|
Post by Jason Bushnell on Jan 2, 2008 16:08:56 GMT -5
It is always good to look at history. Humans are very slow learners and history keeps repeating itself. The civil war had nothing to do with slavery. I agree it was the best accuse for going to war that a government has ever had. Sure beats the war on terrorist that one. It boils down to money and greed. The civil war started because the south was getting rich and northerners did not want that. The north attacked not the south. South Carolina went from one of the richest to the poorest states and still has not recovered.
Ow Ryan, evolution is a fact. Every animal, humans included change. This is due to environmental changes. It can be temperature changes, eating habit changes ect. Look how humans have changed in the last twenty years: taller and fatter. Evolution is to change. You can argue the fact of when it started not if it takes place.
|
|
|
Post by Erick "Zap" Szczap on Jan 2, 2008 19:54:05 GMT -5
I don't think the war was fought because "the south was getting rich and northerners didn't want that"...I think it was fought because the majority on BOTH sides felt that slavery was wrong, but industries in the north weren't based on slave labor the way industries in the south were, so the south had more to lose.
We never actually solved our slavery issue. After slavery was abolished this country still needed to find its cheap labor somewhere. That's why our border security has been so lax. Encouraged by corporate america, the federal government has ENCOURAGED illegal mexicans to come in for the sake of cheap labor that has helped keep the economy going. It seemed like the perfect bandaid...until we realized that all those illegals weren't obeying our laws, weren't paying taxes, were crowding our schools and our hospitals, and were funneling a lot of their income back to Mexico, so it wasn't even getting recirculated into our economy.
Of course, by the time anyone decided to say anything about it, there were 12 million illegals here. TWELVE MILLION. That's four million more people than live in new york city. That's how far out of control this had to get before this country took notice.
You can learn a lot from history. Go look at the rise and fall of Rome. The United States could take a lot of lessons from that piece of history.
|
|
|
Post by Ty Kissner on Jan 2, 2008 19:54:06 GMT -5
Ow Ryan, evolution is a fact. Every animal, humans included change. This is due to environmental changes. It can be temperature changes, eating habit changes ect. Look how humans have changed in the last twenty years: taller and fatter. Evolution is to change. You can argue the fact of when it started not if it takes place. heres living proof......when i was 19 & 20 i used to hook up with drunkin 19&20 yearold girls at the bar, now im 24 and well now i pick up 30-35 year old recently divorced women...Hows that for evolution.
|
|
|
Post by CHRISTIAN BINNIE on Jan 2, 2008 21:36:05 GMT -5
What Todd King said......
|
|
|
Post by Ryan Thames on Jan 3, 2008 5:50:12 GMT -5
. Ow Ryan, evolution is a fact. Every animal, humans included change. This is due to environmental changes. It can be temperature changes, eating habit changes ect. Look how humans have changed in the last twenty years: taller and fatter. Evolution is to change. You can argue the fact of when it started not if it takes place. you just described adaptation. nothing about evolution here..
|
|
|
Post by Erick "Zap" Szczap on Jan 3, 2008 7:49:52 GMT -5
So we 'adapted' from monkeys?
|
|
|
Post by Bill Maenza on Jan 3, 2008 10:45:13 GMT -5
If we evolved from monkeys - why are the monkeys still here?
|
|
|
Post by Ryan Thames on Jan 3, 2008 19:43:10 GMT -5
if you cut off the tails of 1000 generations of rats.
will they still be born with tails?
|
|
|
Post by Erick "Zap" Szczap on Jan 3, 2008 21:19:25 GMT -5
I've never tried.
If humans don't evolve, why do men have nipples?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Kaufman on Jan 3, 2008 21:37:51 GMT -5
Has anyone ever done any research or heard about JP Morgan's role in the Civil War? I read a book that had something about how JP Morgan had some sort of arrangement with Lincoln or somebody high up to buy and sell used/defective guns back to the army, or something sketchy along those lines. I can't remember exactly what it was, I'll have to find that book. It's from the book "Culture of Make Believe", anybody read it? It starts out boring as hell, but ends up being really interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Kaufman on Jan 3, 2008 22:13:35 GMT -5
Here is a link that explains it a bit www.smashtheman.com/Smash/Articles/Article.aspx?ID=18. What do you think about this quote from Lincoln? "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." -- August 22, 1862 - Letter to Horace Greeley Sorry if this is a dumb question, but what is a CHAMPY website?
|
|
|
Post by Tim Layton on Jan 3, 2008 23:47:57 GMT -5
If we evolved from monkeys - why are the monkeys still here? Read a science book about evolution you will find your answer. Basic summary: in evolution by natural selection, if animal B evolves from animal A, animal A is not required to disappear from the planet. It is perfectly acceptable for animal A and animal B to co-exist. This is why we have so many different forms of life on this planet and evolution is a basic principle of biology.
|
|
|
Post by Tim Layton on Jan 4, 2008 0:03:09 GMT -5
if you cut off the tails of 1000 generations of rats. will they still be born with tails? Yes they will. Cutting off any appendage of any animal doesn't remove all of the DNA that codes for that appendage. When rats without tails (due to their tail being cut off) reproduce, they still pass on the DNA that codes for tails. Is this post supposed to relate to evolution in any way? Or is it a totally random question about rat mutilation? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Bill Maenza on Jan 4, 2008 7:16:53 GMT -5
Read a science book about evolution you will find your answer. Basic summary: in evolution by natural selection, if animal B evolves from animal A, animal A is not required to disappear from the planet. It is perfectly acceptable for animal A and animal B to co-exist. This is why we have so many different forms of life on this planet and evolution is a basic principle of biology. I must be old - the last time I opened a science book Evolution was still being taught as the Theory of Evolution. I had not realized that it was proven.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Maenza on Jan 4, 2008 7:19:21 GMT -5
If humans don't evolve, why do men have nipples? [Not my words] www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_093.htmlTo tell you the truth, nobody really knows. The best explanation I've been able to find (and frankly it doesn't explain very much) is that nipples aren't a sex-linked characteristic. In other words, nipples are just one of those sexually neutral pieces of equipment, like arms or brains, that humans get regardless of sex. As you may know, every human being gets a unique set of 23 pairs of chromosomes at conception. These fall into two categories. One pair of chromosomes determines sex--the XX combination means you become female, the XY combination means you become male. The other 22 pairs, the non-sex chromosomes (they're called autosomes), supply what we might call the standard equipment that all humans get. These 22 pairs constitute an all-purpose genetic blueprint that in effect is programmed for either maleness or femaleness by the sex chromosomes. The programming is done by the hormones secreted by the sex glands. For example, the autosomes give you a voice box, while the sex hormones determine whether it's going to be a deep male voice or a high female voice. Similarly, the autosomes give you nipples, and the sex hormones determine whether said nipples are going to be functioning (in females) or not (in males). One interesting consequence of the developmental set-up just described is that during the very early stages of fetal life, before the sex hormones have had a chance to do their stuff, all humans are basically bisexual. Among other things, you have two sets of primitive plumbing--one male, one female. Only one set develops into a mature urogenital system, but you retain traces of the other for the rest of your life. It's tempting, therefore, to say that male nipples are yet another vestige of your carefree bisexual youth. Trouble is, male nipples are hardly vestigial. They're full-sized and fully equipped with blood vessels, nerves, and all the usual appurtenances of functioning organs. Why this should be so nobody knows--in some other mammals, such as rats and mice, male nipple development is completely suppressed by the male sex hormones. (Incidentally, don't start thinking that at one time our human male ancestors must have suckled their young. So far as anybody knows, male lactation has never developed in any mammalian species.) Human nipples appear in the third or fourth week of development, well before the sex characteristics. (The sex hormones start to assert themselves at seven weeks.) As many as seven pairs of nipples are arranged along either side of a "milk line," a ridge of skin that runs from the upper chest to the navel. Normally only one pair amounts to anything, but on about one baby in a hundred you can detect some vestige of the other ones, usually on the order of a freckle. There are cases of women who ended up with an extra breast, which made them freak show candidates not so many years ago. Luckily today the women can avail themselves of corrective surgery while the rest of us can watch Jenny Jones. Anyway, both male and female babies are born with the main milk ducts intact--the gland that produces milk is there in the male, but it remains undeveloped unless stimulated by the female hormone, estrogen. Occasionally, a male baby is born with enough of his mother's estrogen in his body to produce a bizarre phenomenon known as "witches' milk," with the male glands, suitably stimulated, pumping away at the moment of birth. In the adult male, the dormant glands can still be revived by a sufficient dose of estrogen. Actual lactation is rare--only a couple cases have been recorded. But at least one writer (Daly, 1978) has suggested that the "physiological impediments to the evolution of male lactation do not seem individually surmountable." Meaning we may yet see the dawn of the truly liberated household.
|
|