| #51 Edward, I've not studied it enough to make an intelligence assessment. It's probably like a great many other hypothesis, some truth, some speculation. Don't hear much about it anymore. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-02-21 16:08 |
| #50 People have lost their sense of perspective to give so much time and effort to such a silly question. |
| Posted by: bk 2006-02-21 10:34 |
| #49 And one more verse, heh, to wit: Pharaoh had a daughter, she had a winsome smile, She found the infant Moses a-floating on the Nile. She took him to her father with the old familiar tale, Which is just about as probable as Jonah and the whale. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2006-02-21 22:51 |
| #48 The world was made in six days And finished on the seventh According to the contract It should have been the eleventh But the painters wouldn't paint And the workers wouldn't work So the quickest thing to do Was to fill it up with dirt |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2006-02-21 22:49 |
| #47 A true statement would be:- All evolutionary significant mutations are random. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2006-02-21 20:52 |
| #46 Mutations are random. This is a widespread fallacy. Hardly any mutations are truly random. That would require mutations to occur with equal frequency at all points in an organism's genetic material and all possible changes to the genetic material occur with equal frequency. Actual mutations are heavily concentrated at certain locations and are of certain types. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2006-02-21 20:48 |
| #45 Actually phil_b. Mutations are random. However, forsmuch as such mutations affect the phenotype they are subject to selection---due to interactions with the environment. This selection is not random. That's all evolutionary theory in a nutshell. Everyone who "questions" evolutionary theory: from the most respectable physicist to the most primitive redneck, is somebody who doesn't understand (0r willfully ignores) parts of the above statement. |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2006-02-21 20:31 |
| #44 Zenster, keeping 'backup' copies of expressed genetic material is likely one of the Junk DNA's functions. However, in order for it to be used, some kind of activation mechanism is required, which would another example of nth order natural selection. I.e. Natural Selection has created a mechanism that switches on otherwise non-expressing DNA when required. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2006-02-21 20:13 |
| #43 Scientific American has been carrying stories about the effects of what were thought of as junk genes. Like this one. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-02-21 20:07 |
| #42 LOL. As a Texan I protest! And verify! Lol. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-02-21 20:06 |
| #41 phil_b, what if "junk DNA" is there merely to spread out the crucial nucleotide sequences so that our overall genetic material becomes less susceptible to radiological (cosmic ray) damage? Such a structural shift would definitely be favored as more compact genetic codification would entertain greater damage over the same amount of time. Think of it as akin to making "Stop" signs in Texas the size of billboards so that they could withstand exposure to repeated shotgun blasts and still remain readable. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-02-21 20:03 |
| #40 Be careful with that sort of argument, tho. For instance, since that statement was published in 2004, physicists have been able to make physical measurements of dark matter properties. I'm no ideologue about Darwin or other scientific theories, and I do note that scientists can be less objective than they think. But science does have some built-in self-correcting mechanisms and does make progress. I'm also not Catholic, but I note that the Vatican says pretty much the same thing. Religion answers different questions than science, IMO. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-02-21 19:50 |
| #39 It's a different kind of controversy, but related: this group of scientists object to the 'big bang' theory cornering the market on acceptable ideas and funding: "The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory." |
| Posted by: KBK 2006-02-21 19:33 |
| #38 My fundamental problem with the argument against evolution is that those arguing aginst always start from the end and work backwords. I think that what an awful lot of people overlook is that there is no need for things to be as they are. If things went just a wee bit different, some dinosaur's decendents might be having this discussion....probably with the same ferocity I suspect. To my way of thinking that says nothing for or against the existance of God. That's my perspective which is probably just as dumb as all the others I suppose. But it makes me happy. |
| Posted by: kelly 2006-02-21 18:48 |
| #37 You are correct Bobby. Darwin or God is a false dichotomy, mostly propagated by the scientifically ignorant on the Left (and the two are frequently synonomous). I'm an Athiest, but if want to believe that God came up with the incredibly elegant mechanism of Natual Selection, go ahead. Science can't disprove it. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2006-02-21 18:45 |
| #36 A big part of the problem with this debate - outside these hallowed halls, of course - is that scientists assume that evolution proves there is no God, and a lot of folks that believe in God think He's incompatible with evolution. Do we hafta choose? Why can't I have both? If God created the world in six days, suggesting we rest and honor God on the seventh (that's why even God rested!) couldn't God drive evolution? Couldn't God set the universe off on a path and sit back and watch it evolve? I do a bit of reading on evolution and cosmology, from time to time, and - I'll tell ya folks, we do NOT know all there is to know! (Babs, DiFi, Teddy, and John-Boy, notwithstanding). Religion will never disprove science, and science will never disprove faith. From Babylon Five) the Sci-Fi TV series from the 90's, you morons!) - "Faith Manages". |
| Posted by: Bobby 2006-02-21 18:28 |
| #35 We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation (alone) and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. I could write a book on this topic, but I'll try to keep it short. The problem here is what I call 'naive Darwinism', which is what is taught in schools and believed by many professional scientists. Naive Darwinism says that all biological chances to an organism that result from gene expression, result from random mutations. The random aspect is important. Non-random changes don't count as evolution (for reasons I don't have time to explain). There are two problems with this. I. Most (in fact almost all) changes to genetic material are not random. An example is the genetic changes that result in Down's Syndrome, always occur at one of two specific locations. So, non-random mutations clearly result in changes to an organism. 2. All changes to genetic material are expressed first order. First order expression means (random) mutations directly result in changes to the organism. There is nothing in Darwin's theory of Natural Selection to preclude second or nth order expression, and IMO considerable evidence such expression occurs. More than 90% of vetebrate DNA is so called 'junk'. That is, it doesn't express first order. This begs the question what purpose does it serve, because if it doesn't serve a purpose, Natural Selection would have eliminated it. I consider bird flu a good example of nth order expression. Where (H and N) changes attributed to random mutations are in fact recycled old mutations that succeded in the past (probably originating millions of years ago). Note, this is highly controvertial and few mainstream scientists would go as far as me on this subject. JFM. note this explains what you describe in Darwinian terms. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2006-02-21 17:47 |
| #34 About the problem of evolution my own theory is that somewhat living beings transmit different genes according to the environment they have being living. It goes like this: you take two identical twins you submit to two differnt environments (running in plains/climbing in forest, cold/warm) and the sperm/eggs produced by each of the twins or more exactly contained in the "winner" spermatozoid/delivered egg will have differnt genetic contents in the twin who lives in plains than in the twin living in forest. So in fact what we have is not random mutations but tuned mutations. And if we admirt that ta beginning mutations werfe random but that one day a species got a mutation who consisted precisely in that: self-tuning it would easily outcompete the non self-tuning variety. |
| Posted by: JFM 2006-02-21 16:31 |
| #33 This is a fascinating topic. I don't know who's correct, and I don't care. It is difficult for me to see how I or anyone else would do anything differently tomorrow regardless of which side prevailed. Thus it becomes another religious argument. Yet people feel compelled to stick little fish or lizards on their cars to make a public but utterly unpersuasive statement about their belief. The vehemence of the arguments remind me of nothing so much as the dudgeon of those offended by pictures of Mo. But religion has a way of doing that to people. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-02-21 16:25 |
| #32 Where are the Homo Sapiens Post-Sapiens? Many of them spend time posting at rantburg. Right but I expected something more spectacular like being able to jump over tall buildings and working in a newspaper under the name of Clark Kent. Err that was the previous generation of |
| Posted by: JFM 2006-02-21 16:19 |
| #31 Where are the Homo Sapiens Post-Sapiens? Many of them spend time posting at rantburg. Who is to say a Post-Sapien wouldn't just be advanced in intelligence. At some point brains became sexy which shows to me at least that the species is advancing somewhat. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-02-21 15:59 |
| #30 Besoeker, Social Darwinism was in my last-semester history class (Global History Since 1500) distinctly dismissed as an invalid 'offshoot' of Darwinism, without basis in Darwin's On The Origin of Species. |
| Posted by: Edward Yee 2006-02-21 14:42 |
| #29 Likewise, I think more than Darwinian evolution should be taught in high school biology classes -- as an exercise in scientific inquiry. It would require the students and their teachers to properly understand the rudiments of statistics, biochemistry, anatomical dissection, paleontology, genetics, common logical fallacies, and perhaps a few other fields, and would require them to actively think about the information presented rather than simply memorizing. So much for that idea - at least in our public schools. No one (aside from serious geeks) studies logic and rhetoric anymore - to the great detriment of our entire culture. |
| Posted by: Xbalanke 2006-02-21 14:22 |
| #28 Reduced... |
| Posted by: .com 2006-02-21 13:22 |
| #27 "This is outside of what Rantburg's supposed to cover, and incredibly stupid to boot." actually RB covers Darwinism all the time. "work" accidents - natures way to improve the species :) |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2006-02-21 13:22 |
| #26 'Moose, the graphic was making ugly with the formatting on some browsers, that's why it went away. I liked it, for the record. |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2006-02-21 13:19 |
| #25 tw :) |
| Posted by: .com 2006-02-21 13:16 |
#24  |
| Posted by: .com 2006-02-21 13:10 |
| #23 Ahhh, if only I had a narrow little ass, .com.... but then how very unbalanced the rest of me would look! Thanks for that. Well said. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-02-21 13:09 |
| #22 So sorry you clipped the lovely graphic. It was the reason I posted the thing in the first place. Ah, well, for those of you who missed it, here is a link to it on photobucket: http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y25/mluphoup/Evolution.jpg |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-02-21 13:05 |
| #21 Amen, BA. The difference between what we have and cherish vs the rest - is the liberty to pursue truth, honest self-examination, and (on a really good day) minds open enough to accept the results. When you add these traits to the Scientific Method we move forward, albeit in fits and starts, lol. [Note: preachy shit follows.] I strongly suggest we all remember to keep separate: What you believe from what you actually know for a fact. What you want from what you actually need. What you blather from what you will back up with your own narrow ass. They almost always, without fail, have little overlap. My personal ruleset: 1) Never buy your own bullshit. 2) Keep your word or keep your mouth shut. 3) Be an asset or be gone. 4) Show yourself - yeah, sometimes it'll hurt. 5) Share yourself - you have something to contribute. 6) Keep no emotional accounts - clear the decks on the spot. 7) Be seriously fun-loving and learn to let go. 8) Keep your wonder, your innocence, your awe. The Universe is damned interesting, so don't miss it. Nope, there's only 8. Get over it, lol. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-02-21 12:52 |
| #20 “Darwin’s theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought,” said Dr. David Berlinski, one of the original signers, a mathematician and philosopher of science with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (CSC). “It is large, almost completely useless, and the object of superstitious awe.” Personally, I'd nominate blind fundamentalist belief as the true "white elephant" of our time. One need only examine the entire issue of Islamism for confirmation of this fact. I urge all of you to read "Origin" by Irving Stone. Darwin was a deeply religious individual whose original career was to be a clergyman. Scientific method is one of the few functional tools developed by mankind that does not rely upon faith or inductive logic. Like quantum physics, the theory of evolution provides coherent answers to so many of nature's curiosities that it remains in place due to the sheer strength of its merits. By comparison, Intelligent Design is nothing more than creationism dressed up in a shabby tuxedo. Yes, it is astonishing that hydrogen is an odorless, flavorless, invisible gas that given enough time turns into people. It almost seems as if life is a disease of matter. Religion simply requires too many articles of faith to function in the place of science. Its notions and ideas do not necessarily propel thought and consideration into the realms of empirical observation and experimentation the way that scientific method does. Until that time, my money is on science. The wealth of technological and medical benefits it has brought to the table easily threaten to outweigh the constant loss of human life and misery that has gone on throughout history in the name of whomever's God of the moment. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-02-21 12:47 |
| #19 It implies that an animal gets a beneficial mutation and then it MAY transmit to its descendents because they have a higher probability of surviving in that environment. Mutuation is a constant that's why humans have 2 copies to cope with defects. A rational designer just wouldn't make things that way. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2006-02-21 12:46 |
| #18 i don't believe in darwins theory at all, hard to explain why but if you look at creatures that have weird self defense skills, well darwin claims they got these defensive means through generations of development etc etc - now hold on but they'd all be eaten by the time it takes to develop some stupid paint scheme that scares other creatures away or venimous skin. Nah it does not add up - look at some creatures today and tell me how the fck they got to be like they are. Dinousaurs now theres another one - modern t.v like walking with dinousours suggests we know everything about these creatures,thier colour, what they like to eat, who they like, what sort of nest they made, how much they slept etc etc and yet they say all this as if it were solid fact! I'm sure some of these latest dinosaurs are simple made up by the guy doing the CGI for the program, the other week i saw a programme that claimed mackrel yes the fish once grew twice as big as a bluewhale! no that is just utter BS, they even showed a CGI version next to london buses! arghhhh |
| Posted by: ShepUK 2006-02-21 12:43 |
| #17 JFM, as I understand it, most mutations are actually harmful (susceptibility to cancers, for instance). That is, more mutations limit the individual's ability to survive and reproduce than otherwise. Separately, any mutation will not be preserved if the individual does not, for whatever reason, have offspring. Historically, at least 25% of human children have not made it to adulthood, for instance, regardless of how many beneficial mutations they may carry in their genetic material. Of those mutations that are not harmful, most are of no consequence whatsoever to survival -- like eye colour, hair colour, large or slender derrieres, etc in people, or petal colour in tulips. Also, you are right that mutations are directional, although not in the way you said. Each possible mutation of a DNA molecule is limited by what is already there, the accumulation of historical events. Thus, while a mutation might make my teeth more or less susceptible to dental caries, it will not give my offspring a chicken's beak, or a snake's ability to sense odor chemicals with its tongue. I don't know if God has so ordained the world or not -- and it isn't the job of Science to test what is by definition untestable. Science tries to discover the rules by which the universe works, not how or by whom the rules were established. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-02-21 12:39 |
| #16 I believe in freedom of religious choice. That being said, I respect everyone's right to believe as they feel is the right direction for them. However, don't push your beliefs on me, allow me my beliefs as I see fit. I feel that if we teach religion in the schools, we need to represent all religions so the student can make an informed choice. That any one type religion should be kept out of the schools, that it should be taught in the homes. In small rural communities there is alot of room for folks in power doing the wrong thing. I feel school should be for scholastics. The division of church and state is an important one, otherwise we open up the perverbial can of worms riggling into all the wrong areas. With our family units being broken down with drugs and unchecked supervision I feel this plays a large part in all of this sadly. |
| Posted by: Jan 2006-02-21 12:39 |
| #15 Again, all, I echo my comments above. THIS is why I love Rantburg....TRUE debate! And, C-Low, maybe I mis-stated. I don't believe Darwinism is the cause of ALL of our current problems. It was just another sliding step toward complete debauchary, "animalism," etc. I do disagree with your statement about us (again, Humans) being animals. If, by animal, you mean in a flesh body...then, yes, I agree. If, you mean we ARE animals, I disagree. I believe God's word tells us to go and rule OVER the animals, and, thus, in my mind, separates us from animals. Agreed on all other points though (about animals vs. humans being flesh vs. soul). Again, carry on..... |
| Posted by: BA 2006-02-21 12:25 |
| #14 Believing in evolution and Darwinism are two entirely differnet things. Darwin tells that mutation take place at random. This poses a significant number of problems. It implies that an animal gets a beneficial mutatioona nd then it will transmit to its descendents and because they have a higher probability of surviving they end inindating the eco-system so teh old form gets obliterated. But what if the animal of the new species has an accident? What if the gene is recessive? But if you postulate that several unrealated animals of teh same species get the mutation at more or less teh same time then it is not random. Also since human population is several orders of magnitude larger that in Neanderthal or Cro-Magnon times then if randiom mutations are at origin of evolution then the human species should be experiencing an evolution a hundred or a thousand times faster than in times of Cro-Magnon. Where are the Homo Sapiens Post-Sapiens? That does not mean that creationists are right, just that darwinism is wrong and that mutations are not random but somewhat directed. That this direction comes from G_D or from a kind of genetic in,telligence it is to you to decide. |
| Posted by: JFM 2006-02-21 12:09 |
| #13 Only the fields listed in the article, only the 154 biologists might be qualified to pronounce on the subject -- for the rest it is opinion as unsupported by knowledge and understanding as mine to comment on things military. I do so comment, on occasion, but those of you who have worn/are wearing a uniform no doubt smile gently (or laugh aloud) when I do. That said, it is always good when scientific claims are re-addressed. The evolutionary biologists no longer cleave fully to Darwin's understanding of the mechanism he proposed -- the change of entire species, one into another, by the increased number of surviving descendents of more effective mutation-holders over those of the general population. Rather, they speak of "punctured equilibrium," where a mutation more favorable to survival in an isolated population of the species develops into something new, while the main population continues on essentially as it was, to live on or die out as conditions change. And, if serious scientific inquiry changes their understanding yet again, Science itself will benefit. Likewise, I think more than Darwinian evolution should be taught in high school biology classes -- as an exercise in scientific inquiry. It would require the students and their teachers to properly understand the rudiments of statistics, biochemistry, anatomical dissection, paleontology, genetics, common logical fallacies, and perhaps a few other fields, and would require them to actively think about the information presented rather than simply memorizing. But in the end they would understand, rather than decide by faith and feelings. The Republic would benefit from students so taught, as they then re-apply such thinking skills to, say, the arguments of "Progressive" politicians against the War on Terror. I'm sorry your little South African seahorse is in trouble, Besoeker -- but I believe all the species in the Family are. They need such a specialized environment, and present the dangerous world with so few defences, the poor, pretty, little things. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-02-21 11:52 |
| #12 BA IÂ’m with ya somewhat. Although the bible does basically call us animals it says we are of the flesh and that is why we are all sinners its our nature of the flesh or animalism. What separates us is our Soul and unlike animals our ability to see the big picture reason and comprehend. We are all sinners and of the flesh the difference between humans and animals is animals donÂ’t control their animalism just do whatever. Humans recognize what is right or wrong and act accordingly controlling their flesh with mind. I get hungry I donÂ’t just go kill the neighbor and throw him on the grill its wrong even thou the flesh donÂ’t care it just wants food. A flesh body is nothing but a vessel to grow a soul religion is about control over our flesh and flesh over the soul is monkey mentality (for lack of a better word heathen animals). I donÂ’t agree the theory of evolution is what has caused the current society we find ourselves in. That is a product of 100% flesh. The flesh says do what feels good not what is right the flesh says live for now not tomorrow. This Hollywood mentality is what is the problem itÂ’s the flesh not evolution and science. Science is only a tool that could be used by both sides. When someone dies we say it was their time God took them we donÂ’t debate about how it cant be true because science says he was 89 and had a bad heart with X-rays and so on. Debating this science trying to convince people it wasnÂ’t a heart attack but an act of god is lame both are right God made the heart attack is the answer. Science and God can coexist science. God is nature and works through such so yeah sure there is a natural way for the red sea to part so what the fact it happened at just the right time has God written all over it. Their will always be a scientific, natural explanation for gods acts of course thatÂ’s what they exist for. To force people to choose between science and religion is wrong and a recipe for failure. |
| Posted by: C-Low 2006-02-21 11:49 |
| #11 removal of the weak and unfit That's a direct threat to me, isn't it? |
| Posted by: anonymous5089 2006-02-21 11:45 |
| #10 And, then, you always have .com, Besoeker and mojo to make you take pause and laugh at yourself. I, for one, will always fight for the cause of Christ, but will not take myself so seriously that I can't enjoy a good chuckle. Now, back to the original programming..... |
| Posted by: BA 2006-02-21 11:23 |
| #9 "We are all just Crumbs of the Cosmic Muffin..." LOL, mojo! |
| Posted by: .com 2006-02-21 11:21 |
| #8 C-Low, I come from (similar) but opposite pursuasion (Christian who disbelieves in Darwin's theories). My biggest argument (again, speaking from belief in the Scriptures) is that evolution (at least, as taught/believed now) it has been used to push many of the things you speak of. Again, this is my opinion (it and $4 can buy you a cup of Starbucks), but when humans have been "de-humanized" to animal status, it allows all kind of things to happen (abortion is #1 result of this, in my mind, again, just my opinion). That is, if we (humans) are just evolved stew/cells/monkeys/whatever, why not just act like animals? The huge difference between animals and humans is that humans have consciences. Animals react to any situation based upon instinct. Humans act on instinct, plus conscience (most of the time at least), plus learned experiences. And, to add, post #1 adds to my belief of just what Poitiers-Lepanto is saying. BOTH are "religions" in their fury and beliefs. It's just that, I, for one, always tend to side with freedom, and to stifle dissent (by name-calling, or going to court over the issue) eats away at ALL of our freedoms. Case in point: Allowing "itelligent design" to be taught in the classroom...what is so wrong with that? Teach BOTH sides of the theory and allow the kids to think and make up their own minds. This theory of evolution is just that...a THEORY, not 100% fool-proof law! This argument is just 1 step away from sharia law, in my mind, in that NO other options are even allowed to be discussed. And, P.S., that's why I love Rantburg...free and open discussions with anyone to join in! Where else could I (one of those VRWC types who's a "religious right nutcase" to boot) come and verbally spar with atheists, Jews, agnostics, etc (and live to tell about it the next day)? Again, this is my personal belief and opinion, but we are ALL entitled to one! |
| Posted by: BA 2006-02-21 11:14 |
| #7 I believe in evolution and am still a Christian bible believer how you ask. For me its simple the bible says we were made from the earth the dirt the earth (fits evolution) & were made in 6days. The bible also says that a thousand years on earth is but a minute in heaven that begs the question was the bible speaking 6 earth or heaven days (if heaven fits evolution time frame). And the best one to throw on atheist is simple OK evolution what started it OK big bang who or what snapped their fingers (my answer would be God)? Either way it all started somewhere no matter how far you go back the answer is were God sits. God works in mysterious ways when he wants to do something he does it often though people or things. Evolution just seems to be another tool like how clouds are formed. Christian leaders should stick to the important things that matter today like moral issues ect.. Even if they win on evolution it wont help todayÂ’s situation at all. All the screw science thinking just dilutes their important ideas. I mean we got openly gay bishops thatÂ’s like having a non-repentant prostitute preaching WTF. TV teaches open promiscuity accepted in society, backbiting and deceit is celebrated in TV, Hollywood (even the blind see them), yet evolution is the big threat to religion and US? |
| Posted by: C-Low 2006-02-21 10:37 |
| #6 So I'm not going to mutate into Wolverine? Crap! |
| Posted by: danking_70 2006-02-21 10:30 |
| #5 We are all just Crumbs of the Cosmic Muffin... |
| Posted by: mojo 2006-02-21 10:25 |
| #4 Clearly these hundreds need to be burned at the stake for heresy. |
| Posted by: eLarson 2006-02-21 10:15 |
| #3 I usually avoid this highly controversial subject, because I know that, on both sides of the discussion, too many people have already decided to lock their brains into a closet of prejudice. But the comment #1 is a bit too much for me, so I will try to comment. These scientists are probably not so assholes as the commenter #1 thinks: what is at stake in this discussion is something DEEPER than this or that theory. What is at stake is the Freedom to think in a complex way, as opposed to think with the herd. Are we allowed to ask ourselves if, beyond the FACT (allow me, for now)of MUTATIONS, THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY of mutations ? Are we allowed to ask ourselves how SIGNIFICANT this possibility is ? Are we allowed to say that BEFORE the mutations happen they CAN happen and that this POSSIBILITY is the most interesting FACT ? Are we allowed to think that the wonderful order of Nature looks like it IS in fact built in a way that ALLOWS the existence of HUMANS ? Are we allowed to ask how much of the last sentence "allows" can be changed into "CALLS FOR" ? I am not glad to see the Darwinist crowd showing the same closed mind they pretend to fight. The deep questions that I have briefly recalled above are just a methodological beginning and there would much more to discuss, but at least we should, ALL, learn to discuss with a deep respect for the human right to think and to think deeper. Thank you for your attention. |
| Posted by: Poitiers-Lepanto 2006-02-21 10:06 |
| #2 This is outside of what Rantburg's supposed to cover, and incredibly stupid to boot. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2006-02-21 10:00 |
| #1 Assholes. |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2006-02-21 09:32 |