shirgall

As usual, we need to define terms. Which theory under the umbrella of "evolution" are you claiming is faith-based? Evolution in an of itself is a fact. It has been observed in multiple contexts and conditions. What are you really digging at? Genetics? Natural selection? Speciation? Mutation? Heredity itself? Biased mutation? Genetic drift? Origin of species? Common descent? Fossil records? Carbon dating? These are all theories that contribute to evolution. Evolution is as solid as the theory of gravity. It's not a guess. It's not even an educated guess. There have been thousands of experiments. There has not been evidence observed contradictory to its tenets or predictions. All the evidence has been incorporated into the process of hypothesis generation and testing. As a starter, I'd suggest reading The Greatest Show on Earth: the Evidence for Evolution. We've conversations like this before. Not sure why I'm bothering to reply.

Removing higher order complexity to say things are really the same is not really the point is it? Part of the higher-order complexity at work here is the longer gestational cycle to produce new offspring. Despite how much longer it takes to make new chicks, noticeable changes were appearing. And if you are going to pick nits on a deliberate attempt to translate the article for the lay person, have some empathy for the fact that I was trying to emphasize clarity over completeness.

That distinct evolutionary changes in complex creatures are noticeable in a shorter period of time than expected, yes. Faster evolutionary changes have been seen in less complex things, like pea plants and fruit flies.

Not everyone knows how to enter "≠"

That's me, I am Mr. Swiftly-Posted Trivia. The opening sequence of Finding Nemo was the excuse I had to "pre-screen" the movie with the gal who was to become my wife (she had two children in the target demographic).

http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2015-10-28-chicken-study-reveals-evolution-can-happen-much-faster-thought-0

And the consideration in both directions... "Something of value given by both parties to a contract that induces them to enter into the agreement to exchange mutual performances." http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Consideration

My response to that kind of stuff, "and what are you using to argue?" I think Stef likes to call them "mouth sounds coming out of your blowhole."

The adjective "non-profit" is not an indicator of correctness. In fact, adjectives are not arguments at all. THe good news is that they are hiring a fact checker. http://nutritionfacts.org/employment/fact-checker/

I'm not sure exactly, but... basically, moving electrons from energy level to a higher level requires an amount of energy. Moving from a higher level to a lower level emits that energy. These transactions are in quanta called photons, and those little buggers are responsible for light and other forms of energy. You can figure out where electrons are by firing photons into an atom. If it's absorbed at a certain energy level and not another, you can tell where the electron was. By entangling these two atoms, they managed to get them both at the same energy level without knowing what that level was in advance. I'm glossing over a ton of stuff here, but that's my attempt at a simple description.

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21676733-one-weirdest-bits-physics-proved-beyond-doubt-almost-hidden-no-more I will not quote the last paragraph of the article as it mockingly violates the forum rules.

Einstein put together what a lot of others had worked on before him, but it's not unreachable. General relativity can be observed by comparison Mercury's orbit to the classical Newtonian model. Radiation can be observed, especially electromagnetism. Einstein's biggest contribution, imho, is that he asserted that physical laws should not be alterable with Lorentz transforms. *That* was a stroke of genius that led to better and more accurate expressions of physical laws. And he got there by working with normal everyday things like gravity and electricity. If you want to see how many different people were on the path to similar if not the same conclusions, check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_priority_dispute There's no doubt that scientists influence one another, and expound upon each other's ideas. Labeling it all authoritarian dogma doesn't follow if you look at the history and conclusions and openness to criticism, reproduction, contrary evidence, etc. doesn't describe a dictatorship of the elite.

Six years. Some folks have known about this for six years... http://jalopnik.com/did-one-company-spot-volkswagens-diesel-deception-six-y-1737309474

There's a serious question of jeopardy in some of the cases. If invasion isn't imminent, or cannot be prevented via diplomatic means, going to war is not the moral choice.

If you want favors from Moneypenny, you have to toss your trilby onto the coat rack from across the room.

Context matters. If you shoot someone dead for stealing Twinkies from a store you've made a grievous error. Yeah, they initiated force, but I contend (again), that the circumstance that justifies the use of lethal force is the immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to oneself or the innocent. However, if you have an opportunity to steal the snack cakes back and return them to the store, that seems more on balance. Me, I think reporting it and the store refusing to allow that person entry again is plenty.

So long as they are getting talked about nothing will change... so they will continue to do things that gets them talked about.

Did you miss our latest James Bond complaining about getting rich making James Bond movies?

That's all good, but empirically, the biggest factor is your relationship with your manager.

Peter's essay on his father: http://www.schiffradio.com/death-of-a-patriot/

The biggest driver of workplace satisfaction is effective feedback (positive and negative both) and support from one's immediate manager. The adage is that still seems relevant is "people join companies but leave [because of] managers".

Problematic? How? Even though these are from the 1960s, these are a great resource: http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/III_toc.html