Oh look, more "science" falls by the wayside..unethical study

[koshergrl]

I've already provided proof though, I'm not avoiding anything. I'm actually doing the exact opposite of what you're insinuating.

If you'd like more proof through observable speciation, I'd be happy to provide it. It's up to you.

Did you say proof?

Sure.

1. In “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” 2007, Koonin writes “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity….do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.”
So….you're was wrong? Pretty much.

"In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.” Did you get that? ‘Intermediate forms’ are …..imaginary.

Again?
'No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms.'

And you said..."And I repeat, speciation is observable,,,"
You're sounding like..what...an empty barrel?

See, this guy is a real 'Doc.'

Wanna see?



2. Eugene V. Koonin (born October 26, 1956) is a Senior Investigator at the National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health[1], Bethesda, MD, USA . He is a recognised expert in the field of evolutionary andcomputational biology.
Koonin gained a Master of Science in 1978 and a PhD in 1983 in Molecular Biology from Department of Biology, Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia. Eugene Koonin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


And your expertise is.....?

My expertise is being able to post links that show those with expertise in biology telling us about observable speciation and proving speciation happens.

I didn't get an answer, would you like MORE proof than the proof already provided for speciation?

So here are the arguments of Westwall and Drock:

Westwall: There is no evidence, therefore it must be true!

Drock: It's true because I BELIEVE IT!

What amazing scholarship! What profundity!

 

[Gadawg73]

How many here, instead of cutting and pasting, have actually gone before a school board, seen live court cases concerning the creationist/evolution high school science curriculum/text fights and been involved in the schools because they have children?
How many have taken Biology 101 in college and were taught the theory of evolution? Was it forced down your throat or was it taught as to why and the differences and the multiciplicity of organisms? And does one question the inverse of life's diversity? How can the similarities among organisms be explained?
Does the passion of one's political ideology and bias so strongly influence their reason and common sense that they never ask those questions?
As they pass those negative, anti science mores on to their children no wonder we trail the entire industrialized world in science and math graduates.

 

[koshergrl]

I've taken biology and genetics, in college.

PC is also well educated in the field.

 

[Gadawg73]

I've taken biology and genetics, in college.

PC is also well educated in the field.

And you are right and the 10,000 professors are wrong?

 

[LOki]

Did you say proof?

Sure.

1. In “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” 2007, Koonin writes “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity….do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.”
So….you're was wrong? Pretty much.

"In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.” Did you get that? ‘Intermediate forms’ are …..imaginary.

Again?
'No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms.'

And you said..."And I repeat, speciation is observable,,,"
You're sounding like..what...an empty barrel?

See, this guy is a real 'Doc.'

Wanna see?



2. Eugene V. Koonin (born October 26, 1956) is a Senior Investigator at the National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health[1], Bethesda, MD, USA . He is a recognised expert in the field of evolutionary andcomputational biology.
Koonin gained a Master of Science in 1978 and a PhD in 1983 in Molecular Biology from Department of Biology, Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia. Eugene Koonin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


And your expertise is.....?

My expertise is being able to post links that show those with expertise in biology telling us about observable speciation and proving speciation happens.

I didn't get an answer, would you like MORE proof than the proof already provided for speciation?

Did you want to dispute Koonin?

Eugene V. Koonin:

"I changed "ready-made" to "abruptly", to avoid any ID allusions and added clarifications but, beyond that, there is little I can do because this is an important sentence that accurately and clearly portrays a crucial and, to the very best of my understanding, real feature of evolutionary transitions. Will this be used by the ID camp? Perhaps – if they read that far into the paper. However, I am afraid that, if our goal as evolutionary biologists is to avoid providing any grist for the ID mill, we should simply claim that Darwin, "in principle", solved all the problems of the origin of biological complexity in his eye story, and only minor details remain to be filled in. Actually, I think the position of some ultra-darwinists is pretty close to that. However, I believe that this is totally counter-productive and such a notion is outright false. And, the ID folks are clever in their own perverse way, they see through such false simplicity and seize on it. I think we (students of evolution) should openly admit that emergence of new levels of complexity is a complex problem and should try to work out solutions some of which could be distinctly non-orthodox; ID, however, does not happen to be a viable solution to any problem." (all emph. LOki)​

 

[Gadawg73]

My background is not science but a crap load of math with a BBA and a MBA but Biology 101 was a requirement for everyone.
And I came from a background and environment where evolution had little credibility. But the class I took in 1975 was well done and it made sense to me. Opened my eyes.
I suggest reading the Dover case from start to finish. If that is not convincing, nothing is. Not only is it a court fight but the theory of evolution is laid out in complete detail and presented as evidence. And then the creationist side presented their case and also attempted to rebut any and all of the evolution case.
Unreal to see the results when BOTH sides are laid out. Dover is the very best example of evolution as fact I have ever seen.
Very long read but outstanding and do not miss the Judge's ruling at the end.

 

[koshergrl]

I've taken biology and genetics, in college.

PC is also well educated in the field.

And you are right and the 10,000 professors are wrong?

What 10,000 professors?

Incidentally, "professorhood" is no guarantee of being "right" about anything. Some of the most retarded losers I've ever met have been "professors".

 

[amrchaos]

You know, there is an easy way to resolve the "evolutionist versus creationist" debate.

For the sake of arguement, let us start with the creationist idea that there was an intelligent engineer(please bear with me for abou a couple of sentences, evos or whatever you wish to name yourselves)

Given that hyp. The question now being asked is "HOW DID GOD CREATE EACH SPIECIES?" Now we enter into the starting point of evolution. Therefore you creationists can believe in god, and entertain the idea of evolution and other theories(if you have them) at the same time.

 

[Gadawg73]

I've taken biology and genetics, in college.

PC is also well educated in the field.

And you are right and the 10,000 professors are wrong?

What 10,000 professors?

Incidentally, "professorhood" is no guarantee of being "right" about anything. Some of the most retarded losers I've ever met have been "professors".

That teach Biology 101 where evolution is taught as fact.
Probably more than 10,000.
In business school I can not remember any "retarded professors". Almost all of mine were from the business world before they taught: Finance, Marketing, Personnel management, statistics, accounting, IT, actuarial science, real estate, management, etc.
About the same with Biology as they have a science background. I can not remember any science or math teacher I ever had that was "retarded loser". A few weirdo egg head types but we also had the help of tutors.

 

[koshergrl]

That doesn't resolve it, as nitwits like those you see here think that evolution necessarily negates God and establishes a definite timeline that cannot be accomodated by the bible.

 

[koshergrl]

And you are right and the 10,000 professors are wrong?

What 10,000 professors?

Incidentally, "professorhood" is no guarantee of being "right" about anything. Some of the most retarded losers I've ever met have been "professors".

That teach Biology 101 where evolution is taught as fact.
Probably more than 10,000.
In business school I can not remember any "retarded professors". Almost all of mine were from the business world before they taught: Finance, Marketing, Personnel management, statistics, accounting, IT, actuarial science, real estate, management, etc.
About the same with Biology as they have a science background. I can not remember any science or math teacher I ever had that was "retarded loser". A few weirdo egg head types but we also had the help of tutors.

You probably weren't in a liberal school.

So you admit "10,000 professors" is just an ass number. Thank you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You know, there is an easy way to resolve the "evolutionist versus creationist" debate.

For the sake of arguement, let us start with the creationist idea that there was an intelligent engineer(please bear with me for abou a couple of sentences, evos or whatever you wish to name yourselves)

Given that hyp. The question now being asked is "HOW DID GOD CREATE EACH SPIECIES?" Now we enter into the starting point of evolution. Therefore you creationists can believe in god, and entertain the idea of evolution and other theories(if you have them) at the same time.

You misunderstand, or misstate, the question at issue.
I have not taken a creationist, nor ID, stance.

You probably don't realize how absurd your query "HOW DID GOD CREATE EACH SPIECIES?" is.
You really don't understand the concept of God, do you?


Simply put, the argument is whether or not science has the answer to the provenance of complex life forms.

The subtext is why some scientists attack religion or the community of faith, as the opposite is hardly true.
Further, science functions, in many ways under the canopy of faith and belief, as koshergrl has indicated.

Cases in point..

1. “The general foundations for the evolution of ‘higher’ from ‘lower’ organisms seems so far to have largely eluded analysis.” ~ Emile Zuckerkandl – biologist (considered one of the founders of the field of molecular evolution).
Zuckerkandl has written harshly about religious folks, but just consider what he is saying by ‘eluded analysis.’ Does this mean that the theory of evolution inspires confidence? Hardly.
And this from THE expert himself!

a. What then to make of the ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ crowd, so evident in the thread?
They represent the ecclesiastical bull of a most peculiar church, a sort of ecclesiastical bluff. And those who propound natural selection as the only explanation for the basis of complex life are in the position of the apostles.

2. And, to continue with the ‘science as religion’ theme, consider the views of research biochemists: “…many difficulties arise in the claim of chemical autosynthetic events, that must be imagined to have led to functional biopolymers. These problems have been succinctly analyzed by Joyce and Orgel (1999) who concluded that the "de novo appearance of oligonucleotides on the primitive Earth would have been a near- miracle." Gustaf Arrhenius' Home Page

a. A ‘near-miracle’ is a term of art. It is like a near-miss. A miss, it should be recalled, is as good as a mile.

We of faith have no problem with scientists, theorists, researchers, searchers for knowledge, using our mechanisms....
...why not the same respect from their side?

Otherwise, we'll have to keep spotlighting your inadequacies.

 

[Gadawg73]

That doesn't resolve it, as nitwits like those you see here think that evolution necessarily negates God and establishes a definite timeline that cannot be accomodated by the bible.

You have it ass backwards.
Evolution does not fit YOUR religous bliefs so you dismiss it.

 

[Gadawg73]

You know, there is an easy way to resolve the "evolutionist versus creationist" debate.

For the sake of arguement, let us start with the creationist idea that there was an intelligent engineer(please bear with me for abou a couple of sentences, evos or whatever you wish to name yourselves)

Given that hyp. The question now being asked is "HOW DID GOD CREATE EACH SPIECIES?" Now we enter into the starting point of evolution. Therefore you creationists can believe in god, and entertain the idea of evolution and other theories(if you have them) at the same time.

You misunderstand, or misstate, the question at issue.
I have not taken a creationist, nor ID, stance.

You probably don't realize how absurd your query "HOW DID GOD CREATE EACH SPIECIES?" is.
You really don't understand the concept of God, do you?


Simply put, the argument is whether or not science has the answer to the provenance of complex life forms.

The subtext is why some scientists attack religion or the community of faith, as the opposite is hardly true.
Further, science functions, in many ways under the canopy of faith and belief, as koshergrl has indicated.

Cases in point..

1. “The general foundations for the evolution of ‘higher’ from ‘lower’ organisms seems so far to have largely eluded analysis.” ~ Emile Zuckerkandl – biologist (considered one of the founders of the field of molecular evolution).
Zuckerkandl has written harshly about religious folks, but just consider what he is saying by ‘eluded analysis.’ Does this mean that the theory of evolution inspires confidence? Hardly.
And this from THE expert himself!

a. What then to make of the ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ crowd, so evident in the thread?
They represent the ecclesiastical bull of a most peculiar church, a sort of ecclesiastical bluff. And those who propound natural selection as the only explanation for the basis of complex life are in the position of the apostles.

2. And, to continue with the ‘science as religion’ theme, consider the views of research biochemists: “…many difficulties arise in the claim of chemical autosynthetic events, that must be imagined to have led to functional biopolymers. These problems have been succinctly analyzed by Joyce and Orgel (1999) who concluded that the "de novo appearance of oligonucleotides on the primitive Earth would have been a near- miracle." Gustaf Arrhenius' Home Page

a. A ‘near-miracle’ is a term of art. It is like a near-miss. A miss, it should be recalled, is as good as a mile.

We of faith have no problem with scientists, theorists, researchers, searchers for knowledge, using our mechanisms....
...why not the same respect from their side?

Otherwise, we'll have to keep spotlighting your inadequacies.

Where has Zuckerkandl "written harshly about religous folks"?
Just more of your BS. He defends his research against those that attack it.
Are you folks this weak and thin skinned?
The fact is the religous folks have written harshly about anyone and everyone that has evidence of evolution.
As illustrated here where koshergirl, who you fully support, labels everyone that believes in evolution as "anti God".
Having spent the last 34 years as a private detective investigating over 5000 cases I see right through you.
I believe you to be very intelligent but extremely misguided.

 

[PoliticalChic]

My expertise is being able to post links that show those with expertise in biology telling us about observable speciation and proving speciation happens.

I didn't get an answer, would you like MORE proof than the proof already provided for speciation?

Did you want to dispute Koonin?

Eugene V. Koonin:

"I changed "ready-made" to "abruptly", to avoid any ID allusions and added clarifications but, beyond that, there is little I can do because this is an important sentence that accurately and clearly portrays a crucial and, to the very best of my understanding, real feature of evolutionary transitions. Will this be used by the ID camp? Perhaps – if they read that far into the paper. However, I am afraid that, if our goal as evolutionary biologists is to avoid providing any grist for the ID mill, we should simply claim that Darwin, "in principle", solved all the problems of the origin of biological complexity in his eye story, and only minor details remain to be filled in. Actually, I think the position of some ultra-darwinists is pretty close to that. However, I believe that this is totally counter-productive and such a notion is outright false. And, the ID folks are clever in their own perverse way, they see through such false simplicity and seize on it. I think we (students of evolution) should openly admit that emergence of new levels of complexity is a complex problem and should try to work out solutions some of which could be distinctly non-orthodox; ID, however, does not happen to be a viable solution to any problem." (all emph. LOki)​

"...because this is an important sentence that accurately and clearly portrays a crucial and, to the very best of my understanding, real feature of evolutionary transitions. Will this be used by the ID camp? Perhaps –"


He is validating exactly what my post stated.

Sorry you couldn't understand that, Lowest.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You know, there is an easy way to resolve the "evolutionist versus creationist" debate.

For the sake of arguement, let us start with the creationist idea that there was an intelligent engineer(please bear with me for abou a couple of sentences, evos or whatever you wish to name yourselves)

Given that hyp. The question now being asked is "HOW DID GOD CREATE EACH SPIECIES?" Now we enter into the starting point of evolution. Therefore you creationists can believe in god, and entertain the idea of evolution and other theories(if you have them) at the same time.

You misunderstand, or misstate, the question at issue.
I have not taken a creationist, nor ID, stance.

You probably don't realize how absurd your query "HOW DID GOD CREATE EACH SPIECIES?" is.
You really don't understand the concept of God, do you?


Simply put, the argument is whether or not science has the answer to the provenance of complex life forms.

The subtext is why some scientists attack religion or the community of faith, as the opposite is hardly true.
Further, science functions, in many ways under the canopy of faith and belief, as koshergrl has indicated.

Cases in point..

1. “The general foundations for the evolution of ‘higher’ from ‘lower’ organisms seems so far to have largely eluded analysis.” ~ Emile Zuckerkandl – biologist (considered one of the founders of the field of molecular evolution).
Zuckerkandl has written harshly about religious folks, but just consider what he is saying by ‘eluded analysis.’ Does this mean that the theory of evolution inspires confidence? Hardly.
And this from THE expert himself!

a. What then to make of the ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ crowd, so evident in the thread?
They represent the ecclesiastical bull of a most peculiar church, a sort of ecclesiastical bluff. And those who propound natural selection as the only explanation for the basis of complex life are in the position of the apostles.

2. And, to continue with the ‘science as religion’ theme, consider the views of research biochemists: “…many difficulties arise in the claim of chemical autosynthetic events, that must be imagined to have led to functional biopolymers. These problems have been succinctly analyzed by Joyce and Orgel (1999) who concluded that the "de novo appearance of oligonucleotides on the primitive Earth would have been a near- miracle." Gustaf Arrhenius' Home Page

a. A ‘near-miracle’ is a term of art. It is like a near-miss. A miss, it should be recalled, is as good as a mile.

We of faith have no problem with scientists, theorists, researchers, searchers for knowledge, using our mechanisms....
...why not the same respect from their side?

Otherwise, we'll have to keep spotlighting your inadequacies.

Where has Zuckerkandl "written harshly about religous folks"?
Just more of your BS. He defends his research against those that attack it.
Are you folks this weak and thin skinned?
The fact is the religous folks have written harshly about anyone and everyone that has evidence of evolution.
As illustrated here where koshergirl, who you fully support, labels everyone that believes in evolution as "anti God".
Having spent the last 34 years as a private detective investigating over 5000 cases I see right through you.
I believe you to be very intelligent but extremely misguided.

If I haven't made it clear before this, Dullard73, I find you to be a disreputable individual, one who uses truth in a loose and cavalier fashion.

Others in this thread argue, and fight, but you lie.


Now, before you amble off into the oblivion you so richly deserve, let me teach you once again to never doubt me.

Writing in the journal "Gene," he found it difficult to contain his indignation:
"The intellectual virus named 'intelligent design'...the 'creationists'...have decided some years ago...to dress up in academic gear and to present themselves as scholars...laugh off this disguise...Naive members of the public...the wrong-foot...the only foot on which the promoters of intelligent design can get around...guided by a little angel...medieval concept...and intellectually dangerous condition...the divine jumping disease...humanity dug itself into 'faiths' like a blind leech into flesh and won't let go....Feeding like leeches on irrational beliefs....offensive little swarms of insects...."

Sadly, I must admit that many of those terms remind me of you, Dullard73...

Now, proven wrong yet again...crawl back into your oubliette and let there be no hint of your flagitious being!
Be gone!

 

[LOki]

Did you want to dispute Koonin?

Eugene V. Koonin:

"I changed "ready-made" to "abruptly", to avoid any ID allusions and added clarifications but, beyond that, there is little I can do because this is an important sentence that accurately and clearly portrays a crucial and, to the very best of my understanding, real feature of evolutionary transitions. Will this be used by the ID camp? Perhaps – if they read that far into the paper. However, I am afraid that, if our goal as evolutionary biologists is to avoid providing any grist for the ID mill, we should simply claim that Darwin, "in principle", solved all the problems of the origin of biological complexity in his eye story, and only minor details remain to be filled in. Actually, I think the position of some ultra-darwinists is pretty close to that. However, I believe that this is totally counter-productive and such a notion is outright false. And, the ID folks are clever in their own perverse way, they see through such false simplicity and seize on it. I think we (students of evolution) should openly admit that emergence of new levels of complexity is a complex problem and should try to work out solutions some of which could be distinctly non-orthodox; ID, however, does not happen to be a viable solution to any problem." (all emph. LOki)​

"...because this is an important sentence that accurately and clearly portrays a crucial and, to the very best of my understanding, real feature of evolutionary transitions. Will this be used by the ID camp? Perhaps –"


He is validating exactly what my post stated.

Sorry you couldn't understand that, Lowest.

Oh little turnip, you should actually read the paper; he is not validating your post at all. Sorry about your retarded luck.

I demonstrated to you that speciation has been, and is, observed in nature. Nothing in Koonin's paper refutes or denies that assertion.

Consider yourself dismissed, Potatohead.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Eugene V. Koonin:

"I changed "ready-made" to "abruptly", to avoid any ID allusions and added clarifications but, beyond that, there is little I can do because this is an important sentence that accurately and clearly portrays a crucial and, to the very best of my understanding, real feature of evolutionary transitions. Will this be used by the ID camp? Perhaps – if they read that far into the paper. However, I am afraid that, if our goal as evolutionary biologists is to avoid providing any grist for the ID mill, we should simply claim that Darwin, "in principle", solved all the problems of the origin of biological complexity in his eye story, and only minor details remain to be filled in. Actually, I think the position of some ultra-darwinists is pretty close to that. However, I believe that this is totally counter-productive and such a notion is outright false. And, the ID folks are clever in their own perverse way, they see through such false simplicity and seize on it. I think we (students of evolution) should openly admit that emergence of new levels of complexity is a complex problem and should try to work out solutions some of which could be distinctly non-orthodox; ID, however, does not happen to be a viable solution to any problem." (all emph. LOki)​

"...because this is an important sentence that accurately and clearly portrays a crucial and, to the very best of my understanding, real feature of evolutionary transitions. Will this be used by the ID camp? Perhaps –"


He is validating exactly what my post stated.

Sorry you couldn't understand that, Lowest.

Oh little turnip, you should actually read the paper; he is not validating your post at all. Sorry about your retarded luck.

I demonstrated to you that speciation has been, and is, observed in nature. Nothing in Koonin's paper refutes or denies that assertion.

Consider yourself dismissed, Potatohead.

Lowest, you give new meaning to the phrase "…galactically stupid…"

Now, be sure to get back to me as soon as you've completed a course in reading comprehension.

On second thought, don't bother getting back.

 

[LOki]

"...because this is an important sentence that accurately and clearly portrays a crucial and, to the very best of my understanding, real feature of evolutionary transitions. Will this be used by the ID camp? Perhaps –"


He is validating exactly what my post stated.

Sorry you couldn't understand that, Lowest.

Oh little turnip, you should actually read the paper; he is not validating your post at all. Sorry about your retarded luck.

I demonstrated to you that speciation has been, and is, observed in nature. Nothing in Koonin's paper refutes or denies that assertion.

Consider yourself dismissed, Potatohead.

Lowest, you give new meaning to the phrase "…galactically stupid…"

Now, be sure to get back to me as soon as you've completed a course in reading comprehension.

On second thought, don't bother getting back.

You're all sauce, and no meat: so no. I will.

The new meaning = YOU.

Go ahead PotatoheadChic, put a fork in yourself. Either after you read Koonin's paper or now ... in either case, you're wrong. Anyone else with an atom of sense who reads the paper can see it.

 

[Gadawg73]

You misunderstand, or misstate, the question at issue.
I have not taken a creationist, nor ID, stance.

You probably don't realize how absurd your query "HOW DID GOD CREATE EACH SPIECIES?" is.
You really don't understand the concept of God, do you?


Simply put, the argument is whether or not science has the answer to the provenance of complex life forms.

The subtext is why some scientists attack religion or the community of faith, as the opposite is hardly true.
Further, science functions, in many ways under the canopy of faith and belief, as koshergrl has indicated.

Cases in point..

1. “The general foundations for the evolution of ‘higher’ from ‘lower’ organisms seems so far to have largely eluded analysis.” ~ Emile Zuckerkandl – biologist (considered one of the founders of the field of molecular evolution).
Zuckerkandl has written harshly about religious folks, but just consider what he is saying by ‘eluded analysis.’ Does this mean that the theory of evolution inspires confidence? Hardly.
And this from THE expert himself!

a. What then to make of the ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ crowd, so evident in the thread?
They represent the ecclesiastical bull of a most peculiar church, a sort of ecclesiastical bluff. And those who propound natural selection as the only explanation for the basis of complex life are in the position of the apostles.

2. And, to continue with the ‘science as religion’ theme, consider the views of research biochemists: “…many difficulties arise in the claim of chemical autosynthetic events, that must be imagined to have led to functional biopolymers. These problems have been succinctly analyzed by Joyce and Orgel (1999) who concluded that the "de novo appearance of oligonucleotides on the primitive Earth would have been a near- miracle." Gustaf Arrhenius' Home Page

a. A ‘near-miracle’ is a term of art. It is like a near-miss. A miss, it should be recalled, is as good as a mile.

We of faith have no problem with scientists, theorists, researchers, searchers for knowledge, using our mechanisms....
...why not the same respect from their side?

Otherwise, we'll have to keep spotlighting your inadequacies.

Where has Zuckerkandl "written harshly about religous folks"?
Just more of your BS. He defends his research against those that attack it.
Are you folks this weak and thin skinned?
The fact is the religous folks have written harshly about anyone and everyone that has evidence of evolution.
As illustrated here where koshergirl, who you fully support, labels everyone that believes in evolution as "anti God".
Having spent the last 34 years as a private detective investigating over 5000 cases I see right through you.
I believe you to be very intelligent but extremely misguided.

If I haven't made it clear before this, Dullard73, I find you to be a disreputable individual, one who uses truth in a loose and cavalier fashion.

Others in this thread argue, and fight, but you lie.


Now, before you amble off into the oblivion you so richly deserve, let me teach you once again to never doubt me.

Writing in the journal "Gene," he found it difficult to contain his indignation:
"The intellectual virus named 'intelligent design'...the 'creationists'...have decided some years ago...to dress up in academic gear and to present themselves as scholars...laugh off this disguise...Naive members of the public...the wrong-foot...the only foot on which the promoters of intelligent design can get around...guided by a little angel...medieval concept...and intellectually dangerous condition...the divine jumping disease...humanity dug itself into 'faiths' like a blind leech into flesh and won't let go....Feeding like leeches on irrational beliefs....offensive little swarms of insects...."

Sadly, I must admit that many of those terms remind me of you, Dullard73...

Now, proven wrong yet again...crawl back into your oubliette and let there be no hint of your flagitious being!
Be gone!

Dullard73, I like it. Very original. How about Dullarddawg73. In the next life maybe they will let me put "Dullard" on my jersey if I am blessed to wear #73 again.
So sad that is all you have as I would appreciate a better fight. Something, anything other than petty name calling.
Sticks and stones. I have been beat up, shot at and left for dead. Played 4 quarters before that. No worries.
I have pegged you right. You can not make any valid argument here without calling names to hide your insecurities.
You may be able to get by in the world you live in now on your charm, feminine allures and fast talk but to those of us that have seen it for 40 years it does not work.
You are a fraud.