WordWolf

Lou Reed's "Take a Walk on the Wild Side." You found lyrics in the song that won't offend someone or other. With that song, it's a bit tricky. :)

Is this "George of the Jungle Book"?

I am still waiting for you to acknowledge what I said had any merit, from a genetics standpoint. A few paragraphs about the substance of what was and was not said, and all you got from that was "Charges of "unfair, you are biased.." "you have an agenda here.."" What's the point of me even evaluating things, then posting a fair reply that actually reflects the science, when it's only going to be labelled and ignored? As far as I can tell, you're only responding to replies on the Youtube link, and those have justly earned reputations for being the bottom-feeders of actual dialogue regardless of the subject. Pending more information, I think the Hayflick Limit figures into genetics as a whole, but not this specific subject, this specific video. The speaker was making claims about a specific gene, and whether or not it's spliced, and what it means if it IS spliced.

Often they're right. However, they also repeated the urban legend that Charles Manson auditioned for Fleetwood Mac.

It was Ziggy Stardust. First time I ever heard of a "snow white tan" being a selling point. :) I'll wait a little before replying on your song.

Does this movie include a reference to "eggy in a basket"?

I agree. I do not support the teaching of "creation" in schools. I support "full disclosure" on evolutionary theory. There's lots of problems with the suppositions, but nobody teaches them in schools along with the theory. So, kids think the theory is unflawed. They're taught, for example, that peppered moths are proof of physiological changes in species in reaction to environment. The claim: their skin changed shades in response to their environment changing, so now they camouflage into pollution. However, the claims don't have any actual support. It is SPECULATED that they rest in those places. It is CLAIMED that this is proof of change. It is IGNORED that both types of peppered moths existed before pollution, both existed after pollution set in, and both types' populations rose and fell TOGETHER. This argues AGAINST theory-which says the lighter shades should be reproducing at smaller rates than the darker shades due to the shades increasing survival chances for the darker moths. The thing I find detestable is the actual staging of photos- where peppered moths were put against low parts of trees-where they NEVER rest- to show the darker ones camouflage better at rest and see how this matches our theories? In its own way, it's as vile as the Disney filmers shoving the lemmings to their deaths to support the claim that lemmings jump to their deaths. IF evolution with descent actually IS how all species got here, there's a LOT for science to explain before it can fill in all the blanks- and either way, it would be nice for all claims to reflect the actual EVIDENCE of science and not just the DOGMA of science.

As far as I see it, we should all have a chance to have a life and log in and respond in between events in it. You're making it sound like a few hours with no response means everyone is stymied. There's quite a few positions taken by people who believe the Bible is accurate. ONE is the "young earth creation" position. The one time I encountered a Christian who held this position, I did my best to correct him. Other than him, I've heard of people who've held it, but most of the time when I hear about it, it's from someone who doesn't believe it- who is saying "The Bible can't be true because the evidence supports an Earth being a LOT older than thousands of years-it looks like it's millions or billions of years old." Well, duh. The Bible doesn't give a year. Positions by most intelligent Christians all reflect that. Even the actual Scopes Monkey Trial had that in the testimony. (The real thing, not the movie that propagandized against Christians.) It is POSSIBLE that the Earth is young but was created to APPEAR old. All the evidence would match that. I reject it as less logical than the position that it actually IS that old. Hhowever, when someone claims the evidence doesn't show the Earth being that old, I know I'm dealing with someone who doesn't understand the science, and was just going by someone else's grasp of things (which wasn't a tight grasp either.) In fairness, any "good, SOLID" response would require me to both have access to the entire genome mapping of a number of animals, and enough of a background to read them as if I was skimming through a Greek-English Interlinear. I can point out what was NOT said, and unsupported claims by the speaker. I don't have access to sufficient evidence to completely overthrow his claim. (In a court of law, the other side would be required to provide it, in the US, under "disclosure.") First of all, the claim is that man and simians both evolved from proto-simians, not men from apes. (I refuse to mischaracterize his position and I refuse to allow mine to be mischaracterized.) Second of all, the key to proving a case would be COMPARISON. "Here you see the DNA sequencing of 10 sample humans. Here you see the sequencing of 10 sample orangutans...10 gorillas...10 apes....10 lemurs....10 domestic dogs...10 domestic cats... 10 birds...10 fish....10 frogs....10 crocodiles.... You can see that the humans and all these primates have the following sequences in common. You can see that all the other animals do NOT have them in common. Therefore, they are sequences exclusively in common to apes and humans-but not any other animals. This suggests common ancestry of humans and apes." We didn't get that. It's actually bad science. He didn't isolate his variables. He's GOT the information. He's GOT the training. If it's there, he CAN make such a presentation and back it up. That he did not, to me, weakens his case when he tries to say this is a closed case. Without it, any dissenter is free to point out that DNA sequencing has commonalities among LOTS of life-forms, so commonality of human to ape means both are life-forms. (For that matter, the social structure of human society does NOT most closely resemble the human- it resembles the wolf. I got that from animal biologists who actually believe in human evolution as claimed. However, it should raise an eyebrow that any of the characteristics of humans should LESS resemble primates than a non-primate in ANY way.) And, again, he's failed to explain WHY there would be an advantage to fused DNA. According to the concept of evolution with descent as the origin of species, all changes are the result of: A) random mutations B) that were able to be passed down genetically C) that were found to be advantageous once they existed D) that increased survivability of the individual E) and allowed that individual to breed and pass them down F) ensuring the random mutation was passed down So, if there was fused DNA, an intelligent design person would reply "So what?" as to the significance of fused DNA. If there's a fused DNA, there are 2 lingering questions he seems not to have asked, while celebrating he's not an intelligent design person: 1) what possible advantage was gained in fusing DNA? (He put forth that not knowing this was a weakness in the opposing viewpoint, so let's see him explain it.) 2) If fused DNA was a genetic advantage, then why did all the other supposed descendants of the proto-simians breed equally well WITHOUT the fused DNA? We should have seen a slow uptick of proto-human ancestors, concurrent with a slow extinction of proto-ape ancestors, and all that back in pre-history. Proto-human simians should have displaced proto-apes on the Earth- IF the fused DNA is actually genetically advantageous in the manner genetics states. If the fused DNA is NOT, then there's a lot of uncomfortable questions about genetics theory that need to be addressed before the next time someone claims it answers everything. Personally, I find that geneticists who know better ignore inconvenient truths. Darwin's still celebrated as a genetics genius when most of his preconceptions have proven to be speculation that contradicted the later discoveries. I mean, read "Origin of Species" sometime. The man was a Lamarckian! That stuff was debunked and almost laughed at when I was in high school.

This time, I'm not linking Downey. So, Jeff Bridges can't be linked out since we linked in with him. I'm blanking on other stuff with Terrence. I have a movie for Gwyneth, but not another actor from it. So eventually, I go with Jon Favreau DareDevil Ben Affleck

It IS the Partridge Family. Danny Bonaduce voiced himself, and Susan Dey did a little, but everyone else was a regular voice actor. If you see "PARTRIDGE FAMILY 2200 AD" (Partridge Family Twenty-Two Thousand AD", you'll think it was a Jetsons episode for a moment.

We later learned they went to see Richard Pryor. I'm glad we didn't here more about their lives- "JACK AND DIANE" was about a moment in 2 lives that sounds familiar to a lot of people. The claps in the recording were originally to keep the time, and ended up on a tape by accident- but sounded good so they were kept. Pop-Up Video said that once.

It's a FREE POST, since I didn't say it in so many words.

You're off by about 20 years. It's something from 1972. There was some GREAT music all across the 70s.

This live-action show spawned a cartoon that put the characters into the future... and the cartoon was often mislabeled as being in space instead. Apparently, the idea was to make a Jetsons spinoff, but the studios didn't want that, so the concept was retooled to use a current family sitcom and only use 1 kid for his own character's voice. They didn't even bring them in for their own musical numbers!

"The kids were just crass, he was the nazz with God given a$$. He took it all too far, but boy could he play guitar."

Last I heard, the idea was that humans have common ancestors with modern apes. So, there would be no "missing link", just proto-apes with descendants who are humans and apes. The "missing link" isn't scientific, and probably never was. It was, however, claimed by a LOT of non-scientists, which is how we all heard of it.

I think the entire concept of Free Will and the right to choose undergirds all of Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation. The entire history of humanity is a history of God giving Man the chance to choose good or evil, to sin or refrain from sin, and Man choosing (usually poorly.) From the Garden of Eden to Judgement Day, people make choices, their choices have consequences, and they have to live with the results (or die with them, depending.) If there was a "Serpent" (as I believe there was), he was also given the opportunity to choose- and became such a lover of self that he chose not to serve a Just Creator. ================== Every once in a while, I see someone speculate that God Almighty exists on a level like us. It strikes me more like a Flatlander insisting that 3-Dimensional beings exist purely on a 2-Dimensional level as well because that's all a Flatlander can perceive of them or even imagine of them. In Scripture, it's clear that God Almighty knows all about the present as well as the future. It is from there that we need to seek to understand what God does and why God does it. Thus, the idea of "taking God by surprise" is speculative but rather silly. It's like having a spotlight following you around, and you moving behind a thin microphone stand and thinking you're successfully concealed. I think the so-called "Serpent" went insane sometime before his attempted revolt because only someone crazy or stupid could think that challenging the infinite with the finite could result in victory for the finite. I think he was narcissistic, and vindictive. That fits the profile with what happened later, with him scheming for paradise and trying to rule the earth. (He tried to rule Heaven and failed, so he tried to rule Earth and had limited success.) Honestly, "no thought" can be hidden from God, and He "knows the end from the beginning". But someone thinks it's possible to "deceive" God. Time for a brisk walk outside when that's making sense.

I think the speaker is oblivious to the flaws in his own presentation. 1) He assumed a difference was the result of a similarity that pre-existed but changed. The possibility there was never the similarity doesn't seem to be there. So, it colours his work. Furthermore, he began with the assumption that humans are great apes. This is obvious just from his referring to humans and "the other great apes." Genetically, humans and great apes have a lot of similarities... but so do humans and banana slugs, genetically. That's not a guarantee of anything. I ended up in the same building as a friend on the same day and found out about it later. It was a coincidence, not any part of a design. 2) He managed to turn "we know they are similar, so if they are the same, we are right, and if they are different, we are right" into a position nobody questioned. Good trick. 3) He derided intelligent design advocates for lacking an answer to a question- and nobody caught him for lacking the same answer. Good trick. In intelligent design, things began a certain way because they were designed that way and have proceeded as they were designed to proceed. In by the theory of evolution as an origin of species, things all began from inanimate matter to single-celled matter to higher forms to incredibly complicated forms, all because there was some survival benefit to it, and there was absolutely nothing directing it nor designing it other than what causes genes to be passed on. Evolutionary biologists will be highly offended if you suggest that there is or was any kind of direction or directing agency. So, here we have a particular setup of genes. The intelligent design person is asked "why is this set up this way?" They answer "The intelligent designer wanted it so." The follow-up question: "Why?" The follow-up answer, in this case, would be "I don't know and I don't care." The evolutionary biologist is asked "why is this set up this way?" They answer "Evolution favored this setup- those lacking it didn't breed, and those who had it bred and passed it along." The follow-up question: "Why?" The follow-up answer, in this case, would be "I don't know and I don't care." He did not know, did not care he did not know, and doesn't seem to have a problem with this gap in his own explanation. For a degreed scientist, I think that's a significant blind-spot. He doesn't have to have an answer to everything, but he derided the opposing POV for lacking the same answer HE lacked. Looks like his beliefs about the origin of humans is based on a leap of faith that has directed his observations. He's certainly free to do that, but I'd rather he be up-front and honest about it and skip the hypocrisy.

All the actors in that movie, and you linked to a guy known exclusively for TV shows?

Was it "Dr No"? Or no?

Ok, giving it up. This was "30 Days of Night of the Living Dead."

Gotta vary the bands, otherwise it gets predictable.....

Can I call you "THE SEEKER"? If not, Who?

They probably wouldn't need any more time after the first month....