Saturday, February 25, 2017

Another physicist teaches us about evolution

Michio Kaku is a theoretical physicist at the City College of New York. Like many physicists, he thinks he's smart enough to know everything about everything so he doesn't hesitate to lecture people about evolution.

In this case. He's telling us that humans have reached perfection in all adaptive traits so there can't be any more selection for things like bigger brains. He tells us that human evolution has stopped because no animals are chasing us in the forest any more. He also let's us know that there are no more isolated populations because of jet planes. Watch the video to see how little he understands.



Is there something peculiar about physicists? Does anyone know of any biologists who make YouTube videos about quantum mechanics or black holes? If not, is that because biologists are too stupid ... or too smart?


81 comments :

  1. Sadly, Kaku is well known for being a bit of a kookoo.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree that this is a silly thought. I'm my opinion we're as a species morphologically striving to one day all have a brain that's at least as good in science as Albert Einstein's. Singularitarians can't wait for technological enhancements that will fill their memory with knowledge about almost everything. What we deep down want indicates further brain development is more likely, than not. Or I think so anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yeah, that's pretty silly. What does "morphological you striving" mean? Is that evolution?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As in "as a species morphologically striving" preceded by an embarrassing I'm=in typo?

      Delete
    2. It's more like asking early giraffes who are not quite tall enough to reach all the good food in the trees for a consensus on what they wished they had. Or asking the same to shoreline fish that only needed to get a tiny bit further onto the safety of dry land, to take advantage of all the easy food just waiting to be eaten. And I'm confident that many whales once said to themselves "my legs hurt from walking, and I'm craving seafood again".

      Their answers would likely reflect their future morphology.

      Delete
    3. Hey Gary,

      Perchance did the shoreline fish and the footsore whales take a big hit from the same bong that you apparently partake in as they passed each other on their way to their respective teleological destinies ?

      Delete
  4. Does anyone know of any biologists who make YouTube videos about quantum mechanics or black holes? If not, is that because biologists are too stupid ... or too smart?

    Actually, it is more likely that biologists are more aware of their limitations then physicists are. However, as Rasmussen says, Kaku is something of a kookoo. Some of his ideas in physics are well known to be on the kooky side. For example,

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/742567/PROOF-of-God-real-Michio-Kaku


    ReplyDelete
  5. He is worse than most Physicists at trying to 'physi'splain' evolution to laypersons. But there are others.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm always reminded of this "Arrogance of physicists (towards biology)"
    https://molbiohut.wordpress.com/2012/12/10/arrogance-of-physicists-towards-biology/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am reminded of this relative to the brouhaha over the issue of whether the demise of the dinosaurs was due to an asteroid collision. The physicist who proposed the theory, Luis Alvarez, when subjected to critical comments by evolutionary biologists responded that the biologist critics were akin to stamp collectors.

      Delete
    2. Not quite. While Luis was on the team that published the research project was started by his son Walter, who had the idea of measuring sedimentation rates using iridium content, since the background cosmogenic influx is roughly constant. When he and the geochemists doing the spectrography found the Iridium anomaly at the KT boundary, Walter got Luis on board to figure out the size of the bolide (if memory serves me correctly here). Walter did comment on paleontologists specifically. And there is a long tradition of bashing my discipline, in 1889 Nature published an article (E.R.C. 1889, "Palæontology", Nature 39:364-365) which stated "the paleontologist has been defined as a variety of naturalist who poses among geologists as one learned in zoology, and among zoologists as one learned in geology, whilst in reality his skill in both sciences is diminutive."
      That attitude certainly persists. Heck, in my first paleontology lecture the professor started with the line "Paleontology is a lot like stamp collecting". That still makes me angry.

      Delete
  7. I read somewhere about a character trait many famous physicists seem to have: sometimes in error, but never in doubt. This seems to apply here.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It's not just biology, though. I have tried to forgive Kaku; he's quite a good communicator about physics, but every time I see him I forget that he uses his charisma and eloquence for evil.

    In the early 1990s, Kaku was an anti-nuclear activist. That's a fine thing to be, but he used his rising star to agitate against "the nuclearization of space," which included shutting down NASA because our exploration was going further and further from the sun, and that meant we needed Radiothermal Isotope Generators. He wanted NASA either shut down or legally limited to the inner planets. He argued that the Galileo and Cassini missions would be use to acclimate the public to putting "nuclear stuff" into space, and before you knew it we'd have the planet ringed in megaton-dropping satellites, or something.

    I think Kaku's "man has stopped evolving" is part of an overall political worldview that views Man as a pinnacle and Earth as his only home, and his "popular science" schtick exists to support that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'Kaku was an anti-nuclear activist. That's a fine thing to be...'
      Not when the replacement for a nuclear plant is a coal plant - as was the case in Japan, Germany, Austria, Italy and most places where fear-mongers like Kaku have managed to close reactors, or stop them from being built.

      Delete
  9. Jerry Coyne

    I agree with Larry; this video is a travesty because it's confusing and also wrong. My own take is here: https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/02/26/michio-kaku-gets-human-evolution-all-wrong-on-the-big-thunk/

    ReplyDelete
  10. Larry asked "Does anyone know of any biologists who make YouTube videos about quantum mechanics or black holes?"

    Well, there is Stuart Kauffman. From the introduction to this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOTjrNhnjDc) we have:

    Quantum mechanics allows a partially quantum mind to have ACAUSAL consequences for the “meat” of the brain, thus solving the Stalemate and answering the problem posed by Descartes’ Res cogitans and Res extensa: i.e. the Stalemate.


    ReplyDelete
  11. "No more isolated populations because of jets". Every other point is also ridiculous, but this actually made me laugh.

    Maybe he should do some research into the Sentinelese tribe.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Does anyone know of any biologists who make YouTube videos about quantum mechanics or black holes?"

    Well, Deepak Chopra isn't a biologist, but he is, alas, a physician, and he does lots of books and YouTube videos about how quantum physics supposedly creates a "quantum consciousness" that is the Universe. Or something

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. he knows... http://www.blastr.com/tags/bad-astronomy

      Delete
    2. he knows too... http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/

      Delete
    3. Deepak Chopra doesn't count. He's the Ur-kook, from whom confusion of the sciences emanates in all directions...

      Delete
    4. Doesn't Ken Miller try to invoke QM as a means to somehow reconcile evolution with theism?

      Delete
    5. Doesn't Ken Miller try to invoke QM as a means to somehow reconcile evolution with theism?


      It allows gaps (presumably smaller than the Planck length) into which to fit a deity.

      Delete
  13. Michio Kaku is a theoretical physicist at the City College of New York. Like many physicists, he thinks he's smart enough to know everything about everything so he doesn't hesitate to lecture people about evolution.

    In this case. He's telling us that humans have reached perfection in all adaptive traits so there can't be any more selection for things like bigger brains. He tells us that human evolution has stopped because no animals are chasing us in the forest any more. He also let's us know that there are no more isolated populations because of jet planes. Watch the video to see how little he understands.


    This is why most rational people are confused about evolution Larry...Can you sympathies with me?

    Anybody claiming to be a scientist and an "expert in the filed" can say anything he finds fit and gets away with it as Kauku will...

    It's a free society.... so anybody can say anything and still remain to be a scientist because he is stating his opinion...

    Is this a problem for you Larry?

    Without any true, affirmed guidelines for evolutionary theory, I could make up my own theory and become even famous...What do you think Larry? Could I make up a new mechanism or an additional one for evolution and get away with it? I'm really tempted to try...

    BTW: For the first time in my life I found Jerry Coyne funny. And since I'm not bias, I acknowledge it. Good for you Jer. I love Jewish jokes said by people who feel free to say them. I overheard that Jews will not be able to say "Jewish jokes" in the new society they are building...

    P.S. I was once told by an old Japanese man who outlived several of his wives much younger than him that the key to longevity and fulfilling life was not to take life seriously...and be able to laugh at oneself...I gotta feeling that Jerry Coyne figured it out and he is applying it.... Good for you Jerry Coyne. I wish you well!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jass,

      "Could I make up a new mechanism or an additional one for evolution and get away with it? I'm really tempted to try..."

      In another topic Larry asked you to provide evidence in favor of a designer. Up until now, you have provided 0 evidence. Are you going to provide this evidence any time soon?

      Furthermore, yes you could try to make up stuff, but you'll be ignored unless you provide evidence in favor of your made up stuff.

      Interesting to note, since you can't present evidence in favor of your deity of choice, and most likely you won't present evidence for your made up stuff, the logical conclusion is deity = made up stuff.

      Delete
    2. Furthermore, yes you could try to make up stuff, but you'll be ignored unless you provide evidence in favor of your made up stuff.

      Jass won't provide the evidence, of course. But he won't be ignored. That would be like not looking at the 10 car pile up in the other lane as you drive by.

      Delete
    3. Jass, basic coherence appears to be a problem for you. What exactly were you babbling about?

      Delete
    4. "It's a free society.... so anybody can say anything and still remain to be a scientist because he is stating his opinion.."


      “You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.”

      ― Daniel Patrick Moynihan
      But in a post factual Trumpian society everything goes....

      Delete
    5. “You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.”

      Actually, Darwinism seems to be an exception to this thingy... Here is an example:

      Dawkins and Coyne hold "their own facts" that the main mechanism of evolution is natural selection.

      They have their own camp of scientists who support that idea. Correct me if I'm wrong about it but I'm afraid not.

      Then, there is a camp of PZ Myers, D Grour, Larry Moran, Georgi Marinov (who dissented from ENCODE) and so on, who dissented from Darwinism and "hold their own facts" by claiming that random genetic drift is the main or one of the main mechanism driving evolution besides natural selection.

      Now, the first camp claims, and I have proof of that, that ...random genetic drift doesn't have the same molding power as natural selection does... (basically it means drift can't do shit).

      Go figure
      who is right and who is wrong
      as long as the belief stays strong

      Delete
    6. "In another topic Larry asked you to provide evidence in favor of a designer. Up until now, you have provided 0 evidence. Are you going to provide this evidence any time soon?"

      Larry,

      I can do it but people who don't want to believe it are stopping me...

      Delete
    7. Yeah, Jass, science should be more like religion and not allow discussion of different views. Not!

      Delete
    8. Jass is confused. He has presented an example of a difference of opinion. It's a difference of emphasis. Both sides would agree on basic facts
      such as:

      Natural selection is very important in helping organisms adapt to the environment.

      Genetic drift and natural selection both cause changes in allele frequencies in populations.

      Neutral changes (result of drift) are more common in the genome than selected ones.

      Genetic drift can, sometimes, produce different combinations of genes that natural selection can then favor, resulting in adaptation.

      Drift can sometimes lead to adaptations that can't be produced by natural selection alone because they require incorporation into the genome of genes that natural selection can't, because they are neutral to mildly harmful, but which turn out to be helpful once a particular additional mutation occurs.

      And many others.

      What they disagree about is the importance of these (and other) features of drift and selection. We expect disagreements like this in science.

      Delete
  14. Funny. I find all the time sciency types opining on subjects unrelated to what they train/get paid for . They believe, and others agree , they are smarter then most people. Its a bigger subject about intelligence being applied by someone to matters they are not trained in.
    They do , i find, believe physics stuff is more of a intellectual accomplishment then other subjects. i say biology is and thats why its so poorly done in origins and healing. Its more complicated. Physics is mostly memorizing things in ones teens and early twenties. Few, or none, contribute today and get acredit for smarts.
    Biology however is always learning new things and trying.

    first australia did not have a separate evolution but onluy trivial adaptation for general creatures. i say marsupials are just placentals with modification. a common theme in the fossil record of same shaped creatures and a common theme of classifying them as convergent evolution at family levels etc.

    I understand they say people lived on the open plains and not forests to justify evolution. i know they do it for losing our hair from a hairy ape stage.

    Can people still change in looks? Evolve? Why not? This man ancestors changed into Asian traits and so why not out of them? What is interfering?
    I don't agree with evolution but only sudden reaction for needs however why shouldn't evolutionism see the option?!
    I think easily we could change looks for some need suddenly.

    I most certainly do not see our brain as the origin of intelligence and so its size the sign of growing intelligence.
    If it is WHY NOT get bigger like in science fiction shows?
    Why not? Why thus far but no farther/!

    I think our brain is just a memory machine and the soul is the seat of intelligence and immaterial and impossible to affect in change. its perfect already .any problems are memory problems.

    Well if a physicist can opin then so can a creationist eh.
    I guess that means i think he can but name his sources.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Jass said: Without any true, affirmed guidelines for evolutionary theory, I could make up my own theory and become even famous...

    No, you couldn’t. You miss guidelines - but what about the evidence? Wouldn’t it be a good idea to look at the evidence? Then let’s see your interpretation of the evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Kaku may have a point. We're doing a good job of trashing the planet, making it impossible for our species to survive. Nothing stops evolution quite as well as going extinct.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The guy is off his rocker! What he says is almost laughable if it were not such a travesty. Evolution is blind and it does not plan to make perfection. Adaptationist sort of view. Natural selection is not all-powerful.

    Love your blog by the way Prof Moran!

    ReplyDelete
  18. I was a student in the physics department at Adelaide Uni back in ~1990 when Paul Davies worked there. He once gave a seminar where he stated that neo-Darwinism couldn't explain how it was that humans could do higher level mathematics. You see, there was no adaptive value to it way back when we were evolving. Queue some spooky explanation involving the fundamental laws of physics.
    More recently, I understand he has been educating us about how cancer works - PZ is a "huge" fan.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Higher math is just more memorizing except for one guy with a insight that moved things along.
      math is not a thinking mans enterprise except the few who discvover some detail.
      Biology is a thinking mans enterprise because its so involved in mechanisms, or for evolutionists, a history of selection and mutation. very complicated to get laws and make it work.

      Intelligence is the great thing about people amnd is a clue to our divine origin. Yet details of memory work , like math stuff, are not special operations in human thinking.
      Its the memory that was created and no ceiling to what can be memorized.

      Delete
    2. Re phil_bali

      I don' know about PZ but Prof. Moran has commented on Prof. Davies a time or two and is, to understate it, not a huge fan. Davies is a physicist by training who now studies astrobiology.

      Delete
    3. I just assumed it was obvious that "huge" = sarcasm

      Delete
    4. It was obvious, it's just that the irony bar has been set so high by some of our friends here that it can become hard to tell in individual cases.

      Delete
    5. "math is not a thinking mans enterprise"

      So mathematics can be added to the list of things about which you are clueless.

      Delete
  19. Evolution is driven by bleach!

    How does that sound?

    Just because I don't have to prove my claim it could turn out to be the best thing about evolution... You don't have to provide evidence for the shit...All you have to do is make assumptions...which are called predictions...

    I love and hate the social media... it has destroyed many churches...It hasn't done it's job with the darwinan church yet but it is coming...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where's your evidence in favor of god? Any time soon?


      Nah, I doubt it.

      Delete
    2. Evolution is driven by bleach!

      How does that sound?


      Sounds dumb to me. But, remember, your claim was that you could "make up a new mechanism or an additional one for evolution and get away with it". So why not put that to the test? Try publishing your "bleach" hypothesis somewhere. Let us know how it works out for you.

      Where's your evidence in favor of god? Any time soon?

      Don't you remember? Jass has absolutely convincing, knockdown evidence for God. But certain people are preventing him from revealing it. I guess they're holding his dog hostage or something.

      Delete
    3. Larry,

      Has human evolution ceased?

      We are deteriorating as a species

      Axe's proteins don't evolve...

      Gays want to have children but can't have their own...

      What'af is going on with your theory Larry?

      Delete
    4. You have to admit that Jass makes a powerful argument that humans are deteriorating as a species, until you recall that folks like him have been around for a very long time.

      Delete
    5. Jass's comment is so incoherent I'm not sure what its point is, but as the oldest of seven children of a long closeted gay man, I can certainly say that one of his premises is nonsense.

      Delete
    6. Re Jass

      Gays want to have children but can't have their own.


      You don't know what you are talking about. Case in point Mary Cheney, daughter of the former US vice president who has had two children who were not adopted.

      Delete
    7. Is Jass thinking (using the term loosely) that blogs are "social media"?

      Delete
    8. Where's your evidence in favor of god? Any time soon?


      Nah, I doubt it..


      Once you provide the evidence for the origins of life by ...whatever means as long as it doesn't resemble the Disney thing Darwinists have been selling so successfully to the gullible public...
      I will provide you with the evidence of God/Creator/The First Cause/The Outsider of Time and so on...

      Do your thing first! It's science after all...

      Delete
    9. John Harshman
      You have to admit that Jass makes a powerful argument that humans are deteriorating as a species, until you recall that folks like him have been around for a very long time.

      You know what John, I once left my dirty laundry in the washer... They have been around for a long time but they haven't evolved 6 months later when I got back...

      What's your point?

      I should have said "why is your point"?

      If you will not change your mind no matter what evidence come in your way, update your profile and stop wasting others time!

      Delete
    10. Jass:Evolution is driven by bleach!

      How does that sound?
      latesuite responds:

      Sounds dumb to me. But, remember, your claim was that you could "make up a new mechanism or an additional one for evolution and get away with it". So why not put that to the test? Try publishing your "bleach" hypothesis somewhere. Let us know how it works out for you.
      Well... have you had a chance to review your ideas lately? You didn't but even if you did it wouldn't matter would it?

      Where's your evidence in favor of god? Any time soon?

      The moment you provide you evidence for self-creation of life will overwhelm you with evidence for what you are looking for...
      I can't wait for your move!!! Don't stop me from moving toward the real science!!! Please!!!

      Don't you remember? Jass has absolutely convincing, knockdown evidence for God. But certain people are preventing him from revealing it. I guess they're holding his dog hostage or something.

      This applies to you first, you know? If science can't answer the basics of the origins of life then we are moving to the area that your god-science is not comfortable with-faith.

      Let's see...

      Delete
    11. @colnago80
      Re Jass

      Gays want to have children but can't have their own.

      You don't know what you are talking about. Case in point Mary Cheney, daughter of the former US vice president who has had two children who were not adopted.


      Well, if gays can't have children then who's fault is it?

      Maybe Michio Kaku is right after all... The evolution has stopped and gays will never have children no matter how badly they need it or are evolved by being chased by pressure of the environment to evolve their reproductive organs...

      Delete
    12. @judmarc

      Is Jass thinking (using the term loosely) that blogs are "social media"?


      What do you think it is? A science blog?

      Get a life!

      Delete
    13. @bwilsonm295
      Jass's comment is so incoherent I'm not sure what its point is, but as the oldest of seven children of a long closeted gay man, I can certainly say that one of his premises is nonsense. ?

      Why don't you read it one more time? Others in your camp have read it and they had no problem understanding it...

      Maybe you had a stroke? If that's the case you should seek medical emergency services as soon as possible!

      Your brain may be dead but they can save your other nonessential organs...

      Delete
    14. The worst thing about him is that he's boring. Sadly, Larry's blog doesn't have an "ignore" button.

      Delete
    15. Jass:
      "Once you provide the evidence for the origins of life by ..."

      Jass, you claimed in a previous thread you could provide proof in favor of your designer. Larry asked you to show the evidence, you might convince him.
      Instead of supporting your claim, you dodge and come up with all kinds lame excuses not to provide this evidence. Ranging from 'you first' and the old time favorite 'I'd like to provide it, but some people are preventing me to do this' conspiracy ploy.

      Then there's this lame 'hypothesis' bleach. You've claimed (once again) you could make up some evolution process, and again you hide behind lame excuses when asked to provide evidence for this 'hypothesis'.

      How utterly sad behavior Jass.

      Delete
    16. The ongoing defeat ... of Darwinism ... by ellipsis ...

      Delete
    17. Re Jass

      Apparently, among your other deficiencies, you are incapable of reading. Mary Cheney has had two children naturally. They were not repeat not adopted.

      Delete
    18. "Mary Cheney has had two children naturally."

      How were they conceived?

      Delete
    19. goddidit

      That seems to happen a lot with people named Mary, then.

      Delete
    20. Tx asks:
      "How were they conceived?"

      Wow, you actually have to ask how a baby was conceived? Seems to me another 101 biology subject they didn't teach you tx.

      Delete
    21. So I take it that flat-dancing with a male was not the method.

      Delete
    22. Re Txpiper

      How were they conceived?


      Via IVF. Before Mr. Txpiper claims that IVF is not natural, I would point out to him/her that most such procedures are performed on married couples where the male's sperm count is too low. Example, two of former Massachusetts Governor and presidential candidate Mitt Romney's sons had children conceived via IVF where their sperm was extracted and frozen. Their sperm counts were too low to impregnate their wives via intercourse.

      Delete
    23. Yeah, I'm supposing Cheney's partner had a pretty low sperm count as well.

      Delete
    24. "Yeah, I'm supposing Cheney's partner had a pretty low sperm count as well."

      Tx again shows how very moral Christians are.

      Delete
    25. Careful there, judmarc. This ain’t Sunday School. Science has determined that morality is just a human construct that comes from brains produced by DNA replication errors. You don't want to suppress your free thoughts with emanations about right/wrong, good/evil or normal/abnormal.

      Delete
    26. txpiper, the poster boy for Abstinence-only sex education.

      Delete
    27. That's the thing, Tx: Actual work with children down to the age of babies shows that we have a strong inbuilt sense of morality before any religious education at all has begun.

      I still carry that moral sense with me, choosing not to do the "Christian" think like take swipes at same-sex couples as you just did, or as you've done previously in the comments here, attempt to insult someone by referring to them as having a congenital birth defect (i.e., you called another commenter a "pinhead"). So please don't play the morality card with me. Matthew 7:20 should be the verse you study tomorrow.

      Delete
    28. “Actual work with children down to the age of babies shows that we have a strong inbuilt sense of morality…”

      Yes, we call that conscience. It is a great feature, obvioulsy subject to erosion. What sort of mutations would you suppose were involved for that to evolve?
      -
      “I still carry that moral sense with me, choosing not to do the "Christian" think like take swipes at same-sex couples as you just did”

      Actually, I just noticed that colnago’s definition of ‘natural’ is very stylized. I was just wondering where he’d go with it.
      -
      “..insult someone by referring to them as having a congenital birth defect (i.e., you called another commenter a “pinhead”) So please don't play the morality card with me.”

      That’s pretty funny, judmarc. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pinhead

      Delete
    29. The proper question isn't how Mary Cheney (or any other person in a any relationship, same sex or not) conceived a child, it is why it should be the business of anyone outside that relationship.

      We know why creationists want to know - so they can look down upon the children and belittle the parents.

      As the parent of two sons who are adopted, and a husband who went through several rounds of IVF unsuccessfully with my wife, and who was told by a Catholic priest that we didn't qualify as a family in the eyes the church because our sons aren't "really yours", txpiper and the rest of these low iq/integrity free "christians" can f**k right off.

      Delete
    30. As the parent of two sons who are adopted, and a husband who went through several rounds of IVF unsuccessfully with my wife, and who was told by a Catholic priest that we didn't qualify as a family in the eyes the church because our sons aren't "really yours", txpiper and the rest of these low iq/integrity free "christians" can f**k right off.

      Yes. The Church is certainly following the strategy of becoming a very exclusive club. Smaller but purer, as I believe Joseph Ratzinger put it. Judging by the rates at which churches are closing because of poor attendance, the strategy is succeeding brilliantly.

      Delete
    31. As the parent of two sons who are adopted, and a husband who went through several rounds of IVF unsuccessfully with my wife, and who was told by a Catholic priest that we didn't qualify as a family in the eyes the church because our sons aren't "really yours", txpiper and the rest of these low iq/integrity free "christians" can f**k right off.

      I don't think "low IQ" has anything to do with it. (First of all, I have problems with the whole notion of "IQ.") Rather, it's not using the brains you were born with (or, if you want to look at it this way, God gave you). To me, there's no problem at all with not having a particular ability or talent. We're all to some extent different there. But intentionally not trying? That's what makes it so bothersome when all the folks who supposedly espouse the gospel of an infinitely loving and merciful God, who **should** damn well know better, use religion as an instrument to try to shame or denigrate others.

      Delete
    32. That’s pretty funny, judmarc.

      Hilarious - I'm sure that's a subject of a lot of funny jokes true Christians like you would tell around women who had a Zika infection while pregnant.

      Delete
    33. Point taken judmarc - I thought about deleting my earlier post but decided to leave it as a testimony to the ills of posting while really pissed off.

      Delete
  20. I've met a number of gay men and gay women who had married and had biological children. Until very recently, this was commonplace.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Physicists know the basics of how the universe works, so they know everything. (Didn’t Sheldon Cooper say something like that?)
    Biologists tend to be experts in religion.
    Climate scientists are experts in economics and oceanography and polar bears and coral reefs and electric power generation and coal mining and chemistry and statistics and physics and …
    Politicians tend to know what everyone should think about everything.
    And your typical taxi driver seems to be able to solve all the worlds problems.

    I’m thinking the taxi driver is probably most correct of those listed above.

    ReplyDelete