Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Don't bother watching it!

So all in all I think your position is one that crabs one's sex life because adhering to the teachings of the Church forces one to practice properly and be patient and less selfish. Not adhering to them is too easy and gelds too early. Which causes the extension of the cheating using Viagra and other fantastic methods. It also causes the plethora of sexual advice given out by hung up Agony Aunts and the like which is all ridiculous.

Everything that is said against the Church is too easy as well. And superficial. That's why you don't answer the question about the abolition of religion.

The general position is that because the earth is a lot older than 7000 years you can get your rocks off on the cheap and easy. What a rubbishy bloody argument that is. It's only plausible if you avoid the "controversial issues" which one of wande's posts mentioned.

Is it a Fat Club promotion rl? I watched 20 seconds but I don't take any notice of people who can't control their guzzling carnalities. There's not an ounce of fat on me. I'm a lean and mean answer to a maiden's prayers.

You can accuse me of anything, molesting goats even, or call me any name under the sun, but please not RL. Unlike him I did not insist you watch the video, I actually said the opposite. It's just a President Bryan for you, although not the Bryan you were quoting. I think you watched more of it than me. Once I'd posted, I turned the damn thing off.

Sorry izzie. I saw it was a video and just assumed it was rl.

That's OK.

P.S. On my Bryan error.

fm does not know how I read books. I wade through detail after detail, most of it interesting enough to keep me going, looking for the "knicker's down" bits. And I thought that what Mr Bryan had said was pertinent to the matters at hand here. In view of the evolution of thought having long since clarified all matters where plausibility had been ruled out. Such as us not walking around showing our dicks.

Nudist colonies are there to tell you that not everybody thinks such a way of going about is implausible. But after seeing a few shots of them relaxing I can see why it was agreed that it is implausible.

The fact of the continuing debate is proof that both sides can give a plausible defence of their convictions. So it boils down to how the convictions arose. Which is a sociological and psychological problem.

Then there is Prof. Hofstadter's reason for including it to consider. He needn't do.

Knowing who was president to way back when doesn't interest me in the slightest. In literature, as in life, there are shining nuggets and there are slag heaps.

I bet fm doesn't know that Theodore Roosevelt was a good mate of Rider Haggard. And after reading about Mr Roosevelt in Prof. Hofstadter's fine book I am in a bit of a quandry. I have assumed that Rider Haggard was taking the piss for a long time. Every since I came back to him in early middle-age. Now that I know something of Mr Roosevelt I am wondering whether Haggard was stark, staring mad. As some say. That's assuming Mr Roosevelt wasn't taking the piss as well and that's why they were good pals.

fm is simply claiming the intellectual high ground for the way he reads. And it results in him picking up on a pedantic detail and not answering the beef of the post. Which is the intellectual low ground.

If I knew you were gonna get all up in a snit, I wouldve' not made any point of it at all. I just thought that you should have been so advised lest you started blapping off to someone who has it our for you, like gungasnake.

What on earth are you muttering about fm? What's gunga got to do with any of this?

You did make a point of it. You've done the same sort of thing before.

Youre right I did. OK then, just stop making all these mistakes and Ill be quiet. K?

I can't possibly be expected to avoid trivial mistakes of the sort I did. I let you off your big mistake recently in case you don't know.

The one about sweating on the English being late for the landing. If one has blown it up one really ought to be enthusiastic about the result don't you think?

I found this graph interesting. It is used on the talkorigins.org website.

I had wondered wande how long the post count would stick on 13,030. You might have noticed that whilst it has been on that figure the views have increased by 507.

Would you be kind enough to explain why you think the "graph" particularly interesting? I hope it isn't that the red dots are intended to convey the idea that Bibles should be outlawed.



The "virtually" does allow a bit of wriggle-room and the "creationists" who "might" raise objections are not defined. Why do you think they thought fit to include the word "virtually" wande? They couldn't have drafted such a short statement casually. Maybe they thought it would be read casually. Which is understandable I suppose.

I trust "creationists" is not limited to those who content themselves with raising the sort of objections to evolution which the "non profit", self-generating organisations mentioned above can easily deal with or, at least, to the satisfaction of unsophisticated casual readers.

Isn't it exciting to be discussing things which may be too sophisticated for casual readers?

a cladogram would have more genera and on the Y axis, a series of time units.

I can't locate this sponge, allegedly great-grandparent of all animals. How do sponges reassemble themselves after being broken up into little pieces, btw?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/120207-oldest-animals-sponges-earliest-science-evolution/


Edit: I found "sponges" all right, and they do seem to be ancestors of all animals, but the blue dot "organs" is confusing - aren't all their cells identical?

Any sponge of mine that got looking like that I would dispose of.

I think one of your ancestors waltzed around a ballroom in Vienna to a Strauss tune with a gallant Hussar whose. . . I won't go on.

The diagram is very simplified. Ive seen cladograms that need to be put onto large posters and still arent complete. AS far as sponges go, in the fossil record, these guys lie just above proterazoans. The sponges , after all, are a COLONY, not a single animal and thusly have all kinds of specialized cells all spread about the colony but these cells are not organized into definite tissues or organs. The s[onges are the longest recorded actual animal fossils with several spicule fossils from the prw Cambrian rocks in France and Australia's Ediacaran assemblages. We se sponges as a great index fossil since they identify clear boundaries in time and space.

The ones that are the living "fossils" are the silica framed species that extend back to the early Cambrian and forms of which are still around.

Thats why sponges are the "big break off point" fopr higher animals. They separate themselves (by Linnean means of categorization) from the soft ice cream types of the pre "Cambrian Explosion" and the crusty chocolate dipped cones of the post "Cambrian Explosion". The actual "huge leap" provided by the CE is nothing more than the distribution and isolation of an animals hard parts (shells, skeletons, notochords, eyelashes, etc)

Because every square inch of sponge contains all the soecialized cells, you could put one sponge into a blender and make a smoothie and seed the shallows with several hundred thousand sponges. (In fact, it was Steinbecks Friend, Ed Ricketts, who made a very good living by using a lab macerator to create seed colonies of sponges and hed put em out in Monterey Bay

Ged away!! You're 'aving us on fm. Life in a nutshell.

Were there any "clades" before 1958 fm?

Is it a useful conversational gambit to use words nobody dare admit to not knowing the meaning of and are thus constrained to nod their heads knowingly. Possibly even trying the trick out themselves.

Your "soft ice-cream" and "crusty chocolate dipped cones" metaphors were absolutely and utterly, butterly, ridiculous. The flagella as bicycle pump type of genre.

You wrote,

That describes you, spendi. All air from a bicycle pump; a lot of effort that's empty of content.