TheVat

I'll admit I don't know enough about these nuclear facilities to know what bombing them would do exactly - my concern is that a powerful explosion where there are large quantities of somewhat enriched uranium could spread radioactive materials over a large area and possibly have radiological effects spread across national borders. If this is something that could happen, then Israel could give themselves some serious pariah status (above and beyond what they already have due to their extreme destruction and killing in Gaza and WB). But again, I don't know how these nuclear facilities are laid out or how fissile material stockpiles are shielded.

I predict that once this system catches on, he will be making money hand over fist.

This seems inconsistent with what Jesus himself taught. A core principle of his ministry was that past limiting factors in one's behavior would not prevent finding a path to redemption. One of his messages was that God forgives human limitations and errors, and that all humans can of their free will seek God and a moral path. Also, your comment that "true" Christians have to read the entire Bible seems at odds with Jesus' ministry, which was that faith and a few basic moral principles (focused on compassion and love) were all that was needed to enter the kingdom. Christ was deeply anti-elitist, AFAICT. I'm not religious, but my spiritual life resonates strongly with his moral precepts.

Some regions of China is far from a working model for extrapolation on 100 percent of dry land on the Earth. For every modeling of drier places, like the US West or parts of Asia, there are also modelings of a much wetter region elsewhere. Remember when moisture-laden air fails to precipitate one place, it can go somewhere else and meet a cool front and/or a zone rich with condensation nuclei and then rain like crazy.

From the article intro: Reading what you cite is helpful.

Since you are not selling or otherwise promoting some commercial activity, I would think it's ok. We'll see what the Great and Mighty Oz has to say. I wish we had room for more books, but we are likely to be downsizing in a couple years. Hope the hurricanes are skipping past your island.

A shift? Yes, that's the normal progress of a scientific paradigm, to include shifts. That is not however equivalent to saying that the core of early theory - variation, natural selection, heritability, adaptation - has been discarded or overthrown.

Waaaaah! My first reply directly addressed the bulk of your points. You could spend a few minutes reading a summary of evolutionary theory and remedy your deep misunderstandings of the field's progress. Not going to do your homework for you.

Just looked in, want to offer a distinction between gouging and fixing (if this was already done, apologies). When monopolistic action creates inflated prices, or an oil cartel manipulates market, that's price fixing. When an actual scarcity of an essential item occurs, for the consumer, and vendors take advantage of this, that's price gouging. Fixing happens at the level of cartels and boardrooms, gouging happens down at the grocery or hardware store. For ticket sales or other non-essential items, that's a slightly different thing called scalping (which also is mean-spirited, for sure). After the storm, I need propane or bottled water or food, those are scarce and one store has them - if they quadruple the prices, that's gouging. If they increase the price 30 percent due to more expense keeping up inventory during a disaster, that's just a normal market force.

Yes. I mentioned Pigliucci whose Extended Evolutionary Synthesis seems like one of the more organized and comprehensive updates of the MS, as it combines evo-devo stuff, epigenetics, multilevel selection, and (one of my favorites) evolvability (which means that genomes are structured in ways that make beneficial changes more likely, with populations better able to generate adaptive genetic diversity and more non-deleterious mutations). I don't know how formalized is what he and Mueller have done, and I know there are other postmodern (if I can call them that) syntheses. Some are focused on molecular genetics. I know that conserved sequences and deep homologies are important now in cancer research. And you mention neutral theory, where random genetic drift of mutant alleles becomes more significant than natural selection, and so very far removed from "Darwinism." But still compatible with natural selection at the phenotypic level.

Modern evolutionary theory is not "Darwinism." The modern synthesis has incorporated many newer concepts, with contributions from Huxley, Mayr, Gould, Eldredge, Dobzhansky, Pigliucci, GG Simpson et al which went far beyond Darwin's very limited conceptual base and lack of any genetic basis. Empirical support for cladogenesis and punctuated equilibrium, epigenetic effects, plasmid sharing in bacteria, non-reductive aspects of macroevolution, population genetics, adaptive dynamics etc have created a theoretical framework that is no more Darwinism than current physics is "Galileanism." You have created a ridiculous strawman. The Popper quote is just Popper showing his poor knowledge of evo biology, which is news to no one. Popper argued in 1974 that evolutionary theory contained no testable laws and is therefore a metaphysical research program. Guess what? Four years later he said that he had changed his mind. Which is why this "standard theory" was abandoned decades ago, and why disciplines like molecular biology, genomics and epigenetics are active areas of research that are continually reshaping modern EB. Stop pulling quotes out of context and go learn some evolutionary biology, post 1920. The astrobiology crackpot who majored in architecture and then read some books? The guy who thinks Covid is an alien pathogen that floated down from some cometary debris? THAT Brig Klyce? Good grief, is that what your other quotes are from? That's hilarious! Which is why Ernst Mayr, in the early 1950s, developed the concept of allopatric speciation, which led to Eldredge and Gould's punctuated equilibrium and the strongly empirically supported theory of long periods of stasis with occasional rapid bursts of change that is, as of 2024, widely accepted as replacing the archaic phyletic gradualism of Darwin's era. There remain disagreements on Gould's species selection, but the principal concept of punctuated equilibrium is not disputed, given its immense empirical support. It's an attempt to make a description of the knowledge gaps pre Modern Synthesis (which Mayr began developing in the 1930's) sound like a criticism. Instead of noting that these conflicts were resolved by the MS, around 1940, it makes it sound like some ongoing internal strife in EB. Absurd. Mechanisms of allelic frequency change and mutagenesis were not understood before the MS - stop the presses! Newsflash!

Have heard something similar called a false premise fallacy. But unwarranted assumption would cover a wider swath, including both false premises and also premises that are unsupported, ergo not established as true.

This is where ethicists get into thought experiments like the trolley problem. Circumstances do shift certain moral weightings. If my son had terminal cancer and said "toss me onto the tracks, so I will save ten other people," that could alter the moral implications. If Israel understood that cheek-turning rather than mass bombing would save lives in the long run by preventing a long bloody war and reducing the number of future recruitable terrorists who hate Israel, then this could change the equating of reprisal with defense. The whole revenge concept is ethically problematic since it both fails to revive the dead and also increases their number. If numbers matter, and there seems a prima facie case that they do, then any cycle of reprisals is to be avoided.

Strawman much? Am seconding @iNow request to cease starting multiple new threads every time you climb onto your atheists suck hobby horse.

Gender Discrimination and Misogyny Over, Men Declare!

Most philatelists only believe in Kirchhoff's Law because they were taught and indoctrinated to believe it. Most gastronomists only believe in the laws of thermodynamics because they were taught and indoctrinated to believe it. Most podiatrists only believe in plate tectonics because they were taught and indoctrinated to believe it. Most psychiatrists only believe in heliocentric theory because they were taught and indoctrinated to believe it. Thumb up!

But then the question of the thread is one of how much retaliation can be ethical with respect to the non-combatant, i.e. two million people who are not terrorists. There is no question that the international community DID condemn Hamas. The question is how should Israel seek to end hostilities which kill so many innocents, without elevating revenge as the highest valued among all the instruments of foreign policy. Revenge, done sloppily, only increases the number of their enemies and ergo the potential for more future carnage. If you have a good opinion of Israel as a modern liberal democracy, then you should want them to be functional adults and promoters of a two state solution that defuses the rage and reprisals. The day Israel starts showing a Rawlsian compassion for their neighbors is the day that real peace would start to advance.

Hamas soldiers behave badly? I learn so much here. I had been led to understand that soldiers were the cream of society who attended picnics with their foes, played badminton and sipped tea as they discussed whose turn it was to fling themselves onto a bayonet.

There are various ethical systems that could be applied. One is Rawlsian ethics, based on John Rawls "veil of ignorance." The core idea is that any ethical society should seek justice with regards to a random person's birth, i.e. the womb you happened to pop out of should in no way confer a worse life upon you. Any ethics should work towards that goal, that you are not treated worse, nurtured less, or capriciously murdered simply owing to a particular social group you were born into. A Rawlsian approach then is to seek justice for all civilian populations, giving equal value to any innocent life. The notion that Palestinian civilians are somehow expendable because they happen to reside in a place with a terrible governance and a terrorist military wing is then deemed insupportable. The rights of a Palestinian child are no less and no more important than the rights of my children or the children of Charles III. Military attacks that target civilians in any way, then, are unethical and should be viewed as a criminal violation. Civilized nations should join together to condemn and ostracize nations that commit such a violation.

Don't forget that some neutron stars are pulsars and go Bossa Nova.

This continuance of the shift in warfare to remotely delivered blows, at push of a button, was behind my pages-ago comment on the cowardly and cruel nature of such attacks. I wasn't exonerating either side, or even being ideological, just trying to balance all the awed responses - wow, that's so clever and sophisticated, and ever so much tidier than airstrikes! - with an awareness that a button was pushed without regard for where pager users might be or who standing next to. Hence, at least a dozen deaths, two dead children, and thousands of maimed and blinded. Many, apparently, not actual warriors. So, again, I don't see it offering some moral high road for Israel, and I'm glad to hear you also question the "brilliant method."

One of those bits of rhetoric whose edge can be turned back on the speaker too easily. And underscores the drift of Likud-dominated Israel away from being "the good guys." Indeed, it's much like something Putin would say. It's awkward for the US to be supporting this kind of mission creep with billions per year. The good guys with an extremely well funded military and the largest contingent of F-16s outside of the USAF. Interesting how Palestinians often describe Hamas in the same way, because the average experience of Hamas, for most Palestinians, is civil service people who help them get a business license, or food ration cards, or all the other quotidian business of a government. We see only the ruthless militants who hide in tunnels and come out to launch rockets or conduct murderous raids. The complexity of the Palestinian relationship to Hamas is something that doesn't fit in a media sound bite.

No one is doing this. Again, as others note, it's not some binary thing. Bibi can be corrupt and unscrupulous AND Hamas can be led by vicious and corrupt men who send their most zealous (sometimes sociopathic) soldiers to unleash terror on civilians. Likud can have goals that are, functionally, ethnic cleansing AND Hamas can harbor those who have the same goals for Israel, going way beyond a reasoned two state solution. What I am suggesting is that an extremist like Bibi gains leverage when his longterm oppression of Gaza/WB causes Hamas to morph towards its own most extreme version. It gives him traction to pound the crap out of Gaza and lock down WB, and call it all self-defense. And the US swallows this narrative whole.

About the time he was facing criminal indictments and losing popularity, one of the leaders decided he could rescue himself by setting up the conditions (including dropping border patrols in key areas) for provoking a war which would then require him as a Strong Defender and help turn the polls around. I leave it to you to decide which leader that was.