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... > From "LUCA" thread

Pages: (36) < ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... >

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 11 2006,09:45    Quote (cogzoid @ Jan. 11 2006,15:24) Yet another distraction that keeps Paley from answering my questions.  (sigh)  Showing the inanity of your theory is only fun if you actually respond to my statements. Maybe it's best this way actually, I'm much more productive when I ignore the silly online debates. Yes, and that's why I hesitated even to bring up any other topic. I couldn't let the accusation leveled at Dr. Diamond to go unanswered, but even moving that discussion to a different thread is still going to slow down Mr. Paley's progress in even presenting evidence that his "quintessence" exists. Developing an internally-consistent mathematical model describing such a substance doesn't even begin to demonstrate that it actually exists, and if Bill's model cannot provide at least an equally compelling accounting for the vast range of phenomena that the current theories of cosmology, astrophysics, general relativity and quantum physics already account for, it will be what we've suspected all along: a waste of time. -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 11 2006,10:05    Cogzoid wrote: Quote Yet another distraction that keeps Paley from answering my questions.  (sigh)  Showing the inanity of your theory is only fun if you actually respond to my statements. Hey, give Eric some credit: he's forcing me to dwell on one aspect of my model at a time, which improves everyone's focus. And I've been working on a reply to you. But my mind is modular, so our side debate over G,G, and S doesn't really slow me down - it just goes in a different box; in fact, it may speed up my reply since I can let my subconscious (or whatever) take over. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

Julie Stahlhut Posts: 46 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 11 2006,15:50    What is this "guts to gametes" of which we speak?

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2006,02:59    Julie In response to a question by ericmurphy way back on page 3 of this thread: Quote The Ghost of Paley Would you care to elaborate on your hypothesis that DNA ingested, and subsequently digested, by one organism somehow ends up in the germ cells of that organism? Paley wrote: Quote Lynn Margulis (wife of Satan.....err....Sagan) has proposed the endosymbiotic theory to account for new genes/functions. This a just one germ digesting another. My theory, which proposes RNA transfer from digestive enzymes to germ cells via RAG recombination, is merely an extention of Margulis's concept. Granted, there are some minor details to be worked out, but that's why ID research is so crucial for the progress of science. My application of her concept to multicellular organisms reveals my willingness to seek truth wherever it might be - even from the wife of a Marxist And we've been waiting for him to elaborate ever since.

Julie Stahlhut Posts: 46 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2006,11:37    For any thread participants who are not familiar with Margulis's endosymbiont model:  In this model, one prokaryotic (bacterial) cell engulfs another, but the engulfed cell is not "digested" at all.  Rather, it persists, the association benefits one or both cells, and the ability to maintain an endosymbiont gives a selective advantage to the host.   Margulis's hypothesis was not taken seriously when she proposed it in the 1960s, but in the ensuing years, genetic tools were developed to test it.  It turns out that mitochondria and plastids contain their own DNA, and have considerable structural and biochemical similarities to bacterial cells.   Incidentally, I work with a different kind of endosymbiont -- Wolbachia, a group of bacteria adapted to persist and reproduce within the cells of arthropod and nematode reproductive tissues, and to be transmitted from mother to offspring. Wolbachia is very good at "manipulating" host reproduction to make more copies of itself, usually by biasing a female's reproductive output towards making more daughters.  (Males either don't transmit it, or else transmit it much less efficiently than females.) In some cases, Wolbachia infection comes with considerable cost to the host, but in others, its presence has become important to host survival or reproduction.

Dean Morrison Posts: 216 Joined: Dec. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2006,12:07    Julie - thats actually interesting - I'm interested in the 'manipulation of host reproduction' and the game theory surrounding this. How host-specific are Wolbachia and is there a scale of host-endosymbiont interdependence between different species? Any snappy references?

Julie Stahlhut Posts: 46 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2006,13:45    Quote Julie - thats actually interesting - I'm interested in the 'manipulation of host reproduction' and the game theory surrounding this. How host-specific are Wolbachia and is there a scale of host-endosymbiont interdependence between different species? Interesting that you should ask that.  In just about every species that harbors a persistent Wolbachia infection, there seems to be a unique sequence at an easily amplifiable Wolbachia surface protein gene.  We do know that horizontal transmission is possible, even though most transmission is vertical.  For one thing, the most closely related infected insect species don't normally carry the most closely related bacterial strains.  Wolbachia infections have been experimentally introgressed into new species; sometimes a "hybrid" between two closely related animal species is fertile if backcrossed to one of the parent species, and that's the way it's been done.  There's also some evidence that parasitoids may be able to pick up the infection from their hosts, since they develop in close contact with host body tissues and fluids.  Infections have also been experimentally established in insect embryos via microinjection. There are four primary ways in which Wolbachia biases host reproduction towards making lots of infected daughters: Feminization (F).  Infected genetic males develop as females.  This one's known only from some terrestrial crustaceans, and probably depends on a bacterial effect on ZW sex determination pathways.  (ZW sex determination is sort of the opposite of XY.  Females in these species are ZW, and males are ZZ.) Parthenogenesis induction (PI):  Infected females can produce daughters by gamete duplication, without having to mate.  This is best characterized in some parasitoid wasps.  Interestingly, the true wasps,  bees, and ants have a sex-determination system with which classic PI just can't work.  (This is another field of research for me, but I'll control myself.)  :-) Cytoplasmic incompatibility (CI):  Infected females can mate successfully with any male, but if an uninfected female mates with an infected male, her embryos won't develop.  This means that infected females have better mating prospects, and thus higher reproductive success.  This is known in many insects, especially in numerous Drosophila species.   Male-killing (MK): Some or all male embryos of infected mothers die, so that their daughters get more resources.  Since this doesn't imply parthenogenesis, MK infections tends to exist at intermediate frequencies in a trade-off situation; if it swept completely through the population, an MK infection would cause host extinction through loss of mating opportunities. There are other adaptations known, though, too numerous to list here. There's no easy way to correlate related strains with reproductive effects; the infection "phenotype" seems to be a product of the host-symbiont interaction rather than of the bacteria themselves.  Incidentally, different Wolbachia strains infect nematodes, and in this phylum, the host and symbiont phylogenies match up pretty well!   I can go on about this for hours, so I'll quit before everyone is completely reeling .... Quote Any snappy references? I'm really an applied molecular ecologist rather than a theoretical type, so I don't have an at-my-figurative-fingertips list, but a quick web search turned up this one that at least mentions Wolbachia dynamics: Hammerstein, Peter.  2005.  Strategic analysis in evolutionary genetics and the theory of games.  Journal of Genetics 84: 7-12. Hope this helps, -- Julie

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2006,23:54    Thanks, Julie, that was most informative. You should contact Dr Elsberry about doing a guest contribution on PT. BTW would lack of vulnerability to PI in bees and wasps due to (presumably) haplo-diploid sex determination have had an effect on its evolutionary appearance or development?

Dean Morrison Posts: 216 Joined: Dec. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2006,00:24    Wow Julie, the cool thing about that stuff is that it can be used to make a whole raft of evolutionary predictions that can be tested. I'm a long way from a decent library, but I'll check out the paper when I can. Your enthusiasm for the subject shines through - isn't nature great? (although not wonderful from the point of view of an infected organism). I agree with Alan- this deserves a guest contribution on PT.

Julie Stahlhut Posts: 46 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2006,03:38    Alan wrote: Quote BTW would lack of vulnerability to PI in bees and wasps due to (presumably) haplo-diploid sex determination have had an effect on its evolutionary appearance or development? This is something that's not well-characterized yet, and in fact it's a path I'd like to pursue.  It turns out that not all haplodiploid sex determination systems are alike; the underlying pathways differ, and there seem to have been multiple and diverse responses to selection on sex determination mechanisms.   Brief oversimplification:  Most bees, ants, and true wasps have a single sex-determining locus (no sex chromosomes) with many alleles.  Haploids are male, and diploids are almost always heterozygous at the sex locus and become female.  Homozygous diploids develop as males, and these diploid males are usually inviable or infertile. This is called single-locus complementary sex determination, or sl-CSD (or just CSD).  Just a few years ago, the sex locus of the honeybee was definitively identified by Martin Beye and co-workers. Since inbreeding produces more homozygotes, homozygotes become diploid males, and diploid males tend not to reproduce, we'd predict: 1. Species with CSD should avoid inbreeding. Support: Most species with CSD have inbreeding avoidance behaviors.  For example, many bees and ants have "nuptial flights" and mate far from their natal nests.  Many solitary wasp species also disperse before mating. 2.  Species whose life histories promote inbreeding should have a different sex-determination system. Support:  Parasitoid wasps that tend to mate with siblings after emerging from a host usually don't have CSD; breeding experiments support this.  The overall pattern, when mapped onto hymenopteran phylogeny, suggests ancestral CSD that was secondarily lost in many parasitoid lineages.  However, the latter is still a topic for conjecture, because we don't have enough information to be sure. My own dissertation research, BTW, uncovered a bizarre exception.  One solitary, predatory wasp common in the U.S. has CSD (breeding experiments clinched this), often mates with siblings (about two-thirds of matings in the population I studied, based on genetic data), produces diploid males under inbreeding (confirmed by genetic markers) -- and these diploid males are fertile, fathering normal daughters (confirmed by breeding experiments and genetic markers). So, they've "found" another way around the CSD vs. inbreeding dilemma! 3.  Only those hymenopterans that lack CSD should have Wolbachia-induced parthenogenesis (PI), because otherwise the gamete duplication process would produce diploid males, not daughters. Support:  To date, PI has been found only in non-CSD, parasitoid Hymenoptera.  However, this doesn't rule out different, unknown mechanisms for parthenogenesis induction in CSD species; we just haven't really looked yet.  It also doesn't rule out male-killing or cytoplasmic incompatibility; the latter (CI) may yet turn out to be a considerable player in hymenopteran biology. Quote You should contact Dr Elsberry about doing a guest contribution on PT. I'll put that on my list of things to do.  :-) Gotta get a manuscript revised first, but it would be fun to do a Wolbachia essay! Dean wrote: Quote Your enthusiasm for the subject shines through - isn't nature great? Well, y'know, I just love my bugs!  Started getting interested at age 7, but didn't do anything about it for entirely too long (finally got my Ph.D. at age 46).  I try to do my best to get younger people started on what they like rather than what they think they're supposed to like.

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2006,06:32    Hope you do find time, Julie, and thanks again.

Julie Stahlhut Posts: 46 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2006,12:28    I'm seriously considering starting up my own entomologically-oriented blog.   I'll keep people posted if that actually comes about.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2006,08:31    I look forward to your blog and comments. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2006,09:55    See part one of my response to Mr. Brazeau. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2006,10:21    Mt P, I think you are spreading yourself a bit thinly, you are becoming positively wraith-like. Not to nag or anything, But... Gut to ganetes...?

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2006,10:24    Or, even... Gut to gametes.

cogzoid Posts: 234 Joined: Sep. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2006,13:38    Paley, I understand that you are spreading yourself a little thin.  I'm going to regroup some of my questions regarding your ToE so you don't have to ferry through pages of this thread to try to find questions to answer.  These are remotely in chronological order.  And I'm only asking the ones that you should be able to answer quickly. Quote However, the sphere of the fixed stars can be assumed to have zero thickness in three dimensions, for it is actually part of a seven-dimensional ensemble that slices through our own space, while at the same time enveloping it, so my assumptions are absolutely solid. Why seven?  Did you just pick that out of your hat? You have claimed multiple times that your ether/quintessence is a crystal.  What is the structure of this crystal?  If you are going to claim that since it is constantly changing (and hence can't be pigeon-holed) then it is no longer a crystal.  It's more like glass, which, while hard, does not have a crystalline structure.   Quote The ether that fills empty space is the most perfect crystalline solid you could exist. Only the existentialist evolutionistic presupposition of "nothingness¨ allows you to believe in a "vacuum.¨ Quote Given this velocity, it would take 9.6532X1045 years for light to travel through one millimeter of quintessence space. This implies an infinitesimally thin spherical shell, justifying my simplifying assumptions in the Gaussian model. So, first the ether takes up all of space and vacuum doesn't exist.  Now, the ether is just an infinitesimally thin spherical shell.  I guess that's not a contradiction for you, eh Paley? And more recent questions:   Quote This ignores the special properties of quintessence: In seven-dimensional space, all three-dimensional electromagnetic radiation has the same frequency, and hence, will be slowed down uniformly by the condensate. Where does this come from?  I realize that you're making it up as you go along, but perhaps you can make up a more in depth description of the maths that support this. Quote This frequency will yield a value for n equivalent to the number of elementary charges in the Empyrean(2) Why on a flat earth would the index of refraction follow the total amount of elementary charges in a structure?  I guess you don't feel you need to show any work to back this up either. When you get time away from your Guts to Gametes diatribe, perhaps you can answer these questions.  To be honest it looks like you've realized that you're painting yourself into a corner, and rather than finishing the work, you're setting down the brush.  I'm a tad dissappointed, but not surprised in the least.  You'd rather argue with people that don't require as much proof or on topics that are unprovable. -Dan

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2006,16:40    And Bill, I think it might be the case that my questions (with all due respect to Dan's fine work in this area) might be even harder and more time-consuming to answer, because they involve more complex phenomena with more detailed explanations under the standard theories (quantum theory, general relativity). I understand you don't really believe the earth is the center of the universe and that everything else revolves around it, and that this is all an exercise in intellectual virtuosity. But that doesn't change the fact that these are all questions that need answers. And I haven't even begun to run out of questions yet. I suspect that Mr. C has plenty of his own as well. -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2006,11:02    ericmurphy wrote: Quote I understand you don't really believe the earth is the center of the universe and that everything else revolves around it, and that this is all an exercise in intellectual virtuosity. But that doesn't change the fact that these are all questions that need answers. And I haven't even begun to run out of questions yet. I suspect that Mr. C has plenty of his own as well. I realise I could use a little more focus, but I'm working on answers......promise. By the way guys, continually questioning someone's sincerity and using terms like "nutjob" aren't the best motivational strategies.     I'll try to develop my redshift theory more in the near future. Eric, could you cut and paste your questions as well? Thanks. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

Dean Morrison Posts: 216 Joined: Dec. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2006,12:58    Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 14 2006,15:55) See part one of my response to Mr. Brazeau. .. checked this out - seems that the scientists working in that field have noticed your propensity to cut and paste stuff you don't understand, and/or have never read. The 'papers' you work on seem to consist of whatever you can find that you think might be contentious; then cutting and pasting in a scattergun approach, in the hope that people might take you seriously. You really are a transparent Ghost Paley.

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2006,13:05    Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 15 2006,17) I realise I could use a little more focus, but I'm working on answers......promise. By the way guys, continually questioning someone's sincerity and using terms like "nutjob" aren't the best motivational strategies.  <!--emo&   I'll try to develop my redshift theory more in the near future. Eric, could you cut and paste your questions as well? Thanks. I'm not really questioning your sincerity, Bill. At least from my end, you seem far too intelligent a guy to really believe that the earth is the center of the universe when the uncontroversial evidence points entirely in the other direction. If anything, I'm complimenting you by assuming that what you're really doing here is setting yourself an intellectual task to see if you can bring it off. After all, as I've said before, you're trying single-handedly to overturn the bulk of scientific knowledge slowly and painfully accumulated over the last 500 years or so, and speaking for myself, I wouldn't think less of you if you couldn't pull it off. In any event, to save you the trouble of wading back through almost 20 pages of previous messages, I'll repost my questions to you here: The Hertzsprung-Russel mass-luminosity relationship. According to your model, all stars (with minor exceptions) are at the same distance from earth: 4.5 ly. This means that all stars' apparent magnitude is equal to their absolute magnitude, and therefore their apparent luminosity is the same as their intrinsic luminosity. This means that the Hertzprung-Russel mass-luminosity relationship is broken, and there is therefore no relationship between a star's mass and its luminosity, or between its temperature and its luminosity. Therefore some other explanation is necessary for the different temperatures of stars. What is that explanation? Galaxies. Since galaxies are all the same distance from the earth as the stars are (4.5 ly), either they're not made of stars at all (and hence are "nebulae"?), or they're made of extremely non-luminous stars. But stars have been resolved in some nearby galaxies, e.g., the Magellanic clouds. Presumably these are really tiny stars? Since their apparent luminosity is the same as their intrinsic luminosity… Cosmic elemental abundances. (Is evopeach out there somewhere?). Presumably Bill's geocentric universe precludes a big bang, and therefore precludes primordial nucleosynthesis. Therefore, one needs some other explanation for the eerie concordance between the observed cosmic microwave background radiation and the predicted abundances of hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium, which are exquisitely sensitive to the temperature of that radiation. Of course, we also need an explanation for the existence of the CMB in the first place, since the Big Bang evidently didn't happen in Bill's world. Existence of metals. (Of course, I mean metals in the sense that astrophysicists use the term). I assume that supernovae don't happen in Bill's world, since a supernova occurring 4.5 ly away would preclude the existence of the earth. So, Bill—how did metals get here? I'm assuming since there was no big bang, they've always been here, but I'm hoping your answer is a little more entertaining than "I don't need to explain how metals got here, because they've always been here." Cosmic redshift. Obviously, neither stars nor galaxies have a recession velocity, since they're all at the same distance from the earth (4.5 ly), and presumably always have been. So what accounts for the observed redshift? Tired light? Intervening dust? God playing tricks on us? Distance to the celestial sphere. Bill, you say you know the distance to the A Centauri system. But how did you derive that distance? By its parallax? Even if, as WKV points out, parallax could be due to a wobbly cosmic sphere, you wouldn't be able to determine the sphere's distance that way. The reason we know the distance to A Centauri is because we know the diameter of the earth's orbit around the— oh, wait. The earth doesn't revolve around the sun. So what's the base of the triangle that allows us to compute the distance to the celestial sphere? -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

cogzoid Posts: 234 Joined: Sep. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2006,19:00    Quote By the way guys, continually questioning someone's sincerity and using terms like "nutjob" aren't the best motivational strategies.  I humbly apologize for insulting you for attempting to rewrite the bulk of astronomy and biology in one thread. Quote-mined from the first few pages of this thread: Quote Ignorant, evil evolutionists deny reality becuase deep in their hearts they know they will have to answer to God for their heinous misdeeds. I can't wait to watch him send you all to the Lake of Fire at the Final Judgment! Quote Darwinism is a bloated corpse floating in the aether, another failed "enlightenment" idea destined to be parroted in Feminist Studies workshops, and ignored by those who matter. Quote The stories I could tell of the horrors Evilution has wrought on people's lives! Quote Remember, I'm interested in data, not the tap-dancing of evolutionists. Quote It's nice to know that some scientists are using their grant money on serious research rather than the usual allotment of beer, crank, and hookers Quote No rino, I'm 100% Jesus-loving, Bible-believing Christian man! I have not been "diluted" with the moral poison of evolutionism as you have! Perhaps I can learn something about civil discourse from your examples.   -Dan

Ved Posts: 398 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2006,07:33    Paley's theory is that all of the stars we see are imbedded in a spherical shell of quintessence that has a radius of ~4.5LY? Seriously??

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2006,08:52    Quote Perhaps I can learn something about civil discourse from your examples.   -Dan Ahhhh, don't worry - Paley wouldn't dish it out unless he could take it. I just find your motivational strategies counterintuitive.   -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

cogzoid Posts: 234 Joined: Sep. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2006,08:40    Quote I just find your motivational strategies counterintuitive. Who says I'm trying to motivate you? I've been thinking about your theory and my arguing about it.  I've also been thinking about why I'm bothering at all.  Why should I waste my time to pick apart one of the most convoluted theories I've ever heard.  I've certainly read my share of nutjob theories.  But, this is the first time where I've been in discourse with the guy trying to sell the theory.  I was wondering how far you could get before trapping yourself.  Seeing as you haven't been able to answer some of the basic questions concerning your theory, I think we've found your stopping point.  Now, I do find it fun to point out the inconsistancies of your theory and watch as you invoke more convoluted mechanisms to support it.  But, eventually you'll reach an impasse.  It might as well be earlier than later.  That way you can say "Gee, that was a foolish theory." and move on with your life.  I have a feeling that this won't be the case though.  You'll maintain that you're just not done with it yet, or that it's a work in progress, or that you just need some grad students to help you work out the details.  I think you're going to say that because all nutjobs eventually say that.  Part of being a nutjob is that you can never admit defeat. Quote I haven't backed out of a challenge yet, and I'm not going to now............ And I think this problem is exacerbated by the fact that you have spiritual capital invested: Quote As far as your inquiry concerning whther Jesus gave me the answer to these questions, the answer is a qualified yes. All knowledge claims ultimately depend upon presuppositions, and only Biblical presuppositions can ground authentic knowledge. The ball is in your court, Paley.  You can either continue on with your theory, answer some questions and make some predictions, or admit that this whole tirade is foolish.  I'll be waiting either way.  And I've made my predictions. -Dan

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2006,11:16    Quote The ball is in your court, Paley.  You can either continue on with your theory, answer some questions and make some predictions, or admit that this whole tirade is foolish.  I'll be waiting either way.  And I've made my predictions. Oh don't worry - I ain't licked yet. I didn't want to mention this before, but I've been having sinus troubles lately that have affected my concentration and contributed to my tardiness (yeah, boo-hoo right?). Plus, I've been spreading myself too thin with the fish fossil stuff. I know you and Eric want answers and I'm working on them, but I must continue to beg for your patience. Mods willing, I'm not going anywhere so you'll have me to kick around for a while. I find our dialogue fascinating and I'm trying to get Eric involved too. But hey, ya got Larry to punt around in the meantime, plus Evopeach is still around from what I hear. Plenty of "trolls" to thump. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2006,11:56    Quote , I've been spreading myself too thin with the fish fossil stuff. lol.  no kidding.  I think the good doctor just removed one of your kidneys on that thread. one does begin to wonder how many times you can be eviscerated and still have some "guts" left for your "guts to gametes" drivel. I'm beginning to think you closely related to holothuroids. do you know what sea cucumbers do when frightened?

cogzoid Posts: 234 Joined: Sep. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2006,14:30    Quote Oh don't worry - I ain't licked yet. I didn't want to mention this before, but I've been having sinus troubles lately that have affected my concentration and contributed to my tardiness (yeah, boo-hoo right?). Plus, I've been spreading myself too thin with the fish fossil stuff. I know you and Eric want answers and I'm working on them, but I must continue to beg for your patience. Mods willing, I'm not going anywhere so you'll have me to kick around for a while. I find our dialogue fascinating and I'm trying to get Eric involved too. But hey, ya got Larry to punt around in the meantime, plus Evopeach is still around from what I hear. Plenty of "trolls" to thump. I know how pain can sap your energy.  I hope you feel better soon.  Thanks for the suggestion to go beat up on other trolls, but frankly, they aren't as much fun.  It took weeks of beatings for EvoPeach to understand that Hydrogen was around before Helium.  I need a little more rationality in my discourse for it to be pleasurable.

Dean Morrison Posts: 216 Joined: Dec. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2006,14:57    .. sorry by the way if you interpret this as a 'content free post'. 'Ghost of Paley’ has been full of beans of late at the:  105 post; 11 page; "Guns   Germs and Steel" thread, that he started a week ago to talk about his favourite topic. I've even suggested that he get back to his paper on 'Guts to Gametes' that you guys are waiting for but it seems he just can't help "spreading himself thin". Focus! Paley Focus!

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2006,15:00    Cogzoid wrote: Quote I know how pain can sap your energy.  I hope you feel better soon. Thanks. Actually, the discomfort's not too bad, but these problems leave me rather spacey (yeah, I know, how can one tell, etc, etc.). Fortunately the fish research was previously completed, or else I'd look even worse. Quote I need a little more rationality in my discourse for it to be pleasurable. The Peach is not without his charm, but he doesn't take to being contradicted, does he? Sir Wiggles wrote: Quote lol.  no kidding.  I think the good doctor just removed one of your kidneys on that thread. Well, I've just replied to "Ripper" Brazeau, not that anyone's gonna read it.... Quote do you know what sea cucumbers do when frightened? Post scandalous cartoons? <shrug> -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

Pages: (36) < ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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