kimmy

Genetics and heredity was the one part of Archaeology and Anthropology that I hated. However, the purpose of reproduction is to pass on genes. There are many types of reproduction, including asexual. The problem with asexual reproduction is that it does not spread out the gene pool all that much, so while single-celled organisms can reproduce, they don't much affect the other 'single-cellers'. Sexual reproduction offers a much greater variety of genes to be passed on, vastly greater combinations, and the chance for evolution (when different combinations get to take a whack at 'success') increaces astronomically. Yes, yes. I'm good with all of that, honestly. I understand *why* sexual reproduction is a survival advantage. My concern with the issue is *how* it came into being. The DNA did not sit down and think to itself "you know, it would be a great survival advantage for this species if we could reproduce sexually, rather than assexually. I will plan out some means by which this could be accomplished, and incorporate that into the next generation." (if it did happen that way, that would be intelligent design, after all.) How did the first organism to reproduce by sperm and egg actually obtain sperm and egg to reproduce with? It seems nonsensical to suggest that something so complicated appeared spontaneously... and yet, if it didn't, where did this first creature get gametes from? The ability to generate gametes wouldn't be a survival advantage until such point as you have a functional reproductive system to use these gametes in. So it seems like all of this has to come together at the same time, or else it would be like (in Behe's example) the mousetrap without a spring-- useless, and not a survival advantage at all. Black Dog refers to Mr Orr who could perhaps explain how and why gamete generation could actually be a trait that could be passed along without a reproductive system in which to operate. I don't discount that it's possible... I just find it extremely difficult to conceptualize at this point. Well, getting "the right combo" is a bit of a euphemism. It makes it sound as if perhaps there are clever little DNA molecules actively planning ways to enhance their odds of survival. But that's not what evolution says; that's what Intelligent Design says. Evolution says that stuff happens. Stuff just happens. And trial and error determines which stuff is good and gets passed along, and which stuff is junk and gets snuffed out very quickly. Good stuff has a statistically better chance of surviving to the next generation, and eventually the good stuff becomes predominant. But the mechanism by which stuff happens is not well understood. And for stuff (like reproductive systems) which would seem to require a number of steps before it would yield a survival advantage, natural selection would not seem to explain things satisfactorily. Memories can be eaten? -k

I have a symbol that I like just fine. It's the Maple Leaf. That thing's a piece of junk. It has historical and geographical significance to only a relatively small elite in a relatively small area of the country. It's a lousy symbol for the country as a whole. -k

I haven't a clue as to what will happen in Edmonton Centre-- Anne McLellan is a high-profile and long-serving MP, but that was the case last election as well, and she won by a relatively narrow margin. Will she do better, worse, or about the same this time? However, I think forecasting a Liberal victory in Edmonton Beaumont is ridiculous. The only reason the Liberals took that riding last time is that their candidate was David Freakin' Kilgour-- a long-serving MP who is much-loved and widely respected by his constituents. And even at that, he won by less than a hundred votes. He won't be running for the Liberals this time. Whether he retires, runs as an independant, or joins the CPC remains to be seen, but he has left the Liberals, and so has any chance they had of winning this riding next time out. -k

That might make some amount of sense if applied to mousetraps, or even various components that went together into the making of the eye or the ear (for instance) but becomes much harder for me to conceptualize if applied to something like the reproductive system. I quoted Behe here not because I think he's awesome or because I think the theory is invincible... only because it articulates something that has troubled me for a long time. -k

It's not business as usual when the price of oil is over $60. Sure it's business as usual. -a private lobby group wants lower taxes -a provincial government wants more pie -the federal government leery of giving one province more pie because they know the other provinces will be looking for pie too. What's more Canadian than that? Since BC joined Confederation in 1871 for the express reason of wanting pie, that's been the way Canada works. In this instance, the fact that it's Ontario looking for pie make this slightly unusual, and skyrocketting resource revenues make this a particularly important pie... but this whole discussion strikes me to be as Canadian as beer and hockey on Saturday nights. Sparhawk and Eureka have both spoken of Dutch Elm Disease ... or something like that... recently in reference to our dollar becoming a "petro-buck". I can't pretend to understand the exciting world of international high-finance or currency trading. However, it seems to me that there are actually 2 separate issues here. -is our dollar becoming overinflated? If so, redistributing oil wealth around the country doesn't actually address that issue as far as I can tell. If the dollar is becoming overinflated, doesn't the Bank of Canada have the only tools we have to counter that (by controlling the money supply and interest rates?) -is redistribution of wealth an appropriate remedy to economic problems in regions of the country that are experiencing economic hardship? Well, it seems to me that we as a country have operated on the assumption that yes, it is, to a degree... and that's why we have the equalization program. If the high dollar is hurting Ontario's economy, it'll soon be reflected in average income and that oil wealth will begin finding its way to Ontario indirectly in the form of reduced equalization from Ontario. If that isn't sufficient, perhaps there's room for tinkering with the formula. The TorStar editorial from the Atlantic Institute guys seems to argue that redistributing wealth around the country is actually a harmful policy. -k

Who is left wondering? The people that cover their eyes when faced with the evidence and scream "No, you can't make me look!" If you truly believe that, then you are the one who has blind faith in an ideology. There *are* questions that remain, and have not been satisfactorily answered to this point. Research and debate continues into how or if the basic building blocks of life could really have arisen by chance in the proverbial primordial ooze. The mechanisms by which change occurs are also a subject of ongoing debate. I don't believe that any scientists in the field are prepared to say "yep, we're done. That's a wrap." Perhaps science will some day fill in all of these details (and I myself believe that day will probably come) but until then, characterizing people (including the evolution scientists who are still trying to answer these questions!) who feel there are unanswered questions in evolution as people covering their eyes and crying "you can't make me look!" is utterly mistaken. I have no problem with the basics of natural selection and so-on. My concern was based on something that I've had a difficult time expressing, but stumbled across this morning while doing some reading on other points related to this topic. The theme is called "irreduceable complexity," and was put forward by Michael Behe in 1996 in a book called "DARWIN'S BLACK BOX : The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution." Behe is a biochemist, and I gather that his book concentrates on biochemical notions of what might or might not be irreducibly complex system. However, his book provides a simplified analogy for us knuckleheads, which is debated on the "TalkOrigins" website: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html Take a moustrap... The idea is that an animal packing around any 4 of those 5 components didn't have a functioning mousetrap, and therefore didn't have a survival advantage. So, either all 5 components evolved simultaneously (a miraculous coincidence...) or else they were obtained by some mechanism other than evolution. Criticism of this argument seems to center on the issue of whether there are actually any irreduceably complex systems in nature. Behe apparently concentrates on biochemistry, not on mousetraps. My concerns were neither biochemistry nor mousetraps, but on complex anatomy. Could sexual reproduction have just spontaneously appeared? A partially functional reproductive system isn't a survival advantage (it either works, or it doesn't), so it's not something that natural selection could have favored over a course of dozens of generation... it had to either happen or not happen, right? Well, maybe not right... maybe somebody with a thorough knowledge of the subject can explain that sexual reproduction is not irreduceably complex. -k

No, because we're still left wondering by what possible means random mutation and evolutionary pressure could have created some of the astoundingly complex biology we observe. (and again, I add that I do not buy into "Intelligent Design" as a satisfactory explanation... I simply feel that evolution provides a less than compelling explanation for some of the quantum leaps in complexity that we find along the proposed evolutionary path.) -k

What would you suggest? When we send opposition-side MPs to Ottawa, they shake their fists angrily from the sidelines. When we send government-side MPs to Ottawa, they become useless lapdogs (for instance Landslide Annie, or all those Alberta Tories in the Mulroney government) or quit in frustration (Kilgour, both times.) Sending government side MPs is of no use, opposition MPs are of no use, so else is there? -k

As I hear it, streets in the Greater Toronto Area have become shooting-galleries. Having a policy to put forth on the issue sounds like a good idea to me. Of course you're right about health-care, though. Harper does have to get their healthcare message clarified and publicized. -k

The Star: Ontario's Fiscal Gap Given that Ontario has 40% of the population, I think it would be very surprising if Ontario's per capita income is ever very far from the national average. Perhaps the real anomaly here is not that Ontario's per capita income was "just" 5% above the national average in 2003, but that Ontario's per capita income was a whopping 12% above the national average in 1990. 40% of the country was earning 12% more than the rest in 1990? What were the rest of us doing in 1990?! There's no doubt that this trend is quite alarming. The rest of Canada's per capita income gained 7% relative to Ontario's in 13 years... if that trend holds, then in just 100 years Ontarions will be earning only HALF of what other Canadians earn! More from the Star on the subject: The Star: Ontario's status Is Ontario going poor, or is the rest of the country just doing better? Will the rest of the country continue to gain 1% every two years relative to Ontario? Seems kind of unlikely, don't you think? Particularly, as Ralph Goodale noted, since 2003-- the year this paltry 5% above national average was realized-- was the year Ontario was battered by SARS. As I mentioned yesterday... pointing to this statistic to show how poor you are is like pointing to your high income tax bracket to show how poor you are. But McGuinty and his supporters, as well as lefties of all description, have been blaming this on the Mike Harris Tories for years. And now it's not? Now it's actually because of "the fiscal imbalance"? Does this mean that everybody owes Mike Harris a big fat apology?? But wait... the Star still isn't done (so neither am I...) Star Editorial: Looting Ontario to Undermine Poor Provinces Remember: When Ontarions grumble about transfer payments, they're demanding change from a system that's unfair, inequitable, and are concerned about harming the provinces they're supposed to be helping. When Albertans grumble about transfer payments, it's because they're greedy. See, when Stephen Harper talked about this, he used words like "dependancy" and "culture of defeatism." If he had talked to the folks at the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies, they could have explained how to phrase it so as to not hurt peoples' feelings. -k

Yeah, sure. Paul Martin is the Grand Wizard of the Illuminati, and he just waved his fingers to make newscasters "forget" the issue. Just like he did with ... uh, Gomery? Grewal? ... uh-huh. Why was the media asking questions? Because there has been widespread and public speculation for months that Ottawa would make a play on Alberta's resource revenue. Because Klein himself has made public warnings that such a thing could happen. Because McGuinty refered to Alberta's resource revenues as "the elephant in the room" at the recent Premiers' summit ("the elephant in the room" is a metaphor for a subject that is foremost in everyone's mind, but that nobody feels comfortable mentioning) and in wake of the Ontario report declaring they're rocketting to the poorhouse, McGuinty's "elephant" musings led people to the natural conclusion that he was interested in sharing resource money. The topic was on the horizon because of McGuinty and because of media speculation, not because of anything Paul Martin or his colleagues said. Chretien demanded more money and Klein gave it to him? I know Chretien made comments about wanting more "sharing", but I'm not aware of any change in the equalization formula in response, or of Klein giving him any special contribution. Can you provide some clue as to what the heck you're talking about? -k

I will start with the disclaimer that I think billing Intelligent Design as a scientific theory is completely retarded. It's like proposing that since we don't yet know the exact mechanism by which gravity attracts objects together, there might be invisible gnomes who guide objects together. Well, there might, but there's nothing to support the idea over thousands of other equally improbable notions (like, say, magic pixies, or The Tao. Maybe the Tao inherent in all objects just naturally wants them to not be lonely...) With that said... This kind of argument is not going to end any debates, because quite clearly, any evolutionary advantage (in this case, weeding out the weak and aged and sickly for the benefit of the greater good) could equally be declared to be a goal of the Intelligent Designer. -k

My understanding is that while Evolution is great at explaining small changes, it is not very good at explaining big changes, and that over the course of evolving from sponges to primates, there are a number of quantum leaps in complexity that are difficult to explain. I started off as an atheist but I have become an agnostic, because to me the explanations being offered aren't wholly convincing. Sounds like a blast! A stripper factory and beer volcano? I wonder if Judy Sgro's campaign office is run by Pastafarians? -k

I thought you were the guy who was *opposed* to irresponsible tax cuts. -k

I broke my "no AM radio" guideline yesterday to tune in and listen for this report. All I heard was 630 Ched reporting that Alberta's intergovernmental affairs minister was not concerned with the possibility. All of the media outlets are likewise today carrying stories in which PM Martin, Ralph Goodale, John McCallum, and Anne McLellan express their skepticism toward the report and explicitly say that they have no intention of a raid on resource revenues. Ralph Goodale notes that the report is based on data compiled while Ontario's economy was battling a number of unusual circumstances including the SARS outbreak. Speaking on the possibility of an NEP2, Goodale said of the original NEP: "I just don't see that as a viable alternative or suggestion. If you look at the statistics, how the sector did for the whole country at that time, we lost growth, we lost jobs, we lost revenue. It was the trigger for a downturn." Martin says he feels that "it is a good thing when provinces become wealthy," says that existing programs for sharing wealth between provinces are adequate, and says that "Ontario is a very strong province and will continue to be that way." John McCallum says: "The fear that any province will have a hard time keeping pace with Alberta these days is well-founded, but the idea that Ontario is heading for have-not status is something I find hard to believe," and that "The control over those resources falls under provincial jurisdiction, and we've gone through a number of episodes on that matter over the years." McLellan bluntly states "The resource is owned by the province of Alberta." All of this sounds rather definitive to me. Meanwhile, what of those who are promoting this Ontario report? Globe 'n' Mail A business lobby group is calling for federal action to put more money into (or take less money out of) Ontario so as to improve their competitive position... ...and a provincial government asserting that it is being unduely put upon by the federal government. In other words, this is just business as usual in Canada. -k

McGuinty pointing to the fiscal imbalance to show that Ontario is becoming a have-not province would be like pointing to your high personal income-tax bracket to show you're a poor-person. -k

Am I the only one who was suddenly reminded of that old song? We have but recently discussed Ontario's "fiscal imbalance" here on our happy forum. The surprising part, to me, is not that this figure (by McGuinty's estimations) is currently at $23 billion, but that it was a paltry $2 billion 10 years ago. Ontarions, along with Albertans, have the highest incomes and lowest unemployment rates in Canada. It is beyond obvious that residents of these two provinces on average contribute the most to Canada per capita. The current equalization formula excludes Alberta from the averaging formula. The Atlantic premiers want Alberta to be included in the formula, which will boost the national average considerably. McGuinty should concern himself with keeping that from happening, because if it does, his $23 billion figure will mushroom considerably. This is just the latest creation of Canada's regionalized politics. McGuinty, like his counterparts in other regions, has realized that "taking on" the feds plays well with the voters back hom. McGuinty has simply borrowed the fiscal imbalance theme from Quebec; it's something they've been harping about for years, and unlike Quebec, Ontario actually has a legitimate case to make. McGuinty already used the fiscal imbalance to shake down PMPM for $6 billion earlier this year; I bet PMPM thought that writing that cheque would save him from having to battle against Ontario politicians during an election. Now, as a federal election call may be just 3 or 4 months away, McGuinty is dusting it off again, and Martin is saying "aw man, not again," as he reaches for his chequebook. -k

I hope I'm not the only person who feels there's a difference between calling for an assassination, and actually, you know, killing thousands of people. Others in the Christian right have disavowed Robertson's remarks. New York Times Maybe when the US Christian right starts blowing up buildings instead of boycotting TV shows and writing angry letters, I'll start viewing them as being more like Al Qaeda. Until then, I'm just not feeling it. I came across another article: CBS News: Robertson prays for Supreme Court Shakeup Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg had cancer treatment, Justice John Paul Stevens was 83, and an unidentified third judge has a weak ticker... and Pat Robertson is praying for God to remind them that their time is short. It's not *quite* the same as asking for the CIA to pop somebody, but it's not that far off. -kimmy

Without government assistance small farming would have disappeared half a century ago in the developed world. For my rural relatives, farming has been at best a part time job for a long time. None of my cousins are in farming anymore; most working in energy or pulp mills. My aunt and uncle still live on the family farm, but are no longer "farmers". My aunt has worked at the school division for many years, and my uncle has, over the years, worked for Halliburton and trucking outfits, welded, worked as a mechanic, and driven a grader at construction sites and plowed roads during winter, all while being (nominally) a farmer. They've always done "ok", but very little of their income has come from farming. This year is the first time he's no longer farming his land; he's rented out his fields to an absurdly efficient Mennonite group who, amongst them, have achieved an economy of scale that Walmart would find admirable. -k

If things ever get to that point, I vow that I will take up arms and oppose it with kim-like fury that will make the Iraq insurgents look like the Ladies Temperance Society. However, our constitution won't permit things to reach that point... not unless our entire society goes through some sort of upheaval. -k

But are there not Can-Con rules for prime-time TV? I can't see any other explanation for Train 48... Speak for yourself you "stalwart peasant in a sheepskin coat". In Montreal, CBC Radio-1 is on FM. I had to look up the quotation, but yes, it fits. My ancestors tilled the soil of the untamed prairies so that I wouldn't *have* to listen to AM radio. -k

You can tell because the CEO is named "Hunter", and not "Marc-Andre" or "Jean-Paul". -k

Indeed. Harper would gain nothing by rejecting Ms Jean's assertion that she is a committed Canadian. What good could come of it? He could only make himself seem like an ally of hard-core sovereigntists, which is the exact opposite of what Harper needs. Saying thank you and letting go of the issue when Michaelle Jean made her statement was the only smart thing for Harper to do. If Charles Adler and the TorontoFreePress people think that means Harper has sold out "real" conservatives, I guess that's a cross he'll have to bear. -k

Look what you buffoons did to my thread! :angry: Apologize to kimmy! Does the use of "about" when referring to 35 big donors mean plus/minus 25 or so? Or plus/minus 35 or so?Kimmy, how big is your rec room? Your basement apartment? A bunk bed at the hostel? Don't worry, it's cool. My parents said I could have friends over. I'm sure the "about 35" means approximately 35. It's a big city, with many successful business people. I don't doubt that there were 35 who could cough up $5000 for the Liberals, or at least cough up $5000 for the chance to hang out with PMPM. The 35 donations of $5000 would account for over 10% of the money the Liberals have raised this year, which might be a good indication of why the PM no longer views this as (to borrow a phrase from an article mirror linked to) "fly-over" territory (as in someplace you fly over on the way to Vancouver.) Perhaps the "The West Wants In" crowd has had it wrong for all these years. Perhaps the way to get "in" isn't by sending MPs with colorful ideas of how to modernize government after all. Perhaps the way to more influence in Ottawa is just donating more money to the right people. -k

My Alberta redneck dirt-farming ancestors had wind-power 80 years ago. A windmill turning a generator and charging a bank of big glass batteries supplied all of their electric power. At that time, of course, they did not use much electricity, with only a few electric lights. Now one of my cousins is reviving the family tradition. He has purchased a quarter-section, and is readying it for the delivery of a new double-wide trailer where his family will live. The cost of having electrical services brought to the home would be in excess of $20,000... a sum of money that has caused he and his wife to think over and over, "there's got to be another way." And, they've decided, there is. For a comparable sum of money they have decided instead to generate their own power using a big array of solar panels, industrial-sized storage batteries, and a big power-inverter to transform this solar goodness into regular 110V, 60Hz wall-plug current... a diesel-powered generator will provide backup power just in case. They won't be the first to go this route-- they got the idea from others in the area who have solar power set-ups of their own and have found it works well. Since talking to them, I have been thinking to myself... there are sure a lot of roof-tops here in the city. There is sure a lot of sunlight that is just bouncing off of shingles and heading back into space. -k