Some did. American oral traditions describe Mishipishu, the stegosaur, as having red fur:
| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
Posted on 04/04/2002 10:05:32 AM PST by Heartlander
My understanding is that there was no peer-review. Mention that and the Cs cry, "Censorship!" That is, both sides believe/concede that real peer-review would have been hostile. Certainly, the mainstream community has not embraced Darwin's Black Box since it was published.
Pardon the dumb question, but how do you "grope" somebody via electronic media? Is that kind of like the scene in "Keystone Hotel" where the pie goes through the phone line and sploowies the police chief from out the receiver?
It's never too late to try.
No. Scales, mostly. Some later ones had feathers. Some later yet are hard to tell from birds. Some later yet are in your backyard looking for worms.
If mammaries developed for some reason for some species, why not for another.
Mammals appear to be highly modified sweat glands. Ever see a bird sweat? Never mind Gilbert and Sullivan's "And a cold perspiration bespangled his brow! Oh willow! Tit willow! Tit willow . . ."
But algae and bacteria remain with us. And they can exists whereever more "advanced" lifeforms exists and in places they can't.
Yes, so? Have you studied anything about evolution outside of creationist/ID propaganda?
Something like that. Were you around when RightOnline was being lewd to Jedigirl? VadeRetro valiantly jumped in and pushed the abuse butten for that one. Maybe that material is also on someone's storage medium at home.
Some did. American oral traditions describe Mishipishu, the stegosaur, as having red fur:
Yes, I deny using your gender against you. I am often silly in my posts, but I don't bully women.
Groping you? Truly, that's the last thing that would ever enter my mind. (It won't even be the last thing, because I don't intend to die with that being the final thought in my mind.)
The trigger for our discussion in this thread -- your revealing that you had received freepmail regarding my private speculation that you had another name on FreeRepublic -- that's gone right through, without denial. All your subsequent points, about freepmail paranoia, my alleged betrayal, and now this groping stuff, have not deflected my attention from the central point, which AndrewC noticed immediately, that you had ratted out someone who betrayed my confidence. So that little point stands, and it won't go away. Now it's "groping" that we're dealing with. Right. Hot topic.
I have the freepmails you mentioned. I can post them here. I can post the whole boring story here. Then everyone can see what your grievance was all about -- hardly the stuff for which the abuse button was made. But these events are 18 months old; and I don't want to do that. Why won't you let this thing drop?
I sense that something else is going on here. Are you (and perhaps some of your friends behind the scenes) trying to goad me into posting something so outrageous that you will then feel "justified" in hitting the abuse button again? That must be it, because I can't imagine any other reason for your continuing to drag this incident out. If that's the game, it won't work. Let it drop.
Energy exists. Something that says otherwise is wrong.
Jefferson was rather hostile to the idea of the Resurrection and the New Testament miracles. On the hand, he strongly and specifically promoted the teachings of Jesus believing they should be the values upon which our country should be based.
I wasn't on that thread you and Patrick are arguing over, but I will say that I have never observed him groping anyone. I've wondered about f.Christian, maybe, but not Patrick.
IIRC, everybody was taking you for a man back when you say Patrick was groping you.
Energy exists. Something that says otherwise is wrong.
Energy can exist and still have a zero sum total. That's the cool thing about inflation theory. And, so far at least, it seems to work pretty well. At any rate, you're not just taking on biology anymore if that's your beef.
But you're speculating, Vade. You don't know for certain. And neither do I for that matter.
Yes, so? Have you studied anything about evolution outside of creationist/ID propaganda?
I grew up on evolution. It was taught me in my public schools as an established fact. i know the theory. I've become skeptical of it. I'm becoming more and more skeptical of it.
Clearly, you don't know what I do about it. And the proof of your position is that I can't make you.
Oh, the threads getting diverse. Somebody brought up Washington's religion.
Oh dear. More tinfoil.
Let me take this one step at a time because you are being very unforthcoming. You made this statement earlier.
I haven't betrayed your freepmail confidences (because there were none) and I haven't lied about any of this.Do you deny I sent you a freepmail?
As well you should be; it's a bunch of BS.
The basic problems of evolutionism include a short list of things sufficient to demolish any normal theory, i.e. any theory which was not being held for irrational reasons.
Because of the nature of the laws of probability, the likelihood of any new kind of animal arising, with new kinds of organs, a new basic plan for existence etc. is a high-order infinitessimal, i.e. you are talking about a zero-probability event.
Now, it might be one thing to believe that one or two such events had ever occurred in the history of the world, but evolution posits an endless series of such events, i.e. it stands everything we know about probability on its head and requires a believer to pretend that such laws do not exist.
Moreover, natural selection could not plausibly select on the basis of hoped-for or future functionality; all you'd get would be a random walk around some norm for the old function. I.e. you'd have to come up with rationales for why an arm 10% of the way to becoming a wing offered an advantage, and then why an arm 20% offered an advantage over the 10% creatures, and then why an arm 30% of the way to being a wing....
Moreover, in real life, in trying to get to a new kind of a creature such as a flying bird, assuming you somehow miraculously evolved the first necessary new feature, then by the time the second evolved, the first would have de-evolved and either become vestigial or disappeared outright since it would have been useless - disfunctinal the entire while the second was evolving.
Darwininian gradualism has basically been abandoned at this point due to the lack of intermediates in the fossil record and also due to the Haldane dilemma and other problems of population genetics, basically the impossible time spans needed to spread genetic changes through sizeable populations of animals. The new semi-official replacement theory is the Gould/Eldredge notion of Punctuated Equilibria or "punc/eek". Unfortunately it turns out that punc/eek has even worse conceptual problems than the theory it is meant to replace:
It amounts to a pure pseudoscience since it involves a claim that the lack of intermediate fossils supports the theory. In other words, it amounts to a claim that a theory can be valided by a lack of evidence rather than evidence.
It amounts to a claim that inbreeding is a good thing and the source of all genetic advancement.
It ignores the familiar "gambler's problem" and in fact requires yet another kind of a reversal of overwhelming probabilistic laws in requiring tiny groups of animals to repeatedly spread out and overwhelm vastly larger groups, countless billions of times.
It ignores the fact that in real life, globally adapted animals invariably prevail over parochially adapted ones.
Gould and Eldredge do not even talk about a mechanism for the rapid change which must occur amongst the tiny groups of peripheral isolates which they try to claim are the salvation of evolutionism. They leave that up to the reader. That amounts to a claim of magic
Back in the old days, whole threads were pulled. This is much better.
I wasn't on that thread you and Patrick are arguing over, but I will say that I have never observed him groping anyone. I've wondered about f.Christian, maybe, but not Patrick.
That's why I've considered ineptness. But now all this denial and tinfoil. I don't know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.