do with Viet Nam. All you had to do to get a deferment was to be enrolled. The federal government did not base deferments on students' GPAs."
no, but if you were kicked out, it might be a ticket to Vietnam so professors gave grades as high as possible because they never knew if their grade might be the one to push a student over
it's history
"Both parties use personal attacks."
the Dems do it more often, for obvious reasons
"The Democrats' rationale for their approach to government is more complex, and recently they have not been effective in presenting it."
yeah, like since 1966
the attitudes of americans have pretty much set in
"The Democratic Party and the President should present the 2012 election as a fundamental choice between two different views of how we should govern ourselves"
here's hoping they do!!
"Do we trust that an unfettered market (with all that that implies with respect to, for example, the environment and predatory corporate practices) will lead to the best long term results or whether a wisely regulated market will lead to the best long term results"
the Obama's administration is not engaging in wise regulation
it has an agenda to push regulation as far as they can get away with
"In any event, there is a difference between relevant and irrelevant "personal attacks." Pointing out actual deficiences in a candidate's intellectual capacity or effort (Gov. Perry's low grades could simply mean he was lazy, not very smart) is not an irrelevant "personal attack." We want our elected officials to be both smart and hard working."
thirty years ago, David
no other vocation would judge someone from such a distance
think now
for example, if a President went on a ten-day vacation at a place that normally rents for 52K a week while the country was suffering the worst employment stats since the Depression, you might question his judgement
but you wouldn't judge him for smoking marijuana in college
meanwhile, an eerie silence emanates from the Great White North
take off!
chuckle, chuckle!!
Anon writes:
"no, but if you were kicked out, it might be a ticket to Vietnam so professors gave grades as high as possible because they never knew if their grade might be the one to push a student over"
Were you in college in the '60s? That is a hypothesis I never heard anyone posit.
"It's time for America to Stop Coddling the Super-Rich It's time for every American to share the sacrifice to pay off the debt."
this a lie you keep repeating
the poorest 47% of American households PAY NO TAX AT ALL
This is a lie you keep repeating.
While there are American housholds that pay no *income* taxes at all, everyone pays *taxes*. Everyone who earns any salary pays social security and medicare taxes on it, and if they're "poor folks" like Uncle Beau and me who make under $100K, they pay those *payroll* taxes on every dime of their income. On the other hand, people who earn over $106,800 only pay social security and medicare taxes on that portion of their income, all the rest of their income above $106,800 is *payroll tax-free*.
The truth about the various taxes paid by low wage earners can be found in this LifeInc.Today.com report:
"Roberton Williams, senior fellow with the Tax Policy Center, said more than half of those who pay no federal income tax are still on the hook for payroll taxes, which are used mainly to fund Social Security and Medicare.
In addition, most people end up paying sales taxes as well as federal excise taxes on gasoline, alcohol and other products.
"Almost everyone is going to pay a tax somewhere along the way," he said.
Williams said that the percentage of people who will pay no income taxes this year actually is expected to be slightly lower than in the past two years, when tax credits designed to stimulate the economy allowed even more people to zero out their federal income tax bill."
Of course the Bush tax cuts are still in effect so for people like Warren Buffet, the following statements are still true:
"But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent."
We need to share the burden and to tax the rich more fairly. The GOTP's no tax pledge goes against the public's consensus and is causing some GOTP House members to run scared, creating headlines like:
Raw Story: UPDATED: Paul Ryan has no free, in-person town halls scheduled this recess
Unemployed Constituents Stage Sit-In At Paul Ryan’s Office, Ryan’s Staff Calls The Cops
Congressional Record: Complaining to Congressman Ben Quayle Could Cost You Up to $50
More House 'pay-per-view' events
Some GOTP House members, who in the summer of 2009 were glad to host free recess town hall meetings to let their constituents voice their rage over the election of our first black president, aren't so happy to hear from their constituents now that the electorate's anger is focused on them and their hair-brained debt ceiling scheme to let the USA default while defending private jet tax loopholes. In the summer of 2011, some GOTP members prefer to pretend there is no consensus to raise taxes on the rich so they create poll-tax type barriers at fornerly free recess town hall meetings to prevent their own constituents from telling them their views.
"This is a lie you keep repeating."
huh. well, I thought we were discussing federal income tax, but you're right, everyone who works pays employment tax and everyone who buys pays sales tax. at least, in most states.
"Everyone who earns any salary pays social security and medicare taxes on it, and if they're "poor folks" like Uncle Beau and me who make under $100K, they pay those *payroll* taxes on every dime of their income. On the other hand, people who earn over $106,800 only pay social security and medicare taxes on that portion of their income, all the rest of their income above $106,800 is *payroll tax-free*."
well, the original idea was for the government to force people to save for retirement, not to redistribute income
the whole thing was meant to mimic a retirement savings account, although it is, in actuality, a guaranteed safety net not based on contributions
similarly, since benefits are capped, the income you pay tax on is as well
btw, Medicare taxes are paid on all earned income, not just that under the social security threshhold
""Almost everyone is going to pay a tax somewhere along the way," he said."
true, but the Federal government is already assisting the poor extravagantly by exempting them from income tax
the rich fund most of the government services we receive and no one who isn't rich pays enough to cover the services they receive
and you want to soak them for more?
"Of course the Bush tax cuts are still in effect so for people like Warren Buffet, the following statements are still true:
"But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office.""
true, Warren, but you still pay vastly more tax than them even though you receive identical government services
and you are advocating tax hikes for people who might actually be burdened by them, unlike you, who obviously has more money than he knows what to do with
many of those 20 you are so concerned about will have higher taxes if Dems get their way
"We need to share the burden and to tax the rich more fairly."
the rich are already taxed excessively
"The GOTP's no tax pledge goes against the public's consensus"
polls have often said that in the past but there has yet to be an election won by pledging to raise taxes
"and is causing some GOTP House members to run scared"
an hallucination you're having
perhaps, a flashback?
"Some GOTP House members, who in the summer of 2009 were glad to host free recess town hall meetings to let their constituents voice their rage over the election of our first black president,"
typically of the Dems desperate attempt to play the race card
sad, and divisive
there is little evidence of widespread racism against Obama
as Barry accurately related to an interviewer last year who tried to bait him on this issue, "I was actually black when the American people elected me President"
"aren't so happy to hear from their constituents now that the electorate's anger is focused on them and their hair-brained debt ceiling scheme to let the USA default"
the USA didn't default and no one schemed let it do so
"while defending private jet tax loopholes"
the deduction for business use of jets is not a loophole
personal use is not deductible
"In the summer of 2011, some GOTP members prefer to pretend there is no consensus to raise taxes on the rich so they create poll-tax type barriers at fornerly free recess town hall meetings to prevent their own constituents from telling them their views."
what a bizarre statement
hallucinatory, actually
Here you go bad anonymous, from one of your very own religious wingnut organizations:
"According to a 1998 report in the journal Nature, a recent survey found that 93% of NAS members are either atheists or agnostics. The biologists in the National Academy of Sciences were found to possess the lowest rate of belief of all the science disciplines, with only 5.5% believing in God."
http://creationwiki.org/National_Academy_of_Sciences
Could we please have bad anonymous's off topic comments about politics deleted?
Bad anonymous said "it's nasty Priya, posting three out of five".
Actually its me posting 6 very short comments out of 33 and you posting 14 very long and tedious comments out of 33. Ironic that you're so stupid you'd berate me for taking too much space when you should know its always you who floods the threads with as many or more comments than everyone else combined.
"According to a 1998 report in the journal Nature, a recent survey found that 93% of NAS members are either atheists or agnostics."
there's a vast difference between an atheist and an agnostic
"The biologists in the National Academy of Sciences were found to possess the lowest rate of belief of all the science disciplines, with only 5.5% believing in God."
sounds like the same amount they're saying for all scientists
we may have some cooked numbers
in any case, they're wrong
"Could we please have bad anonymous's off topic comments about politics deleted?"
I made a comment in response to a comment of yours and responded to responses of it
"Ironic that you're so stupid you'd berate me for taking too much space"
only a true psychopath would call my comment "berating"
there's a thin line between quirkiness and lunacy
why don't you try quirky for once?
btw, off comment, I just felt a 5.8 quake
Earthquake! Some of my tools fell off the walls. My phone service isn't working, so I can't reach my family in Central Virginia. I hope there all right. I heard a lot of people ran out of the Pentagon, and they evacuated the Capitol.
Bad anonymous said "I made a comment in response to a comment of yours and responded to responses of it."
That comment of mine wasn't made in this thread, it was made in a thread about politics so if you wanted to respond your response belonged there, not in this thread where your response is off topic.
Once again, can we please have bad anonymous's off topic comments about politics deleted?
Bad anonymous said "there's a vast difference between an atheist and an agnostic".
LOL, there's precious little difference. Neither believe as you do that religion should form the basis for science or society. Neither believes any of the religious fairy tales are true.
Mother and sister in C-ville are fine. I heard they closed the Lake Anna Nuclear plant (in the same county as the epicenter, so that makes sense).
it was a fun earthquake, and big for this area, but no reason to worry about any loved ones
things fell off our mantle and a lamp broke
felt in Detroit, Martha's Vineyard and Charlotte
upgraded to 5.9
btw, a comment didn't post
More and more scientists are questioning whether that was a real quake. It is a theory that’s out there.
fortunately, it wasn't a controversial issue so scientists were allowed to test the seismic activity with sensors
if the scientific establishment had preconcluded that earthquakes, say, contradict evolutionary theory, it wouldn't have been allowed
Right bad anonymous because the science pope forces all scientists to do as he says
nasty Priya
I wrote a brilliantly withering response to your ignorantly obnoxious post earlier but Jim protected you by not posting it
the scientific establishment shuns and destroys the careers of those don't tow the line on certain controversial topics
it's not a secret or theory, it's a fact
your dismissal of the role of religion in our society, btw, is common among the less educated
Yes bad anonymous, you're a legend in your own mind.
I don't dismiss the role of religion in society, its pervasive, suffocating and primarily destructive.
To say that religion was central to the development of science is the same as saying having a penis was central to the development of science - sure most ancient scientists were male and religious but neither were helpful or necessary in that endeavor.
"Yes bad anonymous, you're a legend in your own mind."
the comments aren't up
Jim obviously realized you couldn't handle it
"I don't dismiss the role of religion in society, its pervasive, suffocating and primarily destructive."
according to studies, a lot of uneducated people feel that way
"To say that religion was central to the development of science is the same as saying having a penis was central to the development of science - sure most ancient scientists were male and religious but neither were helpful or necessary in that endeavor."
no, it's more than that- desire to know God by studying what he made was a central motivating force encouraging the rise of organized science in the Judeo-Christian world
how many significant scientific strides have been produced by Cuba, North Korea or China?
how many came out of the USSR or Albania?
and what did they all have in common?
enforced atheism
didn't accomplish a bit of progress
have you ever heard of Bruce Cockburn?
of course you have
you're Canadian
here's an excerpt from one of his songs:
"Let me be a little of your breath
Moving over the face of the deep --
I want to be a particle of your light
Flowing over the hills of morning
The only sign you gave of who you were
When you first came walking down the road,
Was the way the dust motes danced around
Your feet in a cloud of gold
But everything you see's not the way it seems --
Tears can sing and joy shed tears.
You can take the wisdom of this world
And give it to the ones who think it all ends here
Let me be a little of your breath
Moving over the face of the deep --
I want to be a particle of your light
Flowing over the hills of morning"
Post a Comment
<< Home