Supervisors wrote on Aug 14, 2008 6:16 AM:Roads are a mess in Riverside County. The 15 freeway is a parking lot from temescal Canyon Road the the 91, and then the 91 is also a parking lot everyday. Commuting from Murrieta to Orange County is so expensive and so time consuming that I am leaving the house I bought three years ago, enough is enough, I'll save alot of money and two hours minimum per day living closer to work. There won't be a rebound in housing until the traffic problem is solved, and a substitute for gas comes along, both are ten years away. It figures the three supervisors would come to the aid of their friend and politician Ken Jefferies instead of coming up with a solution. Typical politiciaans attacking someone who speaks the truth.

Lars wrote on Aug 14, 2008 6:21 AM:Supervisor Bob Buster hasn't sunk one nickel into a new raod in his district and Jeff Stone is driving a motorcyle to beat the traffic. I drive a car and the commute and wasted time is very frustrating on the 15 and 91 freeways. A toll road isn't the answer, I can't afford the one at the 91, how can I afford this new one. I paid a whole lot of money for raods on my taxes when I bought the house, as for new roads forget it, a new breaucratic branch of gevernment has been established with no other agenda than to increase the money in the fund so they can increase their salaries, not spend it on roads.

Anti-Evolutionary Argument Cute but Inaccurate wrote on Aug 14, 2008 7:16 AM:Nice try Sam Hendricks Jr., but all your points are easily disputed.

1) Horses and human primates sweat, but apes, monkeys, baboons, marmosets, chimpanzees, and other like primates do not.

Other primates, like dogs, pant. Man's further evolution from his primate ancestors eliminated the need for panting. This difference points more in favor of evolution than against it.

2) Humans, parrots and parakeets can speak, but apes and other such primates can not.

Parrots and parakeets are mimicks. merely making noise. They vocalize, but "speaking" as we know it is more accurately "communications". There is strong evidence for primates communicating without speech, with uses of symbols and sign language.

3) Humans and pigs have skin that is very much alike, but apes and other such primates do not.

Again, a pro-evolutionary development. Man, over time, shed prodominant hair covering of lower primates and early ancestors.

4) Humans are loved by dogs and porpoises, but apes and other such are not.

"Apes and other such" lack the human ability to display effection, caring, etc., that many animals find endearing. This difference, shows evolution from lower primates.

5) Rats are used by doctors, because their genes and organs are like humans, but apes and such are not.

Wrong. Rats are used in research because of their quick metabolism and breeding cycles. There faster metabolism allows swift absorbtion of toxins, antibodies, drugs, etc., and the short reproductive cycle allows easy viewing of progression of disease through generations (oh my gosh, that's almost evolution).

6) Humans are made up of giants, so-called regular size, and midgets, and can propagate between sizes, but gorillas all the way down to marmosets can not.

Wrong again (science doesn't seem to be your strong suit). Human "giants" and "midgets" (as you call them)are quite capable of successfully breeding across the size spectrum. There are thousands of "little people" marrying "regular size" people, and giving birth not "regular size" children. And, plenty of "normal" sized adults giving birth to children with dwarfism.

7) The only other primate face that looks human is a baby baboon, but when it's an adult, it looks more like a dog.

Once again, more of a pro than anti-evolution argument. Skull structure in man, which dictates facial appearance, has changed vastly during the evolution of man from the lower primates. If you look at the skull structure (and subsequent facial features based on skull structure) of "early" man, and compare it to modern day man, and then compare both to apes, chimps, etc., you can see how we once did look more "ape-like" at one time.

8) Galapagos is Spanish for turtle. Human and turtles can live over 100 years, but apes and such do not.

Another non-sequitor. Chihahuas live 14-18 years, and Great Danes live 6-8 years. Your arguement would conclude that Chihahuas and Great Danes could not possibly both be Canines.



Sam ...

Leave Jacobs Alone wrote on Aug 14, 2008 7:20 AM:The topic gives him something else to write about. Wouldn't you rather have variety, instead of a predictable Jacobian rotation of "E-voting is bad", "Quarries are bad", "I drive a hybrid and have solar panels and you don't", and "Temecula has no faults".?

commuter wrote on Aug 14, 2008 7:38 AM:Maybe Mr. Jacobs should clear his opions with the elected politicians befor ehe writes them, then we will get the truth about what is happening in our county....please. Paying for lanes on the 15 freeway is insane, fix the roads with the tax money you overbrden me with every corner I turn. This is new though, politicians protecting their own, what is next politicians telling the people who voted them into office that politicians know what is best and the voters don't? Jefferies is taxing the roadway to death and now way us to pay to use the freeway. ...

Funds wrote on Aug 14, 2008 7:44 AM:Maybe Mr. Jefferies, Magee, Buster and Stone should donate their caimpaign warchest to fix the roadways. It will be more than enough to get a large portion of the 15 paved. Good job Mr. Jacobs, don't bow down to political nonsense.

To Commuter wrote on Aug 14, 2008 8:05 AM:Its your choice to live where you want, and that cheap mortgage often requires a long commute.

If you are really concerened with your quality of life, where you tax dollars go, etc., the first thing you might consider is relocating to somewhere close to where you work, or find a job closer to where you live.

I'm tired of the "whoa is me, I'm overtaxed, and have so far to drive" drivel.

Its all self inflicted!

Response wrote on Aug 14, 2008 8:36 AM:It is self-inflicted, and the politicians twist the knife ever so slowly into my gut. I let them do this by putting myself in such a position. How stupid I am, it isn't whoa is me is how gullliable I am to have been tricked into living in a commuter hell hole. I should have driven to work on the raods out here before buying, it was my mistake, I am doing something about it. I don't need or want your sympathy..I want these politicians to fix what they have been paid to fix with my tax money.

To Response wrote on Aug 14, 2008 9:00 AM:Typical of what's wrong with this country, and why we are, as a nation, so far in debt.

"Its the government's responsibility to bail me out from my bad judgements".

Sounds like Liberal Democratic mantra to me.

Art wrote on Aug 14, 2008 9:26 AM:If the transportation commission was actively meeting the needs of the motoring public, there would be no need for the columns by Paul Jacobs. Since his work appears in the public record, the commission can treat it as if it was presented at a public hearing and incorporate it into their decision-making. That means no tolls on public roads!

Art wrote on Aug 14, 2008 9:29 AM:"Bad judgement" occurs when you spend gas tax money on public transit instead of roads.

to Sam wrote on Aug 14, 2008 9:29 AM:You response to the sixth point doesn't discredit the letter at all... In fact, it simply looks like you're not paying attention.

Alf wrote on Aug 14, 2008 9:32 AM:Well, "To Commuter" at 8:05AM,
Mrs. Alf (that's Dr. Mrs. Alf) works in Temecula, we live in Encinitas in a house that I built and she commutes 4 times a week.
It IS HER CHOICE to commute.
She could work in Escondido or even closer
IF
she wanted to accept being "on call" and the attendent hospital admissions and rounds (a royal PITA, try eating out or "having a life" for that matter, when on call, ).
Does she complain?
Only about the nut-jobs on the road.
Regards, Alf.

SCARS OF EVOLUTION wrote on Aug 14, 2008 9:37 AM:Once again, we have a well-meaning but scientifically illiterate letter from Sam Hendricks Jr., who fails to grasp certain concepts of evolution.
The history of DNA and its evolutionary progression proves conclusively that certain species arose out of other species. The principles of convergence and divergence explain the seeming incongruities he lists. Species adapt to changing conditions, and just as bats found safety and evolutionary advantage in adapting to the air but are not direct descendants of birds who adapted similarly, and just as cetaceans (whales and dolphins) found evolutionary advantage in returning to the water, but are not immediately descended from fish, humans adapted to differing environments from apes and other primates, and evolutionary adaptations converged with other mammals adapted to similar environments.
Follow the DNA!
One of the best explanations for almost all of the points itemized by Hendricks, which is fundamentally simple but initially counter-intuitive, with supporting evidence far too extensive to enumerate in this forum, can be found in the excellent work, "The Scars of Evolution" by Elaine Morgan.

Live Long and Prosper wrote on Aug 14, 2008 9:54 AM:enough with the evolution letters! Set up a conference and have your own in group discussions like fans of Star Wars. Or a self help group for fossil lovers. Can we retire the Evolution letters to the editor, please?! Thanks.

Good for you Alf wrote on Aug 14, 2008 10:37 AM:But, you and her are living with your decision and not crying and kicking and demanding the government ease your wows like Commuter, Art, and Jacobs seem to think should happen

Three D wrote on Aug 14, 2008 11:02 AM:Sam Hendricks Jr. provides a litany of supposed "scientific" reasons why he finds evolution untenable, then finishes off his comments asserting his belief in the legend of Adam and Eve, which of course comes from the Biblical account of creation in the first two chapters of Genesis.
It always strikes me as rather peculiar that the same people who demand such strict scientific perfection for a theory still developing from scientific methodologies implemented by fallible humans, refuse to hold their own mythologies to the same exacting scientific standards, notwithstanding they claim it to have originated from an omnipotent and infallible deity, so should therefore be perfect.
Where are the precise, replicable scientific data to support Genesis?
More troubling, which Genesis account will they try to support?
I note that the account in chapter one directly contradict that of chapter two.
Genesis chapter 1 gives a specific chronology, with each item created in sequence on specific days.
1. Earth and heavens (Genesis 1:1-10) 1st & 2nd days
2. Plants (Genesis 1:11-13) 3rd day
3. Sun & Moon (Genesis 1:14-19) 4th day
4. Creatures of water & air (Genesis 1:20-23) 5th day
On the 6th day, in sequence:
5. Land creatures (Genesis 1:24-25)
6. MAN (Genesis 1:26-27)
Sequence: Plants - Animals - Man
Genesis chapter 2 also gives a specific sequential chronology of the creation. The problem is that they simply are not the same and are, in fact, inconsistent and contradictory.
1. Earth and heavens (Genesis 2:4)
2. Plants (Genesis 2:5)
3. Water (Genesis 2:6)
4. MAN (Genesis 2:7)
5. Garden/trees/rivers (Genesis 2:8-17)
6. Animals (Genesis 2:18-20)
7. Woman (Genesis 2:21-25)
Sequence: Plants - Man - Animals

To Live Long wrote on Aug 14, 2008 12:55 PM:Dude, Chill...its a computer, its not like you're stuck on a plane in the center seat between two other people arguing.

I would recommend, if you can't hang, use the down arrow button, or click on that red box with the white X in it, in the upper right hand corner!

snerd wrote on Aug 14, 2008 1:27 PM:So when cars were first invented and the public asked the government for paved, instead of dirt, roads. And when more people began driving and the public asked for signage to make roads safer was that all crying and kicking and demanding the government ease your woes (not wows). I'm guessing you like driving on those paved roads with decent signage. The public giving the government ideas about what they would like to make their lives better or more efficient or safer is what our democracy is all about. Isn't it? Try to keep in mind that many things that we all take for granted in this great country has resulted from average Joe's communicating to the government what their needs are.

HA wrote on Aug 14, 2008 1:48 PM:This morning we read the letter to the editor by Sam Hendricks and laughed. There are so many errors that one could not possibly take it seriously. I agree the evolution (pro and com) should be dumped or placed in the faith and values section. They are neither timely nor about local issues.

Three D wrote on Aug 14, 2008 3:09 PM:Chill out dude, again you are a day late and a dollar short...stick to the faith and value letters where you peddle you writings to you website.

Three D wrote on Aug 14, 2008 3:19 PM:It is unfortunate that a blogger at 3:09 p.m. must be filled with such unchristian hatred and deception that they feel the need to use someone else's chosen screen identity, which I'm sure fooled no one who knows me.
This is just another example confirming what I have so often stated, how those who call themselves "Christians" are actually hateful, deceitful antichrists following the renegade "apostle" Paul, trying to dictate to others what they may say, and where they may say it, just as they so often try to use force of law to cram their personal choices and beliefs and even their religious observances down the throats of those who believe differently.
Jesus taught love, compassion and honesty which, sadly, so many of those who claim to be his followers wholly reject. Sad.

ADAMs EVE wrote on Aug 14, 2008 5:02 PM:To the REAL 3D at 3:19 p.m.
And the main point, of course, is that they wouldn't (or couldn't) respond to what you actually said in your excellently detailed, referenced submission at 11:02 a.m.
The real reason so many try to shut you up is because you consistently come through with reasoned, referenced, detailed responses that leave them completely unable to answer.
They will try anything to shut you up, except of course respond to what you say.
Because they can't.
The next time there's a book burning, yours will be at the top of the heap.

Laughing at D wrote on Aug 14, 2008 6:08 PM:Is everyone who calls you a kook condemned to being called a Christian, also. LOL!

Gee d wrote on Aug 14, 2008 6:11 PM:Now anyone who disagrees with you is defacto a christian? You are one strange puppy, my boy!

to d wrote on Aug 14, 2008 6:31 PM:my apologies. the "to" was either omitted by the web master, or by myself...however, your preoccupation with someone possibly using your moniker proofs you view youself not as a legend in your own times, but rather, a legend in your own times.

Again, my apologies.

Its just weird that someone possibly using your screen name is your biggest concern.

Evolver wrote on Aug 14, 2008 6:35 PM:To Live long at 9:54 a.m. and HA at 1:48 p.m.
You both express your opinion that you don't want evolution letters with the other letters.
But look at this letters column.
Most days there are one or two comments.
When evolution letters are printed, there are scores of letters.
Editors don't care about the views of a few extreme outlyers.
If evolution letters stir up huge amounts of interest, I somehow doubt the editors are going to decide they want to discontinue this source of interest.

John the Baptist wrote on Aug 14, 2008 7:18 PM:I'll give credit to Sam Hendricks Jr.: his arguments against evolution are certainly more compelling than Rick Kellogg's.
Regards

Realists wrote on Aug 15, 2008 12:40 AM:Evolutions and athesists won't be turned to believe in God by the letters written here. Why waste your writing unless you believe that by writing this stuff your evangalizing and will get to heaven. Please, save it for the pulpit, I believ in God but your rnatings need to stop, as for athesists, I'll say a prayer for you.

Three D wrote on Aug 15, 2008 10:22 AM:No doubt the admonition by Realists at 12:40 a.m. has merit, but one point should be clarified.
Not all those who accept the science of evolution are atheists.
Nothing in evolution precludes the existence of a deity or higher power, though, since this cannot be observed, it is outside the realm of science which is a formalized protocol of observation.
It should also be noted that the mere rejection of Bible literalism (the belief that the Bible, as compiled by Eusebius in 329 AD under the direction of Constantine and the Catholic Church) is not necessarily a rejection of Jesus or of Christianity in its original form, nor is rejection of Christianity the same as rejection of all belief in god (or atheism).
Blessings,
3D