A prehumous Darwin Award for Michelle Bachmann 2 May 2009 One of the things I don’t like about the Darwin Awards is that it presumes the only way to gain one is to remove yourself from the gene pool directly by dying. But that would be a Wallace Award. Darwin knew, as do we, that there are many ways one can avoid contributing to the future gene pool, and it doesn’t need to involve not having children. Being totally unfit to walk around without a leash is another, if it’s heritable. Down the track, the “stupid gene” will get eliminated too, eventually. So it’s nice to see Michelle Bachmann get a prehumous, not a posthumous Darwin Award. Evolution Humor Politics
Evolution Bats and mice and wings and things 18 May 200818 Sep 2017 Comparative limb growth of a bat (top) and a mouse, in utero development. From the paper below. One of my favourite statistics is this: one in every four mammal species you meet is a rat or rodent, and one in every five is a bat. That’s right, nine in every… Read More
Epistemology Modus Darwin and the *real* modus darvinii 2 Feb 2011 Elliot Sober has published a claim (Sober 1999, Sober 2008: §4.1, 265ff) that Darwin used, and we should too, a particular syllogism: similarity, ergo common ancestry. This cannot be right, for several reasons: logical, historical and inferential. First the logical, as this is rather vapid, and can be guarded against… Read More
Australian stuff On tribalism 25 Sep 201424 Nov 2022 Humans evolved in tribes, our species’ equivalent of the general primate troop structure. This meant that members of the tribe benefited from shared resources, the protection of the group and the inherited knowledge of the tribe. It also meant that we will natively and naively defend our group against others,… Read More
Nah – you can also win the award by accidentally sterilizing yourself. On the other hand, people even dumber than Bachmann manage to reproduce all the time.
people even dumber than Bachmann manage to reproduce all the time …which is why we have people like Michele Bachmann.
people even dumber than Bachmann manage to reproduce all the time …which is why we have people like Michele Bachmann.
people even dumber than Bachmann manage to reproduce all the time …which is why we have people like Michele Bachmann.
She is almost like Pythonesque parody and one watches or reads her foolishness almost with open-mouthed wonder that someone says these things seriously.
She is almost like Pythonesque parody and one watches or reads her foolishness almost with open-mouthed wonder that someone says these things seriously.
She is almost like Pythonesque parody and one watches or reads her foolishness almost with open-mouthed wonder that someone says these things seriously.
Rt – I can think of thousands of people dumber than she is. They voted for her, after all. (It’s not my district.)
Rt – I can think of thousands of people dumber than she is. They voted for her, after all. (It’s not my district.)
Rt – I can think of thousands of people dumber than she is. They voted for her, after all. (It’s not my district.)
“Nobody ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence…etc” What is frightening is how true that truism continues to be.
“Nobody ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence…etc” What is frightening is how true that truism continues to be.
“Prehumous”? Arrg! “Postumus” is a superlative form of posterus, the ‘post-‘ isn’t just a prefix in this case – the correct antonym would be anterissimus. At most they could call it a ‘premortal’ Darwin Award – and I completely agree Bachmann deserves one…
“Prehumous”? Arrg! “Postumus” is a superlative form of posterus, the ‘post-‘ isn’t just a prefix in this case – the correct antonym would be anterissimus. At most they could call it a ‘premortal’ Darwin Award – and I completely agree Bachmann deserves one…
“Prehumous”? Arrg! “Postumus” is a superlative form of posterus, the ‘post-‘ isn’t just a prefix in this case – the correct antonym would be anterissimus. At most they could call it a ‘premortal’ Darwin Award – and I completely agree Bachmann deserves one…
I see she has five children. Presuming they all make it to adulthood that gives her a high Simple Darwinian Fitness. She has also had 23 foster children. If there is such a thing as Simple Darwinian Cultural Fitness, she is probably doing pretty well there also.
I see she has five children. Presuming they all make it to adulthood that gives her a high Simple Darwinian Fitness. She has also had 23 foster children. If there is such a thing as Simple Darwinian Cultural Fitness, she is probably doing pretty well there also.
He did, or rather he noted that evolution has no single direction, and simplification can also be the outcome of selection.
He did, or rather he noted that evolution has no single direction, and simplification can also be the outcome of selection.
He did, or rather he noted that evolution has no single direction, and simplification can also be the outcome of selection.
She has also had 23 foster children. Ha! She’s diluting her own gene pool. Either that or she’s really a Goldeneye (sorry, seemed apposite: I’ve just enjoyed watching the defence of that thesis).
She has also had 23 foster children. Ha! She’s diluting her own gene pool. Either that or she’s really a Goldeneye (sorry, seemed apposite: I’ve just enjoyed watching the defence of that thesis).
She has also had 23 foster children. Ha! She’s diluting her own gene pool. Either that or she’s really a Goldeneye (sorry, seemed apposite: I’ve just enjoyed watching the defence of that thesis).
She has also had 23 foster children. Ha! She’s diluting her own gene pool. Either that or she’s really a Goldeneye (sorry, seemed apposite: I’ve just enjoyed watching the defence of that thesis).
She has also had 23 foster children. Ha! She’s diluting her own gene pool. Either that or she’s really a Goldeneye (sorry, seemed apposite: I’ve just enjoyed watching the defence of that thesis).
She has also had 23 foster children. Ha! She’s diluting her own gene pool. Either that or she’s really a Goldeneye (sorry, seemed apposite: I’ve just enjoyed watching the defence of that thesis).
If Darwin had seen Michelle Bachmann, he might have concluded that the process sometimes works in reverse!
If Darwin had seen Michelle Bachmann, he might have concluded that the process sometimes works in reverse!