To The Daily Sun,
Evolution is taught in schools as established truth for the same reason that schools teach that the earth revolves around the sun. The molecular evidence for evolution is overwhelming and there is no evidence that supports any other explanation for the diversity of life. As noted scientist Theodosius Dobzhansky entitled one of his more famous essays, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
A recent writer speculated, "that there are scientists, somewhere out there, who in the course of researching ring species have found that there is a boundary beyond which micro-evolutionary changes cease to happen" because "That's the way they do it." So far (I say "so far" because scientists are always questioning), there is no evidence of such a limitation and I'm not sure who he's referring to who would want to suppress it. In fact, I can't imagine how you'd hide a scientific discovery like that which could happen anywhere in the world at anytime. Nevertheless, ring species are an interesting way to learn about evolution.
One path that leads to new species is called Allopatric Speciation. This occurs when two parts of a population get physically separated. Imagine, half a population of monkeys are living in a tree that gets blown across a river by a storm. As random mutations and other causes lead to genetic modification within the two populations they become more and more distinct over long periods of time and ultimately become unable to interbreed, thus becoming two separate species. Now, if that second population also splits the same process will occur again and three species will have emerged. These are "ring" species. If population two were to become extinct, which happens all the time, it might be difficult to see the physical relationship between one and three, think birds and dinosaurs, but you'd see it clearly at the molecular level in their DNA.
The writer also asserted the inaccurate statement that "macro-evolution has absolutely no effect on scientific discoveries that benefit mankind." Macro-evolution refers to the genetic changes that occur over geologic time — millions and millions of years. Micro-evolution is still evolution but on a smaller scale. It refers to the changes that occur over shorter periods like human lifetimes where we see genetic changes expressed in diseases like cancer but also in the process of getting physically fit (why do your muscles get bigger when you work out?) and even in the process of learning (how do those neurons decide to interconnect?).
Genes aren't just a blueprint. They also control the physical changes in our bodies that happen in response to our experience and our environment. The study of evolution has lead us to new ideas about how to treat cancer and activate muscle cells and neurons and a host of other discoveries.
Studying evolution in science class also allows students to learn about the process of scientific inquiry. How we know what we know in science is based on testing and retesting the evidence that supports competing theories. The history of the study of evolution reveals how well suited it is for that purpose.
Evolution belongs in science class. Competing ideas that lack supporting evidence do not. That's not to say that we should not study those competing ideas, like faith based explanations for natural phenomena. We should — just not in science class for the same reason we don't study science in theology class. I want my children to have the best education in science so they can compete and succeed in the world.
Last Updated on Tuesday, 18 August 2015 09:28
To The Daily Sun,
I love The Laconia Daily Sun and have been reading it since day one. I didn't realize that you print racist opinions in your paper.
The letter that was in Saturday's edition about heroin coming across the border is sickening. Does this ignorant woman think that Spanish people are totally responsible for the heroin problems in this state and the rest of the country. I'm shocked that you would print such a one-sided letter in your paper. I guess you'll be voting for Donald Trump in the next election. I always thought better of this paper. Please tell me that you don't endorse this kind of thinking. If you do, you should be ashamed of yourself.
There are many more people to blame for the heroin abuse in this country. You will never stop drugs from coming in nor will you ever stop the the want for it. Drug dealers have more money and resources at their disposal than this country is willing to spend on fighting them. How much money would it take to send recovering addicts to schools to teach the young kids of this country the dangers of drugs and the perils of addiction. I would do it for free. You can only educate people about the harms and help the people who are addicted.
As it gets harder to live in this country and the inequality continues to grow the drug abuse problems are sure to increase. One thing you can't do is blame one group of people for our drug and addiction problems. This country is just as responsible as anyone else. We can give NASA $18 billion to fly us to Mars but hardly any money to fight addiction. Maybe our plan is to send all the illegals to Mars. If we continue to this with such narrow minds we will never be able to see the whole picture.
Last Updated on Tuesday, 18 August 2015 09:13
To The Daily Sun,
Attention presidential candidate. If any one of you can answer this simple question, you get my vote. You all talk a big game on the subject of creating new jobs in this country. How about bringing the old manufacturing jobs back into this country before you fantasize about new jobs? The question is: How are you going to deal with the vast number of American companies, with the American trademark behind their names, enjoying the American tax shelters and loop holes? Are you going to tell all of these companies that if the are going continue to import products into this consumerism country, then their companies will no longer have the luxury of our warm and fuzzy tax laws and they are to move their corporate offices to the respected country's of products origins and loose their U.S. Patent and U.S. Registered Trademark?
Here is a short list or American companies that do not see the need to produce products in the USA.
Levi Strauss, Wrangler - imported from Bangladesh; Faded Glory, Rustler - Mexico; Dickies - Honduras - Fruit of the Loom, Hanes - El Salvador; Dr. Scholls, Hoover, Dirt Devil, Eureka, Bissell, Electrolux - China; Westinghouse, Black and Decker, Sunbeam Products i.e., Mr Coffee/Crock Pot - China; Hamilton Beach - Mexico; GE, George Foreman, Rival, Farberware - China; Bostitch - China; Dremel, Stanley - China, Mexico, Thailand; Skil - Mexico; RCA - China.
This is just to name a few. We all know that I could go on and on with this list.
If you really want to impress your prospected voters than you had better have a plan on what to do about bringing these companies production lines back into the country or kick them out, we need all of these manufacturing jobs back, period. Give us no more of the same BS empty promises on creating jobs with the same old politically correct language.
I'll be awaiting your straight answer, but I will not hold my breath, for you see, I do not think any one of you in the crowd will have a definitive answer.
One more thing, will our U.S. Olympics team be wearing clothing manufactured in China in the up coming Olympics, like they did in the last one?
Make America great again. Huh, well see.
Eric T. Rottenecker
Last Updated on Tuesday, 18 August 2015 09:06
To The Daily Sun,
Except when illegal aliens commit sensational crimes, the media promotes the politicians' idea that we should have compassion for the illegal aliens because they "live in the shadows". But this is mostly a myth.
There is little reason for illegal aliens to live in the shadows any more than any of us. In 2013 the Obama administration allowed over 100,000 convicted criminal illegal aliens, including murderers and rapists, to go free in our country. Last year the Obama administration released many thousands more criminals including 193 convicted murderers and about 300 convicted kidnappers in our country.
Recently we learned about some of these illegal-alien criminals. Francisco Sanchez had been deported five times and convicted of seven felonies before finding sanctuary in San Francisco and killing Kathryn Steinle. Victor Ramirez had been arrested six times including for sexual assault and gun possession before allegedly raping and beating Marilyn Pharis to death with a hammer. Why should any illegal aliens "live in the shadows" when violent criminal illegal aliens are allowed to stay here?
About 60 percent of illegal-alien households receive some form of welfare, obviously they aren't in the shadows when they apply for or collect welfare. Illegal aliens aren't in the shadows when they go to our hospitals, send their children to our schools, participate in protests, wait in known locations looking for work, apply for drivers' licenses, when they apply for income tax refunds, etc.
Illegal aliens in America's 276 sanctuary cities don't need to live in the shadows since these cities don't cooperate with the federal immigration control which rarely enforces our laws anyway. President Obama has even promised to veto Kate's Law which is intended to incarcerate illegal aliens who return illegally after being deported.
The Obama administration falsely claims to be deporting record numbers of illegal aliens. To create a false impression the Obama administration, for the first time, includes the number of people stopped at the border in the count of those "deported".
Politicians claim illegal aliens "live in the shadows" and play on our compassion for others by suppressing information about how illegal aliens victimize millions of Americans, take jobs, suppress wages, increase taxes, create health hazards, over-burden our schools and hospitals, etc.
The idea that illegal aliens "live in the shadows" is simply a lie created by politicians to protect the wealth and power they derive from illegal immigration.
Last Updated on Monday, 17 August 2015 09:54
To The Daily Sun,
Is there any phrase more loaded with political skullduggery than "the science is settled". The statement is an oxymoron. Science is never settled. It is always subject to change in light of new evidence. The earths climate is an extraordinarily complex system with endless variables.
At 170 years of age, the study of climatology is in its infancy. More confusing the information we do know is highly contradictory. To note these truths, then conclude the "science is settled" suggests more a fool's view, than a scientific one. In the 1840s, as telescopes improved, it was noticed Mercury's orbit stubbornly failed to behave as Isaac Newton's calculated it should. The only plausible explanation was Mercury was being affected by a planet still closer to the sun than itself.
Legendary French mathematician Urbain Le Verrier set out to calculate the orbit of the mystery planet. He even named it Vulcan after the Roman god of fire. Astronomers spent tens of thousands of hours gazing the heavens for the unknown planet. Several sightings were said to have occurred, but as time went on it became clear they were either comets, asteroids, or simply illusions.
Vulcan was never found, because it wasn't there. The world famous Newton had concluded in his "principia" that space was everywhere, and always the same. Decades later Albert Einstein proved Newton's theory about space dead wrong. Space could be distorted by hugely massive objects like the sun. When Einstein calculated Mercury's quirky orbit based on his theory of relativity it matched precisely. In fact calculating Mercury's orbit was one of the early proofs his theory of relativity was correct.
With so many basic climate questions still unanswered, and with what we do know confusing why do democrats want to declare global warming "settled science"? Democrats have the same certainty about warming Newton had about space, and Urbain Le Vevvier had about the existence of Vulcan. Two of the brightest minds of the time, eventually proved dead wrong by later science.
Let me demystify for readers of The Daily Sun why Democrats want "science settled" on the question of global warming. If indeed climate change is a reality, it would be a problem only government could address. The possibility of global warming being true to Democrats is like the possibility of orgies being true to the early Romans. Global warming represents a heaven-sent opportunity to make government bigger, more powerful and stronger into perpetuity. Warming becomes a never ending excuse to turn the thumb screws ever tighter on every citizen, and business in America with higher taxes, new rules and increased regulation. Look at today's massive (avoid Congress) attack by government on electricity providers that will yield higher costs for consumers and businesses. California with its wind and solar has electricity bills three times the national average.
The truth is the warming question represents the biggest threat to personal freedom, capitalism and our economy since our country's founding. That is why Democrats want the warming question to be "settled science." Why the opinions of all in opposition are maligned, marginalized, denigrated and demonized continually.
Most laughable. Fifty years from now the United States will be a flea on the elephants behind of global pollution. We can emit zero CO2. It will have zero climate effect. China, Asia, India, South America and fast growing Africa will dwarf our CO2 output by 100 to one.
I sure hope Jim Veverka lets us all know when he and Obama have acquired influence (let alone control) over China's planet polluting, air chocking, industrial and economic policy with its population of 1.4 billion people. China and India are each four times larger than us. That happens the 12th of never. China said it would think about warming 15 years from now while Democrats today do all they can to injure our global competitiveness, perpetuating the barely breathing, 2 percent Obama economy that is killing the middle class justifying ever more welfare, entitlements, grants, subsidies, and don't forget free.
Having a climate "climax" is the only goal for Democrats.
Last Updated on Monday, 17 August 2015 09:50