Things aren't coexisting "in harmony." Species are dying out all of the time unless they're evolving to survive in their environment. We are all adapting and evolving in order to continue existing. What you see as "harmony" is just all of us survivors. These things aren't happening by chance. Pressures arise, species adapt, and these adaptations create pressures on other animals and they adapt. Things aren't happening magically all at the same time and unconnected. These adaptations affect other animals and they must adapt or die as well. We are a _system_. So, if you can possibly jettison the magical "chance upon chance of simultaneous occurrences" because this is _not_ what's happening, you'll be stepping in the right direction.

Here's "The" Thread. :) I don't think I'm linking it correctly...http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/345246-the-unscientific-american-watches-a-mammal-walk-into-the-water-and-grow-fins/?hl=%20unscientific%20%20american

Yeesss! I can't remember the name of the poster, but she's a leading evolutionary biologist in NZ, I believe, and she did a very fine job of answering questions. She hesitates to get involved on most evolution threads, but she might find this one interesting as Teannika seems really interested in learning and understanding more about the science. I really learned a lot reading that evo. thread! Can you find it and link it?

I'm so sorry. (((hug))) I do wish you and your family all of the best. I wish I could help out.

Evolution is not moving "toward" something. It is not connected with moving toward or away from chaos. It is change in response to external pressures. (Reminds me of the silly platypus meme "Go home, evolution. You're drunk.-- Is a platypus with all of its strange adaptations "chaotic"? More chaotic than a cat? No, evolution is not in the business of comparing "chaos" and "weird" from "normal" or "correct") That's not the point of the illustration. It merely shows that many little changes can create something very different from the original. There is not a magic "start" or "end" or "straight" or "chaos" to evolution because there's no "perfect" things we're comparing the changes with.

It is really interesting to consider it! Another possibility, I think more likely than the one "bump" on the gear theory would be that there were two smooth disk gear-like things (I have no idea what they did/do--perhaps mere friction was enough), and then perhaps there was a gene that made them rough, or rougher. And the round things evolved, getting rougher and rougher as the individuals who had them (presumably had greater fitness) to eventually become the "gears" we see now. In another 300,000 years, who knows that those "gears" will look like? There's nothing to say that this is the ideal for them or that they're going to stop evolving--or what that entire species may look like. Maybe the cogs will change in some way if there is a beneficial mutation of some sort that can be passed on. All we know is what they look like now, and we _might_ be able to work backwards and find the pressures that directed certain adaptations.

This argument is what's commonly called "Irreducible complexity" if you wish to learn more about it and why modern science roundly rejects it as an evidence against evolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity for starters. Kiana did a lovely job explaining how these types of structures may develop over millions of years. It helps to remember evolution doesn't happen in a specific "direction" or toward a specific "goal" or "advancement." The "gear" was never some sort of ultimate goal of evolutionary change in the planthopper, it's just what happened to occur as these genetic changes arose that improved the animal's fitness (which, in biological terms, means its ability to survive and reproduce in its environment).

There's a really fascinating BBC Production called "Around the World in 80 Faiths" and my children and I found it quite interesting. You can watch the full episodes on youtube. The narrator/guide is an Anglican Priest from the UK and he travels the world to "discover" some of the faith practices and beliefs of different peoples. The episode on Europe addresses Russia and exactly what Kathryn's talking about here. It was a very good program, I thought. I learned a lot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Around_the_World_in_80_Faiths

Somewhat related, there was a fascinating era of "Mormon Baseball Baptism" during the 60s and 70s, during which many young people of other faiths (or no faith) were baptised into the LDS church after being draw into Mormon mission baseball groups created for just that purpose. These kids wanted the attention of the American missionaries and to have something fun to do. It was quite effective. Now, this isn't particular to Mormonism at all. There are lots of different Christian groups and others who create social groups around a certain sport for the ultimate goal of conversion, but this one was particularly interesting because it was an entire church initiative from a church with a very strong centralized missions bent.

I don't know that they all turn out one way or another, but I have one example of close friends. Our family was pretty close to some members of Charity Christian Fellowship for a long time (a "plain" Anabaptist group), and a lot of the childrearing teachings were similar to what we're reading about here. All homeschooling--no college for the girls, etc. One of my best friends (just a few years younger than I) was 20 and living at home and the 2nd of 11 children (at the time). The family had major struggles. The parents were very controlling to their children but were really lovely to be around in most outward ways. The oldest daughter was married off to a church leader's son, and they've lived in Africa serving missions for about 13 years now. The rest of the children all eventually moved away. It took my friend making the break and going to college and then moving 1,500 miles away. Almost all of the children now live in the same state as my friend. None of them, except the oldest daughter, are Christians. I think the children do have some love for their parents, but they can't be around them. My friend just about has panic attacks any time she has any interaction with her parents. The last time I talked to her, she didn't know if her parents were still married or not. They'd been having trouble for a long time, but she couldn't even bring herself to get involved with even knowing about her parents' relationship. I'm sure that some families work out, but my friends didn't.

No. I certainly would not make a blanket statement "a 19yo daughter has a moral obligation to speak to her parents and show some respect for them." Absolutely not.

Something tangential but still interesting. There's a FB group for "Sovereign Babies" It's a closed group, and here are the specs: "For people that are considering or already have decided not to get a social security number and/or birth certificate for their baby. We beleive the decision to be a tax payer should be made by the child not the parent when he/she decides. Most hospitals/midwives are required to submit a document stating a live birth but parent's are not required to get a birth certificate or social security number or even state the baby's name on this document. The child can decide if they want these things when they are older. The courthouse keeps the record of live birth on file. This group also beleives in natural parenting such as no vaccines, unnecessary medical tests/procedures, pro breastfeeding, organic foods, cloth diapering, babywearing, etc.. Please feel free to post info/questions about these topics." (Ouch, look at those spelling errors!) This looks like another one of those examples where people can either be on the crazy left wing or crazy right wing. :)

Traditionally, and most formulaically, the thesis statement should be the last sentences in the introduction paragraph of a 5-paragraph essay. A five paragraph essay is one of the simplest there is, and following the formula when beginning composition is not just about writing, but about understanding and working within the structure. If the professor made this clear, and the goal was to create this very specific sort of writing, yes, I can see the knock off of points. (However, I don't expect this sort of rigid specificity in non-classroom writing, or outside of a composition class. Only if it's required.) Perhaps one reason the professor marked this is because sometimes writers can't even identify their own thesis statements. When I was teaching writing in college, in review sessions, I'd often ask students where their thesis was in the introduction paragraph, and many couldn't even identify it--even if they'd written one! Insisting students put it in a specific spot is also a way to gauge whether students can write and identify their own thesis statement. Whatever the issue, he got an "A". I would have docked the points too, but I would have made sure the paper was still an "A" if that was the only issue, and it was clear on the grading rubric (or via class instruction) that the thesis belonged in the last sentence of the first paragraph.

Oh yes. I was an Evangelical Christian for 20 years (converted from a non-Christian family in my teens). Husband and I were Evangelical missionaries during our courtship and the first 7 years of our marriage. Now, atheist. Used to be Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity listening Republican. Now am quite left-leaning. This happened in my mid 30s. Fortunately, my family and I wound up moving out of the Bible Celt about a year after deconverting, so we managed to find new friends and a better environment for us and our family. It was not such an easy place to live once we left our church and faith system. It was rough on the kids.

My question is, how does she know it's a first edition without checking the copyright page? (Giving the writers the benefit of the doubt here about them possibly knowing the date of the Illiad.) I think this is a major fail, myself. I laughed hard.

Last year, my 13-year old daughter hopped on a plane out of a small airport, flew to a major airport, hopped on the airtram by herself to get to the connecting terminal and flight and jumped aboard another plane to get to her final destination. She did the same thing coming home--but through a different airport. We did make some preparations. She had a cell phone so she could call any time she was in an airport. We looked at maps of each airport beforehand. We watched a Youtube video on the Airtram, so she knew what to expect. She made it without complication. I was so proud of her. Yes, she was nervous, but she was excited too. (Me too!) She said a couple of different women talked to her and asked her if she needed help or money (!) or if she needed food (!) as she was moving around by herself, (particularly when she was trying to make sure she was headed the right way on the Airtram), but she said no she was fine. I was very touched hearing my daughter tell me this, honestly. It was a good experience.

Most of my childless, female friends feel as if they've already raised families because they were one of the oldest siblings in enormous (or in one case--a 3-sibling) families (in one case a 13-child family) and they had to raise their own siblings. Honestly, I have 5 female friends who have no children and this is the reason they give. They spent their childhoods raising children, and they wore out.

I think there are benefits to religious faith. I'm an atheist now, but I can compare this to my years as a Christian. As a Christian: 1. I felt there was someone watching out for me all of the time, so that even when bad things happened, I knew that they were being used for my good in some way. It could be scary, and it could be painful, but I never had to fear things were spinning out of control because an all-powerful, all-loving caretaker had it under control. 2. I always had someone who could understand me, love me, support me, forgive me, hear me and who knew my utmost pain and could comfort me. 3. When I didn't know what to do, I could ask God, and I knew that he would guide me to a good decision, whatever it was--even if it was difficult. There was someone who knew perfectly what should be done and who could help me. 4. Being a part of a good Christian church or community was also very meaningful. 5. I didn't have to fear certain things. Climate change that could destroy the planet? Not my problem! Animals going extinct--God was going to destroy everything anyway, what did it matter? I could brush off a lot of the things I'm actually concerned about now in favor of pie in the sky by-and-by and a certain sort of Christian fatalism. I think most of the benefit was psychological. There were a lot of psychological difficulties too. Cognitive dissonance. A certain callousness and judgmentalness that I hated but that I had to just go with because of "That's what the Bible says." I didn't leave Christianity because atheism was psychologically and emotionally more fulfilling, but because I found the truth claims of Christianity to be untrue. Now that I've left Christianity behind for a number of years, I've found things that take the place of those psychological benefits that Christianity gave me, but I can do it without having to embrace untenable religious claims, which is a definite plus in the psychological category.

Yum! I haven't made/thought of Runzas in years! I know something I'm adding to my menu plan for the week! Thanks!

I didn't get to see the Johnny Depp interview, but R. Dawkins reading his "love letters" was Soooo Funny! So, that's how I got my laughs today. Dying! NSFW -- language

No, I don't think that part's particularly funny. There are a lot of people who find butt humor amusing through. It matters not to me what religious or non-religious icon is used. I don't venerate religious objects, but I understand that some people do. Overall, I think The Book of Mormon musical is one of the most touching, uplifting send up of a religion perhaps ever. I don't think a person could come out of that musical without absolutely loving the main Mormon characters and the slightly off-kilter converts. Stone calls it "an atheist's love letter to religion." I think it absolutely is. Nothing has made me feel this positive and friendly to religion, as this musical has, in years and years. ETA: The scene of which you speak is sad, it's not meant to make you feel negatively about the missionary or to say he "got what he deserved". It comes after a leap of faith and a brave move on the part of the missionary. It's a downer, in a sense. But it's more humorous (and innocent) than having him shot in the head or mutilated. It's not actually "play acted" either. It's done off stage, and you don't really even know it's been done until...well, I won't spoil it for you.

I think this was quite an interesting statement. "It's true that you cannot react violently. But, if Dr. Gasbarri, my great friend, says something against my mother, he can expect a punch. It's normal." From the Catholic News article.

My daughter loves Cupcake Wars on TV, and gets me to watch it with her. CUPCAKE WAR, I tell you! I keep daydreaming about a key lime pie cupcake. I love the Hive.

Yay! Finger stick showed platelet count and blood work all fine! So, whatever it is...I'm not too concerned anymore. :)

Yes, I think they're petechiae, but I don't know what's causing them (even if I'm correct). I called the Dr. and she has an appt. for this afternoon. Wow, that's quick.