anonemouse

:clap2: And the thingy is making me write more, so I did.

We can't say whether he would have been better or worse, because he never got the chance to try.

I definitely have hyperandrogenism induced hirsutism. My PCOS is rather severe. I literally have to shave at least once a day and my stomach has as much hair on it as my brother's does. I am hoping there will be a difference after surgery, but from what I have heard from other people, there isn't much of one. Having the surgery might prevent additional hair being stimulated to grow, but the hair that has already been stimulated will probably continue to grow.

Gadgetlady, I don't want you to think I am attacking you by asking this, because I truly think the question is warranted. If you firmly believe that we shouldn't believe in evolution, since it is a theory that (you say) is unproven and is supported by no evidence, how can you support being a Christian? ETA: Changed "defend" to "support", since I realized that "defend" might have some negative connotations that I didn't intend.

But theories are supported by evidence. Here is the heirarchy of scientific thought, based on amount of evidence supporting it (little to much): hypothesis (Possible explanation for an observation, but not yet supported by evidence.) theory (Another possible explanation for an observation, but is supported by a substantial amount of evidence and is generally accepted by the scientific community as the "correct" explanation.) law (An explanation for an observation, supported by a very large amount of evidence and accepted by the entire scientific community as the "correct explanation") What you don't seem to understand about science is that we are always trying to disprove our hypotheses, theories, and laws. They only get to the point of being called "laws" after many, many years and many, many experiments. While evolution hasn't quite had time to get to the point of "law" yet, it definitely isn't considered a hypothesis. If scientist came across definitive proof that disproved evolution, you can bet you would hear about it, since that is our aim, after all. The whole basis of "science" is that scientists are constantly trying to disprove concepts. If it wasn't, it would be, well, religion or faith.

How ANYONE can listen to this crap and actually think your rants are persuasive towards becoming a Christian, I don't know. Can I PLEASE make the "bad Christian" remark now? PRETTY PLEASE?! At this point, I think it is pretty justified.

Somehow, I doubt God accepts bigots into heaven.

And here are a couple of other links: http://darwiniana.org/transitionals.htm http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_noway.htm

Evidence of Evolutionary Transitions By Michael Benton One of the most startling discoveries of the past two centuries has been that all living organisms -- all the millions of species of microbes, plants and animals alive on Earth today -- share a common ancestry. However different an elephant, a dung beetle, an oak tree, and an AIDS virus may look, they can all be tracked back to common ancestors in the depths of geologic time. This insight was first articulated by Charles Darwin in 1859, and new lines of evidence have confirmed his discovery time and time again since then. There are two key lines of evidence: missing links shared characteristics The role of missing links is most difficult to understand. Surely, argue the creationists and other religious fundamentalists, if evolutionists claim that all of life is related through a single huge family tree extending from the present day back millions of years to a single point of origin, we should find fossils that are midway between established groups. 'Where are the missing links?' they cry. Palaeontologists have them! Archaeopteryx - half reptile, half bird The first dramatic missing link came to light in 1861, only a couple of years after Darwin's Origin of Species had been published. The first specimen of Archaeopteryx was discovered in a limestone quarry in southern Germany, and it was studied avidly by scientists throughout Europe. Early writers, such as Thomas Henry Huxley, immediately noticed that Archaeopteryx was an intermediate form. It had bird characters, feathers and wings. It also had reptilian characters, the skeleton of a small theropod (flesh-eating) dinosaur, with a long bony tail, fingers with claws on the leading edge of the wing, and teeth in the jaws. The role of Archaeopteryx has been debated ever since 1861. Is it really a missing link between reptiles and birds, or is it just a bird and not a missing link at all? A further seven skeletons have come to light, and all of them confirm that Huxley was correct. In addition, fantastic new specimens of birds have been found in Spain and China, which are some 30 or 40 million years younger than Archaeopteryx, and they are more bird-like, exactly as an evolutionist predicts. The new Spanish and Chinese birds have short bony tails, and their hand claws are reduced - they are becoming more bird-like. The Chinese localities have not only produced amazing new birds, but also new dinosaur specimens with feathers! These new specimens clinch the argument. Archaeopteryx is no longer on its own, a single species that attests to the reality of an evolutionary transition from reptiles to birds. Below it, on the evolutionary tree, stretch countless theropod dinosaurs that become ever more birdlike through time, and above it stretch numerous bird species that bridge every step of the way from Archaeopteryx to fully-fledged birds. A long series of fossils through the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods, a span of 140 million years, document the evolutionary transition from reptile to bird. Jaws to ears: An example of tracking missing links The evolutionary route from reptile to mammal is known in just as much detail. Between the Permian and Triassic periods, mammal-like reptiles evolved from basal forms that were fully reptilian. Through dozens of intermediate steps they evolved into mammals by the Late Triassic, some 225 million years ago. All the steps are evident in fossils: Step-by-step, palaeontologists can see the switch from peg-like reptilian teeth to the differentiated teeth of mammals (incisors, canines, molars). Step-by-step the complex reptilian jaw, with five separate bones, changes to the mammalian jaw, with only one bone, the dentary. In reptiles, both today and in the past, the jaw joint lies between the articular bone at the back of the lower jaw, and the quadrate bone in the skull. In mammals, on the other hand, the jaw joint is between the dentary and the squamosal element of the skull. Most amazing of all is the evolutionary transition to the mammalian middle ear. In reptiles, as in amphibians and fishes, there is a single hearing bone, the stapes, which is simply a straight rod that links the eardrum to the hearing structures of the inner ear and the brain. Mammals, including humans, have three ear ossicles (small bones), the malleus, incus and stapes (or hammer, anvil, and stirrup). The evolutionary steps were worked out first in Victorian times by the study of mammal embryos and then the fossils confirmed it: The mammalian stapes is the same as that of their ancestors. But the malleus and incus have moved into the middle ear from their former function as the reptilian jaw joint. Life is stranger than fiction: the reptilian lower jaw has been subsumed into the mammalian middle ear to enhance the hearing function. And the fossils show how some Triassic mammal-like reptiles had effectively two jaw joints: the reptilian joint was reduced, and the new dentary-squamosal joint came into play. At a certain point, in the Late Triassic, the reptilian jaw joint had shifted function. We can still detect the legacy of this astonishing transition: when you chew a hamburger, you can hear your jaw movements deep inside your ears. Every day, new fossil finds are reported -- the first insect, the oldest hominid, the first sauropod dinosaur, an Eocene whale with legs -- and so it goes on. The new fossil finds that hit the headlines are all concrete evidence of evolutionary transitions. The fossils are rarely bizarre or unexpected; they fit into the predictions of evolutionary trees. Dinosaurs with feathers and whales with legs are pretty startling discoveries, but biologists were convinced they existed from the predictions of their evolutionary trees. But is this the sole evidence of evolutionary transitions? The great tree of life The single great tree of life is profound evidence for evolutionary transitions. Darwin, as he toured South America and the Galapagos Islands in the 1830s, became increasingly puzzled about the distributions of plants and animals, both geographically and geologically. He went out on the expedition as a traditional creationist. Instead, this is what he discovered: He saw that the strange and wonderful plants and animals of South America were related to each other. Why should that be if they had simply been created? He also saw some of the relatively recent fossils of South American mammals -- the giant ground sloths and glyptodonts. Why were these fossils so obviously relatives of the modern sloths and anteaters that are unique to South America? Famously, he saw that the singular animals of the Galapagos Islands were all close relatives of animals from the mainland of Ecuador, and they varied from island to island. Why? The solution then hit Darwin like a hammer blow. The similarities in time and space were easy to explain: life had evolved. It had not been created, species by species. The Galapagos finches, tortoises, and iguanas had diverged from single ancestors that arrived by chance on the islands a few thousand or million years ago. South America had been isolated from the rest of the world, and its own unique birds and mammals had evolved through long spans of time from single ancestors. Tracking back to the very origin of life, he suggested, daringly, that all of life came from a single ancestor. Molecular confirmation Since 1859, that great tree has been built up painstakingly by close study of fossils and modern organisms. And then, Darwin's speculation, and all that careful work, was confirmed from an unpredicted source -- the molecules. Proteins in the bodies of all organisms, and indeed DNA and RNA, the fundamental molecules of life, carry records of evolutionary transitions. Simply put, the degree of difference between the same proteins (or the DNA or RNA) in different species is proportional to the time since they split apart. So, humans have molecules that are nearly identical to those of chimpanzees, rather more different from those of cows, and very different from those of slime molds. The amount of difference is proportional to the time of divergence on the evolutionary tree. Since 1960, molecular biologists have been drawing up their own evolutionary trees, and these match those based on fossils and museum specimens of living plants and animals. The final, and most startling, confirmation of Darwin's insight also comes from the molecular biology. All living things, from viruses to humans, from bacteria to grasses, share complex molecular machinery -- the whole DNA/ RNA code of life and protein synthesis machinery and the ATP system of energy transfer. Conclusion Evolutionary transitions are demonstrated by so-called 'missing links', fossils like Archaeopteryx, and the whole array of intermediates between dinosaurs and modern birds that lie on either side of it. There are thousands of other fossils that plug the gaps between modern groups that are quite separate, and new finds every year plug yet more gaps. But, the evidence for evolutionary transitions can be seen also in geographic distributions: close relatives are often found close to each other at the base of the evolutionary branch. The shapes of evolutionary trees have now been confirmed from independent evidence of molecular structures. Indeed, the fact that all microbes, plants, and animals today possess certain complex molecular mechanisms proves conclusively that all of life arose ultimately from a single ancestor billions of years ago. © 2001, American Institute of Biological Sciences. About the author: Michael Benton, Ph.D., is a vertebrate palaeontologist with interests in dinosaur origins and fossil history. He holds the Chair in Vertebrate Palaeontology at the University of Bristol, UK, in addition to chairing the Masters program in palaeobiology at the university. He has written some 30 books on dinosaurs and palaeobiology, ranging from professional tomes to popular kids' books. http://www.gly.bris.ac.uk/www/admin/personnel/MJB.html

Well, who says what a "transitional organism" is? Are Therasaurs transitional? They had both reptilian and mammalian traits. It also makes sense that after generations of small mutations, eventually the final product is totally different from what it started out as. Think of it as the snowball effect you see all the time in old cartoons. As the snowball rolls down a hill, it only picks up small amounts of snow and debris at a time. Eventually, though, all those little clumps of snow add up, and you get a massive ball of snow.

Yahweh, or something to that effect, I believe.

I have been abused. Albeit, it wasn't by a boyfriend or a husband, it was by my brother when I was a child. Emotional abuse IS abuse. It may not leave physical scars (debatable), but it sure leaves emotional ones. What your husband has been doing isn't rudeness. Rudeness isn't knowingly sabotaging diets. Rudeness isn't emotional blackmail. Rudeness isn't expecting total acquiescence to all his wishes. In your original post and in your later one, you didn't make it sound like his behavior is a one-time thing. It sounded ongoing. If it is a sudden and occasional occurance, then I apologize. But to me, it sounded like the beginnings of emotional abuse

You honestly don't see anything wrong with that statement? A broken home is better than an abusive one that teaches your daughter that it is okay to expect her future husband to treat her like crap.

But he is. All abuse is not physical. Right now, he has you wondering what you did to make him ignore you and he has you feeling responsible for his mood swings. To be honest, it is beyond me why you want to stay with a man who you admit openly dislikes you, and why you want to expose your child to that. Your daughter will be growing up with the idea that your situation is what marriage is supposed to be like.

I have been reading the memorials on www.Obesityhelp.com, and I am so glad I chose to have lap-band surgery. Some of them are absolutely heartbreaking.:cry

I think those stupid ED commercials are funny. Not the prescription ones, but the ones where the guy has this massive grin on his face.

I agree on certain levels that people should be able to do whatever they want with their organs, even if that means selling them. On the other hand, I believe that would turn into a problem where people would be selling their organs instead of donating them, and then what would the people who couldn't afford to buy an organ do?

It was probably getting stuck. You may have been eating too quickly or eating bites that were too large or not chewing well enough.

Well, if his in-laws had kept the combination or key to the safe to themselves, he wouldn't have been able to get the gun. The whole point of having a gun safe is that no one but the owners can get into it. If you go around telling everyone what the combination is or where the key is, it defeats the purpose. If people are really interested in protecting their families, they should invest in an alarm system. Unless you went out and bought a cheap-ass gun, you could have afforded at least a basic alarm system. Even if it is just one of those magnetic things that go off when you move the other half, it would probably be enough to scare off most burglars.

Well, I think it is common sense. I don't want someone getting their hands on it. What if someone breaks into your house when you aren't there? If you don't have it locked up or with a trigger guard on it, you have just put a dangerous weapon onto the streets. Another reason is what if your kids have a friend over? Even the best behaved and disciplined child occasionally breaks the rules. What if their friend finds it and starts playing with it? I know I don't want to be responsible for a child accidentally killing himself or his friend. I honestly don't understand people who aren't willing to take reasonable action to prevent an accidental shooting. Either keep your guns locked up or keep a trigger lock on it if it is kept loaded.

I don't have BCBS, I have First Health, but I can tell you what my insurance required. My managed weight care rule was this: Documentation that patient has failed to lose weight (approximately 10% from baseline) or has regained weight blah blah blah. It also requires a comorbidity if your BMI is under 40. Depending on your insurance (I looked at all the BCBS programs that were in the packet of insurance requirements that my surgeon gave out, but didn't see yours.), they most likely won't pay for surgery if you get below 40 and stay there, especially since you don't have a comorbidity. The majority of the BCBS programs that were in my packet required a comorbidity if you had a BMI under 40.

So wait, what you are basically saying is that we shouldn't believe in evolution because (you say) it can't be proven, right?

Darwin may have said that, but that doesn't mean it is supported by evolutionary theory. We should be making the distinction between what one man says and what the entirety of evolutionary theory says.

I have never heard that said in any of my classes, and I am getting a master's in biology. There is no such thing as "more" or "less" evolved. It isn't something you can measure. All evolution is is a change in gene or allele frequency over time and speciation based on that change. You can't look at two species and say that one is less evolved than the other. They have both evolved to fit their particular habitats and ecological niches. Evolution has nothing to do with culture. Now, some people may use evolutionary theory to excuse their racism and bigotry, but that isn't the fault of evolution.

But you haven't! All you have done is criticize other's beliefs and say that, "Well, I've done my research!"