I liked your reading of this piece. It would take me many times to read it out loud and listen for my mistakes. Then, for the final reading, I know I would goof up somewhere, and what would I do then? I don't think I remember studying this in my college biology classes, but most of them were evolution-based. Good reading, and I think it took less time for me to listen to it than to read it. (I read it first and should have timed myself to see how long it took me to read compared to your audio
I’m always amazed that microbiologists can describe 500 different “subspecies” of E.coli (for example), but guess what - even that is still just E.coli! They can’t even get a new species of bacteria. And trust me, they try.
No one in who is any shade of green may believe in evolution except as a hypocrite. Darwinian evolution demands the extinction of species as a more fit one replaces every species that fails to survive. Evolutionists can afford no sympathy for the saber-tooth tiger, nor for the snail darter; we may shed no tears that ankylosaurus has died out, and stop trying to reintroduce woolly mammoths. Likewise, evolutionists must reject any affinity for environmentalists who even pretend to be concerned about “loss of habitat” for nearly extinct varieties of bats, fish, polar bears, and seals. Evolutionists rejoice that Hollywood and Malibu are burning down, as inadequate species will be furthered in their March toward extinction, and new species will undoubtedly arise from the ashes. Of course we who believe in evolution must never allow the ecologically rich areas of southern California to be rebuilt, as some selfish, capital-rich humans impose their speciesistic, I.e., human-centered, desires for homes in beautiful places on the burgeoning species that will emerge along with the various subspecies of humans that will take advantage of this wonderful habitat-based opportunity. No, wait—evolutionists must insist that LA be rebuilt, and decrease the surplus population, and environmentalists must insist that every rock, every tree and bush be restored to its pre-development position and status, after the fire damage is mitigated. It’s hard to decide, sometimes, whether to be an environmentalist or an evolutionist.
I love your article. Do I have your permission to translate it into French and post it on my blog?
Yes, I'd be honored.
Thanks. Done: https://skidmark.blog/2025/01/10/la-stase-par-al-christie/
God bless you.
I liked your reading of this piece. It would take me many times to read it out loud and listen for my mistakes. Then, for the final reading, I know I would goof up somewhere, and what would I do then? I don't think I remember studying this in my college biology classes, but most of them were evolution-based. Good reading, and I think it took less time for me to listen to it than to read it. (I read it first and should have timed myself to see how long it took me to read compared to your audio
Glad you liked it, Larry. Most folks read faster than I talk, but if you're a slow reader, maybe it's about the same, timewise.
I’m always amazed that microbiologists can describe 500 different “subspecies” of E.coli (for example), but guess what - even that is still just E.coli! They can’t even get a new species of bacteria. And trust me, they try.
No one in who is any shade of green may believe in evolution except as a hypocrite. Darwinian evolution demands the extinction of species as a more fit one replaces every species that fails to survive. Evolutionists can afford no sympathy for the saber-tooth tiger, nor for the snail darter; we may shed no tears that ankylosaurus has died out, and stop trying to reintroduce woolly mammoths. Likewise, evolutionists must reject any affinity for environmentalists who even pretend to be concerned about “loss of habitat” for nearly extinct varieties of bats, fish, polar bears, and seals. Evolutionists rejoice that Hollywood and Malibu are burning down, as inadequate species will be furthered in their March toward extinction, and new species will undoubtedly arise from the ashes. Of course we who believe in evolution must never allow the ecologically rich areas of southern California to be rebuilt, as some selfish, capital-rich humans impose their speciesistic, I.e., human-centered, desires for homes in beautiful places on the burgeoning species that will emerge along with the various subspecies of humans that will take advantage of this wonderful habitat-based opportunity. No, wait—evolutionists must insist that LA be rebuilt, and decrease the surplus population, and environmentalists must insist that every rock, every tree and bush be restored to its pre-development position and status, after the fire damage is mitigated. It’s hard to decide, sometimes, whether to be an environmentalist or an evolutionist.