text:
Funding Perks
Assorted Ramblings
Slide into my DMs
Winning the Game of Life: Evolution Clarified
uzalu | November 20, 2015 | Atheism, Science | No Comments
A clear guide to the simple process that brings forth Endless Forms Most Beautiful: Evolution; dispelling lies and explaining the evidence, for any reader.
Welcome to the Church of Evolutionism! Blessings of Darwin be upon you all! Please open your Biology Textbooks to page 42, and turn your attention to the diagram of a monkey giving birth to a human baby. This actually happened, so saith Dawkins, Amen.
The Church of Evolutionism, decorated with tax-payer money!
Fortunately, that scenario is a fantasy.
Evolution is regarded as fact because it can be demonstrated as fact, so guess what I'm about to do!
First, I will make it clear what evolution is, cutting through all the lies so many are told.
After that, I'll present the evidence to demonstrate it.
Belief may divide us, but evidence is the great equaliser.
What is this 'Evolution' thing?
Evolution is the process by which populations of life physically change over generations. It's responsible for the diversity of life.
If a life-form is bad at surviving, it is less likely to survive to have children.
If a life-form is good at surviving, it is more likely to survive to have children.
(This is called natural selection).
The children of those who are good at surviving will inherit those beneficial traits, and will therefore be likely to be good at surviving as well.
If each generation is slightly different from the previous one (are you identical to your parents?), and if being better at surviving makes a life-form more likely to survive (obviously), then over time a species will inevitably change physically. All those little differences from generation to generation add up, in the general direction of greater survivability.
When a life-form reproduces, mutation occurs in the offspring's genes (DNA), making them slightly different from the parents. Whether or not a life-form reproduces is determined by environmental factors like predators, disease, and climate; it is non-random. Mutation, on the other hand is effectively random. The combination of these two factors produces a system of change with no special limits.
The only requirements for change are a hospitable environment (like, not inside a volcano), available material (like food), and time.
There's nothing more to it than taking what you already know about how life works, and giving it time.
A demonstration of natural selection: The process by which the fittest become the most numerous.
You are free to use the image as long as you keep the attribution.
Acceptance without Evidence
Though you may not agree with my reasoning, I can determine whether or not you accept Evolution with just two simple questions:
Do life-forms sometimes reproduce, creating offspring which are similar to themselves?
Do life-forms sometimes die before reproducing?
If your answer to both was yes, then you have confirmed your acceptance of Evolution.
This simple test is not meant to trick you into belief, but to demonstrate just how simple the basic concept is. If the real answer to those questions is indeed yes, then Evolution is inevitable.
If you answered no to either, then you might need to go back to school, or perhaps just open your eyes occasionally.
Theory and Reality
Whereas 'Evolution' is the process in nature, 'Evolutionary Theory' is the explanation of that process; the understanding of Evolution.
For convenience, either of the two may sometimes be referred to as just 'evolution', but it should be obvious by context which one is being referred to.
'Evolution' in science refers to biological evolution. Though the word can be used in a general sense, there is no other area of science which is called evolution; for example: there is no such thing as 'cosmic evolution'. Disregard Hovind.
The theory of evolution, which describes the reality of evolution, is proven beyond reasonable doubt. This article is intended to dispel all the unreasonable doubts, and explain why evolution is so proven.
Myths, Misconceptions, and Denial
As part of a rather disturbing concerted effort by many groups and individuals to spread denial of science, evolution (among other things) is widely misunderstood. Let's sift through the mountains of nonsense before we get to demonstrating that evolution is true.
"It's just a theory!"
So is Germ Theory, but you wash your hands, right?
The word 'theory' in common use generally means a 'guess' or an 'idea'. That's not what it means in a scientific context. Think of 'theory' in science as meaning an 'area of study', like Music Theory.
In science, a theory must be well-substantiated – that means there's a lot of evidence to support it. Evolution is among the best-supported scientific theories.
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.
If you doubt evolution for this reason, then you must also doubt Gravitational Theory, Germ Theory, Microwave Theory, Nuclear Theory, etc. All these theories are actually less well-substantiated than evolution is, and yet I'll wager you believe in all of them.
"If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?"
Because not all apes evolved into humans.
Evolution is not a process by which individuals change. Populations change over successive generations, as each child differs from its parents. Physical separation is usually necessary for this change to occur.
Take for example, the separation of Europe and the United States. Generally speaking, Americans are descended from Europeans, and yet Europeans still exist today. If you can understand this, then you can understand the same aspect of evolution.
Also, if you happen to believe in the Biblical account of creation, let's turn this question around: If God created man from dirt, why is there still dirt? Moreover, if God created woman from man, why are there still men?
Oh, and by the way… humans are apes.
"Monkeys" instead of "apes"
We certainly didn't evolve from modern monkeys. That's like saying we are descended from our cousins.
Here's what actually happened.
However, that simian ancestor would fit modern descriptions of a monkey, though that animal is long-extinct.
"Missing Links! Transitional Forms! Where are they?!"
Every life-form is a transitional form. Every one of them evolved to where they are and will continue to evolve if unimpeded.
Insisting that fossils for every single species that has ever existed be uncovered is extremely fastidious and entirely unnecessary. There are fossils for almost every genus, and for every family. This is plenty to reliably extrapolate the tiny details between the known forms. (We know the extrapolations are correct due to predictive power, that's explained in the evidence section later in the article.)
"Where are all the species which came between our ancient ancestors and modern humans, then?"
This popular image makes this argument against evolution:
Stupid questions do exist.
…and is thoroughly debunked by this one:
Stupid questions don't get answered, they get destroyed.
"Evolution is a religion!"
Except for the fact that it defies the definition of religion:
Calling evolutionary theory a belief is inaccurate by all but the most charitable definition, even then it would be misleading.
There is no worship whatsoever involved in the theory of evolution. It doesn't recommend any action whatsoever from anyone.
Evolution is only superhuman in the sense that it is the process responsible for the existence of humans, but 'evolution' is not an entity, simply a process, so it isn't superhuman in the same sense that a god would be.
Evolution exerts no control, as it isn't an entity, just a process. By the most charitable definition, you could state that the fates of animals are 'controlled' by evolution, but this is again misleading.
Evolution is not a power, it is a process.
Evolution is certainly not a god or gods, personal or otherwise. Hopefully, I don't need to run through that definition too.
Is evolution believed on faith? No, it is believed on evidence, and evidence alone. Evolution is the only known explanation which accounts for all the evidence.
Evolution is as much an ideology as belief in tree-growth is; that is to say: not at all.
Pope Dawkins of Evolutionism
'Evolutionist' / 'Evolutionism'
These terms were concocted in an attempt to paint non-creationists as just as irrational as creationists. They are meaningless outside of their use to smear those who accept science.
The correct terms are "evolutionary biologist", for someone who studies evolution, and there is no specific term for someone who accepts evolution.
I tend to call those who deny science "history-deniers" or "denialists". If you think this is just as bad as the "evolutionist" title, you must not be well-acquainted with the evidence for evolution, which I'll explain near the end of this article.
"Time is your god!"
This is one of the stranger ones I've heard, it argues that the actual age of the Earth is either not proven, or is disputed, and that since evolution requires an old Earth, 'evolutionists' believe the Earth is old on faith.
The Earth has been proven to be around 4.5 billion years old. The margin of error is not 4.5 billion. To believe that the Earth is 6000 years old (or anything less than about 4.5 billion) would require ignoring large amounts of evidence. I'll explain this evidence later in the article.
What is most interesting about this challenge is that the ones who usually propose it actually do believe on faith on this subject. It's very telling that they are willing to ignore the evidence in order to accuse their opponent of bias, while completely missing the fact that they are doing exactly that themselves.
"Evolution defies the Second Law of Thermodynamics!"
No, it doesn't.
The second law of thermodynamics says: "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness.
This would seem to argue against the increasing order observed in evolution.
However, the Earth is not a closed system. The Sun exists. It provides plenty of energy for life to exist and develop. Not even our solar system is completely closed.
The law doesn't describe an invariable increase in entropy in every object and location, just a general/total increase.
What's more, order exists in many non-living forms, such as:
Graded river beds
[…] In any non-trivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?
If the logic of the challenge was true, then it would stand to reason that humans could never build anything. Everything man-made refutes the challenge. That seems like a rather gaping flaw.
"Evolution doesn't add new information!"
That's not an argument against evolution, it's an Appeal to Incredulity about a misconception of evolution relying on ambiguity.
The way 'information' is defined in this context is subjective and ambiguous, often tactically so. Does it refer to quantity of information, or complexity / usefulness / quality of information? Either way, it's both wrong and irrelevant.
The amount of genetic 'information' can increase or decrease at various points throughout evolution, but these changes are simply manifestations of the basic process; if a gene is causing a trait which isn't beneficial, it's less likely to be part of the species' genome.
There's more detail on this page.
"If everything is evolving, why isn't everything human yet?"
Because evolution is not aiming for anything.
It's not an intelligent process, it's just natural. It's basically chemistry on a larger scale, and operates based purely on physical laws.
Humanity isn't the end-result of evolution, and in fact, humanity is still evolving, just in a very different way from how other life evolves, due to our civilisation.
Humans (and other life-forms) actually have a lot of biological flaws, so don't assume we are ideal. Humans just happened to evolve great intelligence before any other animal did.
What's more, if some species is well-suited to survive, then it has no reason to evolve any further. In other words, if it's very good at surviving in it's environment, there will be no tendency towards a particular change in configuration, because there will be no natural selection.
"Most scientists don't believe in evolution!"
99.9% of scientists do.
About 1200 scientists world-wide have signed a petition exclaiming doubt in Evolution. This seems significant, until you realise how many scientists there are in the world. One estimate puts the number at 7 million, which puts the percentage who doubt evolution at 0.017%.
There are more scientists called Steve who affirm evolution than who signed the petition.
There are many more problems with this petition, including seemingly deliberate deception and lack of credentials, sincerity, or understanding of signatories. For more information, visit this page.
It's true that there are scientists who don't believe in evolution. This does not in any way affect the truth of the idea, but it does help to discredit those scientists.
Also, interestingly, there's a distinct correlation between level of education and acceptance of evolution.
If anyone can show evidence which discredits evolution, they will win a Nobel Prize.
Theists can do science. Theism can't.
"All you have are diagrams and drawings! That's not evidence!"
No-one is proposing that that's evidence.
It does, however, help people who don't comprehend evolution to grasp the concept.
The diagrams make the claim clearer, and no-one is proposing that they are evidence themselves. They can also be used to clarify the evidence.
If you make this argument, then you are attacking the claim before the evidence for that claim has been presented by saying that the claim isn't the evidence. That would be among the highest intellectual dishonesty.
If you do that, then you're probably exactly the kind of person for whom those simple diagrams could be useful.
"Scientists just assign preferable ages to fossils to fit their timeline!"
No, they use science.
Fossils are almost always found in rock, and the ages of these rock layers can be confirmed by many different methods, including radiometric dating. The ages of fossils in those rock layers are, by this method, certain to within a small range in geological time.
This article provides more detail on how fossils are dated.
There will be more detail on the fossil record in the evidence section of the article, near the end.
"Why hasn't some animal just evolved to be 100 foot tall?"
Do you have any idea how much food would be required to sustain such an enormous life-form?
As I said earlier, there are no special limits on evolutionary change, but there are natural limits.
There's always a balance to be struck in each life-form, since there's only a limited amount of time and energy available for the initial development, and for sustaining the life-form once it is born. For example, if humans had a third arm and hand, it might come in handy sometimes, but we would almost certainly lose something else in exchange, and we would need to take in more energy to sustain ourselves in that form.
Suffice to say: certain mutations which seem beneficial on the surface have a cost that outweighs their potential benefit. Those mutations are naturally selected against, and so do not propagate in a species.
Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution
Many who deny evolution believe that "micro-evolution" can happen, but that "macro-evolution" cannot.
Micro-evolution is evolutionary change which doesn't result in a change of species.
Macro-evolution is evolutionary change at the species level, and higher taxonomic categories (like genus or family).
If you admit that the first is possible, then you have admitted that the second is possible. There is no boundary to physical change by evolution.
The only practical difference between the two is time. Micro-evolution over a long enough period of time is Macro-evolution.
The classifications that life-forms have are defined, not discovered. All taxonomy is theoretical, for the purpose of better understanding biology. To suggest that these categories represent necessary biological boundaries would be ridiculous.
Macro-evolutionary change may also be referred to as speciation, which just means a change of species.
"Macro-evolution has never been directly observed!"
Yes it has. Speciation has been observed many times, those I just linked are only a few examples (all cited).
However, for all those evolutionary changes which have not been directly observed:
You haven't observed the entire life-time of a 150-year old tree, yet you still believe trees grow, right?
With macro-evolution, the problem with the argument is even more pronounced. We're talking about many millions of tiny changes over many millions of years – how could the entire process ever be directly observed?
What we have is this thing called evidence. I'll get on to the evidence for evolution later in the article, but here's a basic example to help you understand the problem:
You hear a gunshot. You walk towards it, around a corner, and find two people before you. One is lying on the ground, bleeding from his chest. The other is standing over them, holding a smoking gun. The gun seems to be pointed in the direction that the wounded person was probably standing before they fell. There is blood on the clothes of the standing person which looks like it could have come from the person lying on the ground.
Do you think there's a good chance there was a shooting in this situation? You do? But you didn't see the shooting, how could you know?
What if you have genetic evidence, ballistic evidence, a very detailed motive, and all the evidence suggests there was a shooting?
What if that evidence had been gathering for 150 years, and some people still didn't believe that a shooting occurred?
'Kinds' (or 'baramins')
I have never heard anyone define 'kinds' in a way which wasn't instantly self-defeating.
It's a non-defined non-scientific term, tactically employed to produce empty refutations and allow for endless Goalpost Moving.
There is a very detailed and comprehensive taxonomic system in biology for classifying life-forms. Using only one term ('kinds') does not provide sufficient specification for anything.
If your use of 'kinds' is based on the Bible (I have heard of no other source posited), then you might be interested to know that the Bible classifies bats as birds, while also classifying them as 'swarming things'. Bats are mammals, and are remarkably similar to other mammals, with the obvious exception of their wings (more details later in the article). The Bible is not a trustworthy source on zoology, which shouldn't be surprising considering it was concocted between two- and about five-thousand years ago.
There is a 'field' called 'baraminology', which attempts to construct a biblically-literal taxonomy. It is used by no scientists, and utterly fails in many key areas that Linnean Taxonomy succeeds in.
Irreducible Complexity
Some claim that various aspects of life are too complex to have evolved gradually. A common example is the human eye, which is intricately specialised to its purpose.
However, as this diagram shows, the eye exists in nature in various different stages, all of which function despite being less well-adapted than the final example:
Evolution of the eye
Octopus eyes are relevant in this case because they are so similar to human eyes:
Comparison of the Octopus and Human eyes to demonstrate their similarity.
What's really remarkable about the similarity here is that humans and octopuses are quite distantly related:
Octopuses are Cephalopods, and Humans are Mammals.
What this distance demonstrates is that not only is it perfectly possible for the eye to evolve naturally, but that it's such a natural progression that it has happened at least twice independently.
Obviously, diagrams are not evidence, these are just intended to help portray the concept. I will get onto evidence later in the article.
The Irreducible Complexity argument is an Appeal to Incredulity. Whether you can believe that complex systems evolved or not has no impact on whether they did.
"How could a creature survive with only half a heart?"
That's not how evolution works.
This is one of the most cringe-worthy challenges to evolution that exists. It relies entirely on lack of comprehension of evolution by twisting the concept to a degree that it's almost unrecognisable to the informed individual.
Organs like the heart did not evolve in pieces, they evolved in complexity.
Earthworms have very basic hearts, not even really hearts at all. A life-form doesn't need a fully-formed heart in order to survive.
Everything that comprises a life-form evolves in complexity at the same time. All life-forms are fully formed, later generations are just more complex.
Random Chance
There is a random chance element to evolution: mutation during reproduction. Every generation, the child is slightly different from the parent(s), due to tiny errors in copying the genetic code of the parent.
However, natural selection is distinctly non-random. That doesn't mean it's intelligently guided though.
"But look at this complex calculation that shows that evolution is almost impossible!"
Probability is irrelevant because evolution is not random. It's not a matter of just picking one possibility out of an extremely high number of possibilities, the result is determined by other factors, and ultimately it all proceeds according to the fixed laws of physics, which reduces the odds perhaps even to 1 in 1.
Probability is a very misleading tool when used incorrectly.
Let's take for example, the odds of rolling a 6-sided die and coming up with 5. One could say it's 1 in 6, but that would be using a certain scope. That assessment assumes that the roll is happening in theory such that the die is perfectly fair and balanced between the six sides. In reality, the die is likely to have microscopic imbalances in every direction. If the scope is the level of fundamental physics, one could assert that the chance is 1 in any number: what were the chances that each atom would do exactly what it did? And yet, we could also assert that the chance is 1 in 1, if the universe is deterministic, and the die actually does come up as 5.
All that is just for the simple problem of a dice-roll. Assessments of probability for the extremely-more complex situation of evolution are near impossible to make objectively, and of course it always depends on your scope and range of factors.
Any probability could be proposed for evolution (or anything else), depending on the method of assessment.
What's more, matter and energy do not act completely at random, they have tendencies. It may be that these tendencies allow for only one possibility, but in any case, they significantly restrict the range of possibilities. By this fact, the probability could be reduced by several orders of magnitude depending on the assessment, perhaps even to 1 in 1.
Also, by the logic of these assessments, every possible outcome would be just as unlikely as every other; and since one of them had to happen, we're just looking at the one which did.
Causal uncertainty is a mine-field when dealing with the past. Luckily, it's completely irrelevant here because evolution has been proven. If there was no evidence, a probabilistic argument against the hypothesis would still not disprove it, but would make it seem less likely. We're decades beyond that point now.
This page explains this problem quite well.
Abiogenesis would be a natural process which produces life from non-living matter.
Abiogenesis is not evolution, and the two ideas can be true separately whether the other is true or not.
Evolution does not attempt to explain anything about the origin of life, it just explains the subsequent diversification of life.
Nothing about abiogenesis is proven, but there are some workable and partially-substantiated hypotheses. The most popular idea is that chemicals can combine naturally into the basic components of life. All a chemical mixture would need to do in order to effectively be life would be to self-replicate; as soon as that's happening, evolution is happening too.
There will probably never be evidence of the original life-form, because any remains of it have likely been destroyed. This doesn't mean we can't learn about abiogenesis, or at least what likely happened; we may even replicate the original event one day.
The Miller-Urey experiment conducted in 1952 proved that a mixture of basic chemicals could, with the application of energy, produce amino acids, which are essential to life as we know it. While it was later found that the conditions present during the early Earth were different from those used in the experiment, it still proved that amino acids could form from simple chemicals with an application of energy.
"You can't explain life's diversity unless you know how it started!"
If you apply that logic to any other situation, it falls apart. An effect can be observed and even deeply understood without the cause being known.
Here's some examples to demonstrate:
You don't have to know how the first house in a city was built to know there's a city, and its layout.
You don't need to know how to build a microprocessor to know the one you're currently using exists, and what it does.
You don't need to know the squishy details of your parents intimacy to know that you exist, and that you're able to read this.
This logic applies to everything, including life.
Spontaneous Generation
Spontaneous generation is an obsolete body of thought on the formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms, for example, flies being formed from rotting meat. It was mostly dispelled by Louis Pasteur in 1862.
Spontaneous Generation is not the same as abiogenesis. It's true that they are similar, and even have common historic origins, but they work to explain phenomena in entirely different contexts. Conflating the two is a Strawman Fallacy.
"You think life came from a rock!"
No-one claims that. It's a Straw-man against abiogenesis.
Rocks aren't the only material that isn't alive.
However abiogenesis happened (if it did), the chemicals that comprised the first life were the same that we find comprising life today: hydrocarbons, water, etc.
I refer you again to the Miller-Urey experiment for an example of matter that's complex and necessary for life as we know it, generated from non-living matter by processes which could have occurred naturally.
"If abiogenesis were possible, we'd see it happening all the time!"
The conditions which exist now are nothing like the conditions present in the early days of the planet.
For one thing, other life exists, and would almost certainly eat any newly-developing life without even noticing it.
It's also possible that life began more than once, but there's no strong evidence for that thus-far.
If abiogenesis happened off Earth, then there's no reason to believe we'd see life generating here now.
Still, maybe there is a small pocket of life, somehow cut off from most other life, with a completely different ancestry to our own, thriving somewhere hidden, that we might one day uncover.
Falsifiability
Some claim that evolution is not falsifiable, which is a central requirement of a workable hypothesis: It must be able to be proven wrong, otherwise how could you recognise when it's proven right?
Find a Rabbit in the Precambrian and you'll disprove evolution.
In fact, there are many things which would disprove evolution; if a member of one species gave birth to a member of a different species, that would disprove (or at least strongly challenge) evolution.
If evolution wasn't true, and there were some seriously out-of-order fossils in the ground, they would almost certainly have been found by now. It's still possible, but it would be irrational to disbelieve evolution based on evidence you hope exists.
The bold challenge proposed by Dawkins
"But didn't someone find a rabbit from the Cambrian Period?"
Amusing though it was, no. That was a hoax, and it was not intended to genuinely deceive, but to poke fun. The names of the discoverer and institute from which he was based were jocular.
Rabbit in the Cambrian! Next to a trilobyte! Suck it, Dawkins!
The image is simply a digital fabrication.
The ever elusive trilorabbit!
The Dreaded "Crocoduck"!
The BANE of evolution!
Kirk Cameron, a laughable creationist (a tautology?), and Ray Comfort, an even more laughable creationist, posit (among other things) the crocoduck as a challenge to evolution. The crocoduck is, they claim, what we would see if evolution was true.
The only thing this demonstrates to the rational mind is the abject absence of sanity, education, honesty, or a combination of the three in either of these creationists.
If a crocoduck existed, it would probably disprove evolution. Evolution does not propose individual hybridisation between distantly-related species.
The argument is against a dire misrepresentation of evolution and has no validity whatsoever.
Ray Comfort gets intimate with a banana
A passionate re-enactment
Ray elegantly hoists his own petard with his hilarious banana argument. He posits the banana's seemingly-designed compatibility with humans as evidence of a designer.
The one thing he forgot to do was any research. The banana has evolved in recent history, due to artificial selection (the same as natural selection, but with an intelligence doing the selection, in this case humans).
Wild bananas are significantly less appealing to humans than the common form:
mmmm… crunchy banana!
Wild bananas are just horrible as food, but they don't come close to how bad the banana argument is.
"Ever seen a canine turn into a non-canine?"
That would disprove evolution.
That kind of massive change in a single generation is nowhere near what evolution suggests. However, given enough time and material, the distant descendants of a canine could become so different that they would no longer be classifiable as canines.
Even that response is giving the argument the benefit of the doubt, as what it's literally suggesting is that a dog would morph into a non-dog while still alive. This perfectly demonstrates the level of comprehension of evolution that its detractors tend to have.
Thanks go to uhh… Preachin' to the Choir Ministries for this gem of a question.
The illustrious source of the question
"Evolution doesn't disprove god!"
It's not trying to.
It does disprove large parts of Genesis in the Bible, though. 'Adam and Eve' and 'Noah's Ark' never happened; they are both incongruent with the available evidence. (not just evolutionary evidence, either.)
Many religious people believe in evolution. It's perfectly possible to integrate it into a theology… I think it's pointless, but I'm not a theist.
"Evolution encourages killing the weak!"
Evolution is not a moral system, it's an explanation.
Does Gravitational Theory encourage dropping people off buildings? Does Germ Theory encourage biological warfare?
If knowledge can make an evil person worse, that's a problem with the person. Is the alternative to eliminate knowledge? (If you say your alternative is religion, then, yes, your alternative is to eliminate knowledge.)
"…something something Darwin!"
Genius though he may have been, Charles Darwin has nothing to do with evolution as it is now.
He could have been completely wrong about everything, and it would make no difference to the facts, since they are based on evidence.
In science, no person is an authority, there are just experts on the authority of nature. This is a difficult concept for religious people to grasp, considering that in religion (unlike in science), truth is defined by an authority figure. That's why science works and religion doesn't.
A depiction of the horrifying TRUE story!
"Darwin recanted his theory and spoke of Jesus on his death-bed!"
You are parroting a lie known to be false for almost 100 years.
The 'Lady Hope Story' was a baseless lie told by Elizabeth Cotton in 1915. It was a story inconsistent with the facts, and is practically implausible.
Many members of Darwin's family wrote in opposition to her story. Some stated that Ms. Cotton had never been present near the end of Darwin's life, and there's no evidence that she was.
Even creationist website Answers in Genesis agrees that it was a fabrication. A good indication of the falsehood of something is when even those who would benefit from it being true admit it is false. (The same applies for truth).
Not only did no such event occur, but Darwin actually renounced his religiosity later in life. He called himself an Agnostic, but by today's standards, he probably would have been an Atheist.
To continue to propagate the lie is to misrepresent a dead genius in order to push an anti-knowledge myth that he never espoused.
"…something something Hitler!"
Hitler, the "deeply religious" Führer of the Christian Third Reich, did what he did due to bigotry, politics, and religion.
Though he had a great respect for science, that in no way incriminates science for his actions. Even if he had claimed to be doing what he did because of evolution, that would only prove his irrational use of the knowledge. Again, is the solution to just abandon all pursuits of truth which could be misused by evil people? Anything could be.
Again, evolution is not a moral system, it's an explanation.
"I didn't start it, you invaded Poland!"
Senescence, or "why didn't something evolve to live forever?"
Good question, actually.
No-one knows for sure, but there are good hypotheses.
Ageing is an interesting subject, and in fact, we might well eradicate ageing using medical science, possibly within the next 50 years.
Of course, this area of temporary uncertainty does nothing to affect the truth of evolution, it simply punctuates the fact that we don't yet know everything about it. That's the nature of science.
Any I've missed?
I have included the most important and common myths, misconceptions and denials about evolution, but there are others. If you have any issues with it that I haven't addressed, they might be addressed here or here or here.
But why should you believe me?
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and has been for decades. It's been gathering for 150 years, and cannot be explained by any other hypothesis. It is so far beyond doubt, that one must ignore the vast majority of the evidence in order to doubt the theory.
The Age of the Earth
Since Evolution requires a great deal of time to have occurred to the extent it has, it's worth mentioning the evidence for an old Earth.
There are dozens of methods of establishing the age of the Earth which all agree with one another. These methods are of varying precision, but they all establish a range consistent with an old Earth. There is no scientific dating method which puts the maximum age of the Earth anywhere near 6000 years.
Since this article is about evolution, I won't go into great detail on this evidence, but this page gives a comprehensive explanation of many dating methods. I recommend you read over it if you have doubts.
For any misconceptions or 'counter-arguments', I recommend this page.
The evidence for evolution comes from a number of different fields, which all independently corroborate one another — like if a hundred witnesses of a crime, all the genetic and physical evidence, and a psych analysis all described or suggested the exact same series of events.
Importantly: The individual lines of evidence do not prove evolution on their own, it is the combination of all the lines which does so. That said, some of the lines are very compelling evidence on their own.
These are the most important lines of evidence, I will go into detail on them momentarily:
Comparative Anatomy
Comparative Embryology
Fossil Record
Observed Evolution
Predictive Power of Evolution
All of these items are linked to pages which give either an introduction to or a full explanation of each. Though I will explain them here, I will be brief, so I recommend you investigate any you don't immediately understand.
I will stress: There are other lines of evidence. These are just the most important, in my opinion.
This video explains several of these lines of evidence:
Many animals have very similar physical features, and for those which are extinct, fossil bones can be analysed and bodily forms reliably extrapolated from them.
The bone structure of the arms of many mammals.
The distinct similarities shown here clearly suggest some kind of connection between the physical forms of these animals. A common ancestor is the best explanation of this by far.
"The only similarity is the names of the bones! It's arbitrary and biased!"
Incorrect. The function of the bones is often identical, the physical structure, though warped in some cases, is very similar. There is also a clear progression between these species, which is observed in fossils.
The Duck-billed Platypus
The platypus is a very strange animal. It exhibits traits similar to those of animals of many disparate groups.
This video runs through all the perceived problems the platypus presents to evolution and debunks them.
Put simply, the platypus has many qualities common to lizards and mammals, this is because it's part of an early branch of mammals (called monotremes), and mammals originated from lizards. Any similarities in appearance (for example, the duck-like 'beak' and otter-like tail) are coincidental and natural.
Similarly to Comparative Anatomy, Comparative Embryology is the study of similarities in embryos during development.
The distinct similarities between the embryos of many different species
The similarities clearly indicate a connection between these animals, and common descent is, again, the best explanation by far.
The fossil record is the collection of all fossils that have been discovered, as well as the information derived from them.
The Earth's crust contains fossils of life-forms. Fossilisation is a very rare process, but there have been so many life-forms over the ages that there are plenty of fossils to provide an accurate picture of that history.
The age of layers of rock can be established by a number of different methods, but once the rock ages have been established, the only reasonable explanation for the position of the fossils is that they are the same age as the rocks. Any other situation would have left other evidence.
A rendition of the fossil record.
There is a clear progression of life-forms in the fossil record which is consistent with all the other evidence we have found. There isn't a single out-of-place fossil, and the depth of a particular fossil can be reliably predicted by its supposed age.
Poly-Strate Trees
Tree fossils which intersect several rock layers are often cited as serious challenges to the rock layers being indicative of the age of fossils. Such tree fossils are quite easily explained, however.
To put the explanation simply, some rock layers were not always solid rock, and trees either sunk down into them, or the layers were deposited as sediment above the bottom of the tree.
This 'problem' has been solved since the 1800s.
Here's a full explanation.
It would be very difficult to explain the genetic evidence succinctly, as it's very complicated and there's an awful lot of it. I don't pretend to be an expert, but I'll explain what I think is the most compelling form of genetic evidence here.
The DNA of each life-form is inherited (with some variation) from its parents. Because of this, it's possible to identify exactly the line of descent of each species by looking at unique patterns of DNA in each.
By finding common genes (left), we can easily infer the relationships between species (right).
This evidence is, in my opinion, strong enough on its own to prove evolution true.
If you'd like more information, you could try this video, which is an introduction for the layperson, but is still quite technical.
This is quite a simple one to understand. As I mentioned earlier, Macro-evolution has been observed (links 1 & 2), but even creationists will agree that micro-evolution has been observed; it's actually very common.
Here's several examples of both macro and micro-evolution observation:
Evolving based on colour
Evolving based on size
A few more examples, including some well-known ones
Some of the best examples, compiled for Darwin's 200th Birthday
Yet more examples, oh my!
So many examples!
The test of a good scientific hypothesis is that it can make accurate and precise predictions. Evolution has been known to do this on several occasions.
Obviously these predictions pertain to the past (as they deal with fossils and ancient evolutionary change), but it is the discovery that was predicted, which was in the future relative to the prediction.
Here's some examples and more information on evolution's predictive power:
Numerous examples
Five strong examples
Article with some examples
Pervasiveness / Dependency
Related to the predictive power is the pervasiveness of evolution in modern science; that is to say, evolution is essential to many fields. If evolution was not true, the work being done in various fields would not be possible, as it would be based on falsehoods. The fact that evolution has brought actual progress to many fields is evidence for its accuracy.
Here's a list of fields which rely at least partially (but in some cases entirely), on evolution being true:
Zoology (and various subsets, eg. Ornithology, Herpetology etc.)
Field Biology
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
—Theodosius Dobzhansky, 1973
Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science – in all of biology.
"This evidence just proves Creationism!" or "Not a Common Descent, but a Common Designer!"
Prove a god exists, first.
Until then, your hypothesis makes an infinite assumption and evolution doesn't. Occam's razor clearly favours evolution.
Also, some of this evidence cannot be completely dismissed by postulating a god, and most of it indicates a very nonsensical design process.
Take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty and wisdom will come to you that way.
—Christopher Hitchens (full quote)
"All right, this is convincing, but I believe God was involved in the process!"
The process works just fine without any intervention. Proposing the involvement of a god is utterly redundant, and quite telling of an attitude of partial resistance to reality in favour of preferred fantasy.
It's perfectly possible to be a good theist and accept reality. Gods will never be categorically disproven (as they are deliberately non-falsifiable), so you can accept everything in science (without supposing intervention by a god) and still believe in a god. Almost no-one follows their entire holy book, you don't have to assume that every claim in the book is true, and you'll be much better off using religion as an emotional framework than an undeniable source of truth.
If you're a theist who has respect for science and for genuine truth, I encourage you to do just that.
I suspect the reason is that most people … have a residue of feeling that Darwinian evolution isn't quite big enough to explain everything about life. All I can say as a biologist is that the feeling disappears progressively the more you read about and study what is known about life and evolution.
If we want to postulate a deity capable of engineering all the organized complexity in the world, either instantaneously or by guiding evolution, that deity must have been vastly complex in the first place … If we are going to allow ourselves the luxury of postulating organized complexity without offering an explanation, we might as well make a job of it and simply postulate the existence of life as we know it!
"I just don't like the idea of being related to a monkey!"
There are far worse humans than any other apes, and not even creationists dispute that all humans are related.
In fact, creationists claim that all humans exist as a result of repeated incest… at least twice.
Not to mention the belief that we're just the enchanted dolls of a manifestly cruel overlord. Such a view cheapens humanity immensely, in my opinion.
Kinship with all life is a wondrous thing, bringing a sense of unity and familiarity, allowing us more empathy towards our fellow creatures. A naturalistic perspective of the universe also brings a sense of comprehension and simplicity which is impossible with an infinite and mysterious god running the show.
Evolution is not a problem for emotional fulfilment, it's just different from a traditional theistic perspective. If you value truth, you should be strong enough to adjust to it. Many have, and have been immensely satisfied.
And, most importantly, the truth does not depend on our preferences. If something is true, the only honest thing to do is accept it and live with it. If you find yourself in that position, I dare you to learn more about evolution, and science in general; you might grow to love your new perspective.
All the great religions have a place for awe, for ecstatic transport at the wonder and beauty of creation. And it's exactly this feeling of spine-shivering, breath-catching awe — almost worship — this flooding of the chest with ecstatic wonder, that modern science can provide. And it does so beyond the wildest dreams of saints and mystics. The fact that the supernatural has no place in our explanations, in our understanding of so much about the universe and life, doesn't diminish the awe. Quite the contrary. The merest glance through a microscope at the brain of an ant or through a telescope at a long-ago galaxy of a billion worlds is enough to render poky and parochial the very psalms of praise.
I'll be blunt: What I have presented here is enough to convince a rational person that evolution by natural selection is true.
And there's still so much more to the theory, and so much more yet to be discovered.
Evolution: as Beautiful as any Art, Elegant as any Dance, Simple as any Creationist.
So, will you follow the charlatan creationists who rely solely on deception to convince the gullible that reality didn't happen, but that magic is the only possible explanation?
Or will you join humanity, striving together to push away the veil of ignorance and myopia, surging forth into the expanse of knowledge yet to be known?
There is grandeur in this view of life… from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
Tags:atheism, biology, concept, creation, creationist, darwin, dawkins, denial, disregard hovind, evidence, evolution, evolutionism, evolutionist, explained, lies, misconceptions, myths, science
"One Hundred Questions to Ask an Atheist" – My Responses (Part 2)
Fake_Andrew's Nazi Argument Destroyed
The Ongoing Battle Between Islam and Atheism (Debate)
uzalu
White-and-crimson wizard, amateur internet-anthropologist, "Pointless on Manifold Fronts", Making Centrism Great Again. Purveyor of the finest political screeds. ("oo • zuh • lue").
"My work here is done."
Twitter: @uzalu_
Discord: Cabal
Patreon: uzalu
Minds: uzalu
Shitposting YouTube
Twitch: uzalu
Subreddit: r/uzalu
Ask.fm: uzalogic
Contact (Email)
1 What is this 'Evolution' thing?
1.1 Acceptance without Evidence
1.2 Theory and Reality
2 Myths, Misconceptions, and Denial
2.1 "It's just a theory!"
2.2 "If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?"
2.2.1 "Monkeys" instead of "apes"
2.3 "Missing Links! Transitional Forms! Where are they?!"
2.3.1 "Where are all the species which came between our ancient ancestors and modern humans, then?"
2.4 "Evolution is a religion!"
2.4.1 'Evolutionist' / 'Evolutionism'
2.4.2 "Time is your god!"
2.5 "Evolution defies the Second Law of Thermodynamics!"
2.6 "Evolution doesn't add new information!"
2.7 "If everything is evolving, why isn't everything human yet?"
2.8 "Most scientists don't believe in evolution!"
2.9 "All you have are diagrams and drawings! That's not evidence!"
2.10 "Scientists just assign preferable ages to fossils to fit their timeline!"
2.11 "Why hasn't some animal just evolved to be 100 foot tall?"
2.12 Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution
2.12.1 "Macro-evolution has never been directly observed!"
2.12.2 'Kinds' (or 'baramins')
2.13 Irreducible Complexity
2.13.1 "How could a creature survive with only half a heart?"
2.14 Random Chance
2.14.1 "But look at this complex calculation that shows that evolution is almost impossible!"
2.15 Abiogenesis
2.15.1 "You can't explain life's diversity unless you know how it started!"
2.15.2 Spontaneous Generation
2.15.3 "You think life came from a rock!"
2.15.4 "If abiogenesis were possible, we'd see it happening all the time!"
2.16 Falsifiability
2.16.1 "But didn't someone find a rabbit from the Cambrian Period?"
2.17 The Dreaded "Crocoduck"!
2.17.1 Ray Comfort gets intimate with a banana
2.17.2 "Ever seen a canine turn into a non-canine?"
2.18 "Evolution doesn't disprove god!"
2.19 "Evolution encourages killing the weak!"
2.20 "…something something Darwin!"
2.20.1 "Darwin recanted his theory and spoke of Jesus on his death-bed!"
2.21 "…something something Hitler!"
2.22 Miscellaneous
2.22.1 Senescence, or "why didn't something evolve to live forever?"
2.23 Any I've missed?
3 But why should you believe me?
3.1 The Age of the Earth
3.2 The Evidence for Evolution
3.2.1 Comparative Anatomy
3.2.1.1 "The only similarity is the names of the bones! It's arbitrary and biased!"
3.2.1.2 The Duck-billed Platypus
3.2.2 Comparative Embryology
3.2.3 Fossil Record
3.2.3.1 Poly-Strate Trees
3.2.4 Comparative Genomics
3.2.5 Observed Evolution
3.2.6 Predictive Power of Evolution
3.2.6.1 Pervasiveness / Dependency
3.3 "This evidence just proves Creationism!" or "Not a Common Descent, but a Common Designer!"
3.4 "All right, this is convincing, but I believe God was involved in the process!"
3.5 "I just don't like the idea of being related to a monkey!"
Subscribe to uzalu.net posts!
You'll receive an email when there's a new post on the site
Final UK PM Debate | Trump Confirmed Racist! | ScarJo is Red & Based-Pilled ♦ Wizard & Chill
Video by uzalu from 4 hours ago
BBC Publishes Marxist Propaganda
Video by uzalu from 8/07/2019
Tech Demo: Voice-Activated Scene Switch in OBS
Video by Wizard's Chamberpot - uzalu from 24/06/2019
Austrian Populists Collude with Russia? ♦ #IbizaGate #Populism #Russia
UK MEP Election Results 2019
Video by uzalu from 27/05/2019
MILKSHAKE ARMAGEDDON ♦ Ft. Sargon of Akkad
Help Rape Victims, Jess Phillips! You're our Only Hope! ♦ #MensRights #JessPhillips
Entropy: Streaming Paradigm Shift or Cheap Gimmick? ♦ Software Review #Entropy #ChthonicSoftware
ISIS Bride Would be Hanged in Bangladesh ♦ #ShamimaBegum #ISIS
Sargon Smear Spectacular
Dirty Dirty Access Inclusion Seekers
Criticisms for Sargon and UKIP ♦ #UKIP #CarlBenjamin #MEP
Newest Alt-Right Hate Symbols April 2019 ♦ ADLC Special Report
racist-symbols.mp4
Ex-British ISIS Bride was actually ISIS Enforcer ♦ #ShamimaBegum #ISIS
Muh Twitter
@uzalu_ Tweet sent 1 day ago (15th July 2019)
I guess due process is sexist or something ... wait that's exactly what they believe... https://twitter.com/arneduncan/status/1148573998894190592 …
"what the world really needs is more political violence" https://twitter.com/kirasdax/status/1150574521050685440 …
"the people trying to look deeper into an issue are bad because they disagree with each other - what we should be doing is expressing the extremely controversial point that child rape is bad, because no one but me knows that!" https://twitter.com/MsMelChen/status/1150628497838055424 …
what an unexpected thing for the person who wanted it all to themselves but was rejected to say. https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/1150546155073396748 …
@uzalu_ Tweet sent 2 days ago (14th July 2019)
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/the-jihadi-training-camp-right-in-the-heart-of-london-a3249941.html …pic.twitter.com/h1rvL88hTd
prison population stats broken down by religion from 2015 for Belmarsh Prison, where it is suspected that Tommy Robinson has been incarcerated. Muslims are the largest single group by a good margin.pic.twitter.com/JgitFutzrN
I might need to just go and bingewatch the old Pierce Brosnan bond films so that at least there is some amount of genuine James Bond in my life. I'm sure they'll announce Hulk Hogan to play Rosa Parks in their next groundbreaking flop.pic.twitter.com/yPSq7iSCOF
@chiccabear26 Tweet sent 3 days ago (13th July 2019)
In the first picture millions of Jews were boarded into cattle cars by force and put into concentration camps with the end being extermination on the bottom you have ppl who chose to cross our boarder illegally and can go home at any time
any woman can ruin any man's life with one false accusation, given a context like what he describes. he's talking about rape, but a similar effect can be achieved with the "misogynist" false accusation, as you're using. let's see if your predatory manipulative tactic pays off. https://twitter.com/SenGillibrand/status/1149335794592542720 …
I'll be doing another Wizard and Chill stream in the next hour or so, for which I need news stories. If there's anything you want me to talk about, now is the time to link it.
GAMER DILDOS now at IKEA™ https://twitter.com/dezeen/status/1149423125769199620 …
most of them probably thought it was hot, do you have any idea how popular lesbian porn is? https://twitter.com/Queerty/status/1148764105043398656 …
somewhere in the world, some gutter-tier scam artist just told his bro that he swallows cum. teehee
well, I gave them the info now we waitpic.twitter.com/WkkcZPSnit
My Appearances on other channels
Will the God Emperor Win, and Other Topics
Video by The Thinkery from 2/07/2019
In The Claws of the Eagle VtM RPG! Episode 1
Video by Arch Warhammer from 27/06/2019
In The Claws of the Eagle VtM RPG! With Sargon, Vee, Rags, Devo and Uzalu!
The Internet IRL with Uzalu
Video by Sargon of Akkad from 26/05/2019
TFMWS Recruitment Episode 2 "The Vancian Casting Couch"
Video by Nuckelavee from 7/05/2019
Open Drunk Stream 04/05/19
Cabal: Public Discord Server
Back toTOP
Copyright © 2019 uzalu.net.
Contact uzalu


text:
Heritage-Designated-Properties
Bradford West Gwillimbury > Heritage - Designated Properties in BWG
Heritage Designated Properties in BWG
The following properties in the Town of BWG that have received heritage designation, or are going through the process of designation with the approval of Council:
Brazel (Brazil/Brazill) House (c. 1845) - 4370 Line 7 - Designated By-law 1983-65, November 14, 1983
This home was built about 1845 by Irish settler Patrick Brazel (Brazil, Brazill). The design and floor plan are similar to other inns. The five-over-five bay front solid brick house retains the fine architectural detail from the mid-19th Century with Upper Canadian craftsmanship. Some of the specific interior features and detailing are: doors and window sashes, door and window architecture and staircase. Over the years, it served as a farmhouse, doctors' offices, inn, nursing home and is now a residence.
Cerswell House (c. 1840) - 4508 Line 7 - Designated By-law 1986-47, August 20, 1986
The Cerswell House was built in the early 1840s by John Cerswell, a sawmill owner who used his skills to create superior quality woodwork throughout the home. The all brick building was originally a farmhouse and is considered to be one of the best examples of 19th Century Georgian architecture in the area. Other special interior features are the original ballroom mantle and fireboard, parlour fireplace mantel, window sashes with glass and hardware, and post and peg staircase. Another brick building, known as the West Wing, predates the main building. It had its own fireplace and it was considered to be a meeting place for the settlers.
Old Bradford High School (1923) - 28 Queen Street - Designated By-law 2013-54, May 7, 2013
The Old Bradford High School's heritage value lies in its strong association with the local community and school board. Many of the area's leading business people, politicians and professionals were graduates of the school. The school is an excellent example of the Classical Revival Style; it is unique within the town and region for the period, scale and execution. The untouched broad front lawn has retained the Old Bradford High School as a landmark. The largely unaltered Greek classical revival building is unique within Simcoe County, and features attributes such as a grand staircase with iron railing, colonnade of Doric column pilasters and tall "Venetian" windows in panelled bays between column pilasters.
Bradford Town Hall (c. 1862) - 61 Holland Street E - Designated By-law 2014-74, August 18, 2014
The Bradford Town Hall has served a multitude of public roles including municipal administration offices, public school and community hall. The Town Hall was one of the few buildings in downtown Bradford that survived the fire of 1871, and for over 150 years has served generations of political decision-makers that have shaped the town's history. The two-storey building features the "classical revival" architectural style, with a symmetrical facade and simplified temple form.
Elliot-Watters Log House (1834) - 3762 Line 12 - Designated By-law 2007-150, December 11, 2007
Built by Francis Elliott on land purchased from the Canada Company in 1834, this is one of the very few and best preserved log houses in Simcoe County. Typical of this once common form, it is a simple 28 x 20 foot box in dimension, with end gables, fireplace, front door and usual openings. The building is in excellent condition, with original door and window openings and the original field stone foundation. It also features exposed 2nd floor joists showing beaded floorboards, first floor framing, including round log joists lapped into log sills, the original second floor plan with four bedrooms, the original beaded and battened back door with cast butt hinges.
Parker-Burbidge House (c. 1830) - 3172 Line 8 - Designated By-law 2010-067, August 10, 2010
This is a Georgian style home of mud block construction with a later brick veneer. The home was originally a storey and a half structure that was later converted into a two storey mansard style home. The dwelling's cultural heritage value lies with its association with its first inhabitant – Thomas Parker. Mr. Parker was an Irish Palatine and a captain in the militia during the Upper Canada Rebellion. He is the original holder of the deed from the Crown dated 1840 and occupied the land as early as 1827. Thomas Parker was one of the original Reeves of West Gwillimbury Township alternating the position with William Armson for two terms.
 Auld Kirk (1869) - 3380 Line 6 - In the process of designation
Collings House (1878) - 108 Moore St. - In the process of designation
History Main
Heritage Committee
Heritage Planning
Local History at the Library
Documents
Municipal Heritage Register:
- Designated Properties
- Listed Properties
Clerk's Division

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


I would never have noticed the mistake! Great review!
So glad this one turned out good. I don't think the anachronisms will bother me, as if a book is engaging, I usually don't notice things like that!
I"m glad to hear you enjoyed this one. I've read some mixed reviews about it but I'll probably give it a try at some point.
Yippee! You got your Tudor mojo back!
Glad you got your Tudor back on!
I'm glad you have your taste for Tudor back!


Today, the clarity and common sense that Cutter brought to cataloguing and classification is menaced by technological determinism, idiosyncratic vocabularies, ill-conceived philosophies, and poorly-applied, questionable methodologies.
I'm interested in both the theory and practice of cataloguing and classification, broadly understood, and in returning cataloguing to the principles advocated by Cutter and his contemporaries. However, my research has mostly focused on the socio-cultural prejudices embedded in cataloguing standards and classification schemes, the history of bibliographic description, and current trends in film cataloguing.
My blog, Cutter's Last Stand.


text:
Get a head start on your Holiday Shopping
Now reading: The Origin of Coregami
The Origin of Coregami
Artists serving Artists : the Coregami origin story
Hey it's me, Kevin at Coregami.
Coregami started in June 2015. We began with the simple idea - that formal wear should be functional. We couldn't have imagined that in a few short years, we'd be in every major orchestra in the country and used by more artists than any other brand.
This is the toughest thing I've ever done. Yet this is the happiest chapter of my life. If you have a minute, I'd like to share the unlikely story of how I got into this mess.
No one likes a quitter. But in 2013, I did just that.
After years fighting rush hour traffic, I left a good job to see the world. I ate my way through Germany, UK, Turkey, Bulgaria and slept on sofas. The doner kebabs in Istanbul are as good for breakfast as they are for dinner. I didn't miss a single curry wurst cart in Berlin. While having late night instant ramen, my buddy told me about The El Camino de Santiago. Few weeks later, I found myself walking 600 miles across Spain collecting blisters and stories.
Seeing the world, connecting with people, and stuffing my face was exactly what I needed to punch the reset button on my life. By the time I returned home to Dallas, the noise was gone and I could hear a signal.
I've done a lot of really stupid things in my life and I'm not done yet. But there are three things that I've done right:
#1. Keeping music in my life despite having rejected music school three times.
#2. Asking a special girl to quit her job to be unemployed with me.
#3. Pressing the reset button on my life and starting from zero.
" If you solve your own problem, you will have at least one customer "
- A Good Friend -
After a symphony performance, I looked down under my jacket. My entire tuxedo was soaked like a wet sponge. I couldn't move. And the worst part was the stench.
I thought to myself "there's got to be a better way!"
They say suffering leads to wisdom. So I did the unimaginable -- and went shopping. To me, malls are very much like giant labyrinths with endless aisles that connect to more aisles. And internet shopping can sometimes feel like a virtual flea market with infinite options. As a guy, I generally know what I would like to buy before the shopping process. In this case, I knew what I wanted. But searching for comfy formal wear is much like searching for a mythical creature. I'm sure it's there, but I've never actually seen it. Stuck between bad and no options, I decided do it myself.
" The man who moves a mountain begins by carrying away small stones. "
Bringing an idea to life and building a business around it is like passing a truck through a water hose. I've had some tough gigs in the past. But this is the toughest thing I've ever done. There's never enough time, money or energy. The sky's always falling and it's always my fault. Some common sense really helps. But more than anything else, I had to learn how to be resourceful.
The first prototype was a disaster and the second was even worse. I was so embarrassed when I showed it to my musician friends. But to my surprise, they were all excited and eager to give feedback. The prototypes started to improve with every design iteration. Many months later, I opened a box with the latest prototype. It wasn't embarrassing at all.
One of the questions that we get most often is "how did you come up with the name?" The truth is, I wanted to name the company origami - because the reams of white fabric reminded me of the Japanese art of folding paper into objects. A quick search revealed that the domain would cost more money than I've ever seen. With a little imagination, I bought the domain Coregami.com for $16.99 and a company was born.
Since day one, we produced our garments in Los Angeles. It's truly the city of angels except that the fashion district sits by one of the largest homeless populations in the country. It was like an IKEA of street tents. There were days when my wife, seventy year old mother and I would have to tip-toe through sidewalk living rooms to catch meetings.
There's a lot of magic that happens behind a web store. With some help, we set up our site on Shopify. We learned how to use Shipstation to manage shipping and MailChimp for email marketing. My Brazilian tennis buddy took all the product photos in his studio. Our other tennis buddy (Dallas Symphony musician) became the first fit model. The warehouse sits at the back of the condo. Our tiny living room became the fulfillment center. Friends and family members would come over to help and stay for dinner.
In June 2015, we flipped the switch and Coregami went live. The crickets were real loud. I kept thinking that I should've kept my day job.
Back then, the idea of technical formal wear didn't exist. It was hard to sell the story. With some pull from a good friend, we landed on a music and fashion blog. The discussions started to boil and one day, fuel caught fire. Coregami went viral and we landed on the front page of the New York Times.
Since that day, the media frenzy has softened. But our tiny little startup continues to push forward. Our last product release sold out in three hours. Production is struggling to keep up and we get emails every day with new products ideas. We're flying by the seat of our pants.
Released our second product, The Bernstein
Partnered with River Oaks Chamber Orchestra (American Prize Winner 2017)
Partnered with Orpheus Chamber Orchestra at Carnegie Hall (Grammy Award Winner)
Released our third product, The Coltrane, which sold out in 3 hours
News Coverage: Fox NYC "Look Good while you Feel Good"
Serving Dallas Symphony's community outreach program (Dallas Young Strings)
Collaborating with elite solo artists to rethink formal wear
Serving musicians in every top orchestra in the U.S. (3,000+ musicians world wide)
TO INFINITY AND BEYOND
"With great power, comes great responsibility" - Spiderman's Uncle
We just saw the new movie and this quote kept humming in my head. I feel that we've been placed in a unique position - not from a market opportunity standpoint - but rather to be first company in the world to help performing artists take their craft to a new level. It's so exciting because there are few companies top of mind that has led with this clarity of heart and inspiration since Tom's, Nike, and Lululemon.
Our story is not done being told. We believe that the good stuff is still ahead. Moving forward, we hope to better serve our community. We will do Good and we will do Better.
From the bottom of our hearts, we say Thank You.
Founder @ Coregami
This article is poorly written because I wrote it myself.
Written by Sumo Coregami
Austin Huntington | Indianapolis Symphony Orchestra
Matt McClung | River Oaks Chamber Orchestra
sumo@coregami.com
Mon - Fri | 8 AM - 6 PM (central time)
© 2015-2020 Coregami


text:
Q: Why doesn't SQL support "= null" instead of "is null"? I'm not asking if it does.  I know that it doesn't.
I'm curious as to the reason.  I've read support docs such as as this one on Working With Nulls in MySQL but they don't really give any reason.  They only repeat the mantra that you have to use "is null" instead.
This has always bothered me.  When doing dynamic SQL (those rare times when it has to be done) it would be so much easier to pass "null" into where clause like this:
@where = "where GroupId = null"

Which would be a simple replacement for a regular variable.  Instead we have to use if/else blocks to do stuff like:
if @groupId is null then
     @where = "where GroupId is null"
else
     @where = "where GroupId = @groupId"
end

In larger more-complicated queries, this is a huge pain in the neck.  Is there a specific reason that SQL and all the major RDBMS vendors don't allow this?  Some kind of keyword conflict or value conflict that it would create?
Edit:
The problem with a lot of the answers (in my opinion) is that everyone is setting up an equivalency between null and "I don't know what the value is".  There's a huge difference between those two things.  If null meant "there's a value but it's unknown" I would 100% agree that nulls couldn't be equal.  But SQL null doesn't mean that.  It means that there is no value.  Any two SQL results that are null both have no value.   No value does not equal unknown value.  Two different things.  That's an important distinction.
Edit 2:
The other problem I have is that other HLLs allow null=null perfectly fine and resolve it appropriately.  In C# for instance, null=null returns true.

A: It's a language semantic.
Null is the lack of a value.
is null makes sense to me. It says, "is lacking a value" or "is unknown". Personally I've never asked somebody if something is, "equal to lacking a value".

A: I can't help but feel that you're still not satisfied with the answers that have been given so far, so I thought I'd try another tack. Let's have an example (no, I've no idea why this specific example has come into my head).
We have a table for employees, EMP:
EMP
---
EMPNO           GIVENNAME
E0001           Boris
E0002           Chris
E0003           Dave
E0004           Steve
E0005           Tony

And, for whatever bizarre reason, we're tracking what colour trousers each employee chooses to wear on a particular day (TROUS):
TROUS
-----
EMPNO       DATE        COLOUR
E0001       20110806    Brown
E0002       20110806    Blue
E0003       20110806    Black
E0004       20110806    Brown
E0005       20110806    Black
E0001       20110807    Black
E0003       20110807    Black
E0004       20110807    Grey

I could go on. We write a query, where we want to know the name of every employee, and what colour trousers they had on on the 7th August:
SELECT e.GIVENNAME,t.COLOUR
FROM
    EMP e
        LEFT JOIN
    TROUS t
        ON
             e.EMPNO = t.EMPNO and
             t.DATE = '20110807'

And we get the result set:
GIVENNAME       COLOUR
Chris           NULL
Steve           Grey
Dave            Black
Boris           Black
Tony            NULL

Now, this result set could be in a view, or CTE, or whatever, and we might want to continue asking questions about these results, using SQL. What might some of these questions be?

*

*Were Dave and Boris wearing the same colour trousers on that day? (Yes, Black==Black)

*Were Dave and Steve wearing the same colour trousers on that day? (No, Black!=Grey)

*Were Boris and Tony wearing the same colour trousers on that day? (Unknown - we're trying to compare with NULL, and we're following the SQL rules)

*Were Boris and Tony not wearing the same colour trousers on that day? (Unknown - we're again comparing to NULL, and we're following SQL rules)

*Were Chris and Tony wearing the same colour trousers on that day? (Unknown)
Note, that you're already aware of specific mechanisms (e.g. IS NULL) to force the outcomes you want, if you've designed your database to never use NULL as a marker for missing information.
But in SQL, NULL has been given two roles (at least) - to mark inapplicable information (maybe we have complete information in the database, and Chris and Tony didn't turn up for work that day, or did but weren't wearing trousers), and to mark missing information (Chris did turn up that day, we just don't have the information recorded in the database at this time)
If you're using NULL purely as a marker of inapplicable information, I assume you're avoiding such constructs as outer joins.

I find it interesting that you've brought up NaN in comments to other answers, without seeing that NaN and (SQL) NULL have a lot in common. The biggest difference between them is that NULL is intended for use across the system, no matter what data type is involved.
You're biggest issue seems to be that you've decided that NULL has a single meaning across all programming languages, and you seem to feel that SQL has broken that meaning. In fact, null in different languages frequently has subtly different meanings. In some languages, it's a synonym for 0. In others, not, so the comparison 0==null will succeed in some, and fail in others. You mentioned VB, but VB (assuming you're talking .NET versions) does not have null. It has Nothing, which again is subtly different (it's the equivalent in most respects of the C# construct default(T)).

A: The concept is that NULL is not an equitable value. It denotes the absence of a value.
Therefore, a variable or a column can only be checked if it IS NULL, but not if it IS EQUAL TO NULL.
Once you open up arithmetic comparisions, you may have to contend with IS GREATER THAN NULL, or IS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO NULL

A: NULL is unknown. It is neither true nor false so when you are comparing anything to unknown, the only answer is "unknown"  Much better article on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_(SQL)

A: The reason why it's off by default is that null is really not equal to null in a business sense.  For example, if you were joining orders and customers:
select * from orders o join customers c on c.name = o.customer_name

It wouldn't make a lot of sense to match orders with an unknown customer with customers with an unknown name.
Most databases allow you to customize this behaviour. For example, in SQL Server:
set ansi_nulls on
if null = null
    print 'this will not print'
set ansi_nulls off
if null = null
    print 'this should print'

A: Because in ANSI SQL, null means "unknown", which is not a value.  As such, it doesn't equal anything; you can just evaluate the value's state (known or unknown).

A: a.  Null is not the "lack of a value"
b.  Null is not "empty"
c.  Null is not an "unset value"
It's all of the above and none of the above.
By technical rights, NULL is an "unknown value".  However, like uninitialized pointers in C/C++, you don't really know what your pointing at.  With databases, they allocate the space but do not initialize the value in that space.
So, it is an "empty" space in the sense that it's not initialized.  If you set a value to NULL, the original value stays in that storage location.  If it was originally an empty string (for example), it will remain that.
It's a "lack of a value" in the fact that it hasn't been set to what the database deems a valid value.
It's an "unset value" in that if the space was just allocated, the value that is there has never been set.
"Unknown" is the closest that we can truly come to knowing what to expect when we examine a NULL.

Because of that, if we try to compare this "unknown" value, we will get a comparison that
a) may or may not be valid
b) may or may not have the result we expect
c) may or may not crash the database.
So, the DBMS systems (long ago) decided that it doesn't even make sense to use equality when it comes to NULL.
Therefore, "= null" makes no sense.

A: Equality is something that can be absolutely determined. The trouble with null is that it's inherently unknown. If you follow the truth table for three-value logic, null combined with any other value is null - unknown. Asking SQL "Is my value equal to null?" would be unknown every single time, even if the input is null. I think the implementation of IS NULL makes it clear.

A: In addition to all that has already been said, I wish to stress that what you write in your first line is wrong.  SQL does support the "= NULL" syntax, but it has a different semantic than "IS NULL" – as can be seen in the very piece of documentation you linked to.

A: I agree with the OP that
where column_name = null

should be syntactic sugar for
where column_name is null

However, I do understand why the creators of SQL wanted to make the distinction. In three-valued logic (IMO this is a misnomer), a predicate can return two values (true or false) OR unknown which is technically not a value but just a way to say "we don't know which of the two values this is". Think about the following predicate in terms of three-valued logic:
A == B

This predicate tests whether A is equal to B. Here's what the truth table looks like:
    T U F
    -----
T | T U F
U | U U U
F | F U T

If either A or B is unknown, the predicate itself always returns unknown, regardless of whether the other one is true or false or unknown.
In SQL, null is a synonym for unknown. So, the SQL predicate
column_name = null

tests whether the value of column_name is equal to something whose value is unknown, and returns unknown regardless of whether column_name is true or false or unknown or anything else, just like in three-valued logic above. SQL DML operations are restricted to operating on rows for which the predicate in the where clause returns true, ignoring rows for which the predicate returns false or unknown. That's why "where column_name = null" doesn't operate on any rows.

A: NULL doesn't equal NULL. It can't equal NULL. It doesn't make sense for them to be equal.
A few ways to think about it:

*

*Imagine a contacts database, containing fields like FirstName, LastName, DateOfBirth and HairColor. If I looked for records WHERE DateOfBirth = HairColor, should it ever match anything? What if someone's DateOfBirth was NULL, and their HairColor was too? An unknown hair color isn't equal to an unknown anything else.

*Let's join the contacts table with purchases and product tables. Let's say I want to find all the instances where a customer bought a wig that was the same color as their own hair. So I query WHERE contacts.HairColor = product.WigColor. Should I get matches between every customer I don't know the hair color of and products that don't have a WigColor? No, they're a different thing.

*Let's consider that NULL is another word for unknown. What's the result of ('Smith' = NULL)? The answer is not false, it's unknown. Unknown is not true, therefore it behaves like false. What's the result of (NULL = NULL)? The answer is also unknown, therefore also effectively false. (This is also why concatenating a string with a NULL value makes the whole string become NULL -- the result really is unknown.)

A: Why don't you use the isnull function?
@where = "where GroupId = "+ isnull(@groupId,"null")

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


The best known store is Zara on the Champs Elysees, which is open daily. There's also Zara at 'Opera', which is the largest Zara in Paris and indeed in the whole of France.
Also take a look at our selection of stores for women in Paris.
You can also find out about the best places to shop for women in Paris.
Also, check out our selection of shoe stores in Paris.


Solution What are the benefits of Sandra's Live Benchmark Ranking?
It is FREE, for all versions!
Score Certification: By performing statistical analysis on the submitted results (samples) we can work out whether your scores are valid or not and how far they are from what is expected. You can also view statistics regarding scores submitted, e.g. whether there are known performance issues.
Compare Results: Live access to test results of the latest products on the market, as reviewed by established review websites and magazines. Currently, over 800 publications use SiSoftware products in their reviews - please see the Reviews and Benchmark Results page for the current list of reviews.
Browse Results: Live access to 400,000+ of results (per benchmark, over 5,000,000 in total!) submitted by other Sandra users, in addition to the 100,000+ (per benchmark) of aggregated and reference results.
Compare Devices: Compare the performance of your devices (or the devices you intend to purchase) in different platforms; check that they meet performance expectations.
Performance: Find out which devices overclock the best; see how far other users have overclocked the devices you own: get the best performance for your money!
BackUp: Automatic backup and restoring of your test results: Sandra will download them automatically to a new installation, a new computer or any computer on your network when you set it up with your account!
Community: Form teams with your friends or colleagues and get your team to rank highest; share your test results and benefit from those of many other users. Become a part of our world-wide community!
Open: We are committed to work with other rankers to add support for their systems in Sandra. Thus you are free to use any ranker that works best for you. If you manage a ranker, please contact us.
What's in it for SiSoftware? It allows us to provide the features above and build a community of Sandra users. If you click and buy a product through a referral link we may also receive a small comission.
Your privacy is important to us, so we try not to store any 'personal data': Is the data transferred to the Ranking Engine 'personal data'?.


The essays during this quantity trouble the issues of intersection among analytic philosophy and the philosophy of the precise sciences. extra accurately, it challenge connections among wisdom in arithmetic and the precise sciences, at the one hand, and the conceptual foundations of information quite often. Its guiding thought is that, in modern philosophy of technology, there are profound difficulties of theoretical interpretation-- difficulties that go beyond either the methodological issues of common philosophy of technological know-how, and the technical issues of philosophers of specific sciences. A fruitful method of those difficulties combines the learn of clinical element with the type of conceptual research that's attribute of the trendy analytic culture. Such an procedure is shared via those individuals: a few essentially often called analytic philosophers, a few as philosophers of technological know-how, yet all deeply conscious that the issues of study and interpretation hyperlink those fields together.
In From Kant to Husserl, Charles Parsons examines a variety of ancient opinion on philosophical questions from arithmetic to phenomenology. Amplifying his early principles on Kant's philosophy of mathematics, the writer then turns to reflections on Frege, Brentano, and Husserl.
Mark Jago offers an unique philosophical account of significant concept: particularly, the way it is significant to consider issues which are very unlikely. we predict approximately most unlikely issues forever. we will be able to take into consideration alchemists attempting to flip base steel to gold, and approximately unlucky mathematicians attempting to sq. the circle.
This can be the 1st quantity of a set of papers in honor of the 50th birthday of Jean-Yves Béziau. those 25 papers were written via across the world amazing logicians, mathematicians, desktop scientists, linguists and philosophers, together with Arnon Avron, John Corcoran, Wilfrid Hodges, Laurence Horn, Lloyd Humbertsone, Dale Jacquette, David Makinson, Stephen learn, and Jan Woleński.
Initially released in 1938. This compact treatise is a whole remedy of Aristotle's good judgment as containing unfavorable phrases. It starts with defining Aristotelian good judgment as a subject-predicate good judgment confining itself to the 4 varieties of specific proposition often called the A, E, I and O types. It assigns traditional meanings to those express kinds such that subalternation holds.


Grind together the grated coconut, green chilies, ginger and add this mixture to the fry beetroot and cook again with little water.
Heat a pan. Add oil and splutter mustard seeds, curry leaves and red chili and pour it to the mixture.
This color alone is really stunning, can imagine the flavors. I have to learn how to open a fresh coconut!


Malaysia's Anwar Ibrahim is aiming to make his political comeback by year-end as his party announced on Wednesday that he will contest a by-election in Port Dickson, Negeri Sembilan.
The return of Datuk Seri Anwar to politics has been widely expected, as he prepares to ascend to power as part of an agreement within the ruling Pakatan Harapan pact to make him Prime Minister in two years.
Port Dickson MP Danyal Balagopal Abdullah has stepped aside to allow the former jailed leader to run in his seat. "Last night I was informed that after having discussed with party leadership, Anwar Ibrahim decided to accept my offer to ... contest in the Port Dickson constituency," Datuk Danyal said at a press conference on Wednesday. "Hence I'm now announcing my resignation as MP with immediate effect," added the first-term lawmaker.
PH had promised voters prior to the historic May general election that Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad would be appointed Prime Minister if it won, on the agreement that Tun Dr Mahathir would hand over the post to Anwar in due course after the imprisoned leader was allowed to run in elections.
Anwar, who is president-elect of Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR), one of the four parties in PH, was serving a five-year jail sentence at the time. He was given a royal pardon and released from prison days after PH triumphed in the May elections.


text:
A Personal Reflection on Senator Robert C. Byrd in the Age of Black Lives Matter
By Ray Smock
It was ten years ago this month that Senator Robert C. Byrd died on June 28, 2010. He was given the rare honor of lying in repose in the Chamber of the U. S. Senate. His funeral service in Charleston, West Virginia, was attended by tens of thousands of people, white and black, many of whom, the evening before, had walked along Kanawha Boulevard behind the senator's horse-drawn casket on the way to the gold-domed Capitol. The world, today, always changing, seems so distant from 2010, when Barack Obama was the last of eleven U.S. presidents that knew and worked with Senator Byrd.
Byrd Center Director Ray Smock with Senator Robert C. Byrd at the center in 2005.
Welcome to the Byrd Center Blog! We share content here including research from our archival collections, articles from our director, and information on upcoming events.
Director's Posts
Intern Blogs
Posts From The Archives


CompTIA A+ 220-901 Video Course is a unique video product that provides a solid understanding of A+ skills. The purpose of these videos is to act as quick, concise, hands-on training that is easily absorbed. The modules in this course cover every objective in the CompTIA A+ 220-901 exam and can be used as your sole resource for learning the material needed to study for and pass the test. You can also use this as a supplement to other A+ training.
CompTIA A+ 220-902 Video Course is a unique video product that provides a solid understanding of A+ skills. The purpose of these videos is to act as quick and concise hands-on training that is easily absorbed. The modules in this course cover every objective in the CompTIA A+ 220-902 exam and can be used as your sole resource for learning the material needed to study for and pass the test. You can also use this as a supplement to other A+ training.
CompTIA Network+ N10-007 Video Course is a comprehensive training course that brings CompTIA Network+ exam topics to life through the use of real-world demonstrations, animations, live instruction, and configurations, making learning these foundational networking topics easy and fun. The 200+ videos contained in this product provide you more than 17 hours of instruction. Designed to take you inside Network+ concepts in a unique and interactive way, CompTIA Network+ N10-007 Complete Video Course is guaranteed to help you master the foundational networking topics that will help you succeed on the exam and on the job.
Windows Server 70-740: Installation, Storage, and Compute Video Course covers the exam domains published by Microsoft in a logical way for learning the technology and preparing for the exam. This engaging, self-paced video course includes demonstrations and configurations of various features of Windows Server 2016. Even if you're not planning to take the 70-740 exam, this video training will help you get up-to-speed on the new and updated features in Windows Server 2016.
Windows Server 70-741: Networking with Windows Server 2016 Video Course covers the exam domains published by Microsoft in a logical way for learning the technology and preparing for the exam. This engaging, self-paced video course includes demonstrations and configurations of various features of Windows Server 2016. Even if you're not planning to take the 70-741 exam, this video training will help you get up to speed on the new and updated features related to networking with Windows Server 2016.
Windows Server 70-742: Identity with Windows Server 2016 Video Course covers the five objective domains for the Windows Server 70-742 exam. You learn concepts and see live demonstrations on how to complete administrative tasks associated with Windows Server 2016. Whether you're new to Windows Server 2016 Identity Services or preparing to take the Microsoft Windows Server 70-742 exam, this course is designed for you.
The Pearson IT Professional Group (ITP) is the premier publisher of learning material for IT Professionals—and aspiring IT Professionals. We publish print books, ebooks, video training, practice tests, simulation software, and digital courseware from the top experts and trainers in the IT field. ITP partners with some of the biggest and most prestigious companies in the IT industry, including Adobe, Cisco, and Microsoft, to publish official learning materials on their technologies.


text:
'Our thoughts are with the families and friends:' Officials react to helicopter crash
A Minnesota National Guard UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter carrying three crew members crashed Thursday afternoon
'Our thoughts are with the families and friends:' Officials react to helicopter crash A Minnesota National Guard UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter carrying three crew members crashed Thursday afternoon Check out this story on sctimes.com: https://www.sctimes.com/story/news/local/2019/12/05/officials-react-st-cloud-helicopter-crash/2624094001/
Jenny Berg, St. Cloud Times Published 5:57 p.m. CT Dec. 5, 2019 | Updated 1:55 p.m. CT Dec. 6, 2019
Scenes from the Black Hawk helicopter crash in Minnesota
Emergency responders staged near the site of the crash Thursday south of St. Cloud. Dave Schwarz, dschwarz@stcloudtimes.com
A Chinook helicopter helped with search efforts Thursday afternoon after a Minnesota Black Hawk helicopter went missing near St. Cloud. Dave Schwarz, dschwarz@stcloudtimes.com
ST. CLOUD — A Minnesota National Guard UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter carrying three crew members crashed near Pearl Lake after it lost contact with its St. Cloud base Thursday afternoon, according to the Minnesota National Guard.
All three Guard members aboard were killed in the crash.
The helicopter has found by a Minnesota State Patrol trooper just after 4 p.m. near Pearl Lake, just south of Marty, about 15 miles from its departure point.
Minnesota National Guard Master Sgt. Blair Heusdens released the following statement shortly after 4 p.m.:
"On or about 2:05 p.m. on December 5, 2019, the Minnesota National Guard
lost contact with a UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter while it was conducting a
maintenance test flight that originated from St. Cloud, Minnesota. The
Minnesota National Guard and local emergency services are currently trying
to determine the location and status of the aircraft. The helicopter had
three Minnesota National Guard personnel on board. Our first priority is the
safety and well-being of our Guardsmen and our thoughts are with our
soldiers and their families at this time."
Gov. Tim Walz — who served in the Army National Guard — canceled a tree-lighting ceremony Thursday night and traveled to Central Minnesota to speak at the media staging area.
"The state of Minnesota is forever in the debt of these warriors," Walz said.
Walz served in the Army National Guard before eventually becoming a teacher and coach.
"The coming days will be dark," he said, later adding, "These are brothers in arms."
Emergency vehicles line the road near the scene of a reported helicopter crash Thursday, Dec. 5, 2019, near Marty. (Photo: Dave Schwarz, dschwarz@stcloudtimes.com)
Minnesota officials and others shared the following statements Thursday night:
St. Cloud Mayor Dave Kleis, who served in the U.S. Air Force:
"I pray every day for those who wear our nation's uniforms. Since 2:30 p.m. when I got the first text of a distress call, our folks and so many of the law and emergency folks were scrambling. Since then, I've prayed more than I ever have for not only the crew but their families. They are the heroes who put themselves in harm's way."
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.:
"Today three brave Minnesota National Guard soldiers made the ultimate sacrifice for our nation. I am deeply saddened, and their service to our state and our nation will never be forgotten. In Minnesota we wrap our arms around our brave men and women who make such immense sacrifices to keep our nation strong and free. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families and loved ones of these brave servicemembers and with the entire Minnesota National Guard community, at home and overseas."
Rep. Dan Wolgamott, D-St. Cloud, via Twitter:
"My thoughts are with the families and loved ones of those on board, and our first responders working tirelessly to help."
Sen. Jerry Relph, R-St. Cloud, via Twitter:
"In this time of tragedy, my heartfelt thoughts and prayers are with our men and women of the @MNNationalGuard and their families, as well as the first responders on the scene right now."
St. Paul Fire Department, via Twitter:
"The @MnDPS_MSP and @StPaulFireDept MN Aviation Rescue Team has returned to base. The helicopter crash site has been found and the team's resources are no longer needed. Our thoughts are with the families and friends of those involved."
Brigadier General Sandy Best of the Minnesota National Guard:
"Our Minnesota National Guard family is devastated by the death of these soldiers."
Rep. Bob Dettmer, R-Forest Lake, House Veterans and Military Affairs Division:
"We are heartbroken and devastated by the loss of three heroic Minnesotans. Our prayers tonight are with the families of the crew members, our National Guard Commander-in-Chief Governor Walz, and Adjutant General Jensen. We also are tremendously grateful for our first responders who rushed to the crash site from the region and other parts of the state."
Stearns County Captain Jon Lentz:
"The lost crew members are in the thoughts and prayers of everyone in the sheriff's office."
Charlie Company, 2-211th General Support Aviation Battalion, via Facebook:
"It is with a heavy heart that I must say this. We lost three brothers in an unimaginable event. We are honored to call all of them family and Northstar Dustoff members. Their legacies and contributions to all of us will never be forgotten. We love you! Until Valhalla..."
St. Cloud Regional Airport staff, via Twitter:
"The airport is grieving the loss of three Mn National Guard aviators today. Please keep them in your thoughts and prayers. We are heartbroken."
Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka, R-Nisswa, via Twitter:
"All Minnesotans are united in grief for our National Guard members who perished today. Today's accident reminds us of the dangerous job we ask them to do on a daily basis. No matter where they die, they are all heroes."
U.S. Sen. Tina Smith, via Twitter:
"This is a devastating loss for Minnesota. Words can't express my sadness for these three soldiers and their families. I'm thinking of all @MNNationalGuard members and their families tonight."
U.S. Rep. Tom Emmer:
"Jacquie and I send our deepest sympathies to the families of the Minnesota National Guardsmen who tragically lost their lives earlier today. Whether deployed overseas, or training here at home, the men and women of our armed forces put their lives at risk to ensure the safety and security of our nation. We are devastated by today's loss of some of Minnesota's finest heroes."
State Sens. Jeff Howe, R-Rockville; and Jerry Relph, R-St. Cloud; and Reps. Tim O'Driscoll, R-Sartell; Lisa Demuth, R-Cold Spring; and Tama Theis, R-St. Cloud:
"Our hearts are heavy with the loss of these three National Guard soldiers and our prayers are with them, their families and the Minnesota National Guard. While this particular unit is mobilized for overseas deployment, the fact this tragedy occurred on native soil reminds us of the challenges our soldiers face every day — including when presumably safe at home. God bless these American heroes and, again, please keep the families they left behind in your hearts and prayers, for the sacrifices they have made are something most of us will never know."
U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, via Twitter:
"My thoughts are with the families of our three brave soldiers. In Minnesota, we always show up for one and other. I hope we are able to provide answers on this tragedy, and that our community, state and nation show their support in this painful time."
House Speaker Melissa Hortman, D-Brooklyn Park, via Twitter:
"Devastated to learn of the tragic passing of three of Minnesota's National Guard service members. I extend my deepest sympathy to all who loved them and served with them."
This story was updated Friday with additional statements.
Read or Share this story: https://www.sctimes.com/story/news/local/2019/12/05/officials-react-st-cloud-helicopter-crash/2624094001/
The winners: Meet the 15th SC Times 5 under 40 class
Smith touts benefits in new trade deal for dairy
New Cathedral High School building takes shape
Here's a look back at past 5 Under 40 winners
Minnesota cities scramble with tobacco 21 law
Weigh in on Northstar, clean energy in St. Cloud