Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Uncommonly Dense Thread 2

Pages: (500) < ... 222 223 224 225 226 [227] 228 229 230 231 232 ... >

Chayanov Posts: 289 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,12:02    Quote (GCUGreyArea @ Mar. 12 2009,11:07) Clive, I'm sorry you are an idiot, I'm sure its not your fault, its just the way you were brought up. Maybe he was designed to be that way? -------------- Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,12:07    Quote (Maya @ Mar. 12 2009,19:37) Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 12 2009,11:20) Quote (Maya @ Mar. 12 2009,15:48)   Quote (Ptaylor @ Mar. 12 2009,01:09) I think we can look forward to more disappearing comments, and eventually - banninations! I've been watching the fun at UD for the past week and getting the same feeling as in a freshman chemistry experiment in supercritical fluids.  One little jiggle and the whole thing is going to blow. Could this be one of the Friday Meltdowns you old timers are always on about? I don't know. Are you ethnically challenged? Because I sure am. I can't figure out if I should be guilty or grateful that I'm half celt and half sartyr. When you have all the bottom feeders from hicksville show up at the same time on UD feasting on each other each trying to out do their betters on the root cause for  OJ's aquittal then incarceration. One does wonder. Well done!  You managed to completely ignore the "jiggle" I put in that post just for you! We'll work on the making sense thing next time. Dang. I read it literally. I'm slipping. But I have an excuse I did go and read some UD. Those MOFO's have a lot to answer for. -------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,12:08    Quote (Chayanov @ Mar. 12 2009,12:02) Quote (GCUGreyArea @ Mar. 12 2009,11:07) Clive, I'm sorry you are an idiot, I'm sure its not your fault, its just the way you were brought up. Maybe he was designed to be that way? That is what JAD would say, if asked. -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

dvunkannon Posts: 1377 Joined: June 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,12:13    Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 12 2009,12:02) Quote (dvunkannon @ Mar. 12 2009,10:57) How does Clive handle the cognitive dissonance of being a psychologist for a day job, and being a UD immoderator? dvunkannon, apologize to Clive! Clive, I'm sorry I called you a psychologist. And I'm very sorry your clients call you a psychologist. Dude, you can do better than this. -------------- I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter I’m not an evolutionist, I’m a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

Bob O'H Posts: 2564 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,12:15    Quote (GCUGreyArea @ Mar. 12 2009,11:56)   Quote 49 jerry 03/12/2009 11:23 am We’ll grant you the witch-hunts, the Inquisition, and some of the Crusades, but beyond that, organized Christianity can’t really be blamed for the killing of innocents. No, you atheists have pretty much cornered the market on murder and mayhem, bearing responsibility for over 259 million deaths around the world. ... This is from a Christian magazine called Salvo. It figures, meanwhile... Salvo is a magazine for the yoof that wMad et al. were involved in. Ooh, it's still around.  Naturally Denyse has a regular column in it.  Looking at the editorial board how many of these names do you recognise?  You win a prize if you get more than Wes.  Actually, only if you get more than Wes has met in person. -------------- It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,12:27    Met in person: 7 -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

dvunkannon Posts: 1377 Joined: June 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,12:31    And for those scoring at home (congratulations!), here's the source for the Darwinist aborigine genocide meme. David Monaghan Productions Not exactly peer reviewed literature, unless your peer group is "Lap Dance War", "Sex Bomb", and "Trees On Mars". Funny that in some cases, this site links to the script of the show. In the case of I Was Darwin's Love Zombie, it links to Weiland's article quoting from Monaghan's article. I did find at least a part of the original article with quotes from original sources via Google Book Search in a tome called Law and Culture. Monaghan does seem to have found clear evidence that some people killed native Australians to sell their remains to science museums. -------------- I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter I’m not an evolutionist, I’m a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

Chayanov Posts: 289 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,12:36    Quote (GCUGreyArea @ Mar. 12 2009,11:00) mmm, fact is if we look at different groups of people around the globe we can probably find that some of them appear to be better designed than others, in fact we can probably construct some argument to suggest that we (whom ever we happen to be) are one of the optimal designs whilst the 'others' (the people we don't like) are less optimal, less well designed. Given the refusal of IDiots to talk about the designer we can't tell if we were all designed equal - cue an IDiot slave fancier "The white male is, by gods design, superior to all others whilst the Negro is clearly designed to serve" and we know this because (insert some biblical justification for slavery here) All science so far. I was going to write a post mocking the idea of "social IDism" where successful people were designed to be successful and those who fail were designed to be failures, but then I remembered prosperity theology already exists. -------------- Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,12:40    Quote (Gunthernacus @ Mar. 12 2009,10:21)   Quote (GCUGreyArea @ Mar. 12 2009,10:26) GEM of TKI otherwise knows as Gordon E Mullings of The Kairos Initiative, apparently looks like this (assuming I found the right photo) From here: http://giu.gov.ms/photo/photos%20_csmepublicmeetingjuly27.htm Hi Gordon What a Ham. Or something. More about the Kairos Initiative. This is their "prison ministry," but I don't think it makes a diff. Ew. (Check out the "We should never be afraid to confront our own failings or the shortcomings of others - but only in a loving and Christ-like manner.") -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,13:01    Breaking News! Apparently Weasel is not realistic! Davescot has the scoop! Quote More to the point however is it’s not even to a realistic simulation of how evolution by mutation and selection really works. In the real world random mutations are largely deleterious. To add a bit of realism to the algorithm when a mutation occurs that doesn’t move the string closer to the goal one of the correct letters should be randomized as a penalty. Obviously the target would then never be reached even in trillions of generations as the penalties would quite reliably overwhelm the successes. Therefore Intelligent Design! Link -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,13:05    Check out R0b's comment Link Worth reading in full but I don't have time to format it atm.   Quote   But I guess when your victories are so few and far between, you’ll chase down any small victory you can salvage. Yep, we’re pretty desperate that way. Anything to put a damper on the highly successful ID movement. But you’re right that the Weasel issue is a tempest in a teapot. Nobody in science cares about the 20-year-old trivial illustration. It’s the ID and creationist camps that keep bringing it up, and as long as they do, we’ll keep trying to help them get their facts straight. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Maya Posts: 702 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,13:11    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 12 2009,13:01) Breaking News! Apparently Weasel is not realistic! Davescot has the scoop!   Quote More to the point however is it’s not even to a realistic simulation of how evolution by mutation and selection really works. In the real world random mutations are largely deleterious. To add a bit of realism to the algorithm when a mutation occurs that doesn’t move the string closer to the goal one of the correct letters should be randomized as a penalty. Obviously the target would then never be reached even in trillions of generations as the penalties would quite reliably overwhelm the successes. So because my eyesight isn't better than my mother's, I should also be deaf? Davey seems to have trouble with that "simulating observed mechanisms" thing.  Not to mention any other endeavor involving abstract thought.

FrankH Posts: 525 Joined: Feb. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,13:15    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 12 2009,13:05) Check out R0b's comment LinkWorth reading in full but I don't have time to format it atm. Quote But I guess when your victories are so few and far between, you’ll chase down any small victory you can salvage. Yep, we’re pretty desperate that way. Anything to put a damper on the highly successful ID movement. But you’re right that the Weasel issue is a tempest in a teapot. Nobody in science cares about the 20-year-old trivial illustration. It’s the ID and creationist camps that keep bringing it up, and as long as they do, we’ll keep trying to help them get their facts straight. Wow. Is Evolution a "movement"? Now I agree that ID is a highly successful "movement".  As much shit as they are full of there is no way to hold it in. As for Dr. Carl Wieland and his stunning expose' on Evil, Vile and non-existent Darwinian body snatchers, isn't he the dentist who was chased along  with his family by Darwinian agents? -------------- Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

Chayanov Posts: 289 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,13:25    Quote In the real world random mutations are largely deleterious. You just can't educate people who are so willfully and stubbornly ignorant, much less engage them in any sort of meaningful dialogue (although I suppose you could spend time mocking them). How many times has this error been pointed out and corrected over the years? -------------- Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,13:41    Clive clarifies, er, something Quote Unless you want to define evolution as anything that ever does anything, you have to have an idea of a progression, as opposed to a digression, otherwise, if evolution is defined as the mere movement in any direction, nothing would stand to falsify it, except staying static, but nothing would stand to falsify the direction itself, and so it would become vacuous; it would be like congratulating yourself for reaching your destination, and defining your destination as the place that you’ve reached. I can’t understand a construction of evolution in that way. Please forgive me if I misunderstood your point. Evolution has to be directional, and if it is not directional by definition, I can’t see how it is an evolution. OK, who's taken Clive's medication? Own up! Link -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

dogdidit Posts: 315 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,13:49    Quote (dvunkannon @ Mar. 12 2009,12:13) Clive, I'm sorry I called you a psychologist. And I'm very sorry your clients call you a psychologist. Unnecessarily long. Quote (dvunkannon @ Mar. 12 2009,12:13) Clive, I'm sorry I called you a psychologist. And I'm very sorry your clients call you. a psychologist. Better. -------------- "Humans carry plants and animals all over the globe, thus introducing them to places they could never have reached on their own. That certainly increases biodiversity." - D'OL

FrankH Posts: 525 Joined: Feb. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,13:51    Quote (Chayanov @ Mar. 12 2009,13:25) Quote In the real world random mutations are largely deleterious. You just can't educate people who are so willfully and stubbornly ignorant, much less engage them in any sort of meaningful dialogue (although I suppose you could spend time mocking them). How many times has this error been pointed out and corrected over the years? None are so blind as those who refuse to see..... None are so deaf as those who refuse to hear..... None are so fricking stupid as those who get "do it yourself" home lobotomy kits..... -------------- Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

Venus Mousetrap Posts: 201 Joined: Aug. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,14:08    Quote Unless you want to define evolution as anything that ever does anything, you have to have an idea of a progression, as opposed to a digression, otherwise, if evolution is defined as the mere movement in any direction, nothing would stand to falsify it, except staying static, but nothing would stand to falsify the direction itself, and so it would become vacuous; it would be like congratulating yourself for reaching your destination, and defining your destination as the place that you’ve reached. I can’t understand a construction of evolution in that way. Please forgive me if I misunderstood your point. Evolution has to be directional, and if it is not directional by definition, I can’t see how it is an evolution.

FrankH Posts: 525 Joined: Feb. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,14:31    Bolding is mine. Quote 436 DaveScot 03/12/2009 1:41 pm Perhaps the greater flaw in Weasal is that it starts from an initial state of gibberish. Evolution doesn’t work that way. It begins from a highly optimized state and transitions to a different but similarly highly optimized state in response to dimunitions of the original optimization caused by changes in the environment. We have a wonderful case study in real life, in real time, of how this works. Behe examines it in “The Edge of Evolution” where the malaria parasite begins in a highly optimized state which is diminished by the introduction of anti-malarial drugs. If evolution worked the way Weasal works these drugs would be overcome in such very short order that they would be utterly useless from the very start. After all, chloroquine resistance only requires three amino acid substitutions to become functional. The parasite only has to go from “Methinks it is like a weasel” to “Methinks it is like a beagle”. It takes the parasite some 10^20 tries to get there. So there is clearly a huge disconnect from the Weasel program and how the diversification of life actually happens. As a (hopefully) a learned novice, where is it said that evolution STARTS at a "highly optimized state. Isn't this a strawman? -------------- Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

Maya Posts: 702 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,14:39    Quote (Chayanov @ Mar. 12 2009,13:25)   Quote In the real world random mutations are largely deleterious. You just can't educate people who are so willfully and stubbornly ignorant, much less engage them in any sort of meaningful dialogue (although I suppose you could spend time mocking them). How many times has this error been pointed out and corrected over the years? Darn it, you made me look at UD unfiltered.  Look what burned my retinas this time: Davey burbles:   Quote If most mutations are neutral why does it take billions of trillions of tries for the malaria parasite to find the three sequence changes that confer resistance to chloroquine? I’m open to other explanations but the only one that fits is that most mutations in the malaria parasite are deleterious. This would manifest itself as being easy to find useful single base substitutions but greater than one base would be multiplicative in number of tries required. If most mutations were neutral the number of tries required would be additive instead of multiplicative. So we can add math to the long list of subjects about which Davey has delusions of minimal understanding. ETA:  And of course the presumption that malaria is "trying" to evolve a particular feature deserves notice (well, derisive laughter).

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,14:43    Quote As a (hopefully) a learned novice, where is it said that evolution STARTS at a "highly optimized state. Optimized enough, but there is no necessity for evolution to produce *highly optimized* anything. Things that survive and reproduce are good enough. Behe's big lie is his assertion that for evolution to be true, it *must* produce things like flagella. Most microbes survive without rotary flagella. The fact that some have them doesn't imply that there was some impetus to produce them. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Ptaylor Posts: 1180 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,14:46    Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 13 2009,03:26) Heeee's back...   Quote 36 DaveScot 03/12/2009 6:58 am KRiS “Evolved” is synonymous with “changed”. If we begin with the standard assumption that all life diversified from one or a few cell lines beginning billions of years ago then quite obviously some cell lines changed more than others. Thus some cell lines are move evolved than others. You’re a troll but even worse you’re a moron. Take a hint and take a hike numbnuts. Dave's comment appears to have been deleted. -------------- We no longer say: “Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.” We now say: “Another day since the time Darwinism was disproved.” -PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,14:49    Quote (Maya @ Mar. 12 2009,14:39) Davey burbles:   Quote If most mutations are neutral why does it take billions of trillions of tries for the malaria parasite to find the three sequence changes that confer resistance to chloroquine? I’m open to other explanations but the only one that fits is that most mutations in the malaria parasite are deleterious. This would manifest itself as being easy to find useful single base substitutions but greater than one base would be multiplicative in number of tries required. If most mutations were neutral the number of tries required would be additive instead of multiplicative. So we can add math to the long list of subjects about which Davey has delusions of minimal understanding. Now, now, Maya.  Neutral *is* negative for sufficiently large values of not-positive.   Or something like that. You wouldn't understand because your IQ isn't somewhere north of 150 and you can't comprehend how fast Dave's mind works.  That, and you are a girl.  But, I repeat myself. -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

dvunkannon Posts: 1377 Joined: June 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,14:56    Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 12 2009,15:31) Bolding is mine.   Quote 436 DaveScot 03/12/2009 1:41 pm Perhaps the greater flaw in Weasal is that it starts from an initial state of gibberish. Evolution doesn’t work that way. It begins from a highly optimized state and transitions to a different but similarly highly optimized state in response to dimunitions of the original optimization caused by changes in the environment. We have a wonderful case study in real life, in real time, of how this works. Behe examines it in “The Edge of Evolution” where the malaria parasite begins in a highly optimized state which is diminished by the introduction of anti-malarial drugs. If evolution worked the way Weasal works these drugs would be overcome in such very short order that they would be utterly useless from the very start. After all, chloroquine resistance only requires three amino acid substitutions to become functional. The parasite only has to go from “Methinks it is like a weasel” to “Methinks it is like a beagle”. It takes the parasite some 10^20 tries to get there. So there is clearly a huge disconnect from the Weasel program and how the diversification of life actually happens. As a (hopefully) a learned novice, where is it said that evolution STARTS at a "highly optimized state. Isn't this a strawman? No, I think Scooter has actually learned something from all those kind souls who have been beating on the "random assembly is vastly improbable" strawman. This another example of him being the smartest wanker in the chat room. He's also right that if the fitness function changes fast enough (weasel -> beagle -> dongle) the population will never converge on the global optimum. That's true and perfectly normal. Just more evidence that evolution is backward looking, imperfect, and happens all the time. -------------- I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter I’m not an evolutionist, I’m a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

JLT Posts: 740 Joined: Jan. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,15:04    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 12 2009,19:41) Clive clarifies, er, something     Quote Unless you want to define evolution as anything that ever does anything, you have to have an idea of a progression, as opposed to a digression, otherwise, if evolution is defined as the mere movement in any direction, nothing would stand to falsify it, except staying static, but nothing would stand to falsify the direction itself, and so it would become vacuous; it would be like congratulating yourself for reaching your destination, and defining your destination as the place that you’ve reached. I can’t understand a construction of evolution in that way. Please forgive me if I misunderstood your point. Evolution has to be directional, and if it is not directional by definition, I can’t see how it is an evolution. OK, who's taken Clive's medication? Own up! Link Clive's understanding of evolution is depicted on the left: -------------- "Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...] Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,15:11    Atom:   Quote [1] Anyway, whether or not Dawkins’ search freezes correct letters (as in partitioned search) is still just an order of magnitude smaller side detail. [2] Sure, you want to “correct Dembski and Marks.” Whatever. [3] It has been shown that there is a case to be made that at least one version of Weasel used latching; even if it didn’t, it appeared to, so an honest mistake could have been made. [1] Dembski and Marks explicitly claim that "weasel"'s advantage over blind search is due to it being a partitioned search. The fact that the actual "weasel" program approaches within about an order of magnitude of the performance of partitioned search makes hash of their argument; actual "weasel" doesn't rely on any process they analyzed, yet it outperforms blind search by almost the same ratio as their "partitioned search" invention. ETA: The argument made by Dembski and Marks leaves the reader with the impression that without "partitioned search", "weasel"'s performance would be close to that of "blind search", yet the reality is that its actual performance is way closer to what "partitioned search" achieves than what "blind search" does, so the import of correcting Dembski and Marks on this point will result in a shift of reader expectation of much, much more than "an order of magnitude". [2] Atom doesn't care about making correct arguments or scholarly accuracy. [3] I haven't seen any such demonstration. Certainly the Gordon Mullings stuff that points to short printouts of example best matches in "The Blind Watchmaker" and "New Scientist" don't provide such. I have correspondence with Dawkins that says he never even considered "latching" correct letters, as that would have been at variance with the biological principles he was attempting to communicate. So if there was some version of "weasel" that latched letters, it wasn't one coded by Dawkins or anyone who paid attention to Dawkins. The mistake was only "honest" up to the point when the correction was provided, and I provided that correction to Dembski over eight years ago, to Marks in October 2007, and to "Atom" in November 2008. Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 12 2009,15:44 -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,15:15    Quote (JLT @ Mar. 12 2009,13:04) Clive's understanding of evolution is depicted on the left: Clive would be the plank at the bottom. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Maya Posts: 702 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,15:20    Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 12 2009,14:49)   Quote (Maya @ Mar. 12 2009,14:39) Davey burbles:       Quote If most mutations are neutral why does it take billions of trillions of tries for the malaria parasite to find the three sequence changes that confer resistance to chloroquine? I’m open to other explanations but the only one that fits is that most mutations in the malaria parasite are deleterious. This would manifest itself as being easy to find useful single base substitutions but greater than one base would be multiplicative in number of tries required. If most mutations were neutral the number of tries required would be additive instead of multiplicative. So we can add math to the long list of subjects about which Davey has delusions of minimal understanding. Now, now, Maya.  Neutral *is* negative for sufficiently large values of not-positive.   Thanks for the clear explanation.  I certainly wouldn't have come up with that on my own. Quote Or something like that. You wouldn't understand because your IQ isn't somewhere north of 150 and you can't comprehend how fast Dave's mind works.  That, and you are a girl.  But, I repeat myself. Too bad k.e. is off his feed.  You deserve to have him pointed in your general direction for that one.   ;)

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,15:38    Man I love UD.  What a bunch of dumbasses. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Chayanov Posts: 289 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,15:39    Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 12 2009,15:15)   Quote (JLT @ Mar. 12 2009,13:04) Clive's understanding of evolution is depicted on the left: Clive would be the plank at the bottom. I assume you mean below the cactus? -------------- Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

Pages: (500) < ... 222 223 224 225 226 [227] 228 229 230 231 232 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard