You are an idiot.
Do you kjnow what a molecule is? My guess is no.
Do you kjnow what a molecule is? My guess is no.
You seem to have made a disappointing use of the time. At least I had a good turkey cheese sub.
Such ad hominem! Can't you be as cordial and hail-fellow-well-met to me as I am being to you? Can't we just have a rational discussion of the finer scientific points of creation versus evolution?
(Note to self: Getting too longwinded here.)
What your fears of inadequacy must be doing to your nightmares I can imagine, but this forum is not the place for therapy.
(Note to regulars: If I'm being more of an a$$hole than usual, see post 739 for a clue what is going on.)
You have, in your usual parlance, detected me "bullying" Aquinasfan, whose delusional system you profess not to share. At least, that is your standard rationale. You accept evolution but feel sorry for the pathetic creationists bullied by people whom you are uniquely qualified to spot as not knowing what they are talking about. (Hence, also, the tallhappy entrance post, optionally repeated to all or several E-side parties.) I assume you actually are aware of the unscientific nature of the following argument against macroevolution:
My problem is, somewhere along the line one member of the daughter species mutated enough to become reproductively isolated from the parent species. But at the same time that creature must necessarily be reproductively isolated from the other members of the daughter species, unless an opposite sex member of the daughter species mutated comparably simultaneously.Now riding to the rescue of such is not simple. A frontal defense is out of the question. A diversion, rather, is required so that the pathetic bully-ee can escape.
Your target is the following paragraph of mine, which I admit is a rather rushed description for an even less technical than myself audience.
I've mentioned clones evolve slowly relative to sexuals. There's a fascinating scenario in which early organisms rather freely exchanged materials through bacterial conjugation. Budding and other cloning techniques then produced a long stasis, ending only when "modern" mitosis developed, leading fairly quickly to meiosis, sex at the cellular level. That produced the Precambrian "sizzle" of suddenly fast evolution leading to the Cambrian Explosion of Creationist pamplet fame. (You still see people posting that all the phyla of life appear full-blown for the first time "at the bottom of the geologic column in the Cambrian.")Now, I asked you a lot of questions after you did your usual. They were not off-point. I'm helping you do what you don't do well, which is say what you're saying.
You seem to assume "modern" mitosis means "as opposed to ancient mitosis." I gave you a figure that suggests an alternate interpretation. Do you see it?
Are you going to demolish the point I'm making to Aquinasfan, support "Don't second-guess" as just-as-good science, or confine yourself to the usual diversions on 1) is anybody else here tallhappy? and 2) can anybody else here guess what tallhappy is thinking?
Why is sex important?
I haven't been able to stop thinking about it much since I was in the seventh grade. Is this normal? All my English teachers looked sexy to me, even the ugly ones. This can't be right. So now I'm 52 and the only difference is I can't seem to do as much about it as before.