December 7th, 2010

We Will Rock You
  • prader

Dr. Ken Miller offers compelling evidence regarding evolution

A friend of mine posted this fascinating video awhile back regarding a recent (at least to me) discovery about the human genome.



One of the things Dr. Miller says is that creationists and intelligent design advocates simply have nothing to say about this so I was curious to see what, if anything, creationists and intelligent design advocates in this community might have to say about it.

Plus, I just really wanted to share this news with anyone who might be interested in the topic but wasn't aware. Hopefully that's not in violation of the rules, if so, feel free to take it down.

As for myself, I'm not sure exactly what to make of this. It would certainly appear to be evidence for common ancestry, but then again- if I'm not mistaken, we share something like 95% of our DNA with flies (which I'm not at all even remotely convinced we share ancestry with.)

It raises more questions to me than anything else. Among them:

-What happened that caused the fusion in the first place and what would the event have looked like to an observer? Would a common ancestor have given birth to a human, a Chimpanzee, and so forth? Or would a common ancestor have had the fusion sometime after birth, becoming Human, or Chimp, or...

- Is it possible the fusion was done deliberately? Or does it even necessarily indicate deception on "God's" part to say "that's how we were created."

- How did enough Humans, Chimps, and so forth "evolve" at the same time to continue the species?


At any rate, I applaud this discovery (even though it raises still more questions) for bringing us closer to the answers to questions I've been wondering about for awhile now. Even if it challenges some previously held personal beliefs on my part.

First thing to go under Republican control of the House?

Pay-as-you-go Rules.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-07/extension-of-u-s-tax-cuts-will-prompt-congress-to-discard-own-budget-law.html

Who'd have guessed that as soon as budget-hawk Republicans get into control, the rules that require that new spending be offset by cuts elsewhere or tax increases will go away.

Now, before you say that Dems have been using these rules for some kind of insidious purpose, let me just say that I remember even way back in the day under Bush that the Democratic house made my life very painful as support for Alt-Energy fell under the axe of House Pay-go rules. More recently, the small business tax cut bill was required to cut into future food-stamps and assorted other safety-net programs.

Of course, they can't bite the hand that feeds them, so their first mission is to make sure that the top few percent of earners keep their Bush tax-cuts, even though these same earners have done much better in the last 30 years, and even during the last 3 years, than the lower 95%.

I particularly love this quote: "“The thing about paygo is it was specifically designed by the Democrats to encourage spending and discourage tax reductions,” said John Campbell, a California Republican who sits on the House Budget Committee. “We hate it.”" What a freak. For one thing, he's lying. Pay-go in the house hasn't been some great boon to big spending Democrats. However, it does require that Republicans pay for their programs and their tax cuts. Of course they hate them.