dk

Removed

[ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

Kevin Dorner

dk: You can remove that section from your quote of Nat if you like, when the thread re-opens. I edited the comment out.

As I have had to intercede in this thread twice now to keep it civilized, I am closing it for a "cool-off" period, until I awaken tomorrow at about 06h30-07h00 EDT. I'll then reopen it so anyone who has anything meaningful to add can post it then (ad homs and tempers rarely persist that long.)

If I have to intercede again, I will unfortunately have to close it for good. I don't like to do that to a thread that so much effort has been put into, but needs must sometimes.

[Edit: Reopening as indicated.]

[ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: Kevin Dorner ]</p>

dk

<ol type="1">[*] dk- : Hey, I’ll buy that, but then what laws govern evolution?[*]Neruda: please dk, just use your brain for a few seconds. Say two random mutations occur within a pack of wolves living in the arctic: a female gives birth to several pups, one having an extra thick coat and another having a thin coat. all the other puppies have coats somewhere in between. The differences in the two puppy's genes that led to the differences in their coats was random, but because if the situation in which they arose, the puppy with the thin coat is more likely to die of cold in poor weather than the wolf with the thick coat, and therefore the wolf with the thick coat has an advantage. that is how evolution works, in very simple terms that everybody can understand. at least I hope... .
dk: What you’ve described isn’t mutation (blended characters), mutations quickly melt away in large interbreeding populations, like a pack of wolves living in the artic. You’ve described non-blending characters passed from generation to generation as individual dominant or recessive genes. Now if you want to give an example of mutation, the best examples are unethical dog breeders. They cruelly interbreed from a very small population to produce dogs with dysplasia, epilepsy,,, etc... [*]Neruda: Man will never prove either the existence of God, and proving his non-existence in the Universe is a logical impossiblity.
dk: Says who, science?
Neruda: says sciteach. duh! that was a quote buddy, I didn't say that.
dk: To equate the concepts of god, the sacred and eternity with fairies is inequitable, rude and offensive. duh!!!! [*]dk: Man will never prove what came first, the chicken or the egg, it’s a logical impossibility.
dk: Man will never prove his dreams are real/unreal, it’s a logical impossibility.
Neruda: dude, dk...didn't you understand what I was doing in my post? I mean, wasn't it obvious? didn't you see that I was quoting sciteach and then repeating his statements while changing "god" to unicorn and fairy? Why are you responding to those comments at all?

dk: I did see that, but found the analogy insensitive and offensive. All abstract constructs are beyond the jurisdiction of science except mathematics, and not all abstracts constructs reduce to transcendental moonshine. In fact the physical sciences are wholly dependent upon abstract concepts of mass, length and time. [*]dk: Man will never disprove evolution, because whatever science finds is evolution, and that’s a logical truism.
Neruda: we've already explained to you, several times, why that statement is untrue. I see no reason to restate it again here if you simply choose to ignore it again.

dk: And your explanation was inadequate, for the reasons I previously stated and therefore have no reason to restate. [*]dk: That was a fun game...
Neruda: speak for yourself dk, but everybody here is getting tired of your trolling.

dk: I am not trolling. I made a valid, substantial and substantiated criticism of a source provided to me on this thread Specifically I refuted the revisionist historical account ‘Genetics was founded upon evolutionary theory’. My criticism was/is valid, and substantial, but I won’t even get an acknowledgement, and the issue will be dropped like hot potato. Trolls only intent is to disrupt and evoke emotion, whereas my intent is to honestly exchange ideas, but am thwarted by dogmatism and emotionalism.[/list=a]

[ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

Daggah

Wrong. Your criticism was NOT "substantial," "valid," OR "substantiated." You are the one motivated by dogmatism and emotionalism - it is you who have more invested in your erroneous belief in creationism.

lpetrich

For someone who idolizes Mendel as a great scientist, even greater than Darwin, dk fails to realize an important feature of Mendel's discovery -- that heredity is NOT blended.

The ethical issue is a totally separate question. I wonder why dk is so obsessed with moralism.

Nat

Not that I think that there is anything to gain from conversing with dk, but this one piqued my interest a bit:

"In fact the physical sciences are wholly dependent upon abstract concepts of mass, length and time."

Umm, mass, length, and time are "abstract concepts?" I'd love to see some reasoning on this one.

Nat

Oh, by the way, I noticed that Kevin has edited my post to dk yesterday and dk earlier demanded an apology. I agree with both of them and admit that I was out of line.

I apologize to morons everywhere for associating your truly sad developmental difficulties with this trolls ridiculuously poor reasoning skills!

Coragyps

Look at the title of this thread. Where'd he go?

Neruda

is that so? well what about rock wallabies in Hawaii then? DId you hear about the Australian rock wallabies that escaped from a zoo in Hawaii and formed a breeding population in the wild, and after only a matter of decades evolved a new liver enzyme to digest plants that were originally poisonous to them, evolved new proteins, and became smaller and lighter in color as well? they can no longer interbreed with rock wallabies from australia, so they're a new species now. So beneficial changes as small as a color or size change and as large as a new enzyme (say, aren't enzymes those things that creationists always claim are irriducibly complex?) can clearly remain in the gene pool, not just get lost in the mix.

so what's your point? Do you think evolution is unethical? Your views on ethics won't change the way the world or the universe works.

Well then color me rude and offensive buddy! I don't give a hoot about your views of god. Just because you think that's rude and offensive doesn't mean I'm not going to say it if I think it's true. Why don't you show me why it isn't true instead of bitch and moan? Can you do that?


good, 'cause I was shooting for that.

oh no, please do. Do you really think that finding mammals in precambrian rock wouldn't blow the ToE to shreds? I'm pretty sure every living scientist does. And you still haven't shown any evidence for all of those items you claim we find in old rock layers (you remeber, shoe prints and whatnot).

Just admit it, all you ever do is make rediculous claims that you can't back up, and then avoid any and all tough questions that you can't answer.





I gotta admit dk...whether you mean to or not, you occassionally come up with some pretty good stuff. Honestly exchange ideas! Thwarted by dogmatism! oh, man...

[ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: Neruda ]</p>

Dr Rick

*snort*...*guffaw*...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... &lt;sniff&gt;...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...*sig h*; "whew, stop it, stop it,...you're just killing me"...*chortle*