Watch the two end up bickering right in the class itself, and end up with the only A’s because the prof is like, “FINALLY somebody gets it! There is no such thing as ‘most evolved’. This skit these two did shows the stupidity in it as it can be defined in SO MANY WAYS!”
He begins rising into the air and glowing while cackling.
Leorale
Professor Galasso
Some1
What if Galasso ends up being the comic’s big bad? Like the pizza (and subs) restaurant has been a front the whole time, and Galasso has been obfuscating stupidity while running both the Korean mob and Dargon’s organization from behind the scenes.
Rabid Rabbit
What if Professor Brock turns out to be Galasso in a wig?
EvilMidnightLurker
What if he’s been Walkyverse Galasso in exile all along?
It’s not really a thing. It’s drawing a distinction based on extent of changes, without acknowledging that the big changes are simply many small changes.
Thag Simmons
That ‘not acknowledging’ bit is what I mean when I say not understanding it.
Wagstaff
Those many small changes altogether need millions of years to happen. Evolution Denialists attack the straw man of “macroevolution” to continue believing that the earth is only a few thousand years old.
Ooh! Ooh! Let me give the answers to those that I was told during my own upbringing!
L-R, T-B:
– Plate tectonics are correct as they exist today, but the world lacked any oceans pre-Flood; post-Flood, it was a Pangaea-esque supercontinent until the world was divided in Peleg’s day, around the time of the Tower of Babel. (This is also when Atlantis sank.)
– Paleontology is correct insofar as the creatures it excavates actually exist/existed, generally speaking. Of course, this doesn’t disprove that the universe is 6000 years old.
– The Big Bang Theory is completely wrong. Next!
– The speed of light is exactly as science tells it to be. No problems with that!
– Radioactive dating doesn’t work because carbon-dating is unreliable because of all the nuclear weapons detonated in the ’40s, ’50s, and ’60s in particular.
– The solar system formation theories are wrong, because God created the planets as they are now. Next!
– General relativity? I guess it works. No problems with that!
– Heisenber…wha?
– Only macroevolutionary theory is wrong. You don’t see half-giraffe half-elephants or cat-dogs walking around, do you?
– Only evilutionary astronomy!
– Quantum mechanics? What are those?
– The table of elements exist in their perfect order and arrangement because that’s how God made them.
– Well clearly GPS systems do work, so obviously some of the “scientific” assumptions made previously aren’t actually necessary for them to function.
– Ditto computers and electronics in general.
– Alchemy is the Devil’s work, while chemistry yields many useful discoveries.
– Weren’t you listening? Seismology works because plate tectonics are a thing! How do you not understand something as simple as plate tectonics?
– Only evilutionary biology! Like macroevolution!
– Don’t trust everything the “doctors” say is good anyway. Trust in God above all else!
Wagstaff
I notice that manipulative groups always develop these kinds of strategies to put critics in no-win positions. If we fail to persuade, we lose. If we succeed at persuading, it means we must be “cheating” somehow, therefore we lose.
I once heard of a group that told its members that atheists used “satanic mind control” to get people to loose their faith. I look at this and I think, “isn’t it less convoluted to accept that people can be persuaded by legitimate counter-arguments”?
AbacusWizard
Wow… I thought I had heard all the nonsensical creation-“science” arguments before, but “radiocarbon dating doesn’t work because nuclear weapons” is a new one on me.
Wagstaff
Even then, these arguments can be used to support not just ANY religion, but the alleged existence of ANY interventionalidt beings that hide all proof of their existence. How do you know that there aren’t giant alien gerbils are controlling our minds to keep us from finding their planet made of gold? How do you know that all of existence isn’t just a game played by alein scorpions, and that all of history is just the game’s backstory?How do you not know the Bible you read was deviously designed by the devil to lead you on a path away from salvation?
BarerMender
It makes perfect sense if you know absolutely nothing about carbon dating. See, those nuclear explosions add neutrons to carbon atoms. All over the earth. Uniformly. To any depth. Solar flares do this, too. So do volcanoes. And supernovas. And other stellar activity. And the magnetic field of the earth. How does this work? By really, really fast hand-waving. Don’t ask any questions.
Wagstaff
It is even more uniform when we consider the effects on a single artifact or fossil, with those neutrons evenly distributed throughout the minerals that were already subjected to thousands of years of radioactive decay.
We just measure the radiation of the materials surrounding the artifict, and then use that measurement to discern the original radioactivity of the artifact.
Shade
I mean its a step up from “Because when we use it wrong it gives wrong results.”
jflb96
What about the delightful Flat-Earther standby of ‘we’re using it correctly and it’s giving the right answers but that would suggest that the Earth is round so clearly it’s broken’?
Rycan
You should say: “Heisenberg was pretty uncertain about his work, so we shouldn’t put any faith in it.”
Wagstaff
If I took a shot everytime someone made an equivocation between the “faith” of believing in something that can never be proven and the “faith” that means just plain “confidence”, I’d get blackout drunk in no time flat.
…not that I’d ever do that, but you get the point.
milu
I wrote about this here before but i once watched a long debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham (very satisfyingly monosyllabic names) (Ham is a creationist) and beyond the actual arguments what really stayed with me was the difference in attitude between them.
Ham seemed invested in the intellectual safety that comes from having decided that everything you will ever need to know is inside that one book, and that the root cause, the explanation of everything is “God’s will”, and that you simply can not be proved wrong because you have faith.
Nye otoh exuded this passion for intellectual adventurousness and wonder at the vast, uncharted expanse of nature. To Ham’s barbs like “well do tell us then, how does sssscience explain this, huh?!!” he would never hesitate to say “we don’t know!” and it just felt like so much more FUN to not know and have so much left to find out, than to just sit there all smug and say “the explanation is, because God decided it should be so”.
Rabid Rabbit
But… but Atlantis wasn’t in the Bible. It was made up by a heathen Greek. How was it there to sink?
Clif
Even the heathen Greeks can be right twice a day.
AbacusWizard
Probably because hubris.
Knuf Wons
Approximately 50% (numbers not final) of the Bible is at least Greek-influenced, and about 90% of non-biblical Christianity comes from heathen cultures.
Needfuldoer
… the fuck?!
Bathymetheus
In 2010 I had occasion to review the book “Dragonspell” by Donita K. Paul. It is aimed at preteen girls and is essentially religious indoctrination. It suggests that church leaders communicate with God and should always be obeyed, and that evil should be shunned even when its arguments “sound like truth”.
I remember being appalled (and I still am) at the setup for sexual abuse and the suggestion that they should not believe their own common sense when presented with logical arguments. As far as I am concerned this is evil.
Ferret
> (This is also when Atlantis sank.)
Not only is Atlantis not part of Christian mythology, according to Plato it sank in the 9400s BC, a year which Christians assert does not exist.
David M Willis
don’t underestimate the capacity for Young Earth Creationists to assume any given pre-4000BC date is erroneous out-of-hand
David M Willis
(as a child who was a young earth creationist, i was also super into atlantis, which is why my purple alien guys headquartersed in the bermuda triangle)
(for seriously, YECs assume there was a vast technologically-advanced civilization before the flood that was wiped out due to its sin, the idea of atlantis fits right in there so long as you file those dates off)
jez2718
Actually macro-evolution need not take millions of years. It can and has been observed under lab conditions. For example, this is a cool paper demonstrating evolution of multicellularity in a matter of weeks.
eh, whatever
The authors seem to have forgotten that yeast is secondarily unicellular. It has multicellular ancestors and probably retains some multicellularity-related genes that are still functional or nearly so.
I disagree that it’s not a thing. I do think there’s value in acknowledging the difference between the smaller changes and larger ones. Especially in regards to human since our lifespan and generation length means larger scale evolution happens a helluva lot slower than in, say, fruit flies.
The more we learn about genetics and develop the technology to study it the more we can recognize the small scale changes that aren’t easily evident but can end up having a big impact on population and a massive impact on individuals’ quality of life.
It’s been a decade but I feel like I legitimately studied micro evolution in my university courses. Like something termed “micro evolution” unironically as a thing professional scientists monitor.
Adam Black
I think you are confused.
Fruit flies are Definitely NOT “micro evolution” .
They are very complex animals with chromosomes , visible traits, short life spans and many offspring: thus making them a good model to study genetic MACRO evolution in humans.
Demoted Oblivious
Pretty sure Z knows what they are talking about too, but you are (intentionally or not) misunderstanding them. Z’s not saying fruit flies are a candidate for studying both micro and macro evolution because they’re small. Rather, because they’re short lived, you can observe how many small micro-evolutionary (the smaller) changes can build up, and then have a macro-evolutionary (the larger changes) impact on the population. Essentially, you seem to agree with them, but maybe not in how you read what they wrote.
carms
There is more to the science than ‘big changes are just made of small changes plus iteration/time’.
Like, that’s gradualism, which is a model, and punctuated equilibrium is also a model for how you get big changes when only small changes seem to be permitted by a genetic system.
Those would be my two terms for googling to learn more about what a spectacular pain in the arse evolution is =) For a REALLY simple premise, FUK there’s a lot of thinking and work required.
milu
i thought punctualted equilibrium was pretty much unanimously accepted now?
I may be taking all my info on the subject from SJ Gould books though °3°
milu
welp, 5 minutes later and i already have 6 tabs with massive amounts of text open. damn you carms ^_~
Wagstaff
All too fascinating!
By the way, in regard to one of your posts last strip…. do you really do cannabis? Not that there’s anything wrong with that (after all, it was only banned in America out of pure racism and the desire for a scapegoat), I’m just curious.
eh, whatever
My impression is that most people born in the 80s or later do cannabis.
milu
lol. in retrospect i don’t know why i wrote that, it didn’t work comedically.
but yeah i smoke/ingest pot fairly regularly. i love it. it gives me good ideas, it makes me have more belly laughs in a 3-hour high than in entire months, and fuck does music taste good on weed.
in fact i may love it a little too much. i’m on a cannabis hiatus at the moment.
what about you then, do you have a recreational drugs practice? what are your thoughts?
Wagstaff
Indeed I do. I make it a point to wait at least three weeks or more between sessions in order to minimize tolerance to the substance. I usually take it infused in butter, drizzled on oat waffles or popcorn.
Whenever I take it, I sometimes experience a form of synesthesia where I see/feel/hear/taste this internal continuously evolving geometric hallucination (internal in the sense that I can still perceive the real world; its almost like trading with your eyes open). Most of the time I reach this state where I can feel the energy of the fluids coursing through my body; it feels amazing!
All in all, taken properly, cannabis can provide marvelous experiences and be very effective at expanding consciousness!
Not to mention the fact that the substance has been proven to be less addictive than alcohol (just on par with caffeine in fact), and thousands of times less toxic (even less so than caffeine!).
If need be, I’d be glad to provide citations to those last two findings.
Wagstaff
*almost like dreaming with your eyes open.
milu
yeah, i think all of my best experiences were with ingested cannabis rather than smoked (smoking it is just more expedient ^^).
though i don’t think i’ve ever experienced any of the consciousness-expanding phenomena you describe, at least not on pot. now mushrooms, though…
Wagstaff
Indeed, smoking it is very much inefficient as 85% of it winds up as second-hand smoke. Edibles and sublingual tinctures are by far more efficient, and much better for your lungs!
Also, I have a bizarre question. Is the Mensa constellation visible where you live?
milu
wow, you are just strapped with data on this, aren’t you ^^
yeah, but the other thing i also didn’t mention that makes smoking an attractive option is it’s easy to pace yourself. you take a hit, wait a few seconds, and with a bit of experience you know if you’re gonna want to get more stoned or if you’re good. with digestive delivery it’s not as easy to estimate. which mind you can be part of the fun =)
re Mensa constellation, is this a trick question? you know where I live =)
Wagstaff
In regard to pacing, I always measure whatever I’m gonna take beforehand. When it comes to edibles, patience is key. On his first time doing it, my uncle made the common mistake of redosing a bunch of times in the absence of any immediate effect, only to have it hit him all at once!
Some might worry that whatever they taken may have been a “dud”, and don’t get the effects in their available time window. One of the most assuring ways to tell if it’s working before the major effects set in is that the substance almost always elevates the heart rhythm at first, then substantially slows it down.
By the way, I don’t know where you live, but I’ve narrowed it down to somewhere in Europe or South Africa. Not that I didn’t think you would reveal it to me if I asked you directly; I just wanted to challenge myself with a Where on Earth is Carmen Sandiego kind of puzzle, mainly for the intellectual thrill of it!
Given that there’s no agreed upon standard of “different species”, the Creationists’ Evolution Denialists’ argument in regard to “macro-evolution” amounts to no more than attacking a straw man.
From what I understand, it’s that simple organisms like bacteria can evolve, but not complex ones. If that sounds like ass-covering, that’s because it is.
the micro has nothing to do with the size or complexity of the organism, but rather the degree of change. Wallabies can develop thicker coats when they live in Ireland, peppered moths change colour according to environmental pollution, but peppered moths do not, by slow accretion of minor changes, become wallabies.
As I understand it, they acknowledge minor, observable changes in appearance like the ways in which you can breed new breeds of dogs or horses but claim that that’s distinct from any kind of phenomenon that would create new species.
320 thoughts on “Seriously ready”
Ana Chronistic
“then I’m micro-going-back-to-bed”
MugiwaraNoPancakes
I’d be macro-going back to bed after that line so Joe still has a little patience
Sombrero
micro-patience
Deanatay
Does this count as a micro-agression?
Clif
More of a micro-tease I think.
not someone else
This can only end well.
Icalasari
Watch the two end up bickering right in the class itself, and end up with the only A’s because the prof is like, “FINALLY somebody gets it! There is no such thing as ‘most evolved’. This skit these two did shows the stupidity in it as it can be defined in SO MANY WAYS!”
Joyce: “Skit?”
Joe: “Shh, don’t ruin this”
Regalli
Joe: ‘If we play our cards right we can keep getting A’s like this ALL SEMESTER.’
Some1
Alternatly the professor is like.
“FOOLS! THE ANSWER WAS ME!”
He begins rising into the air and glowing while cackling.
Leorale
Professor Galasso
Some1
What if Galasso ends up being the comic’s big bad? Like the pizza (and subs) restaurant has been a front the whole time, and Galasso has been obfuscating stupidity while running both the Korean mob and Dargon’s organization from behind the scenes.
Rabid Rabbit
What if Professor Brock turns out to be Galasso in a wig?
EvilMidnightLurker
What if he’s been Walkyverse Galasso in exile all along?
Jimi
That would legit be a Community quality scene.
And now I’m more or less expecting it to happen.
Clif
If I taught biology and could pull off the special effects, I would totally go for it.
jflb96
I’ve been thinking of Betty White’s tools assignment since this homework was brought up.
Dave Van Domelen
I only wish Joyce were making up that term and excuse….
Thag Simmons
I mean it’s a real thing. They don’t understand it but it is a real thing
John Smith
It’s not really a thing. It’s drawing a distinction based on extent of changes, without acknowledging that the big changes are simply many small changes.
Thag Simmons
That ‘not acknowledging’ bit is what I mean when I say not understanding it.
Wagstaff
Those many small changes altogether need millions of years to happen. Evolution Denialists attack the straw man of “macroevolution” to continue believing that the earth is only a few thousand years old.
However, such a suggestion of recent creation on its own has a huge denialist domino effect on many other proven scientific models, including those behind our modern technology.
King Daniel
Ooh! Ooh! Let me give the answers to those that I was told during my own upbringing!
L-R, T-B:
– Plate tectonics are correct as they exist today, but the world lacked any oceans pre-Flood; post-Flood, it was a Pangaea-esque supercontinent until the world was divided in Peleg’s day, around the time of the Tower of Babel. (This is also when Atlantis sank.)
– Paleontology is correct insofar as the creatures it excavates actually exist/existed, generally speaking. Of course, this doesn’t disprove that the universe is 6000 years old.
– The Big Bang Theory is completely wrong. Next!
– The speed of light is exactly as science tells it to be. No problems with that!
– Radioactive dating doesn’t work because carbon-dating is unreliable because of all the nuclear weapons detonated in the ’40s, ’50s, and ’60s in particular.
– The solar system formation theories are wrong, because God created the planets as they are now. Next!
– General relativity? I guess it works. No problems with that!
– Heisenber…wha?
– Only macroevolutionary theory is wrong. You don’t see half-giraffe half-elephants or cat-dogs walking around, do you?
– Only evilutionary astronomy!
– Quantum mechanics? What are those?
– The table of elements exist in their perfect order and arrangement because that’s how God made them.
– Well clearly GPS systems do work, so obviously some of the “scientific” assumptions made previously aren’t actually necessary for them to function.
– Ditto computers and electronics in general.
– Alchemy is the Devil’s work, while chemistry yields many useful discoveries.
– Weren’t you listening? Seismology works because plate tectonics are a thing! How do you not understand something as simple as plate tectonics?
– Only evilutionary biology! Like macroevolution!
– Don’t trust everything the “doctors” say is good anyway. Trust in God above all else!
Wagstaff
I notice that manipulative groups always develop these kinds of strategies to put critics in no-win positions. If we fail to persuade, we lose. If we succeed at persuading, it means we must be “cheating” somehow, therefore we lose.
I once heard of a group that told its members that atheists used “satanic mind control” to get people to loose their faith. I look at this and I think, “isn’t it less convoluted to accept that people can be persuaded by legitimate counter-arguments”?
AbacusWizard
Wow… I thought I had heard all the nonsensical creation-“science” arguments before, but “radiocarbon dating doesn’t work because nuclear weapons” is a new one on me.
Wagstaff
Even then, these arguments can be used to support not just ANY religion, but the alleged existence of ANY interventionalidt beings that hide all proof of their existence. How do you know that there aren’t giant alien gerbils are controlling our minds to keep us from finding their planet made of gold? How do you know that all of existence isn’t just a game played by alein scorpions, and that all of history is just the game’s backstory?How do you not know the Bible you read was deviously designed by the devil to lead you on a path away from salvation?
BarerMender
It makes perfect sense if you know absolutely nothing about carbon dating. See, those nuclear explosions add neutrons to carbon atoms. All over the earth. Uniformly. To any depth. Solar flares do this, too. So do volcanoes. And supernovas. And other stellar activity. And the magnetic field of the earth. How does this work? By really, really fast hand-waving. Don’t ask any questions.
Wagstaff
It is even more uniform when we consider the effects on a single artifact or fossil, with those neutrons evenly distributed throughout the minerals that were already subjected to thousands of years of radioactive decay.
We just measure the radiation of the materials surrounding the artifict, and then use that measurement to discern the original radioactivity of the artifact.
Shade
I mean its a step up from “Because when we use it wrong it gives wrong results.”
jflb96
What about the delightful Flat-Earther standby of ‘we’re using it correctly and it’s giving the right answers but that would suggest that the Earth is round so clearly it’s broken’?
Rycan
You should say: “Heisenberg was pretty uncertain about his work, so we shouldn’t put any faith in it.”
Wagstaff
If I took a shot everytime someone made an equivocation between the “faith” of believing in something that can never be proven and the “faith” that means just plain “confidence”, I’d get blackout drunk in no time flat.
…not that I’d ever do that, but you get the point.
milu
I wrote about this here before but i once watched a long debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham (very satisfyingly monosyllabic names) (Ham is a creationist) and beyond the actual arguments what really stayed with me was the difference in attitude between them.
Ham seemed invested in the intellectual safety that comes from having decided that everything you will ever need to know is inside that one book, and that the root cause, the explanation of everything is “God’s will”, and that you simply can not be proved wrong because you have faith.
Nye otoh exuded this passion for intellectual adventurousness and wonder at the vast, uncharted expanse of nature. To Ham’s barbs like “well do tell us then, how does sssscience explain this, huh?!!” he would never hesitate to say “we don’t know!” and it just felt like so much more FUN to not know and have so much left to find out, than to just sit there all smug and say “the explanation is, because God decided it should be so”.
Rabid Rabbit
But… but Atlantis wasn’t in the Bible. It was made up by a heathen Greek. How was it there to sink?
Clif
Even the heathen Greeks can be right twice a day.
AbacusWizard
Probably because hubris.
Knuf Wons
Approximately 50% (numbers not final) of the Bible is at least Greek-influenced, and about 90% of non-biblical Christianity comes from heathen cultures.
Needfuldoer
… the fuck?!
Bathymetheus
In 2010 I had occasion to review the book “Dragonspell” by Donita K. Paul. It is aimed at preteen girls and is essentially religious indoctrination. It suggests that church leaders communicate with God and should always be obeyed, and that evil should be shunned even when its arguments “sound like truth”.
I remember being appalled (and I still am) at the setup for sexual abuse and the suggestion that they should not believe their own common sense when presented with logical arguments. As far as I am concerned this is evil.
Ferret
> (This is also when Atlantis sank.)
Not only is Atlantis not part of Christian mythology, according to Plato it sank in the 9400s BC, a year which Christians assert does not exist.
David M Willis
don’t underestimate the capacity for Young Earth Creationists to assume any given pre-4000BC date is erroneous out-of-hand
David M Willis
(as a child who was a young earth creationist, i was also super into atlantis, which is why my purple alien guys headquartersed in the bermuda triangle)
(for seriously, YECs assume there was a vast technologically-advanced civilization before the flood that was wiped out due to its sin, the idea of atlantis fits right in there so long as you file those dates off)
jez2718
Actually macro-evolution need not take millions of years. It can and has been observed under lab conditions. For example, this is a cool paper demonstrating evolution of multicellularity in a matter of weeks.
eh, whatever
The authors seem to have forgotten that yeast is secondarily unicellular. It has multicellular ancestors and probably retains some multicellularity-related genes that are still functional or nearly so.
Demoted Oblivious
The English Pepper Moth
Z
I disagree that it’s not a thing. I do think there’s value in acknowledging the difference between the smaller changes and larger ones. Especially in regards to human since our lifespan and generation length means larger scale evolution happens a helluva lot slower than in, say, fruit flies.
The more we learn about genetics and develop the technology to study it the more we can recognize the small scale changes that aren’t easily evident but can end up having a big impact on population and a massive impact on individuals’ quality of life.
It’s been a decade but I feel like I legitimately studied micro evolution in my university courses. Like something termed “micro evolution” unironically as a thing professional scientists monitor.
Adam Black
I think you are confused.
Fruit flies are Definitely NOT “micro evolution” .
They are very complex animals with chromosomes , visible traits, short life spans and many offspring: thus making them a good model to study genetic MACRO evolution in humans.
Demoted Oblivious
Pretty sure Z knows what they are talking about too, but you are (intentionally or not) misunderstanding them. Z’s not saying fruit flies are a candidate for studying both micro and macro evolution because they’re small. Rather, because they’re short lived, you can observe how many small micro-evolutionary (the smaller) changes can build up, and then have a macro-evolutionary (the larger changes) impact on the population. Essentially, you seem to agree with them, but maybe not in how you read what they wrote.
carms
There is more to the science than ‘big changes are just made of small changes plus iteration/time’.
Like, that’s gradualism, which is a model, and punctuated equilibrium is also a model for how you get big changes when only small changes seem to be permitted by a genetic system.
Those would be my two terms for googling to learn more about what a spectacular pain in the arse evolution is =) For a REALLY simple premise, FUK there’s a lot of thinking and work required.
milu
i thought punctualted equilibrium was pretty much unanimously accepted now?
I may be taking all my info on the subject from SJ Gould books though °3°
milu
welp, 5 minutes later and i already have 6 tabs with massive amounts of text open. damn you carms ^_~
Wagstaff
All too fascinating!
By the way, in regard to one of your posts last strip…. do you really do cannabis? Not that there’s anything wrong with that (after all, it was only banned in America out of pure racism and the desire for a scapegoat), I’m just curious.
eh, whatever
My impression is that most people born in the 80s or later do cannabis.
milu
lol. in retrospect i don’t know why i wrote that, it didn’t work comedically.
but yeah i smoke/ingest pot fairly regularly. i love it. it gives me
goodideas, it makes me have more belly laughs in a 3-hour high than in entire months, and fuck does music taste good on weed.in fact i may love it a little too much. i’m on a cannabis hiatus at the moment.
what about you then, do you have a recreational drugs practice? what are your thoughts?
Wagstaff
Indeed I do. I make it a point to wait at least three weeks or more between sessions in order to minimize tolerance to the substance. I usually take it infused in butter, drizzled on oat waffles or popcorn.
Whenever I take it, I sometimes experience a form of synesthesia where I see/feel/hear/taste this internal continuously evolving geometric hallucination (internal in the sense that I can still perceive the real world; its almost like trading with your eyes open). Most of the time I reach this state where I can feel the energy of the fluids coursing through my body; it feels amazing!
All in all, taken properly, cannabis can provide marvelous experiences and be very effective at expanding consciousness!
Not to mention the fact that the substance has been proven to be less addictive than alcohol (just on par with caffeine in fact), and thousands of times less toxic (even less so than caffeine!).
If need be, I’d be glad to provide citations to those last two findings.
Wagstaff
*almost like dreaming with your eyes open.
milu
yeah, i think all of my best experiences were with ingested cannabis rather than smoked (smoking it is just more expedient ^^).
though i don’t think i’ve ever experienced any of the consciousness-expanding phenomena you describe, at least not on pot. now mushrooms, though…
Wagstaff
Indeed, smoking it is very much inefficient as 85% of it winds up as second-hand smoke. Edibles and sublingual tinctures are by far more efficient, and much better for your lungs!
Also, I have a bizarre question. Is the Mensa constellation visible where you live?
milu
wow, you are just strapped with data on this, aren’t you ^^
yeah, but the other thing i also didn’t mention that makes smoking an attractive option is it’s easy to pace yourself. you take a hit, wait a few seconds, and with a bit of experience you know if you’re gonna want to get more stoned or if you’re good. with digestive delivery it’s not as easy to estimate. which mind you can be part of the fun =)
re Mensa constellation, is this a trick question? you know where I live =)
Wagstaff
In regard to pacing, I always measure whatever I’m gonna take beforehand. When it comes to edibles, patience is key. On his first time doing it, my uncle made the common mistake of redosing a bunch of times in the absence of any immediate effect, only to have it hit him all at once!
Some might worry that whatever they taken may have been a “dud”, and don’t get the effects in their available time window. One of the most assuring ways to tell if it’s working before the major effects set in is that the substance almost always elevates the heart rhythm at first, then substantially slows it down.
By the way, I don’t know where you live, but I’ve narrowed it down to somewhere in Europe or South Africa. Not that I didn’t think you would reveal it to me if I asked you directly; I just wanted to challenge myself with a Where on Earth is Carmen Sandiego kind of puzzle, mainly for the intellectual thrill of it!
RassilonTDavros
Could someone refresh my memory on what “micro-evolution” is supposed to be in fundie language?
Whirlwitch
Basically acknowledging that adaptation and the mechanics of evolution work, while denying speciation.
Wagstaff
Given that there’s no agreed upon standard of “different species”, the
Creationists’Evolution Denialists’ argument in regard to “macro-evolution” amounts to no more than attacking a straw man.brionl
It means viruses and bacteria can evolve to resist anti-biotics or new diseases, but “real” animals don’t change into whole ‘nother specieses.
Kyrik Michalowski
This pretty much nails it as far as I’m concerned.
Needfuldoer
I wonder how many of those types have pet dogs. (And how many of them are ‘purebreds’ like pugs.)
Kernanator
From what I understand, it’s that simple organisms like bacteria can evolve, but not complex ones. If that sounds like ass-covering, that’s because it is.
carms
the micro has nothing to do with the size or complexity of the organism, but rather the degree of change. Wallabies can develop thicker coats when they live in Ireland, peppered moths change colour according to environmental pollution, but peppered moths do not, by slow accretion of minor changes, become wallabies.
Nathan
As I understand it, they acknowledge minor, observable changes in appearance like the ways in which you can breed new breeds of dogs or horses but claim that that’s distinct from any kind of phenomenon that would create new species.
gears
Basically admitting the existence of trees but not forests.
Cholma
C’mon! Forests are supposedly these HUGE environments, taking us acres of land! No mere tree can do that! Nice try, though, nice try.
AbacusWizard
Oh, sure, you expect us to believe that if you put enough trees together, they maaaaaaagically turn into a forest?
Demoted Oblivious
Of course. If trees could become a forest, you’d be able to see it, but you cannot, because of all the trees. qed
AbacusWizard
checkmate, treetheists
Psydan
You have to have a million micro-evolutions to equal one evolution, and that can’t happen in 6000 years.
Reltzik