Saturday, December 31, 2005

Best of the Beer World, 2005

Ok, I'm only going from what I sampled. And some things were new to me, but I want to keep it to relatively new entries. I live near Philly and I can't get some magnificent brews in other parts of the country or world.

Best Example of Media Bias
"An Advocate for the Right." — Headline over a New York Times "news analysis" of Judge John Roberts’ judicial philosophy, July 28.


"Balanced Jurist at Home in the Middle."
— Headline over a June 27, 1993 New York Times story on Supreme Court nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Friday, December 30, 2005

Plame Outed by 5-Year-Old Son


I have a criticism of Bush. I'm usually loathe to mention anything because many liberals have gone off the deep end. Did I tell you about how the Illuminadi, Halliburton, Big Oil, Karl Rove's weather machine conspired to take over Iraq for oil and kill people of color? That kind of wackiness should usually be left alone.

Well, I read that Bush has never vetoed any bill. None. Not even that dreadful McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform. It's been 5 years. There should be at least one bill he found the need to veto.

Pilot Strands Passenger on Island for Abusing Crew

Wednesday, December 28, 2005

2005 Low Points for the New York Times

Break the Case

Lew Bryson is agitating to change Pennsylvania's case law. In other words, you can only buy, at minimum, a full case of beer from a distributor.

Monday, December 26, 2005

John Rabe Nails the Recent ID Decision
At issue is what constitutes science itself, with the court deciding that:

...[R]igorous attachment to "natural" explanations is an essential attribute to science by definition and by convention. We are in agreement with Plaintiffs’ lead expert Dr. Miller, that from a practical perspective, attributing unsolved problems about nature to causes and forces that lie outside the natural world is a "science stopper."

Of course, what the ruling doesn't mention (nor do atheistic scientists often mention) is that this "rigorous attachment to natural explanations"--otherwise known as methodological naturalism--is itself a presupposition based on a particular kind of faith, and is neither empirical nor testable. Thus, as an arbitrary rule placed on science, it actually violates itself, though we are all expected to pay it unquestioning fealty or else be labeled flat-earthers (or worse).

Incidentally, this view of science would have been completely alien to all scientists before the 20th century, most of whom believed the science was only possible because a creator God had made an orderly world. Absolute naturalism is not the sine qua non of science, but is rather an untestable philosophy smuggled relatively recently into science by those with a particular metaphysical agenda.

This is very much correct. Science is dependant on a God who sustains the laws of nature. If you don't believe in that God, you have no reason to believe that the laws of nature will not change tomorrow. Why wouldn't they change tomorrow? Just because thing have been like that in the past, doesn't mean they will be like that in the future. Atheists have to borrow from theism all the time, because we are living in God's world.
In reality, a reasonable mind can see the silliness of this without the benefit of years of training designed to drum out common sense. Say you put a deck of cards on the coffee table and walk out of the room. Later you return to the room and the cards are scattered haphazardly all over the floor. What do you conclude? The anti-ID zealots would caracature ID by claming ID-ists would look at a scenario and say "Well, angels must have done it." This kind of portrait earns big points with their fellow atheists who find it quite clever (and with more than a few dim judges, too), but it utterly fails to address what ID actually says. Just as anyone else, the ID theorist would conclude that something knocked the cards off the table (not necessarily intelligent; it could have been the cat) and then gravity caused the cards to fall and land randomly.

Now let's suppose an alternate scenario. You put the cards on the coffee table, walk out of the room, and when you return, they are lying on the floor in a pattern that spells out "We fell down." In order to remain "scientific," would you apply your "methodological naturalism" and conclude that no intelligent force had acted on the cards? Or, without having to give it more than a nanosecond of thought, would you conclude that your spouse (or someone else with intelligence) was having some fun with you?

We know the answer intuitively, and the fact is that "science" makes these kinds of obvious conclusions every day. Perhaps the most popular science there is (if television ratings are any indication)--forensic science--deals with only discerning intelligent design in the natural realm. It's an entire science based on the clear fact that if two metal bullet-shaped objects with a spiral pattern are found in someone's head, they are not natural deposits produced by the brain, nor are they things that the wind put there.

What ID is trying to explain, and what naturalistic science is utterly at a loss to explain, is that the scattered deck of cards from the analogy is most emphatically not what we find in nature. What we find is the cards arranged into a message--only it's a message far more complex than "we fell down."

The atheist has gotten around this by jiggering the definition of science so that anything "scientific" (by which he means, and means us to mean, "true") has to have a natural, purposeless, undirected cause as an explanation. So when he finds the message spelled out by the cards, he concludes with absolute certainty--scientifically--that they got that way on accident. As the eminent atheistic Darwinist Richard Dawkins once wrote, "Biology is the study of complicated things which give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." They appear to have been designed, but ultimately they cannot have, because we've already decided that any recourse to an intelligent cause cannot be true because it violates our definition of science. Any other explanation wouldn't be scientific, you see.

Women Swallows Cell Phone to End Argument

I hope she wasn't roaming.

Saturday, December 24, 2005

the Incarnation

John 1:1-14
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life,[a] and the life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.

The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own,[b] and his own people[c] did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Micah 5:2:
But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days.

Isaiah 9:6-7:
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this.

Friday, December 23, 2005

Cow Flees Nativity Scene

Saddam Hussein Using Moveon.Org Talking Points in Legal Defense

I find it amusing.

Thursday, December 22, 2005

Dissenting Views on the Accuracy of Spielburg's Munich Coming In

I heard an author on the other day who didn't care for the historical accuracy either.

Syria Agrees to Hide Nukes for Iran

I'm not sure if this paper is reliable, but I present it here anyway.

Warrantless Searches Not Unprecedented

Microbrew, Light Beer Pioneer Dies at Age 86

That's quite a legacy.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005

Ten Worst Problems With Dover Decision

10) It mischaracterizes ID as a supernatural explanation even though it isn't and even though both pro-ID expert scientists testified it wasn't (Day 11 PM, pg. 95; Day 20 PM pg. 45, 135). In short, it lets the critics define ID rather than the proponents.

9) It overreaches the judicial arm by ruling that the nature of science is characterized by methodological naturalism and that intelligent design is not science (pg. 65).**

8) It overreaches the judicial arm by ruling that evolution is compatible with religion (pg. 136).**

7) It overreaches the judicial arm by ruling that evolution is a solid theory (pg. 41) and that irreducible complexity has been refuted (pg. 64).**

6) It sadly threatens the teaching of evolution by making religious motivations of public proponents a relevant factor in deciding whether or not a theory can be taught.

5) It wrongly approves of the “it’s wrong to single out evolution” argument which was validated in Selman. (pg. 39-40) and wrongly claims “evolution is theory ... not fact” language is unconstitutional based upon Selman (which may be overruled on that point anyway).

4) It sadly threatens the teaching of evolution by using the endorsement test to determine if a scientific theory of biological origins would endorse (or presumably "dis-endorse") the teaching of a controversial idea in the eyes of the average citizen.

3) It asserts the factually false claim that ID proponents haven’t published peer reviewed papers (pg. 64).

2) It completely ignores ALL of the statements in Pandas making it clear that ID is NOT a supernatural explanation--the Judge doesn't even mention with these statements, much less explain why the Court disagrees with them.

1) Incredibly, this trial court decision describes itself as the final answer for all courts, behaving and talking like it was handed down from the Supreme Court, as precedent for all. (pg. 63-64).

** Even if these points are true, which some people may believe they are, courts have no business ruling on such matters. These are not issues for courts to rule on.

Klinghoffer goes into further detail about the genetic fallacy and how Darwinists do the same thing. In other words, if proponents of ID have religious motivations so do the Darwinists. Reference the multiverse post from Sunday.

Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter OK'ed Surveillance Without Warrants

Dover Judge Regirgitates Mythology About Intelligent Design

Article also argues that the judge committed the logical fallacy.

Sunday, December 18, 2005

The Fool in His Own Heart Says "Multiverse"

I saw this piece on William Dembski's blog.

An opponent of Intelligent Design is greatly troubled that the universe is fine-tuned to expand from the big bang. The desired solution? Multiple universes.
Second was the discovery that the value of the cosmological constant - the energy of empty space which contributes to the expansion rate of the universe - seems absurdly improbable, and nothing in fundamental physics is able to explain why. I remember when Steven Weinberg first suggested that the cosmological constant might be anthropically determined - that it has to be this way otherwise we would not be here to observe it. I was very impressed with the argument, but troubled by it. Like everybody else, I thought the cosmological constant was probably zero - meaning that all the quantum fluctuations that make up the vacuum energy cancel out, and gravity alone affects the expansion of the universe. It would be much easier to explain if they cancelled out to zero, rather than to nearly zero. The discovery that there is a non-zero cosmological constant changed everything. Still, those two things were not enough to tip the balance for me.

This guy isn't alone. God's existance is a major problem for them.

So postulate multiple universes which can't be experimentally verified. Talk about a blind leap of faith.

The Democrat Party's Iraq Quagmire
The Democratic Party have contrived to get themselves into a situation where bad news from Iraq is good for them and good news from Iraq is bad for them.

Stephen A. Smith Has a Very Good McNabb Article
One story after another focused on their contract squabbles, what head coach Andy Reid needed to do to keep things together, how an ailing defensive unit would have to find a way to anchor this team just to keep it competitive.

Very little in the way of venom was directed toward the play of McNabb.

Let's just be real about it.

The Eagles' coddling of McNabb was contagious, with every one of us at some time making excuses for his lack of production instead of focusing on him purely as a football player.

One year, it was his lack of offensive weapons. Then it was Reid's methodical, transparent strategies in pivotal situations. In the Super Bowl, it was Reid again, coupled with claims that McNabb was sick, fatigued or both. And now, after this farce of a season, McNabb's sports hernia is blamed for Philadelphia's demise.

That's not to say any of those claims were false. Nor is it to imply that McNabb is at fault.

McNabb didn't ask for anyone's preferential treatment, sensitivity or sympathy. Yet, on far more occasions than most - especially since Limbaugh's comments in October 2003 - one could argue McNabb got it anyway.

The question is simple: Why?

The belief here is that in a quest to dismiss Limbaugh's claim that the media are "desirous that a black quarterback do well," the rather unhealthy practice of exploring all other options of fault outside of McNabb has been exercised, with McNabb being the person who's suffered most because of it.

La Shawn Barber Gives Kwanza a Thrashing

Hat tip to John Rabe.

Is Richard Dawkins the Best the Evolutionists Can Come Up With?

Well-known evolution-defender, Richard Hawkins, comes up short in his recent article in Newsweek.

Hat tip to Greg.

Saturday, December 17, 2005


We have the New York Times giving up espionage on terrorists. That's a winner for the Democrats. I fully encourage them to continue headlong towards political disaster. Bush calls this "irresponsible." I am inclined to use harsher language.

Michelle Malkin has a good analysis.

Friday, December 16, 2005

The Family Stone

A lot of it was filmed at my alma mater, Drew University, and Madison, NJ (the home of Drew University).

Good film. But it is incredibly distracting to have buildings I know very well be used as outdoor props in a film. The three buildings being used as the main home is 100 yards away from the building being used as the inn. The indoor of the inn is Mead Hall. Very weird.

Thursday, December 15, 2005

Wikipedia's Accuracy Holds Up Very Well to Britanicca

At least in the sciences.

Does McNabb Sound Like a Leader?
There's never been a question of me losing the locker room until this year. If I've lost the locker room, then the question goes up why. Is it because now people are starting to look at me sideways for what I've been doing, or what I make, or whatever [Owens] had a problem with? That's the question I'm trying to get answered: If I've lost the locker room or not? No answer has come my way.

That doesn't sound encouraging.

Tuesday, December 13, 2005

Dallas Eliuk, Philadelphia Wing's Legendary Goaltender, Traded to Portland

Also, the longest tenured athlete in Philadelphia. He was my favorite player. When I first got into watching lacrosse, in 1991 or 92, he was the goaltender. He will be sorely missed, but he doesn't make enough money to put up with relocation from British Columbia.

Why Are Box Office Revenues Down?

If anyone else is like me, prices. I'll spend a good bit of money for the Batman, Superman, or King Kong movies. But 10 dollars for the Stepford Wives? I don't think so. I'll give a lot of more movies a try for 5 dollars.

Monday, December 12, 2005

NAACP Philly Head's Comments on McNabb

Much has been said. I don't want to rehash a lot of it. But I will say this.

His idea about McNabb giving Owens some of his salary prior to the beginning of the season is a good one.

First, let me say that it is McNabb's money he can do with it as he wills. But if he gave some of that money up a) the Owens situation doesn't spiral out of control b) a bond would have been cemented between McNabb and Owens c) McNabb would have someone good to throw to d) the Eagles may be looking at the playoffs right now.

Abortion Brings About Guilt, Shame, and Anxiety

This is natural. And this is why the main message for those who have had abortions should be forgiveness in the Messiah Jesus. They already know that they've done something wrong, at least subconsciously.

Sunday, December 11, 2005

Holiday Gifts for Beer Lovers

Hint, hint.

Saturday, December 10, 2005

The NFL is a Big Honking Vat of Mediocrity

I'm fully convinced all the bad games is what killled Monday Night Football.

Friday, December 09, 2005

Mavericks Are Only Cool When They Are Republicans

Nice Article on Stoudt's Brewery in Philadelphia Weekly

Who Is Lying About Iraq?
Among the many distortions, misrepresentations, and outright falsifications that have emerged from the debate over Iraq, one in particular stands out above all others. This is the charge that George W. Bush misled us into an immoral and/or unnecessary war in Iraq by telling a series of lies that have now been definitively exposed.

What makes this charge so special is the amazing success it has enjoyed in getting itself established as a self-evident truth even though it has been refuted and discredited over and over again by evidence and argument alike. In this it resembles nothing so much as those animated cartoon characters who, after being flattened, blown up, or pushed over a cliff, always spring back to life with their bodies perfectly intact. Perhaps, like those cartoon characters, this allegation simply cannot be killed off, no matter what.

Nevertheless, I want to take one more shot at exposing it for the lie that it itself really is. Although doing so will require going over ground that I and many others have covered before, I hope that revisiting this well-trodden terrain may also serve to refresh memories that have grown dim, to clarify thoughts that have grown confused, and to revive outrage that has grown commensurately dulled.

Katrina Evidence Point to Man-Made Disaster
As investigators and residents have picked through the battered New Orleans levee system's breaches, churned-up soil and bent sheet pile in the 100 days since Hurricane Katrina struck, they have uncovered mounting evidence that human error played a major role in the flood that devastated the city.

Floodwall breaches linked to design flaws inundated parts of the city that otherwise would have stayed dry, turning neighborhoods into death traps and causing massive damage. In other areas, poorly engineered gaps and erosion of weak construction materials accelerated and deepened flooding already under way, hampering rescue efforts in the wake of the storm.

These problems turned an already deadly disaster into a wider man-made catastrophe and have made rebuilding and resettlement into far tougher and more expensive challenges.

That's the picture that emerges from investigations of the levee system by teams sponsored by the state government, the American Society of Civil Engineers and the National Science Foundation, as well as from dozens of interviews with local residents, officials and engineers.

Experts say the New Orleans flood of 2005 should join the space shuttle explosions and the sinking of the Titanic on history's list of ill-fated disasters attributable to human mistakes.

I'm still going to try to pin this on George Bush's weather machine and Karl Rove's mind-control devices, due to their hatred of black people.

Some Megachurches Not Having Church Services on Christmas When It is on a Sunday

From what I gather from the article, the writer thinks the big deal is that services won't be held on Christmas. The big deal is that it won't be held on a Sunday.

U.S. Economy Galloping Ahead Despite Hurricanes, High Oil Costs

Thursday, December 08, 2005

What Happens in Vegas Doesn't Stay in Vegas

My friends at Jews for Jesus saw fit to publish my guest commentary.

Winter Beer Offering Link Dump

These were posted on

Beer is the perfect holiday gift.

Then they start to run

But they are all pretty good and worth reading. Here's the main jist: beer good. Beer made for winter and the holidays.

Nothing like being warmed by a high-alcohol beer on a cold night. A Belgian beer with a nice cheese. A barleywine with a piece of stilton. The possibilities are endless.

Torah Observance Within the Messianic Jewish Movement

My good friend, Rich Robinson (no relation), wrote the article. It is quite good.

Tuesday, December 06, 2005

L.A. Times Tackles the Messed Up Patent System

I know it isn't exciting, but you really need to know about this. Patents are being awarded to trivial things, and that will weigh down our economy.

Monday, December 05, 2005

Moderate Beer Drinking Correlates With Less Obesity

Writer Wonders Why Humans Prefer Sex in Privacy
Both incidents open up huge anthropological and sociobiological questions. Most animals don't care whether anyone watches them mating. They neither seek out nor avoid an audience. What's with the humans?

In societies from the sands of the Kalahari to the tiniest Pacific Islands, the cultural preference is for sex in private, says Christopher Kovats-Bernat, an anthropologist at Muhlenberg College in Allentown. Where people can afford it, "we segregate off a space in the dwelling that is devoted to two things - sleeping and sex." In many parts of the world, however, the private bedroom is an unattainable luxury.

It's only mysterious if you think humans are mere animals.

El Barradai's Solution to Iran Getting Nukes: Wimpiness
IAEA chairman Muhammad ElBaradei on Monday confirmed Israel's assessment that Iran is only a few months away from creating an atomic bomb.

If Teheran indeed resumed its uranium enrichment in other plants, as threatened, it will take it only "a few months" to produce a nuclear bomb, El-Baradei told The Independent.

On the other hand, he warned, any attempt to resolve the crisis by non-diplomatic means would "open a Pandora's box. There would be efforts to isolate Iran; Iran would retaliate; and at the end of the day you have to go back to the negotiating table to find the solution."

I wonder what negotiating with El Barradai is like.

"Please give up your nukes."


"Pretty please..."


"With sugar on-top?"

Sunday, December 04, 2005

Some Guy, Defamed in Wikipedia, Throws a Hissy Fit

Somebody no one really knows much about has a Wikipedia article written about him. What does it say? He was behind the slayings of both John and Robert Kennedy.

So instead of editing the darn article himself, he writes a big article complaining about it in the USA Today. Now, everybody is going to associate this guy with the Kennedy assignation. When he dies, it will be in his obit.

Probably 5 people read his Wikipedia article.

Sometimes you need to know when to keep quiet and just edit your article.

Steyn: Ignoring Progress in Iraq
Sen. Joe Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, came out with a big statement on Iraq last week. Did you hear about it? Probably not. Everyone was still raving about his Democrat colleague, Rep. Jack Murtha, whose carefully nuanced position on Iraq is: We're all doomed unless we pull out by next Tuesday! (I quote from memory.)

Also, the United States Army is "broken," "worn out" and "living hand to mouth." If the reaction to Murtha's remarks by my military readers is anything to go by, he ought to be grateful they're still bogged down in Iraq and not in the congressional parking lot.
It must be awful lonely being Joe Lieberman in the Democratic Party these days. Every time he switches on the news there's John Kerry sonorously droning out his latest pretzel of a position: Insofar as I understand it, he's not calling for a firm 100 percent fixed date of withdrawal -- like, say, Feb. 4, 2 p.m.; meet at Baghdad bus station with two pieces of carry-on. Don't worry, it's not like flying coach on TWA, you'd be able to change the date without paying a surcharge. But Kerry drones that we need to "set benchmarks" for the "transfer of authority." Actually, the administration's been doing that for two years -- setting dates for the return of sovereignty, for electing a national assembly, for approving a constitution, etc, and meeting all of them. And all during those same two years Kerry and his fellow Democrats have huffed that these dates are far too premature, the Iraqis aren't in a position to take over, hold an election, whatever.

4-Year Scandal of the 9/11 Billions

Billions of dollars given to New York City have been wasted. Let's remember that before we rush to pump billions of dollars into New Orleans. They'll need money, and lots of it, but let's give money judiciously.

Saturday, December 03, 2005

The Upside-Down Christmas Tree Is Getting Popular

Whatever floats your boat.

Friday, December 02, 2005

Comcast Raising Rates

Best New Feature in Firefox Browser

In the top-right of the Firefox browser it has a little search engine. Google is the default, but Amazon, eBay and others have engines in there. Now, you can have the Internet Movie Database as one of the search engines.

Kerry Calls For Pulling Troups Out of Iraq

Remember when his solution was adding more troops?

Thursday, December 01, 2005


Hat tip to Greg.

"I think it’s a sign of weak faith to try to prove your faith.”

Says Boo Tyson of the Mainstream Coalition.

Not sure how to respond to this. I don't view faith as a leap in the dark. I believe there is a rational basis for my faith which is backed up by facts. I don't believe my faith is just wish projection. Weak?

It seems that Mr. Tyson is trying to say if your faith was strong you would just go away and stop bothering me.

He could say that about any faith or any belief system, religious or not. Your faith in Kenseyan economics is weak because you're trying to prove it.

If my faith, backed with reason and facts, is weak, so be it.

New Wine Drinker's Perceptions of Beer
After sampling the Riesling she brought to the gathering, Powers became infatuated with wine. ''It's a lot more complex than drinking just a beer, the taste is so different, and there is so much that goes into the making of the wine, and so many different types and smells. There is just so much available out there," she says. ''I definitely enjoy wine more than beer now."

I'm sure the wine she is drinking is more complex than the macro beer she was probably drinking. But if I, as a beer snob, can say anything to wine snobs it would be this: beer far exceeds wine in its range of flavors.

Interesting Intelligent Desing Article on National Review Today

Goes over bacteria resistence to antibiotics. The author also mentions about faith and evolution:
If we discount trivial examples like bacterial resistance or "change over time" or small changes in beak size among the finches of the Galapagos Islands, we don't know very much about evolution at all. We don't see it happening around us, or in the rocks.

In my book, I quote Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, telling a professional audience at the American Museum in New York that there was "not one thing" he knew about evolution. He had asked the evolutionary-morphology seminar at the University of Chicago if there was anything they knew about it, and, he said: "The only answer I got was silence."

Patterson, who died a few years ago, was an atheist and once told me that he regarded the Bible as "a pack of lies." There was no way he could be accused of Biblical primitivism. People would ask him, with a note of alarm, "Well, you do believe in evolution, don't you?" He would respond that science wasn't supposed to be a system of belief.

So let's look at the evidence adduced for evolution. The fossil record is sparse. Bats, for example — the only mammals capable of powered flight — appear suddenly in the fossil record, with their sonar systems already fully developed. "There are no half bats," as a world expert on bats once said. The experts have no idea what animal gave rise to the first bat.

The creatures that evolution purports to explain are fantastically complex. The cell, thought at the time of Darwin to be a "simple little lump of protoplasm," is as complicated as a high-tech factory. We have no actual evidence that it evolved — and yet we are asked, indeed obliged, to believe that it did.

An interesting point raised is that evolution, as presently constructed, is not falsifiable.
That phrase — "it was selected for" — is regarded as a sufficient explanation for . . . everything. The same mundane phrase is given as the explanation for everything under the sun. How did the bats get sonar? "It arose by an accidental mutation of the genes and was selected for. Next question?" How did the eye develop? "Piecemeal. There was a random mutation and it conferred an advantage so it was selected for. Then the same thing happened over and over again. Next question?" How did the camel get its hump? "Random mutations conferred some advantage and so they were selected for. Next question?"

This is the science before which all knees must bend? These explanations are no better than "Just-So stories" (as one or two Harvard professors have rightly said). No actual digging in the dirt is needed: The theorist merely contemplates the trait in question and makes up a plausible story as to how it might have been advantageous.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?