Sarah Palin favors teaching creationism in schools.

[they don't love you like i love you]

I see nothing wrong with teaching creationism in school, as long as they also teach evolution as well. Let the students choose which one they want to believe in.

The difference is that evolution has basis in science, and creationism has absolutely no scientific basis whatseover.

Evolution is base on theories, not fact. Well, the idea that we came from pond scum is a theory, not fact.

Gravity is also a "theory".

Please educate yourself on what the term "theory" means when it is used in a scientific sense.

[J. J.]

I see nothing wrong with teaching creationism in school, as long as they also teach evolution as well. Let the students choose which one they want to believe in.

The difference is that evolution has basis in science, and creationism has absolutely no scientific basis whatseover.

The question is, should students be prohibited from asking about it?  Should we in a reverse Scopes Monkey Trial situation?  To put a reverse spin on a recent thread, you don't favor jailing people who ask about it in class, do you (that's rhetorical, I don't actually think you do)?

[specific_name]

Chris-from-NJ cares about this too much. I hope I can see his head explode if Palin becomes VP.

[Alcon]

The question is, should students be prohibited from asking about it?  Should we in a reverse Scopes Monkey Trial situation?  To put a reverse spin on a recent thread, you don't favor jailing people who ask about it in class, do you (that's rhetorical, I don't actually think you do)?

I think you're the only person here asking that question.  I think everyone else thinks the answer is "no."

[J. J.]

I did read it, and it doesn't support your conclusion.  I have no disagreement that the brain of the genus Homo evolved to process more complex thought.  That is not the issue.

I made two assertions:

1. The Human Genome Project is related to the topic at hand.

I readily concede the point that genus Homo's ability to think evolved.  That is not the point I'm arguing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have a plausible explanation for why genus Homo developed tools, language, and yes, even art.  I have no plausible explanation for why genus Homo made the metaphysical leap.  There are a lot of "possible" explanations, God, the gods, a mutation, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Now you effectively saying, science doesn't know, science doesn't have a good idea, have faith in science.  Sorry, I'm skeptical.

I argue that, while abstract thinking, and they referred to it as analogical thinking, IIRC, clearly can be related to survival.  I would argue that "How can get I to the fruit, that is out of reach," and "Why is the fruit here," are both abstract questions; both require abstract thought to answer.  One answer leads to a payoff, food.  The other does not.  The second, in this context I'll call metaphysical thinking.


...

I no not disagree.  Do you feel that metaphysical thinking comes along with analytical thinking?

Yes.  They originate from development of the same parts of the brain.  Do you have a basic, working understanding of the structure of the brain?  If so, you know this is true.  Allowing one, but not the other, would be an artificial block imposed on the primate brain.  You haven't explained why we should assume this.

The is an artificial block; it's called survival of the fittest.  When Homo began to think about these things, it takes resources away from survival.

Example:  We have two groups of genus Homo, A and B.  They are the same species, have the same culture, two or three generations ago, they were the same group.  The group became separated a while back and equal numbers live about 100 miles apart.  Both groups are hunters/gathers/scavengers, tool makers with language; the have a certain level of intelligence and they reproduce.  While separate, each group lives in the same environment, same food, same water, same predators.

Group A stays the same.  Someone in group B starts asking the metaphysical question, "Why is the fruit here."  I'll even assume that the question enters the guys mind through perfectly normal natural means.  The other members of the group start asking it; when they think about it, they are not doing the things group A are doing, i.e. hunting/gathering/scavenging/having sex/making tools.

All thinks being equal, in 50 years, which group will be more viable?  Which group has better chance of producing descendants that will be around in 100 years, less than a blink of the eye in the scale we're discussing.

Both groups can make technological advances, better tools.  Where are those technological advances more likely to occur?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, you're wrong, since other primates can do abstract, analogy thinking, which is not necessitated by survival, but goes along with thought skills that are helpful to it.  Which is exactly my argument for the development of human metacognition, in fact.

[/quote]

Once again, you've have to look at analogy thinking that isn't related to survival or gratification.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nor can she force them to allow debate.  When you want to believe she doesn't support teaching ID in schools, you argue it must have been a mis-statement, because she can't force that as governor.  But you accept that she was talking about her personal opinion on teaching when she said that debating should be allowed.  Do you think she believes the state government has a right to enforce that, and actively supports forcing allowing debate?

If not, you can't have it both ways; it's special pleading.

[/quote]

Where does she say that she will "force" them to permit debate.  She's saying that they should not be prohibited by the state. 

Palin is saying, it is not the role of state government to either require or prohibit it.  (The courts have said it's not the role of local government either.)

Which I'm essentially fine with, but if she personally supports teaching it alongside macroevolution, I am disagreeing with that opinion.
[/quote]

I'm essentially Biden's position of legalizing rape, but if he personally supports legalizing rape, I am disagreeing with that opinion.

[J. J.]

The question is, should students be prohibited from asking about it?  Should we in a reverse Scopes Monkey Trial situation?  To put a reverse spin on a recent thread, you don't favor jailing people who ask about it in class, do you (that's rhetorical, I don't actually think you do)?

I think you're the only person here asking that question.  I think everyone else thinks the answer is "no."

The first question has been answered by a few people on this thread who have said they do.  Sorry, but it has.

[Alcon]

I have a plausible explanation for why genus Homo developed tools, language, and yes, even art.  I have no plausible explanation for why genus Homo made the metaphysical leap.  There are a lot of "possible" explanations, God, the gods, a mutation, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

And I just provided you with a source of one to look up (Lahn, whose study also mentions other hypotheses.)  Did you miss that link too?

Now you effectively saying, science doesn't know, science doesn't have a good idea, have faith in science.  Sorry, I'm skeptical.

Nothing wrong with skepticism.  I'm skeptical too -- that's, um, science.

I do have faith in the scientific method, not necessarily faith in the scientific conclusions.  I assume they are correct, unless they are demonstrably flawed; if you consider working on an assumption faith, fine.  You're trying to equate faith to empirical evidence and doing a remarkably bad job of it.

The is an artificial block; it's called survival of the fittest.  When Homo began to think about these things, it takes resources away from survival.

Example:  We have two groups of genus Homo, A and B.  They are the same species, have the same culture, two or three generations ago, they were the same group.  The group became separated a while back and equal numbers live about 100 miles apart.  Both groups are hunters/gathers/scavengers, tool makers with language; the have a certain level of intelligence and they reproduce.  While separate, each group lives in the same environment, same food, same water, same predators.

Group A stays the same.  Someone in group B starts asking the metaphysical question, "Why is the fruit here."  I'll even assume that the question enters the guys mind through perfectly normal natural means.  The other members of the group start asking it; when they think about it, they are not doing the things group A are doing, i.e. hunting/gathering/scavenging/having sex/making tools.

All thinks being equal, in 50 years, which group will be more viable?  Which group has better chance of producing descendants that will be around in 100 years, less than a blink of the eye in the scale we're discussing.

Both groups can make technological advances, better tools.  Where are those technological advances more likely to occur?

You have a pretty common misunderstanding of the fundamentals of the theory of evolution.  Evolution occurs when a mutation happens, and that mutation increases the likelihood survival.  Evolution does not happen because nature says, "gee, you know what would be awesome? Lasers."

The trouble is, the mutation you suggest (never thinking about anything outside of survival) would require a drastic change in the primate brain.  You cannot remove the parts of the brain, or the systems within it, that allow for metacognition, without removing survival skills.  That is because, as I have already stated, metacognition is just advanced critical thinking.

What you're proposing would require an artificial block in the brain that allows only for logic, but without affecting any other survival skills.  Such a mutation is, I'd think, essentially impossible.

Basically, yes, I think that animals, even working animals like a dog that herds other animals, are limited to perhaps two thoughts, survival and gratification, and I'm not entirely sure of the second.

Well, you're wrong, since other primates can do abstract, analogy thinking, which is not necessitated by survival, but goes along with thought skills that are helpful to it.  Which is exactly my argument for the development of human metacognition, in fact.

Once again, you've have to look at analogy thinking that isn't related to survival or gratification.

Read the study I linked.  How was that related to either?  It wasn't -- it just happened to go along with processes that are.  You're proving my point for me.

Where does she say that she will "force" them to permit debate.  She's saying that they should not be prohibited by the state. 

You said that her comments about being for teaching ID obviously must not be accurate, because that's not something the governor can control.

But when she says that they should permit debate, you seem to claim she is just speaking to her own opinion on what should be done in the classroom.

It's special pleading -- you're arguing one thing must be true in one case, but arbitrarily refusing to apply it to another case.

In any case, your interpretation still requires more assumptions and two prior incorrect statements on Palin's part, and mine doesn't.  Yet, you're sure mine is wrong and yours is right.  Why?

I'm essentially Biden's position of legalizing rape, but if he personally supports legalizing rape, I am disagreeing with that opinion.

Uh, what?

[Alcon]

The first question has been answered by a few people on this thread who have said they do.  Sorry, but it has.

I do not see any instances of this, and I just reviewed the thread.  You can quote them, if you'd like.  Either way, I'm not advocating that position.

[Sbane]

The question is, should students be prohibited from asking about it?  Should we in a reverse Scopes Monkey Trial situation?  To put a reverse spin on a recent thread, you don't favor jailing people who ask about it in class, do you (that's rhetorical, I don't actually think you do)?

I think you're the only person here asking that question.  I think everyone else thinks the answer is "no."

The first question has been answered by a few people on this thread who have said they do.  Sorry, but it has.

I don't think anybody has said that and I would think these debates do occur in classrooms across America all the time. I am sure most end with the teacher respectfully telling the student that in science class you learn what is proven theory at the current moment. Obviously a HS student of intro bio does not have the skills or expertise to challenge a well accepted scientific theory. But like I said if somebody cares so much about it they can become get their bio degree and argue with their professors as much as they like. Of course all these damn courses I have to take would just "brainwash" the lover of christ.

[J. J.]

The question is, should students be prohibited from asking about it?  Should we in a reverse Scopes Monkey Trial situation?  To put a reverse spin on a recent thread, you don't favor jailing people who ask about it in class, do you (that's rhetorical, I don't actually think you do)?

I think you're the only person here asking that question.  I think everyone else thinks the answer is "no."

The first question has been answered by a few people on this thread who have said they do.  Sorry, but it has.

I don't think anybody has said that and I would think these debates do occur in classrooms across America all the time. I am sure most end with the teacher respectfully telling the student that in science class you learn what is proven theory at the current moment. Obviously a HS student of intro bio does not have the skills or expertise to challenge a well accepted scientific theory. But like I said if somebody cares so much about it they can become get their bio degree and argue with their professors as much as they like. Of course all these damn courses I have to take would just "brainwash" the lover of christ.

Right here:

OK, here is what she really said:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html


I'm glad to know that liberals like sbane, stop sarah palin, Teh O.C.,, new deal democrat, oppose free debate.  Good job guys.

Sorry J.J but there is nothing to debate about. I would also love to debate gravity and other such facts but time is money. We shouldn't waste it having worthless debates about whether we descended from monkeys. If you really want to debate it so much then get into college and get a bio degree, then you can argue all you want with your professors. In high school having the debate from a religious point of view in a SCIENCE class is detrimental to the other students.

There are a few others as well.

[Lunar]

There's no prize at the end of this thread, Alcon   No satisfaction.  No triumph.  No trophy

[J. J.]

I have a plausible explanation for why genus Homo developed tools, language, and yes, even art.  I have no plausible explanation for why genus Homo made the metaphysical leap.  There are a lot of "possible" explanations, God, the gods, a mutation, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

And I just provided you with a source of one to look up (Lahn, whose study also mentions other hypotheses.)  Did you miss that link too?

I looked at the Preuss, et al., article that said it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nothing wrong with skepticism.  I'm skeptical too -- that's, um, science.

I do have faith in the scientific method, not necessarily faith in the scientific conclusions.  I assume they are correct, unless they are demonstrably flawed; if you consider working on an assumption faith, fine.  You're trying to equate faith to empirical evidence and doing a remarkably bad job of it.
[/quote]

Thank you explaining that you belief is based on faith not on evidence.  They are saying correctly, we don't have evidence about what caused.  You are adding your own little belief, **and I know it wasn't God.**  They you are trying to pass this off as "science."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You have a pretty common misunderstanding of the fundamentals of the theory of evolution.  Evolution occurs when a mutation happens, and that mutation increases the likelihood survival.  Evolution does not happen because nature says, "gee, you know what would be awesome? Lasers."

The trouble is, the mutation you suggest (never thinking about anything outside of survival) would require a drastic change in the primate brain.  You cannot remove the parts of the brain, or the systems within it, that allow for metacognition, without removing survival skills.  That is because, as I have already stated, metacognition is just advanced critical thinking.

What you're proposing would require an artificial block in the brain that allows only for logic, but without affecting any other survival skills.  Such a mutation is, I'd think, essentially impossible.
[/quote]

No Alcon, I have not suggested anything of the sort of "artificial block."  I am suggesting nothing other than natural selection.  A group that divert resources, including the time to think about the question, to metaphysical pursuits seems much less likely to survive.  

The Preuss paper talked about causation, and mutation was one.  Fine, it's possible, but once that mutation occurs, and Homo begins its pursuits of the metaphysical, that doesn't look like it is a trait would be helpful.

I will note that you didn't answer my question, which leave me with the suspicion that you don't like the answer.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, you're wrong, since other primates can do abstract, analogy thinking, which is not necessitated by survival, but goes along with thought skills that are helpful to it.  Which is exactly my argument for the development of human metacognition, in fact.
[/quote]

Stop confusing metacognition with metaphysical thinking.  And stop confusing humans with the genus Homo.  There were other species of the genus Homo that thought metaphysically as well.

In any case, your interpretation still requires more assumptions and two prior incorrect statements on Palin's part, and mine doesn't.  Yet, you're sure mine is wrong and yours is right.  Why?

Because, she came out the day after and corrected her statement.  The second statement referred to the first.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh, what?
[/quote]

[/quote]

Turnabout is fair play.  I just took your sentence, "Which I'm essentially fine with, but if she personally supports teaching it alongside macroevolution, I am disagreeing with that opinion," and changed the subject matter.  

[Alcon]

There are a few others as well.

Fair enough.

I looked at the Preuss, et al., article that said it.

Oh, OK, I guess that makes the Lahn study not exist?

No Alcon, I have not suggested anything of the sort of "artificial block."  I am suggesting nothing other than natural selection.  A group that divert resources, including the time to think about the question, to metaphysical pursuits seems much less likely to survive. 

The Preuss paper talked about causation, and mutation was one.  Fine, it's possible, but once that mutation occurs, and Homo begins its pursuits of the metaphysical, that doesn't look like it is a trait would be helpful.

I will note that you didn't answer my question, which leave me with the suspicion that you don't like the answer.

Again, because I didn't accept the premise that such a mutation/evolution would occur.  If I don't except the premise, your question is irrelevant.  It was rhetorical anyway, since the answer would be obvious.

The mutation was increased critical thinking skills.  Until you can explain to me how the brain would develop to think critically without metacognition, you're whistling Dixie.

Stop confusing metacognition with metaphysical thinking.  And stop confusing humans with the genus Homo.  There were other species of the genus Homo that thought metaphysically as well.

Metacognition is a form of metaphysical thinking.  You're nitpicking irrelevantly.  I understand the difference, but since my (supported, unrebutted!) contention is that they are essentially the product of the same process, I did nothing wrong by using them interchangably.

Because, she came out the day after and corrected her statement.  The second statement referred to the first.

Lol, you're running in circles.  I already pointed out that the two aren't mutually exclusive statements, and you've totally ignored that.

[Alcon]

Well, J. J., you've apparently decided that:

1. You're not going to do any work in researching or understanding this, even if I give you direct citations.  And, seriously, anyone who could make a statement, like the HGP is irrelevant to this, clearly has very little knowledge of this subject -- even less than the limited I have.

2. You're going to refuse to answer my questions (e.g., on brain development) while complaining I don't answer questions, even if I note my objections to their premises.

3. You're going to unsubtly disregard things I spend several posts explaining, like how Palin's statements aren't logically mutually exclusive.

You're officially swimming in confirmation-bias-land (you?), and Lunar's right, there's just no gold at the end of the rainbow, here.

[J. J.]

Well, J. J., you've apparently decided that:

1. You're not going to do any work in researching or understanding this, even if I give you direct citations.  And, seriously, anyone who could make a statement, like the HGP is irrelevant to this, clearly has very little knowledge of this subject -- even less than the limited I have.

Because it does not relate to the topic at hand.  I've give you a little hint.  I'm not asking a question about God.  I'm asking one about evolution.

I believe these things in general.  The genus Homo evolved a greater ability to think analogically.  No disagreement.  Some animals have the ability to think analogically.  No disagreement. 

At some point in its development genus Homo began to ask the question "Why in the fruit here," or more generally "Why is universe the way it is?"  Animals don't ask that question.  That question is what I call metaphysical.  It is the basic question of science.

So I'm asking, why did members (and later cultures) of genus Homo ask that question?  I'll give you hint; that is an evolutionary question, not a God question.  I'm not asking if they had brain development to ask it; I'm asking why they (we) asked that question?  If they did, what is the evolutionary advantage in not only asking it, but in diverting resources to answer it?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I just answered it , twice.    You have dealt with the capacity to ask the question.  It's not an issue with me.  I'm asking, in terms of evolutionaly advantage, what is the advantage in asking the question (even if the answer is initially wrong.

This is one of your more interesting quotes:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If we were to change the first sentence to "I do have faith in the scientific method Bible, not necessarily faith in the scientific conclusions specific translation," we'd have one of jmfsct's post.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A few posts ago, I said:

Quote from: J. J. on August 31, 2008, 11:41:54 pm]
The question is, should students be prohibited from asking about it?  Should we in a reverse Scopes Monkey Trial situation?  To put a reverse spin on a recent thread, you don't favor jailing people who ask about it in class, do you (that's rhetorical, I don't actually think you do)?
[/quote]
You responded:

Quote from: Alcon on August 31, 2008, 11:43:45 pm
I think you're the only person here asking that question.  I think everyone else thinks the answer is "no."
[/quote]

Yet there were several examples of yes.  You then posted "Fair enough."

You looked at what was posted, and after refection, changed your opinion, modified it. 

Your first answer is logically inconsistent with your second answer, unless your second answer is meant to supersede your first answer.  So did Palin's answer, or her final answer. 

You want to accuse her of thinking about it overnight and changing it, fine.  Flipflopping over 24 hours until she gave a final answer, fine.  But we know what her final answer was, like yours to that question.  I'm holding her, rhetorically to the same standard I'm holding you, and there is no contradiction; Palin and Alcon changed their mind.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Alcon bringeth the ownage.

[Alcon]

J. J.,

I understand your contention is that there's no evolutionary basis for metaphysical thinking.  My contention is that it is part of critical thinking, is not a separate function, and has no reason to appear as such a mutation.  I may be wrong, but I don't think you've explained how it would.  Either way, I've answered your question--"why did homo genus begin to ask 'why is the fruit her?'"  Because their brains evolved to that point, and nothing stopped them from thinking that way.  Your over-use of the smiley doesn't change the fact that you keep ignoring that.

Your religious analogy is ham-fisted.  I have "faith" (that is, working assumption) in the scientific method because it is based on empirical evidence.  My faith isn't an axiom, beyond the axiom that "what I observe and experience in the world, I assume is true."  I have axiomatic assumption in the truth of the scientific because I have axiomatic assumption in the truth of reality through empirical observation.  It could be wrong, and I accept that.  But on one hand, you have faith in observable reality vs. faith in a book not demanding any empirical proof.  Apples and kumquats.

I have no idea why you're giving me an example of changing one's mind; it's a concept I understand.  Unlike Palin, I obviously did, because my statement (II) consciously contradicted, and redacted, my statement (I).  That's not true of Palin's statements -- they're not mutually exclusive.  She can both personally support teaching ID (I), but oppose it being in state curriculum (II).  She could have been expounding (II) on that point (I), and you continue to ignore that.  You're being intentionally dense.  I hope.

[they don't love you like i love you]

You're being intentionally dense.  I hope.

It's what J. J. does best.

[J. J.]

Alcon bringeth the ownage.

Well, why don't you try to answer this question, since Alcon hasn't.

We have two groups of genus Homo, A and B.  They are the same species, have the same culture, two or three generations ago, they were the same group.  The group became separated a while back and equal numbers live about 100 miles apart.  Both groups are hunters/gathers/scavengers, tool makers with language; the have a certain level of intelligence and they reproduce.  While separate, each group lives in the same environment, same food, same water, same predators.

Group A stays the same.  Someone in group B starts asking the metaphysical question, "Why is the fruit here."  I'll even assume that the question enters the guys mind through perfectly normal natural means.  The other members of the group start asking it; when they think about it, they are not doing the things group A are doing, i.e. hunting/gathering/scavenging/having sex/making tools.

All thinks being equal, in 50 years, which group will be more viable?  Which group has better chance of producing descendants that will be around in 100 years, less than a blink of the eye in the scale we're discussing?

Both groups can make technological advances, better tools.  Where are those technological advances more likely to occur?

Hint: It isn't a god question.

[Alcon]

I did answer tacitly -- I called the question "rhetorical."  Group A will be more viable.  That's obvious.

But the implication of your question is that Group B is likely to have existed.  I have rebutted that point.  If that isn't the implication of your question, your question isn't indicative of anything, and it's an entirely theoretical exercise.

[Countess Anya of the North Parish]

The question really is how much do people value curiosity?

[J. J.]

J. J.,

I understand your contention is that there's no evolutionary basis for metaphysical thinking.  My contention is that it is part of critical thinking, is not a separate function, and has no reason to appear as such a mutation.  I may be wrong, but I don't think you've explained how it would.  Either way, I've answered your question--"why did homo genus begin to ask 'why is the fruit her?'"  Because their brains evolved to that point, and nothing stopped them from thinking that way.  Your over-use of the smiley doesn't change the fact that you keep ignoring that.

I didn't say no evolutionary basis for metaphysical thinking.  I am asking, how is this an evolutionary advantage?

You seem to be saying that they would ask the question because they could, is that correct?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unfortunately, it is quite apt.  We have something that does not seem logical and isn't based on observation.  An animal, a primate, a baboon, a chimp, does think abstractly, but it does not think metaphysically; we don't have observation.  We can, logically, say that some things that genus Homo did (and does) gave it an evolutionary advantage; abstract thinking is one of them.  I've not seen an argument that metaphysical thinking is one of them; I have not seen an argument that diverting resources to the results of metaphysical thinking is one of them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think you are, her second statement is a "correction" of her first statement; it is very clear that her first statement is not the operative one.  The statement relates to the position that she was running for.

If you get to the personal, this is almost like, "I don't drink, but I don't favor banning alcoholic beverages."  I'm not sure with what her personal opinion has to do with her ability to be governor or VP, or President.

[J. J.]

I did answer tacitly -- I called the question "rhetorical."  Group A will be more viable.  That's obvious.

But the implication of your question is that Group B is likely to have existed.  I have rebutted that point.  If that isn't the implication of your question, your question isn't indicative of anything, and it's an entirely theoretical exercise.

You are totally wrong.  Group B not only existed, but you and I descended from it.

The question really is how much do people value curiosity?

Close.  Some curiosity is clearly related to survival, e.g., it there food in the valley, is their a predator behind the next hill.  I'm interested in "metaphysical" curiosity. 

[Countess Anya of the North Parish]

I did answer tacitly -- I called the question "rhetorical."  Group A will be more viable.  That's obvious.

But the implication of your question is that Group B is likely to have existed.  I have rebutted that point.  If that isn't the implication of your question, your question isn't indicative of anything, and it's an entirely theoretical exercise.

You are totally wrong.  Group B not only existed, but you and I descended from it.

The question really is how much do people value curiosity?

Close.  Some curiosity is clearly related to survival, e.g., it there food in the valley, is their a predator behind the next hill.  I'm interested in "metaphysical" curiosity. 

Yes but some to to gain knowledge.

[Alcon]

J. J.,

Metaphysical thinking does not have to be an evolutionary advantage.  It has to be the most successful mutation.  The mutation that you're suggesting is more successful is ridiculously improbable because of the way our brains are structured.  Do you dispute this, and how?

At this point, we're going in circles on the "correction" thing.  They're not mutually exclusive.  You're assuming one "corrects" the other arbitrarily.  Unless you can demonstrate they're mutually exclusive, you're arguing to conclusions.  And, as I already said, I doubt she cares about issue enough to govern about it.  I can still disagree with her personal opinion, even if it doesn't affect governance.  Where have I said it would?

Sorry, I meant "Group A," not "Group B"; it was a typographical error.  In any case, Group A is the one which I posit would not gain the upper hand via mutation, making your point entirely academic.