|
Post by The Summer of Muskrat XVII on Jan 15, 2011 20:50:13 GMT -5
I dunno about that, any animosity I've seen from Conan towards Leno seems to stem from how Leno publicly handled himself, trying to shift all the sympathy to himself, acting like he was getting totally screwed, and trying to make it about himself rather then blaming the whole move on him. Plus I don't believe Leno ever called, emailed, whatever to say "Hey, this situation sucks, sorry you got a raw deal" Besides, probably the biggest f*** up in the whole situation was done by Conan's lawyer, by giving Conan the okay to sign a contract that didn't have a timeslot guarantee. The first two don't really change who screwed Conan. They really have nothing to do with it at all, as they occurred after the decision was made that led to it all. The last part is what screwed Conan over, and that's not Leno's fault at all either. I was addressing the comment that Conan doesn't know who screwed him, not that it wasn't Leno. Conan knows who's responsible for what, his dislike for Leno is for different reasons related to what all went down
|
|
|
Post by Alex Shelley on Jan 15, 2011 21:46:41 GMT -5
That nobody who understands evolution thinks that humans evolved from modern monkeys, apes, gorillas, or any modern primate.
That there is absolutely no scientific distinction between "macroevolution" and "microevolution" and that these are not even terms that are used in science.
That evolution does not work toward a "superior" or more complex organism, and that evolution has no goal.
That "de-evolution" does not exist.
That not every trait in animals must have an adaptive value. In other words, sometimes animals have traits that make them less adapted to their environment - or have no effect at all. There are various reasons for this.
That not every trait about people and animals are determined entirely or even at all by genetics.
That there IS no f***ing debate between nature and nurture. It has been determined for AGES that most things that this has been debated about are a combination of BOTH nature AND nurture. This annoys the hell out of me.
That schizophrenia has absolutely nothing to do with having a split personality.
|
|
jagilki
Patti Mayonnaise
Nobody notices him; No, we noticed him
f*** Cancer
Posts: 33,594
|
Post by jagilki on Jan 15, 2011 22:00:13 GMT -5
That I'm right and nobody else is.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Jan 15, 2011 22:28:12 GMT -5
That nobody who understands evolution thinks that humans evolved from monkeys, apes, gorillas, or any modern primate. That there is absolutely no scientific distinction between "macroevolution" and "microevolution" and that these are not even terms that are used in science. That evolution does not work toward a "superior" or more complex organism, and that evolution has no goal. That "de-evolution" does not exist. That not every trait in animals must have an adaptive value. In other words, sometimes animals have traits that make them less adapted to their environment - or have no effect at all. There are various reasons for this. That not every trait about people and animals are determined entirely or even at all by genetics. That there IS no f***ing debate between nature and nurture. It has been determined for AGES that most things that this has been debated about are a combination of BOTH nature AND nurture. This annoys the hell out of me. That schizophrenia has absolutely nothing to do with having a split personality. One cool fact is that humans did in fact come from monkeys, like, had a common ancestry with older monkeys who were considered "monkeys" if you will (same with most primates). It's interesting with scientists putting things in certain categories, as when does one species verge off and become another species. There was a cartoon that this guy on youtube had, and he's really knowledgeable about Evolution. I hope I didn't mess that up though, because "come from" is a term people could misinterpret, as it's all population genetics. Umm, a wrestling one. The Rock was the first black WWE Champion. Period. End of story. There's no debate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2011 23:08:31 GMT -5
That you're not funny and nobody likes you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2011 23:16:00 GMT -5
Organic food isn't healthier. Its just grow in a less efficient manner, with more dangerous pesticides, and much of it is grown in countries that have very poor safety standards. Then again it is hella expensive, so it must be better for you. You'll never convince vegans and organic food nuts that. Believe me, I've tried.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2011 0:14:05 GMT -5
That subscribing to an amoral political philosophy does not mean that I follow an amoral personal philosophy. For the sake of propriety and the rules I'm not going to get into details as to what I mean, exactly, but people seem more than willing to play the supposition game and jump to conclusions most of the time.
|
|
|
Post by Alex Shelley on Jan 16, 2011 0:26:56 GMT -5
That nobody who understands evolution thinks that humans evolved from monkeys, apes, gorillas, or any modern primate. That there is absolutely no scientific distinction between "macroevolution" and "microevolution" and that these are not even terms that are used in science. That evolution does not work toward a "superior" or more complex organism, and that evolution has no goal. That "de-evolution" does not exist. That not every trait in animals must have an adaptive value. In other words, sometimes animals have traits that make them less adapted to their environment - or have no effect at all. There are various reasons for this. That not every trait about people and animals are determined entirely or even at all by genetics. That there IS no f***ing debate between nature and nurture. It has been determined for AGES that most things that this has been debated about are a combination of BOTH nature AND nurture. This annoys the hell out of me. That schizophrenia has absolutely nothing to do with having a split personality. One cool fact is that humans did in fact come from monkeys, like, had a common ancestry with older monkeys who were considered "monkeys" if you will (same with most primates). It's interesting with scientists putting things in certain categories, as when does one species verge off and become another species. There was a cartoon that this guy on youtube had, and he's really knowledgeable about Evolution. I hope I didn't mess that up though, because "come from" is a term people could misinterpret, as it's all population genetics. Umm, a wrestling one. The Rock was the first black WWE Champion. Period. End of story. There's no debate. Yeah, I wouldn't really say that we "came from" monkeys. We share a common ancestor with modern day monkeys. Now, whether or not paleontologists refer to that common ancestor as a "monkey" isn't something I've ever heard, but the term monkey isn't exactly a clear thing, and I'm pretty sure there's not even a real scientific definition for it (much like 'fish' or 'reptile') since the primates that are called "monkeys" don't belong to a monophyletic group. I think for clarity's sake it's best to just not say we evolved from monkeys though, because most people are going to automatically assume you're talking about modern-day ones. I'll look into that a bit, though, to see if they refer to the ancient primates that humans evolved from as monkeys. I'm really not 100% sure about that, but you may be right.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Jan 16, 2011 1:30:33 GMT -5
One cool fact is that humans did in fact come from monkeys, like, had a common ancestry with older monkeys who were considered "monkeys" if you will (same with most primates). It's interesting with scientists putting things in certain categories, as when does one species verge off and become another species. There was a cartoon that this guy on youtube had, and he's really knowledgeable about Evolution. I hope I didn't mess that up though, because "come from" is a term people could misinterpret, as it's all population genetics. Umm, a wrestling one. The Rock was the first black WWE Champion. Period. End of story. There's no debate. Yeah, I wouldn't really say that we "came from" monkeys. We share a common ancestor with modern day monkeys. Now, whether or not paleontologists refer to that common ancestor as a "monkey" isn't something I've ever heard, but the term monkey isn't exactly a clear thing, and I'm pretty sure there's not even a real scientific definition for it (much like 'fish' or 'reptile') since the primates that are called "monkeys" don't belong to a monophyletic group. I think for clarity's sake it's best to just not say we evolved from monkeys though, because most people are going to automatically assume you're talking about modern-day ones. I'll look into that a bit, though, to see if they refer to the ancient primates that humans evolved from as monkeys. I'm really not 100% sure about that, but you may be right. There's a video on youtube by a user Aronra, in which he talks about a debate he had, in which he got served by someone smarter then him (and he's a smart fellow himself) about how we did come from monkeys. It's called, "turns out we did come from monkeys". But, it's mostly talking about (last I remember) the ancestor of most primates being considered a "monkey", and that primates share a common ancestry with that. But yeah, it is tough to define, because you have to go into details with someone about common ancestory and not say that we came from the monkeys around today. But, basically his point was, after his research, our common ancestor would have been considered a "monkey". And of course, monkeys from today would be considered close relatives of that monkey as well. But yeah, even while I type, it's hard to define exactly what one is talking about without potentially getting into miconceptions or creating strawmen for people who disagree.
|
|
darthalexander
Hank Scorpio
I have a feeling I may end up getting banned soon.
Posts: 7,030
|
Post by darthalexander on Jan 16, 2011 2:11:41 GMT -5
If it concerns my family:
There are two sides to every story. It is possible you may be in the wrong. If that is mentioned, it does not necessarily mean that the person saying it is against you and should be thought of and accused of being a traitor.
|
|
Magician under the moonlight
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Always Beaten To The Punchline. Always.
A magician and a thief. That's Badass
Posts: 15,727
|
Post by Magician under the moonlight on Jan 16, 2011 2:22:54 GMT -5
Africa is a continent, Not a country. You will be surprise how many people get this wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Alex Shelley on Jan 16, 2011 2:32:09 GMT -5
Yeah, I wouldn't really say that we "came from" monkeys. We share a common ancestor with modern day monkeys. Now, whether or not paleontologists refer to that common ancestor as a "monkey" isn't something I've ever heard, but the term monkey isn't exactly a clear thing, and I'm pretty sure there's not even a real scientific definition for it (much like 'fish' or 'reptile') since the primates that are called "monkeys" don't belong to a monophyletic group. I think for clarity's sake it's best to just not say we evolved from monkeys though, because most people are going to automatically assume you're talking about modern-day ones. I'll look into that a bit, though, to see if they refer to the ancient primates that humans evolved from as monkeys. I'm really not 100% sure about that, but you may be right. There's a video on youtube by a user Aronra, in which he talks about a debate he had, in which he got served by someone smarter then him (and he's a smart fellow himself) about how we did come from monkeys. It's called, "turns out we did come from monkeys". But, it's mostly talking about (last I remember) the ancestor of most primates being considered a "monkey", and that primates share a common ancestry with that. But yeah, it is tough to define, because you have to go into details with someone about common ancestory and not say that we came from the monkeys around today. But, basically his point was, after his research, our common ancestor would have been considered a "monkey". And of course, monkeys from today would be considered close relatives of that monkey as well. But yeah, even while I type, it's hard to define exactly what one is talking about without potentially getting into miconceptions or creating strawmen for people who disagree. That's interesting, and definitely makes me think a little bit. Sometimes the common name for a group of organisms can be really frustrating scientifically, because they don't make much sense when you start thinking about them, or the common usage or meaning of the term can contradict the scientific one. I could go onto a mega rant about "reptiles" for this exact reason, but it goes totally off topic and I'm certain that I'm the only person here who's interested in paleontology and the evolutionary relationships between living organisms :B But yeah, I'm definitely not a primate biologist so I'll trust the experts on that one.
|
|
Cranjis McBasketball
Crow T. Robot
Knew what the hell that thing was supposed to be
Peace Love and Nothing But
Posts: 41,975
|
Post by Cranjis McBasketball on Jan 16, 2011 2:46:59 GMT -5
I knew just about all of those. Cept the math one. I have no idea what the f*** that is about. Math is not my strong suit. Don't anyone waste their breath attempting to explain it to me, I will NEVER understand it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2011 9:35:53 GMT -5
This thread taught me one thing... Antarctica is ripe for a takeover! Come on, let's get an army together and make a new nation: Crapistan Germany thought the same thing when they attacked the Soviet Union in WWII, look how well that worked out for them. (Guess you could say Germany "turned heel" when they broke a non-aggression pact, making the USSR a "sympathetic face" in exchange.)
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jan 16, 2011 9:54:30 GMT -5
Africa is a continent, Not a country. You will be surprise how many people get this wrong. On that note, not every black person is an African-American. In the US, we're really bad about this.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jan 16, 2011 10:40:13 GMT -5
Oh yeah, some other things.
"Settling out of court" doesn't mean the defendants admitted they were guilty, or that the prosecution didn't have a case. It means they came to an agreement outside of court to avoid the cost and time and risk (because remember, just because a judge or jury ruled one way doesn't mean they were right) of a court proceeding. Yes, that might mean that an innocent defendant agrees to give money to someone if that'd cost less than paying their lawyer fees for a case.
The idea that any frivolous lawsuit can be successful if "they just find the right judge who wants to become famous" is ludicrous. For starters, try to recall the names of any famous non-fictional judges. Odds are, the only ones you're likely to name are either Supreme Court judges, are judges on TV, or are Judge Ito. Judges in civil suits don't become well known. Further, any judge who would make a ridiculous ruling to put their name out there are more likely to be disbarred than be famous. Finally, any judge that did has a very good chance of it being overturned in appeal. I know people can throw out a lawsuit they think was frivolous and successful, but chances are that it was successful because the complainants could make a better argument than the defendants, not because the judge wanted to be well known.
A statement of fact is always a statement of fact, even if you claim it's your opinion. A statement of opinion is always a statement of opinion, even if you claim it's fact.
|
|
|
Post by BJ Sturgeon on Jan 16, 2011 10:42:32 GMT -5
That "de-evolution" does not exist. Say what?
|
|
|
Post by Pervy Stone Cold on Jan 16, 2011 12:15:14 GMT -5
Meteorologist Jeff Haby says:
"You will burn [sunburn] much more quickly when driving with the windows down and exposed to the sun as compared to driving with the windows up and exposed to the sun."
You are able to still get sunburned even if you have a window to protect you.
|
|
|
Post by Young Game on Jan 16, 2011 12:24:05 GMT -5
There's no need to argue... This thread taught me one thing... Antarctica is ripe for a takeover! Come on, let's get an army together and make a new nation: Crapistan Those penguins would kick our asses, man. GWAR + Elite Attack Penguins = Game over, man. Game over.
|
|
Magnus the Magnificent
King Koopa
didn't want one.
I could write a book about what you don't know!
Posts: 12,509
|
Post by Magnus the Magnificent on Jan 16, 2011 13:27:37 GMT -5
That "de-evolution" does not exist. Yes, it does. Friday and Saturday night, after closing time at the local bar/pub.
|
|