Yeah, pretty much.  But walking upright in itself was a huge step forward because it required a whole series of additional evolutionary changes.  For example, humans actually give birth to children long before they are actually fully developed.  Walking upright means the birth canal was made smaller, which was extremely problematic for giving birth considering the huge size of human brains.  So we slowly started giving birth to children earlier.

> The Beachwood Year wrote:

> I hold these truths to be self evident:
1. Evolution is in no way science since it cannot be tested or experimented with.
2. I.D. is likewise not science because it too cannot be tested or experimented with.

That is not to say that neither can be studied or proven, it simply says that they are not science.

Bullshit.  Evolution can be tested on microcosm levels.

Check the peppered moth.  Perfect example:

The peppered moth was a white moth in Britain.  It would survive because its white color would blend into the landscape, allowing it to hide from predators.  An uncommon, slight mutation from the white peppered moth was a black version, but it was easily killed off because it was so easily detectable.

Following the Industrial Revolution, the landscape became more polluted.  The landscape darkened.  Suddenly, the white peppered moth died out, replaced by the black peppered moth, since the black color is what now blended into the landscape.

Once pollution regulations were put in place, it reverted, and the white moth came back.

That's how you test it: put animals in an environment in which a common, yet unsuccessful, mutation would otherwise thrive.

@Otto

Evolution only tries to explain changes in biological beings.  It never even takes a stand on the issue of the creation of the universe, or even the creation of lifeforms on Earth.  How the hell is it supposed to address the issue of the universe's creation?  That's like saying "gravity is bullshit because it doesn't answer this question on my government exam!"

> [TI] Mrblonde wrote:

> I think God believes in evolution...

Catholicism has revised its standing on evolution so that evolution is probably true, as long as it is acknowledged that God gave us a soul. 

> Justinian I wrote:

> > Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:

> Come on, isn't there someone here to argue with?  Where's Flint?  Justinian?  Anyone?>

This election is trivial and irrelevant, because at the end of the election the theocratic elites of Iran will continue to exercise supreme authority over all secular government in the country.

There we go! 

Refer to the above: Bullshit.  If the theocrats were interested in making sure a hardright state existed, they would have voided the candidacies of the moderate candidates.  But they didn't.

Yes, the ayatollahs are the ones with the real power in the government.  However, it's much easier to work with a president than against him.  That indicates that, if a moderate would have won the election, the ayatollah's position on issues would have changed, since they approved the candidate originally.

Besides, the ayatollahs don't like Ahmadinejad.  Remember that economic crisis I told you about?  The ayatollahs were as pissed off at him as anyone else... and I think I read that they may have actually issued a censure against him.  Not going to say that's 100% true, but it may be...

Come on, isn't there someone here to argue with?  Where's Flint?  Justinian?  Anyone?

> esa wrote:

> That would mean a Star Trek society would die out?

Nah, probably not.  I would theorize that, at some point, a population would reach a "minimum tolerance level" of sort, after which the government would start taking action to raise population growth.  A good example would be Russia, where the government has taken efforts to encourage reproduction.  Various cities have been literally holding contests to encourage extra children (there was a contest where someone won a refrigerator if they had a kid on a certain holiday).

In addition, I would theorize that nontraditional childbearing methods would be utilized by the government at that time.  Perhaps, for example, a more benign "Brave New World" style raising system might be created, where laboratory-grown fetuses were then raised in government education centers of sort.

However, there's another possibility: a trend reversal.  Technology allows efficiency of production to grow exponentially.  For example, a Neanderthal may have to track their prey for days in order to catch up with it and wrestle it to the ground (no tools used), the development of a bow and arrow would shorten that time by putting range into the equation.  This could be applied to any technological advance.  Just compare your 40-hour work week to the work times of peasants 200 years ago.

Now, if technology allows individual work times to decline, then it means the strain working puts on the individual will steadily decline.  That means the conflict between work and child raising reduces, allowing adults to raise more children.  At the same time, however, the technology growth would also increase the biome capacity through efficiency of production, reducing the strain on the biome itself.

Free market health care will be the best system ever!  It will provide health care to people before they need it, and will pay people in order to get medical examinations!  Cancer cells will be vaporized immediately after the patient walks into the hospital, and all other ailments will be cured by eating ice cream!

Okay, now this thread can die.  I'm an advocate of free market health care.  For the people to answer "no," they must prove free market health care doesn't match up to my views. 

This thread is an epic fail in political discussion.

Then take that up with Justinian. 

Pretty much.  Although Hitler was pure hard power.  He was harder than a teenager who ate a bottle of viagra.

Still, why are they mutually exclusive???  Carrot and stick approaches, such as South Africa, prove that a willingness to use both is the key to power gaining.