Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,585 Year: 4,842/9,624 Month: 190/427 Week: 0/103 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Natural Limitation to Evolutionary Processes (2/14/05)
nator
Member (Idle past 2249 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 286 of 299 (342299)
08-22-2006 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by Wounded King
08-22-2006 7:09 AM


Re: The Solid Gold sheep
WK, Faith seems to not like me to be the messenger of the information regarding the CCR5 gene giving immunity to HIV and is refusing to respond to my posts, so could you pick up the banner?
Or anybody else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Wounded King, posted 08-22-2006 7:09 AM Wounded King has not replied

Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3505 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 287 of 299 (342301)
08-22-2006 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Faith
08-20-2006 4:11 PM


The wisdom tooth example cannot possibly be taken seriously as a beneficial mutation, or even a neutral mutation since it has a definite effect in eliminating wisdom teeth. It gets all philosophically confused to try to figure out how the absence of such teeth MIGHT conceivably confer a benefit. It seems to me that if it involves the destruction of a gene, that ought to be the defining factor, and I can't see such destruction as a positive in any sense whatever.
I don't have any scientific explanation for this, but, in my case, the elimination of wisdom teeth would have been a VERY good thing. I had some problems with jaw alignment as an adolescent, even though I had "perfect" teeth. When my wisdom teeth began coming in at 18 I had a serious problem. Before they came in I had issues with my jaw locking and when they started coming in my orthodontist called for immediate extraction through oral surgery (meaning they went in and cut them out from my gums before they could surface). They did this because I had TMJ and the entrance of my wisdom teeth would negate the braces I had had before this (to correct the TMJ) and cause my jaws to lock up. In an evolutionary context (and without modern medicine), I might have had a couple of kids before this happened and consequently starved to death due to the fact that I could not eat (allegedly before 30), but my "fitness" would be less that of the woman who didn't have wisdom teeth or whose jaw was big enough to fit all the teeth without any complications. Without modern medicine, I would be dead in my 20's and my defective" gene may be passed on, but not as sucessfully as someone who has a gene that gets rid of wisdom teeth and has children until menopause sets in. (BTW my jaws still click and I cannot take large bites of food).
There is no "destruction" of a gene involved. Rather, a modified or changed gene which confers a benefit or a detriment or no affect at all depending on the circumstance or environment of the individual. There could have been a time when large, powerful back molars conferred an advantage to humans and their jaws compensated for it. Eliminating wisdom teeth does not mean that there is a net loss of "information" or whatever you describe it as. The "information" changes and if it is beneficial or neutral to the species or individual it stays. If is deleterious, it goes (not immediately). Period. If you are "philosophically confused" maybe you should learn a bit more before you decide what "MIGHT conceiably confer a benefit" as opposed to what you think cannot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Faith, posted 08-20-2006 4:11 PM Faith has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22607
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 288 of 299 (342321)
08-22-2006 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by Faith
08-21-2006 9:48 PM


Re: beneficial
Faith, I was responding to where you said this:
Faith writes:
Evolutionists must ALWAYS start from the assumption that the basic stuff of life was brought into being by complex genetic processes happening frequently all along the way, so that mutations are just assumed to be the original cause of any trait whatever -- and Mendelian genetics simply operates to shuffle these traits once mutation has brought them into being, or something roughly like that.
This is fine. But then you concluded with this sentence:
Faith writes:
Percy said I'm wrong about this, but what else can you all be thinking?
I didn't say you were wrong about this. For you to believe I was telling you were wrong requires you to have misinterpreted what I told you in fundamental ways. Your reply is only an attempt to obscure your misunderstanding.
Again you are claiming evidence without showing evidence, just apparently enjoying saying I'm denying it, when in fact I've answered it.
I only returned to this discussion because you misrepresented what I had said in an earlier message. I will not be wasting my time submitting any more evidence to your denial machine. I merely ask you to consider that if evolutionary theory were not based upon evidence then there would be as many evolutionary factions as there are religions. Evidence is why evolutionists all have one view and so can argue against a creationist who is alone because few other creationists share their view.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Faith, posted 08-21-2006 9:48 PM Faith has not replied

Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 91 days)
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 289 of 299 (342337)
08-22-2006 10:20 AM


Please, #300 is looming
Faith,
If you could find the time, could you please reply to two things before this thread runs out?
First, your thoughts on the gene CCR5 giving immunity to HIV would be interesting. You'll find it mentioned here.
Second, what did you think of my trap? (Here)

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Faith, posted 08-22-2006 10:41 AM Parasomnium has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1524 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 290 of 299 (342349)
08-22-2006 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by Parasomnium
08-22-2006 10:20 AM


Re: Please, #300 is looming
OK, an answer to your "trap" of Message 260
I think we can assume that the greyhound did not exist 50.000 years ago. (I'm taking a very safe margin here.) That long ago, there were only the ancestors of all our modern breeds of dogs. (Whether these were wolves or coyotes is inconsequential for my argument.)
These ancestors did not have the "long, powerful legs, deep chests and aerodynamic build" the Wikipedia article mentions. These properties must therefore be the result of many mutations in the long line of descent between the ancient ur-dog and our modern greyhounds.
Mutations are not necessary at all. All kinds of alternative alleles are potential in the dog genome, built in as it were, just waiting to be selected by breeders, alleles for longer stronger legs, etc etc etc. Breeders simply choose the animal that has most of what they want to breed, and keep breeding the best of each litter until they get better and better specimens. You can't get mutations to order, you just exploit what's already available.
From the viewpoint of the greyhound, these mutations are definitely beneficial, for without them the greyhound would not exist.
And what's more, these beneficial mutations have been observed. Keenly observed, I might say, because greyhounds are pets, human breeders have watched the race come into existence.
So there we have it: observed beneficial mutations. No assumption the theory of evolution is true, just an example of something thousands, maybe millions of people have collectively witnessed over time.
But none of this has to be the result of mutations, merely the selective breeding of alleles for the desired traits, alleles already present in the dog population or potential in the dog genome (thinking in terms of predictable protein-making sequences, which admittedly I don't really understand yet).
{Edit: Seems to me I recall some sort of "law" from the dim past of my reading on these things, that says there's a certain morphological method in the development of new types; that is, you don't just get one part of the animal streamlined, but the whole body gets more streamlined. Something like that. How that works genetically I don't know, and it doesn't really affect the topic here anyway}
On the other issue, I don't even want to read a post by Schraf at this point, sorry.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Parasomnium, posted 08-22-2006 10:20 AM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Wounded King, posted 08-22-2006 10:59 AM Faith has replied
 Message 292 by Parasomnium, posted 08-22-2006 10:59 AM Faith has not replied

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 112 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 291 of 299 (342350)
08-22-2006 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by Faith
08-22-2006 10:41 AM


Re: Please, #300 is looming
All that is required for an allele to exist 'in potential' is a gene and the existence of the phenomenon of random mutation.
How could the ancestral pair of the dog 'kind' on the ark have had all of the allelic diversity required to produce the many forms seen in modern canids? If it lay in potentia in terms of genetics and chemistry then the only known mechanism for it to have reached the potential of actually existing is mutation. That is why people scoff at explanations for explosive adaptive radiation after the Ark as being hypermutational and hyperevolutionary, because starting from a single breeding pair the modern diversity we see would require levels of beneficial mutation and selection many thousands, possibly even millions, of times greater than those we see in nature to be achieved in as little as 4-5000 years. Either that or your initial pair require supergenomes containing hundreds of times the genes we see today.
You can see where once again the reasonableness of our assumptions becomes a key factor in evaluating competing explanations. If you don't believe in mutation then you still need another source for the allelic variation we see amongst modern canids or even domesticated dogs.
TTFN,
WK
P.S. Are you still interested in discussing mutation, if so perhaps we should start another thread. Was this thread started here during your ban from the science forums? If that is over then maybe we could move it to a more appropriate venue like the Intelligent Design forum.
Edited by Wounded King, : To add P.S.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Faith, posted 08-22-2006 10:41 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Faith, posted 08-22-2006 11:48 AM Wounded King has replied

Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 91 days)
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 292 of 299 (342352)
08-22-2006 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by Faith
08-22-2006 10:41 AM


Re: Please, #300 is looming
Thank you Faith.
I don't know if I'll be able to respond before this thread is chopped. I hope there'll be a continuation of it, in case it is. I have to think about an answer, and I have to go now.
Sorry about the thing with you and Schraf. Why can't you both just address the argument? Why must the fur always fly when you two meet? It's really a pity, because I think the pair of you are two of the more intelligent people on this forum. I usually enjoy reading posts of both of you.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Faith, posted 08-22-2006 10:41 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by nator, posted 08-22-2006 11:03 PM Parasomnium has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1524 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 293 of 299 (342368)
08-22-2006 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by Wounded King
08-22-2006 10:59 AM


Yes, a new mutation thread would be good
All that is required for an allele to exist 'in potential' is a gene and the existence of the phenomenon of random mutation.
How could the ancestral pair of the dog 'kind' on the ark have had all of the allelic diversity required to produce the many forms seen in modern canids? If it lay in potentia in terms of genetics and chemistry then the only known mechanism for it to have reached the potential of actually existing is mutation.
This raises the question again of just what mutation IS. Is it merely the occurrence of one of a certain number of possible and predictable chemical arrangements forming a particular protein along a particular sequence of bases? If so, does it ever make sense to talk about a "mistake?" Or what does that term mean as it is used by geneticists?
Why wouldn't the great variety of potential functioning protein-making sequences amount to enough variety to produce the many forms seen in modern canids? Doesn't need to be exactly "built-in" then. And if mutation isn't necessarily this totally random totally novel thing, but follows a predictable pattern -- even if only predictable "stochastically" as you say, then much variation seems to me to be a strong possibility, enough to develop many types after the ark. But this is very hazy in my mind.
That is why people scoff at explanations for explosive adaptive radiation after the Ark as being hypermutational and hyperevolutionary, because starting from a single breeding pair the modern diversity we see would require levels of beneficial mutation and selection many thousands, possibly even millions, of times greater than those we see in nature to be achieved in as little as 4-5000 years.
Yes, OK, but see, I KNOW the FLood happened that way, so there HAS to be a scientific explanation for how all the types came down from that point, and maybe I'll never understand enough to get near the explanation, but that's what I'm trying to do in my muddled way nevertheless, as are all creationists who believe in the Flood. Scoffing doesn't stop us, scientific reasoning doesn't stop us, all the calculations about genetics and about how many animals could or couldn't fit in the ark, and how hot the Flood would have made things so that no one could have survived, and so on and so forth don't stop us because we know there is an explanation, it just hasn't been found yet. So if the latest explanation that has been tried won't work, we regroup and look for another.
Either that or your initial pair require supergenomes containing hundreds of times the genes we see today.
That is one possibility I've thought reasonable. Myself, I still suspect that all that dead DNA, the pseudogenes and the junk DNA, were once functioning genes. I know some have given reasons why that isn't so. I just figure further study could turn that around. Also that "mutations" that don't do anything now, probably once did.
You can see where once again the reasonableness of our assumptions becomes a key factor in evaluating competing explanations. If you don't believe in mutation then you still need another source for the allelic variation we see amongst modern canids or even domesticated dogs.
I wish there were a creationist here who had the scientific knowledge I don't have to argue all these points myself, because I know so little. And apparently I misunderstood Percy and will probably never figure that out, and I can't follow Modulous' posts on this thread very well.
P.S. Are you still interested in discussing mutation, if so perhaps we should start another thread. Was this thread started here during your ban from the science forums? If that is over then maybe we could move it to a more appropriate venue like the Intelligent Design forum.
Yes, I'd like to see another thread started specifically on mutation. There were some posts by Mod and Crash particularly that didn't get answered that raised questions for such a thread, but I'm not up to tracking them down right now. In fact I'm having a case of insomnia which means I may sleep a lot of the day to make up for it and not be available anyway until later. But the answer is yes, I have a lot of questions about what mutations are that I'd really like to get sorted out if at all possible. I may just ask questions on such a thread, and I hope it wouldn't get too beyond the Reader's Digest level.
I'm free to post on the science forums but I don't believe in ID, and I really don't like posting on the Science forums because I like to be free to bring in my Biblical presuppositions when necessary, and because I get tired of being upbraided for not meeting scientific standards. What's wrong with this forum?
This thread was originally started in the science forums when I first started posting here. It was dormant for nearly a year and just got revived recently. I just moved it yesterday because Schraf was upbraiding me for not meeting scientific standards.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Wounded King, posted 08-22-2006 10:59 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Wounded King, posted 08-22-2006 12:04 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 295 by Percy, posted 08-22-2006 2:02 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 296 by crashfrog, posted 08-22-2006 4:35 PM Faith has not replied

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 112 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 294 of 299 (342373)
08-22-2006 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by Faith
08-22-2006 11:48 AM


Re: Yes, a new mutation thread would be good
What's wrong with this forum?
Mainly that it is clearly completely the wrong forum for the topic. I'm not 100 percent sure that using your admin powers to scoot a topic over into a forum where you don't need to stick o scientific evidence is entirely kosher, but that seems to be being discussed somewhere else.
If you are really planning to use the new thread as an opportunity to learn about what actually consitutes mutation then I'm not sure why a science forum like 'Biological evolution' wouldn't be perfectly suitable, what would you need to bring in biblical presuppositions (or perhaps we should say assumptions) for in this case?
Perhaps you should start a seperate thread in this forum for discussing your own ideas about mutation and evolution. That would also help to keep the sciencey thread a bit cleaner and might avoid the serious dog piling you seem to be subjected to.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Faith, posted 08-22-2006 11:48 AM Faith has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22607
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 295 of 299 (342414)
08-22-2006 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by Faith
08-22-2006 11:48 AM


Re: Yes, a new mutation thread would be good
Faith writes:
This raises the question again of just what mutation IS.
I think many here would agree with the definition of mutation at Wikipedia. You can read this article, or you can read others that you might find at legitimate science sites, or you can scan back through this thread and see where people have provided less formal definitions, but in any case, I suggest giving yourself a firmer understanding of what a mutation is before discussing it further.
Is it merely the occurrence of one of a certain number of possible and predictable chemical arrangements forming a particular protein along a particular sequence of bases?
Protein is not part of the composition of DNA. Check out the Wikipedia article on DNA. Just be careful of the middle sentence of the first paragraph, because it is grammatically ambiguous. What he means to say is that the amino acid sequences that make up proteins are encoded in DNA by long sequences of nucleotides using a triplet code. There is no protein in DNA.
I could continue nitpicking my way through your post, but I'll end here with a question. Sites that have accurate information about the definitions of genes and alleles and mutations and DNA are only a click or two away. Why not use them?
A creationist perspective does not require that you remain ignorant of what biology and evolution and genetics really say. Understanding it doesn't require you to become an atheist, but composing meaningful criticisms does require that you understand it. How much sense would it make for someone to criticize Christianity for making a big deal about Jesus seeing his shadow on Groundhog Day? If he didn't believe you when you told him he was mistaken, you'd tell him to study his Bible. And if he didn't believe the Bible, then what?
In order for us to have a meaningful discussion we must define terms the same way, but we can't even seem to agree on terms like beneficial, since one of the problems we're having is that one of the reasons you reject the evidence for beneficial mutations is because you can't see how they're beneficial. But you're even disagreeing about terms that have fairly objective definitions, as in this very message where you ask if mutations really aren't random but are instead an inherent part of a genome because they are an inevitable, if stochastic, change.
The answer is, "Of course not." It's inevitable that a die will come up 6 on 1/6 of the rolls, but that doesn't make rolling a die a non-random event.
I'm now going to mention a detail about mutations that I feel you are bound to misinterpret in some way, but research on some organisms has uncovered many mutational hot spots on DNA strands where mutations are very likely. One of the known causes is stress upon the DNA strand itself, such as at a point where the DNA bends tightly. If the DNA helix is thought of as a rope, a chromosome can be thought of as a tightly coiled and tangled rope of DNA, and the bends can sometimes be very tight.
Mutational hot spots means that some places on a genome are more prone to mutation than others, but the precise nature of the mutation and whether it happens at all is still a random event. And copying errors can happen literally anywhere, so since any particular change is possible, it isn't accurate in any meaningful way to say that mutations should be considered part of the original genome. It would be like claiming wood rot on your house is part of the original architectural design.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Faith, posted 08-22-2006 11:48 AM Faith has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1546 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 296 of 299 (342451)
08-22-2006 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by Faith
08-22-2006 11:48 AM


Re: Yes, a new mutation thread would be good
This raises the question again of just what mutation IS. Is it merely the occurrence of one of a certain number of possible and predictable chemical arrangements forming a particular protein along a particular sequence of bases? If so, does it ever make sense to talk about a "mistake?" Or what does that term mean as it is used by geneticists?
Let's talk about what a gene is.
DNA is a molecule that encodes a "recipe" for a protein in the form of, basically, a list of ingredients (amino acids): "start with a methianone, add an alanine, then a lysine, then an arginine", etc. Every one of the 20 different amino acids used in living organisms has it's own three-letter code. (In fact, there are usually several different three-letter codes for each amino acid.) When that code appears in the DNA, a part of the cell grabs the corresponding amino acid and tacks it on to the end of the protein that it's constructing. There's another three-letter code, too: "stop." It's a signal to the cell that the protein is "done", construction should stop, and the protein should be released into the cell. (It's obviously a lot more complicated than this but bear with me, and try not to draw too many conclusions from this enormously simplified description of the process.) There's no randomness in this code. If the code says "Lysine", Lysine is what you get. Every time.
Different alleles are like different recipes for the same dish. My recipe for chili calls for kidney and navy beans, maybe yours doesn't. Allele 1 for a gene specifies Leucine at the 2,356th position; Allele 2 specifies Lysine there instead, maybe. Allele 3, though, specifies "stop" at that position. If the 2,356th position is only halfway through the protein, there's probably no chance that the half-completed protein product is very functional. (That's how a mutation can prevent a gene from doing it's job.)
Let's relate this to Mendelian genetics. As a sexual organism, you have two copies of every chromosome. That means that, per gene, you have two alleles. It's like you and your buddy coming to the chili cook-off as a team - you each bring your own recipe, and you're each going to make your own pot of chili according to it, but to everybody else, you're acting as one unit.
Your genes are the same way. Both of those copies of that gene are working independantly, they don't get mixed or blended at all. They both independantly generate proteins according to their own recipe. Maybe they have the same recipe. Maybe they don't. Maybe one of them has a recipe that's broken in the middle like I described above, but the other one is fine, and it goes on making the proteins your cells need to do a certain job. (Maybe you got Allele 3 on both your chromosomes, from both your parents, and then you're really in trouble.)
All a mutation is, is a change in the recipe. Let's say that a mutation happens to Allele 3, and the "stop" is replaced with "Proline". Now, that gene produces something new. Something that hasn't been seen before. Because that's a new version of the recipe, we call it Allele 4. (It's the 4th different version we know about.)
It didn't come about as a result of any kind of mixing or combination of any of the other alleles, and it wasn't hidden in the alleles, waiting to come out. It wasn't one of several "possibilities" that could have resulted from the allele. Once the allele mutated, this was the only possibile protein product that could result, and it'll be the only possible result until another mutation happens to change the gene again.
Now, we have a fairly good idea about what kind of situations will result in mutations, but they're not terribly relevant. It's related to the process by which cells produce copies of themselves - along with copies of their chromosomes - and various things that can go wrong during that process. That's why you hear people call them "mistakes", because it's usually happening when a chromosome is being copied, and the new copy isn't quite exactly the same as the old one. But it's sufficient for you to realize that a mutation is simply a change in the sequence - the "recipe" - of a gene, creating a new allele from an old one. It is most definately not the revealing of any "hidden" information or possibilities that were already there. Mutations are, by definition, something new.
Myself, I still suspect that all that dead DNA, the pseudogenes and the junk DNA, were once functioning genes.
Pseudogenes almost certainly are formerly functional genes; they're called "pseudogenes" because their sequences look a lot like other genes but they've been de-activated by the cell. A lot of junk DNA are endogenous retroviral sequences - DNA implanted by viruses for their own purposes which the cell has de-activated for its own protection. They just get copied down in their in-active state from generation to generation, forever.
But a lot of it is accumulated mutations, too. Somebody pointed out that the vast majority of our DNA looks like somebody simply copied "and" over and over again. Not literally the word "and", but just the same short little sequence over and over again. That's because one very common kind of mutation occurs at sequences that are highly repetitive, and what the mutation does there is accidentally add a few repetitions. Over successive generations of reproduction and cell division, we've got all these repetitive sequences that just keep getting longer and longer. Sometimes they get removed, but that's a lot less common.
Well, I do go on. Sorry this was so long. The general point of it all is - beyond the two alleles of each gene you possess, there isn't any room for hidden possibilites or hidden versions. So we know that all such changes are mutations, not the expression of dormant possibilities. There's simply no place for dormant possiblities to hide. There's plenty of dormant stuff in our genome, to be sure; but it's all sleeping right out in the open, and we know the difference between a new version of a gene and a re-activated dormant sequence somewhere else. We can actually see from what location on the chromosome a specific protein product is being generated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Faith, posted 08-22-2006 11:48 AM Faith has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2249 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 297 of 299 (342562)
08-22-2006 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by Parasomnium
08-22-2006 10:59 AM


Re: Please, #300 is looming
quote:
Sorry about the thing with you and Schraf. Why can't you both just address the argument? Why must the fur always fly when you two meet? It's really a pity, because I think the pair of you are two of the more intelligent people on this forum. I usually enjoy reading posts of both of you.
First off, thank you very much!
Why can't we both just address the argument?
Well, I have grown immune to her insults, so I am not distracted and misdirected by them as I used to be.
But what I have not grown immune to is her outright refusal to address arguments and her tendency to completely, repeatedly ignore anything that is contrary to her preconceptions.
I get more frustrated with her than with others, perhaps, because I see that there is obviously a sizeable intellect hidden deep inside all of that religious willful ignorance.
She is, I suspect, better read in many subjects than I am, and is a better writer than I am by half. She's lived longer in the world and has more life experience than I do, to be sure. What I do have over her, however, is that I have no religious "mind filter", and that allows me to simply allow the evidence to guide my conclusions about a given theory.
Faith, I think, is still suffering under a number of utterly profound misconceptions about how science (in general) and Evolution (in specific) work, and unless something happens to break that filter she will never, ever understand.
She is doomed to ignorance, and that is a trajedy for someone so obviously bright.
No wonder she's so pissed off all the time.
Faith, please take this as it was intended; call it a critical, yet grudging homage to a long time foe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Parasomnium, posted 08-22-2006 10:59 AM Parasomnium has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Omnivorous, posted 08-23-2006 12:49 AM nator has not replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 4001
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 298 of 299 (342621)
08-23-2006 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 297 by nator
08-22-2006 11:03 PM


Re: Please, #300 is looming
Faith, please take this as it was intended; call it a critical, yet grudging homage to a long time foe.
Awww...even my stony heart is....stony.
Let's shoot this shanghaied thread in the head, and then Faith can open another here in evidence-free land and pick navel lint to her heart's content.
This is 298.

God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, ”Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.’
--Ann Coulter, Fox-TV: Hannity & Colmes, 20 Jun 01
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by nator, posted 08-22-2006 11:03 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-23-2006 1:47 AM Omnivorous has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3977
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 299 of 299 (342641)
08-23-2006 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 298 by Omnivorous
08-23-2006 12:49 AM


Re: Please, #300 is looming
Let's shoot this shanghaied thread in the head,...
I haven't been following this topic much. I will point out to the general membership that there has been discussion in the "Private Administration Forum", concerning if this topic should have been moved out of the other forum.
Shutting this topic down. We're on the verge of 300 messages anyway.
Adminnemooseus

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Omnivorous, posted 08-23-2006 12:49 AM Omnivorous has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024