That’s excellent advice.

As Twitchy reported, lefties are weirdly giddy over Gov. Scott Walker’s refusal to state flat-out whether or not he subscribes to the theory of evolution. Members of the media are beside themselves with delight at what they see as a golden opportunity to paint Walker — and the entire GOP — as anti-science.

But when push comes to shove, are these “real journalists” actually in any position to claim intellectual superiority? The Federalist’s Sean Davis sure as hell doesn’t think so, so he decided to give them a much-needed taste of their own medicine:

Heh.

We’re thinkin’ Davis might be on to something.

We’re also thinkin’ he wiped the floor with those smug jerks. Bravo, sir!

***

Related:

Blimey! Scott Walker ‘punts’ on evolution question; Lefties flip their lids

  • jkpalmdale

    LMFAO

  • soxfan4evah

    Damn that was a beat down.

  • Guest

    I bow to his superior trolling. I’m also about to implement this strategy on the ignoramus godblessusa troll on the other forum. Bless you Sean Davis.

    • Duane_of_Dibbley

      That wasn’t trolling. That was a merciless beating.

      • Mead

        Brown Alert!

      • http://twitter.com/thetugboatphil TugboatPhil

        It was a written, one-sided, Texas Cage Match of Death.

  • Sanchez

    Are Homo Sapiens and Homo heidelbergensis the same species or evolved one from the other?

    • Bud

      At this point, what difference does it make?

  • unknown

    By evolution did they mean “evolution” on social issues /sarc.

    • il fait soleil

      I believe I hear a chorus of “hands up! Don’t shoot!” in the distance

  • LloydTheDuck

    All this conservative butthurt because Walker couldn’t summon the courage to answer an easy question!

    • R_Stephan

      Give us your thoughts on evolution then birdy.

    • Wanderer

      That’s funny, I thought it was the lefties blowing up Twitter making fun of a non-answer because they’re pissed their gotcha didn’t work.

      Oh wait, it’s you. Nevermind.

    • spaceycakes

      lol–nothing like your mighty butthurt of the 2000 election.

      • The Dragon

        And shedding mass tears over the more current 2014 midterm

      • LloydTheDuck

        I don’t cry over spilled milk.

        • Unclefacts Meteor-Summoner

          apparently you don’t answer questions directly asked of you either.

    • Markward

      Really, you are the ones that seem to be freaking out that he won’t play your game of “gotcha” questions.

      • LloydTheDuck

        Not at all. It’s mockery and contempt on my part.

        • Mark81150crafty hamster o doom

          So you ask a question knowing there is no right answer for him just to trash him…

          then like a typical lying leftist get some serious outrage ginned up because he refuses to answer a question that you will twist into an attack, no matter what he says…

          Your heads I win, tails you lose game is just being a mindless asshole…. .. and you know it..

          you just pray at your obastard idol that your no/low info voters swallow another moronic false scandal against a conservative who curb stomped all your attempts to recall him..

          Walker is smarter than any ten top democrats put together… but so is playdoe…

          • no

            that ain’t how you spell play dough

          • Bud

            But you knew what he meant.

    • Al’s Grandpa

      Weak sauce.

    • journogal

      Project much? Seems like liberals are the ones butthurt because he wouldn’t play with them.

      • LloydTheDuck

        “Projection” = ‘I know you are but what am I?” = fourth grade. Grow up, little girl.

        • AMSilver

          Can you point out the legitimate argument that you made which deserves some sort of logical refutation? Cause all I’ve seen you give so far is the sort of fourth grade theatrics you’re complaining about…

        • Mark81150crafty hamster o doom

          war on women much dickhead?…

          funny how your very first response was to attack her with a “don’t you worry your purty widdle head” line..

          that’s sad, in a IQ of a fence post kind of way… especially since I’d bet the rent her IQ caps yours by at least 40 points.. all you got is fear and smear,.. the party of terrorizing the public strikes.. and misses again.

        • ajdecarlo

          Projection is a real psychological phenomenon. Why are you so anti-science?

        • LinTaylor ✓vitrified

          Tells someone to grow up, then calls them “little girl”.

          Seems legit.

        • AMSilver

          And since evolution is such straight forward science, tell us your definitions of punctuated evolution and darwinian gradualism, explain why both terms exist and tell us which you subscribe too, and what evidence in particular (not lack of evidence, but actual evidence) led you to favor one over the other.

        • Jack_Savage

          When girls grow up to be women, I am sure it doesn’t turn out well for you.

    • MaisieMartin

      What butt hurt exactly?

    • http://www.visitisleofman.com/ Shelgeyr ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ᵈᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ

      If you think that question actually has a simple answer, then you don’t understand the issue.

      • LloydTheDuck

        All he had to do was say “Of course I believe in evolution! What kind of question is that?”

        • Mark81150crafty hamster o doom

          so when does human life begin… you MUST answer or I will mock you with complete contempt… no punting…

          since that is your set of rules.. and you’d better get every scientific answer 100% correct.. or we’ll mock you for that too..

          that is your game.. you apply those rules to ours.. we apply them to you..

          OH COME ON…. it’s an easy question… when does human life begin…

        • ajdecarlo

          So, if he believes in God without proof, he is an extremist.

          If he believes in a scientific theory without proof, he is enlightened?

          News flash! Faith doesn’t require proof. Science does.

        • Rogan_M

          And that would have been the end of it? Are you really that dense? I haven’t yet seen you deny that it would come back on him as the original questioner and your like apparently, ‘extrapolated’ on the issue. What would the very next question’s subject be I wonder – wild guess, ‘creationism’ – followed by further creations on the part of the attack dogs as they developed new lines of verbal assault. Innocent questions are not designed to trip people up – ergo it wasn’t innocent.

          All you’re doing is condemning him for not setting himself up for a fall. Well your contempt just shows your own smug, unwarranted superiority complex for what it is, pathetic.

    • Bhoddisatva

      To quote a Democrat hero: “What difference does it make?” If you voted for Barack Obama you voted for a guy who admitted he believed in some sort of divinely assisted evolution or creationism and taught that to his kids.

      I’ll bet dollars to donuts you just shrugged and passed it off as irrelevant because Obama is a progressive and you agree with 90% of his other stuff. ‘He’s just being a politician and needs to win elections’ you probably told yourself. If you thought about it at all. Why would you? Its not like the theory of evolution can balance a budget, perform executive duties, or hold diplomatic talks with Iran. Its, as you probably noted while struggling mightily not to notice his beliefs, not important to the performance of the office.

    • Eva_Galley

      Maybe Walker just doesn’t give a shit.

    • Sanchez

      Will any “reporters” ask any Democrat candidates the same questions?

      It is not an easy answer but to simple minds it may be.

      • Bhoddisatva

        During presidential campaigns Democrat candidates suddenly become doubters and skeptics. Just enough to draw in the stupid vote.

      • Jonathan Brooks

        Well said. The media do not care if Democrat candidate are practicing cannibals that worship Molech, and sell souls to the Devil. Trap questions on science and evolution only exist for Republicans

    • Jack_Savage

      You were asked a question, troll. Try answering it.

    • Rogan_M

      It doesn’t take courage to decline handing a stick to someone to beat up on you no matter which way you answer. Just smarts.

    • Jonathan Brooks

      It is not an easy question but a typical English snobby verbal trap with no good answer, since the atheistocracy would rip Scott a new anal cavity regardless of what he said. Brits are savage anti-christian trolls who take delight in beat downs of any they deem less than themsleves, with John Cleese being the brightest star in the aggressive Brit firmament. It is the saddest of ironies that they are being eaten demographically by the Muslim primitives that are spreading Briton with a fine layer of Islamic barbarity, and taking them back to the seventh century..

    • TravisJSays

      An easy non-germane gotcha question that Scott Walker appropriately dispatched as not something he needed to answer at this time. He was on a trade mission, not a biology conference.

      “Do you believe in evolution?”
      Answer: “No. Obama didn’t evolve on the issue, he was lying about it all along.”

      Another Easy question would be “When does life begin?”
      Biology 101 … can you answer it or is it ‘above your paygrade’ like the anti-science dolt in the White House said it was? I mean seriously, is he really that ignorant of science … or just lying like he did on Obamacare.

      http://thefederalist.com/2015/02/13/here-are-the-science-questions-reporters-should-ask-politicians/#disqus_thread

  • Sanchez

    “Even
    Charles Darwin thought his own theory
    was “grievously hypothetical” and gave
    emotional content to his doubts when
    he said, “The eye to this day gives
    me a cold shudder.” To think the eye
    had evolved by natural selection, Darwin
    said, “seems, I freely confess, absurd
    in the highest possible degree.” But
    he thought of the same about something
    as simple as a peacock’s feather, which,
    he said, “makes me sick. ” Of course,
    anyone who has knowledge of the intricacies
    of the human eye and other living structures
    immediately realizes the problem Darwin
    sensed. How could an organ of such
    an intricate magnificence ever have
    a originated via random chance? Oller
    and Omdahl (CH) Page 274″

    • Wanderer

      Therein lies the catch, and the redemption, for evolutionary theory. It doesn’t work without some kind of guide. But even if proven to 100% certainty, the “Law of Evolution” doesn’t disprove the existence of God in the slightest, which is what all these lefty tools don’t seem to realize.

      I like watching them hyperventilate over something that is ultimately completely irrelevant.

      • CatlinNya

        The guide is natural selection via environmental pressures.

        • ajdecarlo

          It has been statistically proven that the period of time required for random molecular changes in the structure of DNA to evolve to the current state of complexity would take something like 140 trillion years. The Big Bang Theory claims that the entire universe has only existed for just under 14 Billion.

          Please explain.

          While you are at it, please explain how a random change on the molecular level, consistent with the current Theories of Evolution, are expressed on the macro scale allowing for ‘natural selection’ to influence the continuance of the mutation.

          • Mark81150crafty hamster o doom

            ohhh… sizzle… I can smell the burning liberal flesh from here…

            and climate change?.. the climate has always changed.. always.. always will.. with most liberals bone headedly thinking it never changed, till man screwed it up.. which is as luddite and mindless as it gets..

        • AMSilver

          Explain how natural selection and environmental pressures would affect the formation of proteins and other foundational building blocks of life prior to reproduction, please.

        • Jonathan Brooks

          Actually, that is fascile and unproven. Panspermia by outside DNA and RNA knocks that into a cocked hat, so any sign of extraterrestrail life able to travel in bacterial form knocks darwins baby into the trash bin of history.

      • AMSilver

        Had a geology grad student comment to me that evolution didn’t disprove God to him, that he could see God operating through evolution. I thought at the time, and still do, that it was a good attitude for him to have because I sure couldn’t see the number of miracles required to happen under evolution happening without God behind them…

        • Sanchez

          Yes, a grand design then left to its natural evolution. Both can be compatible.

      • blowngasket

        Yes, the time wasted and calories spent on something so irrelevant. And how flimsy theory becomes solid fact to justify a belief. Twisting into pretzels to reach a predetermined conclusion.

    • CatlinNya

      This is a quote mine from Darwin and completely misrepresented his views. The evolution of the eye has also be very well established.

      http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part2.html

      • AMSilver

        Oh, it’s a relief to know the evolution of the eye has been well documented… Can you save me some time, then, and tell me which organism – prior to the Cambrian explosion, after which thousands of organisms appeared simultaneously in different animal kingdoms with eyes fully evolved – first developed the eye?

        • Jim R

          It strikes me that even a cursory glance at the Universe would fill any man with absolute humility: “How can I POSSIBLY understand all of this???”

          Yet, too many scientists (and especially scientist wannabes) think that, because they understand SOME of it, they understand ALL of it.

        • Sanchez

          Libertarian was correct, she said the THEORY is well established. Not that the science is settled.

          • AMSilver

            There’s a term for scientific theories with no real world evidence to back them up.

          • Jonathan Brooks

            Actually every debunker and athiest I have discussed this subject, acts as if the science is settled and undisputable, just as man based global warming is. The establishment has made science into a human worshipping religion with dissidents and heretics and inquisitions by debunkers.

            justa matter of time before the science deniers are sent to the stake for burning as a witch.

      • Sanchez

        The THEORY of the evolution of the eye my have been established, but it is still a theory.

    • Jim R

      This understandable wonder at the sheer complexity of life on earth has always struck me as an argument in favor of some controlling, intelligent power in the process. Why should ANYTHING “evolve”? It simply beggars belief to assert that, through some process we don’t understand, collections of atoms that became collections of molecules eventually became… every form of life on earth, and that human beings, great white sharks, rose bushes, and staph germs all, ultimately, are related to each other.

      As Wanderer writes, “even if proven to 100% certainty, the “Law of Evolution” doesn’t disprove the existence of God in the slightest.”

      Absolutely.

  • Sanchez

    I have a hard time believing evolution alone created modern man.

    As Darwin, I see the human body and all its intricacies as impossible to be a randon changing of genetics. From the brain to the lining of the digestive tract and how well they all work for the most part, together, is not randomness alone.

    • CatlinNya

      It’s not random at all though, natural selection is the very opposite of random.

      • Lenny Ghoul

        I’m just going to back away slowly…

      • Ethanery

        You obviously missed his point, he’s agreeing with Darwin that it’s not random, and is saying that natural selection is not enough of an explanation for why we have come to be where we are today. It’s also a hit at the atheistic crowd that claims that the universe was created randomly.

      • AMSilver

        Explain then, how diversity increases if natural selection is not random?

      • jjcassidy

        But it is a black box system, without many specifics. Non-specific systems are always mapped to a random mathematical model for benchmarking. Yeah, “whatever comes up” gets resolved as surviving or not surviving. But “whatever comes up” is not a system anybody can measure.

      • Sanchez

        “not randomness alone”

    • Lucius Cornelius

      “God does not play dice with the universe.”

      — Albert Einstein

    • Suzyqpie

      Scientific evidence suggests (<operative word) that the physiology of the apes, Lucy of Olduvai Gorge, evolved into Man. Some apes did evolve and others became Democrats. Given the vastness of time and space, some events will remain a mystery.

      • Mark81150crafty hamster o doom

        aha… I see whut you done there…. and mightily approve..

  • Zeno_oneZ

    On the evolutionary scale, conservatives are still evolving from the sludge under algae.

    • Sanchez

      How so?

      • Zeno_oneZ

        I would answer…but I just don’t want to talk about it.

        • Sanchez

          Troll is the answer.

        • LegalizeShemp

          This from a bath house fluffer who got fired yesterday.

        • Laura Bass Gibson

          That’s why you posted it, right?

        • Mark81150crafty hamster o doom

          meaning… you aren’t bright enough to think of anything snarky on your own…

          jes grab yer obama phone and call party command,.. I’m sure they have a ready list of insults for you to recite like a parrot.

    • R_Stephan

      That’s original, get that out of your local trash can while you were looking for food to survive?

      • Zeno_oneZ

        Trash. You mean in your mom’s blouse?

        • R_Stephan

          Really? Your mom jokes? What is this 3rd grade? If your going to troll at least do it at LloydDuck’s level, and that’s not saying a whole lot.

          • Zeno_oneZ

            Do you believe in “evolution?”

          • R_Stephan

            I did till I met you.

          • Zeno_oneZ

            Answer or punt.

          • R_Stephan

            Just did, not acceptable cause it doesn’t fit your norms?

          • Zeno_oneZ

            I’m talking about Science.

            You talk of “norms.”

            Right.

          • R_Stephan

            What science? There is no science on evolution. It’s a theory. Science is using experimentation to prove or disprove something. Evolution doesn’t even have proof yet.

          • Zeno_oneZ

            It’s never too late to learn….

            http://ncse.com/evolution

          • R_Stephan

            I guess you don’t read your own links. The very first sentence contains the phrase “evolution is a scientific theory.”

            Like I said…It’s a theory, one that cannot be determined to be true or not as we have no proof.

          • Zeno_oneZ

            Right…and you don’t buy into this “evolution” scam?

          • R_Stephan

            Oops I sense butthurt. I take it you do, so please sell it to me as if I were someone who had no idea what it was.

          • Elizabeth

            What do you really care what his personal beliefs are? Mind your own effing business and take care of your own life. His beliefs have no effect on you.

          • R_Stephan

            His aim is to find out how hypocritical I am. Unfortunately I’m adept at this play too 🙂

          • Elizabeth

            You’re doing a great job!

          • Kawfy

            Bwaaahahaha You just know Zeno was going ooooffff. LOL…He may have run off

          • R_Stephan

            I’m just in a mood today, I have no patience for the trolls 🙂

          • Mark81150crafty hamster o doom

            the older I get.. the worse the arthritis gets… the less I suffer imbeciles gladly myself..

            if they were polite.. wanted a debate with an open mind.. that would be one thing.. instead he shows up flinging his own schit like a zoo chimpanzee and thinks he’s teh cool?

            uh.. no.. childish moron.. and not overly good at even that..

          • CatlinNya

            You need to look up the definition of theory mate. Germ theory is also a theory, better stop washing those hands. Or how about gravitation and cells?

          • R_Stephan

            The difference between the theory of evolution and germ theory is germ theory has been proven. For whatever reason they kept the name.

            Like I said at the end and you chose to ignore, evolution does not have any definitive proof. Nor will it likely have any at any point in the near future.

          • Crakalakin

            No, that’s not what a scientific theory is. Scientific theory is an explanation of observable and measurable physical phenomenon. You conflate theory and hypothesis. Evolutionary theory is an explanation, not a guess, same as gravitational theory. Conversely, most claims about climate change are indeed based on hypothesis and not theory. Theory allows us to predict and repeat outcomes. We can to that with evolution, we cannot with climate change.

          • R_Stephan

            “Scientific theory is an explanation of observable and measurable physical phenomenon. ” Herein lies the problem. Evolution cannot be measured nor is it truly observable (save maybe a genetic mutation that allows certain members of a species to live). So at best it is a guess, not a measurable account of the history of the universe.

            Those that study it even admit this. It is hardly feasible that something as complex as say your eyeball developed on it’s own randomly. They have concluded so far that no definitive proof has been reached. That was my point. We are in agreement on Global Warming.

          • Crakalakin

            It is proven, though. We depend on our knowledge of it to engage in everything from dog breeding to agriculture to developing medications.

            Our eyeballs are indeed quite complex but their development was not random. Evolution is not a phenomenon of randomness. Natural selection via environmental pressure is generally quite specific. To this day, not all of have 20/20 vision. If our survival today depended on very acute vision for survival, it is those who would be able to survive and reproduce. Those with only the best sensitivity to light would get to pass along their genes. Repeat that for millions of years and you have changes, only the best get to reproduce in any number, and the vision gets progressively better in the species. It gets better due to minute physical differences in the light sensitivity organs u til what we know as the modern eye is the norm. Still, to this day, some people’s eyes work better than others only now there is no environmental pressure that ensures only those with the best eyesight get to eat, evade predators and breed.

          • AMSilver

            So you believe in Darwinian gradualism as opposed to punctuated equalibrium, then? Can you explain the existence of the punctuated equalibrium theory of evolution if gradualism is verified science? Can you explain the relevance of the theories of gradualism and punctuated equilibrium to explanations of the evolution of the eye with regards to the
            Cambrian explosion? If that’s a lot of work, then just define punctuated equalibrium, gradualism and the Cambrian explosion, and I’ll accept you’ve got at least a very general idea of the current state of science with regards to evolution…

          • Jim R

            We depend on our knowledge of it to engage in everything from dog breeding to agriculture to developing medications.

            I think that these are two different things. Evolution is creating an entirely new species. Breeding is a case of man, by various methods, artificially altering an existing species. A dog, for example, is genetically and behaviorally very similar to its “ancestor”, the wolf. A Gala apple is not really very different from a Yellow Delicious. In contrast, a lizard is really quite different from a fish, yet we are to believe that the one “evolved” from the other. For that matter, how is it that we have both plants and animals that (presumably) share some common ancestor waaaaaay back when?

            There are simply too many unanswered – and, I think, unanswerable – questions to accept this theory as proved.

            I suggest that there is a mistaken belief that, because we can see some evidence of a theory working, we have “proved” that we understand it correctly and in all its complexities.

          • Lenny Ghoul

            No your not. Your talking out of your ass.

          • Crakalakin

            I don’t “believe” in evolution any more than I “believe” in gravity. Both are naturally occurring, observable phenomenon. Asking someone if they “believe” in evolution is akin to asking someone if they “believe” in heat. It’s stupid and shows the questioner has no understanding of the subject matter on which they are questioning others and is simply going on “belief” himself. To question a politician about evolution at a conference on trade is simply a passive-aggressive attack and as relevant as what his favorite color is.

          • Lenny Ghoul

            Bravo. beat me to it. Something I’ve been trying to say all day!

          • AMSilver

            Since evolution is an observable phenomenon, you should have no problem telling me which species you’ve observed evolving into which new species?

          • Jim R

            I’ve seen Barry evolve.

            Oh… sorry… different kind of evolution.

            😉

    • Sanchez

      Does Nurse Kratchett know you’re on the computer?

      • Zeno_oneZ

        I’d rather “punt” on the issue…

        • spaceycakes

          of course you would.

        • LegalizeShemp

          Of course you punt, that’s what people who can’t move the ball forward do.

    • Elizabeth

      Does it feel good to be a big bully? You happy now? You got that out of your system?

      • Zeno_oneZ

        Why do you relentlessly deny science?

        • Elizabeth

          I don’t deny science. Why are you such a big bully?

          • Zeno_oneZ

            So you do believe in Evolution?

          • Elizabeth

            Yes. So why are you such a big bully? What shortcomings do you suffer from that you feel the need to lash out?

          • Zeno_oneZ

            i’d rather not say…I’ll punt on that one….

          • Elizabeth

            Stop bullying people. You are no better than anyone else. In fact, by your disgusting words I’d say you’re worst than most. Stop the bullying because someday your words will incite someone to commit a heinous act like what happened yesterday in North Carolina.

          • spaceycakes

            please expound on the type of evolution you believe in…

        • spaceycakes

          ‘derp’ says the cranially emaciated troll

        • LegalizeShemp

          This from the bloody towel boy at a bath house in SF.

        • Gen.ChoiYeong

          Why do you relentlessly make pointless statements and ask stupid questions?

        • Lenny Ghoul

          Nobody denies science. You don’t even seem to have a grasp of what it is. Go back to school.

    • LegalizeShemp

      How does evolution explain homosexuality, which is an evolutionary dead end?

    • LegalizeShemp

      Really? Yet you claim they’re “the party of the rich”. How did they get so rich if they are so dumb?

      • Petrucio14

        Um… social justice. /sarc

    • Markward

      Funny, I see progressives as proof of devolution into animals and single celled organisms. Your lack of intellect proves that.

    • Al’s Grandpa

      This was even more weak than the Duck’s attempt.

    • MaisieMartin

      That doesn’t even make sense.

    • Mark81150crafty hamster o doom

      hey,… look guys.. another lower life form…. don’t touch it.. it’s evil like red lyrium…

      well… at least we know who’s buying the yogurt we heard about yesterday…

    • Stephen L. Hall #NonquamTrump

      So you are saying they are millions of years more advanced than “progressives”?

  • http://poeditservices.com Dan Abbett

    You are restricted from asking relevant and pointed questions with regard to any journalist’s expertise with regard to all things science, it mucks up their narrative.

  • Arkuy The Great

    Credit to Walker for refusing a clearly loaded question.

    • Wanderer

      There was no right answer. It was a straight-up gotcha.

      The lefty twits rolling on the floor feigning laughter know it and were hoping to get something to Akin him with. Scott the Destroyer said NO.

  • spaceycakes

    “If you really want to stump a bottom-rung j-schooler, ask him to explain
    how gradualism’s improbability led directly to multiverse theory.”

    that’s beautiful, right there. Beautiful.

    • http://twitter.com/THE_DAILY_BLEAT VACUOUS CIPHER

      It is. Then ask for a SHRED of evidence for a multiverse.

      • R_Stephan

        If there is a multiverse, if I kill all the other copies of me do I become the strongest like that Jet Li movie?

        • spaceycakes

          yes.

          • R_Stephan

            Alright, I’m in on the multiverse theory then.

          • spaceycakes

            there can be only one.

          • R_Stephan

            Going to be awkward if another me kills me though (that thought just made my eye twitch a little)

          • spaceycakes

            do you have your Claymore handy?

          • R_Stephan

            Unfortunately no, if Highlander me comes to get me I’m done for. My gun is at the smithy right now.

          • http://www.glornt.com Alfredo ✓ᴰᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ

            But won’t he still be you, anyway? Win-win!

          • R_Stephan

            Gah! this makes my head hurt!

          • http://lordfoggybottom.com Lord Foggybottom

            You can strangle ’em all with string theory – which is kinda like piano wire theory but not as difficult to wrap around somebody’s neck – and bonus: kittens will play with the corpse!

          • Kari in MN

            Especially my cats. LOL!

          • R_Stephan

            I’m not sure they have enough neck to wrap 11 dimensions around. I will give it a shot in the name of science!

          • http://lordfoggybottom.com Lord Foggybottom

            Hey, if anybody can get Schrödinger’s cat to play with a corpse in another dimension, it’s you!

          • R_Stephan

            I’m confused on whether or not it’ll play with it in the box, or if the corpse is even there.

          • Eddie_Baby

            I think you would change your answer if the more ambitious version of you was coming after you.

          • R_Stephan

            That’s the thing though, could there be a more ambitious version of me?

      • http://www.glornt.com Alfredo ✓ᴰᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ

        You don’t need evidence — it’s necessary for the gradualism theory, and some form of Darwinism is necessary for atheism, therefore it’s an axiom to the atheist. Multiverse is one of Darwinism’s ‘epicycles’, along with “punctuated equilibrium”, etc.

  • Wanderer

    Dear Mr. Davis,

    You, sir, win.

    Signed, Wanderer.

  • Kawfy

    What a Rock Star!….that was fun!

  • Jenn Oates

    A change in gene frequency in a population over time. That’s my elevator def of evolution, but I could also discuss all the questions above, too.

    Okay, full disclosure: I’m a high school biology teacher whose focus in college and grad school was biological anthropology. Not a fair question. 🙂

    • spaceycakes

      heh; Still does not explain how one species changed into another whilst leaving the first species intact…

      • LegalizeShemp

        Dancing With The Stars did that.

      • http://twitter.com/THE_DAILY_BLEAT VACUOUS CIPHER
      • daPenguin

        and my other favorite, if fish gradually grew legs and walked out of the ocean, how did that weird thing that was half legs and half fins actually survive? It would neither do well on land nor in the ocean

      • http://twitter.com/THE_DAILY_BLEAT VACUOUS CIPHER
      • Jenn Oates

        Who says the first species stays intact? All the species alive today are the result of hundreds of millions of years of evolution and little resemble their earliest ancestors, so saying that the original species remains genetically unchanged is incorrect. Sometimes there is little change, when the selective pressure is low, but it doesn’t take much genetic change to create a new species, actually.

        Unfortunately I can hardly teach an entire course on evolutionary biology in the comments section here on Twitchy, but genetics certainly can explain how species change from one to another–assuming you know and understand it, anyway. Many people do not, which I presume is the source of many of the misconceptions people have about evolution.

        • spaceycakes

          so, evolution, at its heart, isn’t about one species changing into another?

        • spaceycakes

          “All the species alive today are the result of hundreds of millions of years of evolution”

          heh. So much knowledge have you.

        • spaceycakes

          “but genetics certainly can explain how species change from one to another–assuming you know and understand it, anyway.”

          so, genetically we’re all close, but not close enough to interbreed, right?

        • Lenny Ghoul

          I’m not going to have an evolutionary argument with you but I think you miss understand some fundamental points of it. Or maybe you are just not explaining it as intended.

        • AMSilver

          So you subscribe to the gradualism theory of evolution with a touch of PE? Is that what I’m sensing? Can you name a single organism that evolved to a new species not during a period of high selective pressure?

    • http://twitter.com/THE_DAILY_BLEAT VACUOUS CIPHER

      Hmmm… but how much time?

      • AMSilver

        Evolutionists always assume the miracle, and then jump to the easy part after the miracle and expect everyone to just ignore the jump along with them.

  • daPenguin

    was evolution due to Global Warming or did it cause it?

    • MaisieMartin

      Unrelated.

  • Todd Hill

    I’m comfortable with evolution. I mean, it’s *settled* science, just like the big bang theory, right?

    • john lecorchick

      heck yea! you ever watch an episode? the characters are very sciency

    • Todd Hill

      Alternate answer:

      Am I comfortable with Evolution? Yes, of course! I thought Duchovny was hilarious in that movie!

  • csheel00

    I always have trouble reconciling the law of entropy with evolution theory. Wondering if these leftist scientists could explain it to me.

    • MaisieMartin

      Is it because the universe should be moving toward disorder but evolution is creating more and more complex life forms?

      If you think about it, life should have never been created in the first place if this argument is followed out.

  • spaceycakes

    my darling, I
    I can’t get enough of your love, babe

  • Lenny Ghoul

    Actually I believe both are possible and do occur. It’s not like a set in stone set of rules. It’s just that things sometimes mutate very fast and some don’t. Depending on any number of environmental conditions, some mutations can take hold and dominate the previous species to instinction, while others live simultaneously and maybe both thrive. I thought that was Proven already with Darwins birds, vs. for example human beings. But I am no scientist so…

    • CatlinNya

      You’re mostly correct. Genetic frequency does not happen at one certain pace.

      • Lenny Ghoul

        I don’t believe I said it did.

    • MaisieMartin

      Indeed

  • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

    “Theory” is, rather tautologically explained, theoretically what people in the field of inquiry suppose to be the best explanation, after having taken all available evidence into account, in the most parsimonious manner possible (i.e., Occam’s Razor).

    “Evolution,” as we generally use the term, means “Life has gone from the simplest organisms to the most complex, over the range of geological time.”

    Or it means “I used to be against gay marriage, but no longer– my views on the matter have evolved, from the ‘least progressive’ to the ‘most,’ over the range of electoral time.” (But then you have skeptics like the Ax, who’ll tell you nonsense, Barry ALWAYS believed in gay marriage, but lied to get elected.) A parsimonious explanation would be that he has NEVER cared one way or t’other except insofar as it impacted his chances for re-election (i.e., now that he’s NOT running again, he can say, “Oh all right, let me just placate the LGBT’s and say I’m for it, when in truth, I don’t give a good damn– something I couldn’t say before, lest it would bring Conservatives to the polls despite their disdain for Romney.”)

    • http://www.glornt.com Alfredo ✓ᴰᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ

      Speaking of tautologies, here’s one: “survival of the fittest”. How do you define “fittest”? Simple — they’re the ones that survive. Yay! Theory proven! QED, and all that. I can also prove that 1 = 2 as long as you don’t notice a little sneaky division by zero along the way.

      Darwinist apologists also employ a lot of bait and switch, first describing microevolution, which is observable, and then claiming that denying the unproven theory of macroevolution (too slow to observe directly, but too fast to leave a fossil record!) implies denying microevolution. These are two distinct things; just proof of the former does not prove the latter, doubting the latter does not necessitate denying the former.

  • Duane_of_Dibbley

    Wow. He did everything but make them bite the curb.

    • spaceycakes

      tee hee; I’ll bet several will bite the pillow tonight

  • Duane_of_Dibbley
  • ImJustAGuy

    Just ask the journalists to point to the empirical evidence for speciation. Then watch the journalists start searching for the definition of speciation. Therein lies the state of the matter.

    • AMSilver

      I had a geology professor in college during one of her lectures, inform us that evolution was pretty much a scientific law by this point. At the same time, she was doing a thesis project with one of her graduate students where they were analyzing thousands of bivalves in one of the nearby shales in order to try and document evidence for punctuated equilibrium. So, by her actions, she was admitting that the first hypothesis of evolution was a bust, and the 2nd one still needed any proof whatsoever, but still demanding that evolution be accepted – not as a workable hypothesis, but as a scientific law on the order of gravity or atomic physics. I simply could not understand how one could teach science and yet totally not have a grasp of the basic principles by which science operates…

      • Petrucio14

        I had a high-school science teacher in a farm community who declared Evolution to be a fact because hybrid corn results in a superior corn. I asked her what happens when you plant the seed of hybrid corn? She couldn’t answer, but if it grows at all it is scrawny and fit for nothing. I then insisted that evolution is bunk because crossbreeding corn only works when a higher intelligence (man) is involved; otherwise the third law of thermodynamics takes over and the universe goes from organization to disorganization. She didn’t have an answer other than to get angry and send me to the Principal’s office (again!).

        • AMSilver

          So many of the successful ‘examples’ that people use to ‘prove’ evolution (look at this computer program that self-replicates and evolves into something new!!1!!11eleventy/look at this protein that I was able to get to form by putting all these chemicals in a tub together) are actually proof for intelligent design, but evolutionists don’t seem to get that.

  • ImJustAGuy

    The journalists have subscribed to something that they don’t even understand themselves.

  • Suzyqpie

    Double bonus points for mtDNA. Mitochondria DNA.

  • kristy624

    Would any of these journalists ever ask a Muslim running for office if they subscribe to the theory of evolution? Or how about their stance on gay marriage?

  • ImJustAGuy

    The left treats macro-evolution as a fact. You can have great fun making evolutionists look foolish, but you have to understand the concepts.

  • BigSocialistMuslimPig

    I feel sorry the GOP has to field candidates that must act like the world is flat. Sean Davis is dancing so fast I can’t see his feet. The answer to anyone with an 8th grade education is, yes, we have evolved. Sean is trying to make is sound like you can’t have an opinion on the subject unless you’re ready to go toe to toe with Richard Dawkins. Not so.

    I’m not a heart surgeon. But if I was asked “Do you believe heart transplants work?” would I punt on it to appease Christians who don’t believe in medicine at all?

    Then again, maybe we need to see Walker’s college transcripts to make sure he paid attention in school…oh wait…

    • ImJustAGuy

      We believe heart transplants work because we can observe heart transplants working.

      There is NO evidence for speciation. Macro-evolution is a hypothesis. It is based on limited data. Treating Darwin’s Origin of the Species as “settled science” is premature and foolish as best!

      • BigSocialistMuslimPig

        I haven’t observed one working. Why should I believe it?

        • ImJustAGuy

          That’s a troll response. Say something intelligent.

        • VAKAT

          How do you know you have not seen a heart transplant work? Do you ask everyone you see if they are a heart transplant patient?

    • Deplorable Xenophobe Perry

      Why would that person ask that question in that setting?

      • ImJustAGuy

        It was a “gotcha” question. They wanted a sound-bite/video clip for use against Walker in the future.

        • Deplorable Xenophobe Perry

          Of course. EVERYTHING is politics to the left. Fortunately, they don’t control the media like they used to.

          • ImJustAGuy

            Agreed!

          • ImJustAGuy

            Walker handled it well. But he should be prepared to have a good answer for all of the major idols to the left, gay marriage, abortion, evolution, etc.

          • Deplorable Xenophobe Perry

            Yep. People like Obama and Hillary never have to concern themselves with such things. They know the questions before they’re asked. No “gotcha” with them, up until now.

          • ImJustAGuy

            Michelle Malkin tweeted a couple hours ago that every GOP candidate must be prepared for leftist journalists challenging them with “gotcha” questions. She also said if the candidate is not prepared for them, just don’t run.

            I agree with her.

          • BigSocialistMuslimPig

            Here are the answers:

            I do not deny evolution.

            Gay people have the right to marry the partner of their choice.

            Women have domain over the contents of their own bodies and I’d like to keep the government out of there.

            There. Walker’s campaign can paypal me my fee.

          • Stephen L. Hall #NonquamTrump

            So a conservative should be a “progressive” . . . your fee is of a seriously negative value, please remit the difference.

          • R.C.

            Recently a woman was arrested for smuggling drugs in her breast implants.
            Did the federal government have a right to arrest her?
            Contents of her body and all.
            Like a poster, or tweeter had mentioned; why are pro evolutionist certain on evolution but not conception? Seems one is far more easy to prove than the other.

        • BigSocialistMuslimPig

          It’s only a gotcha question because his stupid answer is predictable. If he had nutz he’d tell the truth.

          • ImJustAGuy

            Since you’re posturing as so smart, how about you give an intelligent and informed response to my response to your “heart transplant” statement.

            BTW, your current response is intellectually lazy.

          • BigSocialistMuslimPig

            I’ve never seen a walking, talking heart transplant patient. I cant’ be sure it’s possible.

          • ImJustAGuy

            That’s a troll response. There’s no credibility in such a statement. Say something intelligent.

          • BigSocialistMuslimPig

            Well, I’ve never knowingly met a heart transplant patient. I’ve read that it happens. But I’m going to punt on the question of whether or not they are real.

          • ImJustAGuy

            Stop being a troll.

            That’s like saying the Taj Mahal doesn’t exist because you’ve never been to India to see if it’s there.

          • BigSocialistMuslimPig

            I don’t know what you want me to say, but have it your way…

            Look, this is only a gotcha question if you’re beholden by special interests to give a profoundly stupid answer. And it’s a perfectly legit question. We have Christians trying to teach junk science along side the real stuff. There is no room to give their point of view any scientific credibility.

            Let me translate gotcha question for you: a question for which you can’t give the obvious answer because there is a big voting block of idiots you need to say stupid stuff to appease. Don’t worry, the smart people on the right know you’re just pandering. Do it with a wink if you must.

            The left is full of idiots, but there is no equivalent to this purely anti-science and reason stance GOP candidates must take to be on the national stage. It’s a sadness.

            If I visit a country that has Darwin on the 10 pound note I should probably think real hard about whether I want to go over there and be made a fool.

          • Petrucio14

            By your logic, China must be further away than the moon. I’ve never seen Red China, but I see the moon nearly every night.

          • Jeff Henderson ✓Bona Fide

            But it has been observed and you could observe by going to a good hospital and witness it for yourself. Where can I go to see genetic evolution in process?

          • ImJustAGuy

            He’s punting because I called him on his belief in macro evolution and he can’t answer, so he’s gone a-trollin’

          • BigSocialistMuslimPig

            Sean Davis appears clever on the surface, but all of these sub-theories of evolution, obviously an ongoing field of study, all support the fact the evolution is how we got here. So making a simple question any 8th grade science student can answer needlessly complex is to divert from the issue. GOP candidates need to shed this nonsense. I want both parties to have strong candidates with good ideas. One needs not be burdened by backwards thinking.

          • Stephen L. Hall #NonquamTrump

            You mean like the backwards thinking of socialism and Keynesian economics?

          • BigSocialistMuslimPig

            You enjoy the fruits of socialism so much that if it were to disappear you’d probably not live through the month.

          • Stephen L. Hall #NonquamTrump

            That has got to be the most idiotic statement I have ever seen on this site, and given the level of some of the other trolls, that is saying a lot.

          • AMSilver

            All the sub-theories ‘support’ evolution because they are all attempting to explain it. None of the subtheories actually has succeeded in explaining it yet.

            The only way evolution holds up as a theory is if people accept it prior to fully understanding the science involved.

          • BigSocialistMuslimPig

            No, none of the scientists working on the details are going to deny the big picture.

          • AMSilver

            None of the scientists working to support a theory they believe in are going to deny the theory they are trying to support… Wow! That’s a great tautology you’ve got there… However, it totally fails to address the veracity of the theory.

          • BigSocialistMuslimPig

            You can observe evolution in things like bacteria and fruit flies. Happens all the time in the lab. Remember Palin not being able to understand why there is funding for the study of fruit flies? Now you know what she doesn’t.

          • Petrucio14

            You make the common error of equating micro-evolution with macro-evolution. Neither proves the other. Just because some members of a species die out over a small ecosystem only to be supplanted with those who did not die does not prove that the survivors have positive traits to pass on to their offspring. If that were the case, all horses and donkeys would have died out by now only to be replaced with mules which are more hardy and can thrive on much poorer forage.

          • BigSocialistMuslimPig

            I’m not confusing the two. Both are filed under evolution, and both support the theory of it.

          • Petrucio14

            Because you say so? Who could possibly dispute your superior reasoning? /sarc

          • Jeff Henderson ✓Bona Fide

            Micro-evolution – changing eye-color of a fruit fly – is observable. But it is still a fruit fly. How many generations of fruit fly mutations have scientists nurtured and yet – they still are fruit flies.

          • AMSilver

            Which new species evolved from fruit flies? Since it’s happened all the time in the lab, surely you can rattle off a list of at least half a dozen species…

          • Kari in MN

            How about one who has had open heart surgery to replace an aortic valve? Didn’t have the transplant, but I am sure my heart surgeons saw my beating heart just fine when they basically stopped it to fix it.

      • BigSocialistMuslimPig

        Why not?

        • VAKAT

          Because it was not germane to the reason they were there? I mean, I realize that when the Prezzy steps in front of a microphone after the beheading of an American citizen, it would be entirely appropriate to ask him his stance on drilling off shore, right? Please… (/sarc)

    • AMSilver

      Do you believe in punctuated equilibrium or Darwinian gradualism? Do you have any idea what either of those two terms refer to, and what significance they play in the theory of evolution?

      • BigSocialistMuslimPig

        Well, punctuated equilibriu is a form of gradualism, so can I say both?

        • Petrucio14

          No, punctuated equilibrium is not a form of gradualism. They are conflicting theories. Punctuated equilibrium posits that evolution occurs in spurts triggered by sudden mutation. Gradualism is Darwin’s original thought, that evolution must occur slowly and in hardly noticeable changes over vast eons of time. Neither is a subset of the other, and neither qualify or disqualify a candidate for national office.

          • BigSocialistMuslimPig

            Wrong. Whether you’re in Gould or Dawkin’s camp – whichever speedism – you’re still operating on a time scale in which all evolution is gradual. But we’re mincing words, right?

            I still wouldn’t punt on the question of evolution, which all of these theories support.

          • AMSilver

            Sigh… I guess we should have started with a definition of the word ‘gradual’… This is just painful.

          • Petrucio14

            Well, you do seem to be mincing words. Punctuate equilibrium is not gradual, by definition. You can conflate them all you want, but neither adequately supports the overarching theory of macroevolution. Neither can be observed to result in the conclusion that evolutionists purport to be reasonable.

  • alanstorm

    Just ask the next questioner “What effect does that have on governance here and now?”

    I suspect Obama “believes” in evolution, and he’s managed to be spectacularly useless for two solid terms.

    • Michael the white suburbanite

      His stance on “gay” marriage has evolved

      • MyrmidoNOT

        Devolved…from my perspective.

        Unless you may determine which “lie” to believe…

    • Eddie_Baby

      Dialing science and math down to adding and subtracting is much more important when you need to balance a budget.

  • frozen(anddeplorable)inbemidji

    I think I’ve got a man crush.

  • walterc

    Since evolution is an unproven theory, to me this question is akin to a reporter asking Queen Isabella if she believed the earth was flat when Columbus was asking for funding to prove otherwise.

    Settled science.

    • AMSilver

      Can you tell me what major policy currently rests on the question of whether evolution is a scientific fact?

      • walterc

        Not seeing your point. Because we don’t currently use it as a policy platform, we can’t discuss it? It’s the same argument I get from the gorbull warming crowd. Scientific consensus doesn’t it make it correct. Yet we seem to base plenty of policy on that particular set of settled science.

        • AMSilver

          I’m trying to understand the relevance of your Columbus example to the current Walker/evolution question. I’m not sure I understand what point you were trying to make. Given that there was a policy (Columbus crossing the ocean) that would have been relevant to Isabella’s beliefs about the shape of the earth at the time you were referencing, it would then seem that in order for the two scenarios to be similar, there would have to be some sort of policy on hand for Walker to have an opinion on… We might be on two totally different wave-lengths, here…

          • walterc

            We are talking to different wave lengths. My reference to Columbus had nothing to do with policy only scientific consensus.

          • AMSilver

            Okay, that makes much more sense now.

  • djm1992✓𝒢𝑒𝓃𝒹𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝒾𝒻𝓉𝑒𝒹 ☭⁻ᴴ⁸ᴿ

    Great tweets, for sure. But nothing beats the greatest Sean Davis tweet of all time (regarding the Hobby Lobby contraception mandate challenge):

    https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/483647455662055426

  • Stephen L. Hall #NonquamTrump

    Punctuated equilibrium . . . I’ve been saying that for years . . . no one listens.

    • Paladin

      Because the mind is already made up and the filters are in place to strain out contradictory information…

      We just need to find a few more fossils.

  • Paladin

    Punctuated equilibriaium or phycholetic gradualatsism? WHAT? TALKING POINTS!! GIVE ME MY DAMN TALKING POINTS!!!!

    • Paladin

      (Just voted myself up ’cause I thought that was funny)

  • djm1992✓𝒢𝑒𝓃𝒹𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝒾𝒻𝓉𝑒𝒹 ☭⁻ᴴ⁸ᴿ

    Sean Davis @seanmdav
    Tell us, @morningmoneyben, do you believe in punctuated equilibrium, or constant gradualism? Feel free to use math to defend your view.
    1:33 PM – 11 Feb 2015

    Math?!? These are J-schoolers. They were told repeatedly through J-school that there would be no math. Just look at how they report on economic data and budgets put out by Democrat administrations.

    To J-schoolers, the answer to any and all questions that involve math and statistics = whatever the Democratic party’s talking points are.

  • Paladin

    Bonus exam question: List the scientific evidence for the “prebiotic soup” from whence the first simple cells emerged. Explain the effects the atmospheric composition had on the binding of amino acids and the folding of proteins to form the first cell.

    • Jeff Henderson ✓Bona Fide

      And then give 3 examples of how that knowledge affects trade agreements between Wisconsin and the UK. – Oh and sum it up in a sound bite for us.

  • TheAmishDude

    I’m starting to think that the easiest way to undermine belief in evolution is to present it in detail, particularly the evolution of the theory of evolution.

  • ursafan40

    Well done Sean Davis!

    I thought I followed Science. He lost me at “rate of constant change for for genetic complexity”. I am shamed in comparison.

  • Heather Atkinson

    A blistering, hilarious example of ‘define the terms’, a strategy I’ve been using for a while now. You can -always- destroy a Leftist by forcing them to define what they mean using a dictionary. They say ‘access’, make them say what they really mean, paid-for-by-someone-else’.

    Goes for nearly everything they say. Their words don’t mean what the dictionary says they mean.

  • AMartel

    Dear GOP candidates: You KNOW you’re going to be asked Gotcha questions by ignorant jeering douchenozzles (“journalists”) so have a generic response ready. We can’t and don’t expect you to know to ask them if they know “phyletic gradualism” or other sciencey questions outside your immediate expertise and if you ask them to define “evolution” they’ll just give the idiocrat answer which all their idiocrat consumers will immediately recognize and if you don’t agree with it then Gotcha.
    So how about: That’s an issue that is still in development scientifically, and which reasonable minds disagree about, so since I’m not running for Head Scientist or Religious Majordomo, I’ll let you and everyone else work that one out on your own.

  • Evie1949

    The Scopes trial argument was that the age of the Earth based on the generational counting method from the Bible was determined to be a few thousand years old and the evolution could not be correct because there was not sufficient time. We now know that Earth is much older.

    Only those who say that because apes still exist, evolution cannot be possible. Of course that means they do not understand that no one has said that man was descended from apes, only that apes and primates and humans had common ancestry that separated along different evolutionary lines, hence the fact that primates and apes exist is the not affected by evolution.

  • Perso Nasplit

    wow. that deserves a follow.

  • surfcat50

    These journalists must be very happy Mr. Davis is not an arsonist because he just performed the equivalent of burning down each of their houses and the houses of each family member including any houses any of them ever lived in.

    That was some weapons grade snark/contempt being launched on them.

  • chrissy

    He lost me at “gradualism”. 🙂

    • AMSilver

      Trust me, then, that understanding the terms just makes it that much more beautiful. 😀

  • John

    If Scott Walker is serious about running for the nomination then he needs to step up his game for all the inevitable questions of this type. The Democrat Media Complex plays for keeps, if you don’t have ready answers for the abortion, date rape, moment of conception, evolution questions etc then you might as well go home because punting ain’t gonna cut it.

    • AMSilver

      I agree. Walker’s answer was weak. ‘I’m going to punt’ leaves him open for leftists to assume whatever answer they think would be most embarrassing and then paint him with it. ‘Tell me what the relevance of evolution is to the topic of this press conference and I’ll answer the question’ is a much stronger position to take.

      • John

        Only Democrat politicians can get away with saying it’s above their pay grade. And you’re correct, challenge the premise of their question is a good start for pushing back against the gotcha questions. Newt was very effective in beating back the DMC and the traps they like to set.

      • dabhidh

        He probably shouldn’t have used the word, “punt”, but his answer was not dissimilar to what you suggest. He said that he doesn’t believe politicians should get involved with the question one way or the other, and he’s entirely correct. The issue has no relevance to a Presidential candidate. Even if we were in the midst of some huge creation/evolution battle in education (which we’re not), no elected official needs to have a position on evolution, rather they would need to have firm principles on academic freedom.

  • The Deplorable Jay Stevens

    All I can say is that science is hard. That may be why journalists studied journalism and not science.

    • nickshaw

      Journalism requires “study”?

      • The Deplorable Jay Stevens

        Well, yes, for certain values of “study”.

  • SophieRo3

    The Left is trying to turn this into the 2016 equivalent of Stephanopoulos’ contraception question. Walker handled the question appropriately.

    Scott Walker’s answer isn’t going to hurt him. Why? Because Walker’s position is more in line with what America believes than the strictly scientific view:

    Slate: A New Poll Shows Americans Are Creationists, But Not Confident Creationists

    http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2014/12/creationism_poll_how_many_americans_believe_the_bible_is_literal_inerrant.html

    Gallup: Three in Four in U.S. Still See the Bible as Word of God

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/170834/three-four-bible-word-god.aspx

    Poll: Belief in Evolution Up, Majority of Americans Believe God Involved

    ‘Sixty-two percent of 1,000 adults polled in a YouGov survey taken July 8-9 believe that God was involved in the creation of humans.

    Thirty-seven percent say they believe God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years, while 25 percent say that God guided the process of evolution through which humans developed. Twenty-one percent say that God did not guide the process of human evolution, CBS News reports.’

    Gallup: In U.S., 42% Believe (Strictly) Creationist View of Human Origins

    http://t.co/wKoLEFqzvy

    Frankly, I’d love to hear Hillary Clinton’s opinion on this. It would be amusing to see her pretzelisation. She’s not going to come out and condemn creationism or God being involved in evolution. Not when the ‘strictly scientific’ view is held by a small minority of American voters.

    • nickshaw

      Funny how questions like this don’t seem to be asked of Dem candidates.
      Perhaps they should, eh? 😉
      On a slightly different track, libs seem to put a lot of stock in consensus so…

  • marcus tullius cicero

    Them faux journos want to revisit the Monkey Trial and answer all those hard questions about Evolution…Nope!

  • T.Marie

    Typical gotcha question. I would respond with a rebuttal question: how does that have anything to do with the presidency / policy passing / ect.? You don’t need to adhere to the theory of evolution to be in office and pass laws. To do that, you should have a thorough understanding of the Constitution, U.S. History, Economics, and Law.

    Well, unless you’re a leftist… then you don’t need to know anything.

    • Kawfy

      Or just say I am “evolving” on the issue…..heh

      • T.Marie

        Simple and a rub in the face response. I like it.

  • ricoliv

    Sean Davis is a rock star! Anyone who has read his Federalist pieces already knows this. but everyone else should get to know him.

  • AMSilver

    I notice how none of our pro-evolution trolls here has answered Davis’ questions, either. Telling!

    • MaisieMartin

      I’m not a troll, but I will say that his question isn’t very good either because the two aren’t mutually exclusive.

      Phyletic gradualism claims that species gradually accrue mutations until they, very gradually, become a new species.

      Punctuated equilibrium is what happens when there is a bottle neck or very small population size, and a few high impact DNA changes get incorporated into a species in a few generations, thus leading to a new species.

      Moreover, micro (species-level changes like color, or virus evolution) and macroevolution (species gradually changing into other species). are interesting schools of thought to bring up, since most Christians claim to believe the former and not the latter.

      I would like you to keep in mind that I a conservative of sorts, and I still believe in evolution.

      • AMSilver

        Minimizing the impact of the time scale with regards to the two different theories is not what I would call intellectually honest. There is a big difference as to whether new species develop gradually over millions or billions of years, or whether it happens in a relatively sudden period of time. That difference impacts what we would see in the fossil record (we don’t see gradualism, which is why paleontologists were the original detractors of the theory of evolution, and why PE is even a theory), the mathematical probability of whether the theory is even possible, our expectations of how genes mutate, what might cause such mutations, why they might fail to mutate, and how those mutations might spread through a population to create new features and ultimately, possibly, a new species.

        • MaisieMartin

          I don’t think I follow what you’re saying here.

  • Fred Norton

    Not so hot. You don’t have to be versed in the Theory of Evolution to know that evolution is a fact. It sounds like Mr. Davis looked up a few words so he could sound impressive. I doubt he understands the difference between evolution and the Theory of Evolution. And I don’t care how many people think Donald Duck is real, that still des not make it so.

    • nickshaw

      You forgot to finish up with, “Fact!”.

    • Nowind

      And that is the fun part! The ‘journalists’ didn’t bother to look up a few words.

      The ‘journalists’ looked like the putzes.

      • nickshaw

        Google is hard! 😉

  • TCDave

    I personally believe in Brief Gradualism. Also known as adaptation for the preservation of the species.

  • no

    this some redding herring bullshit

  • Dan13

    Londoner: what does this have to do with Irish money?

  • RepublicanDon

    Q: “What does DNA stand for?”
    Lib A: “Uh, Democrat National … something.”

  • Jeff H

    Well, Sean just ensured that he’ll NEVER be allowed on the panel of a presidential debate.

    #MakesTooMuchSense

  • sigh

    You don’t even have to get super complicated. Just ask an evo:

    Which came first? DNA or protein?

    Please explain the uniform temperature of the universe and how that weakens the big bang theory.

  • fred smith

    Is this for real or making fun of Scott Walker, because if we use this standard with anything else, everyone would look like an idiot. Oh you believe your computer can surf the web, but can you explain x86 architecture, no? Haha, got ya.

  • fred smith

    Lol, you think your believe in vaccinations for your kids, can you explain the chemical process of acquired immunity? No, haha, moron, and you vaccinate your kids?

  • Cobra_x30

    In my experience some liberals know this stuff and others don’t, same as conservatives. What is really irritating though are the mass numbers of scientifically illiterate liberals who think themselves to be the smartest people in the world for parroting whatever is popular.

  • Stat Crux

    That was something I always wanted to say but never had the patience to do it. I’m glad somebody did it without putting their fist through a monitor.

  • bestfriend

    While it is true that the majority of people cannot explain ‘evolution’ in detail neither can the majority of people expound on theological positions either. Sean Davis is simply trying to complicate the matter when it is in fact quite simple. Does the candidate believe there is a scientific explanation for the development of species or a Creator driven explanation which depending on his or her stance can have a large affect on their decisions regarding science.

  • TravisJSays

    Holy Kaw. Sean Davis broke the Twitterverse.