Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

How unsurprising . . . someone else who doesn't know what theory means in science.

No one does mate, especially the scientists themselves. They all pretend they do.
nearly all theories are really very useless.

I don't think Quahog is any dumber than a steamer clam, hes just not any smarter

     ... and why can't the dentists 'screw with tooth buds and produce, among other effects, supernumerary teeth' ... on the place of extracted teeth
     What about the RNA? BTW FM and Cicerone claimed here that they are well acquainted will all the processes of evolution - from changes in the environment, through changes in the RNA that change somehow (don't ask me how - ask them) the DNA ... and voilà - a new species is born out of one single individual only. How can one single individual (with or without mutations and deviations in the gene shuffle) make a brand new species? How does that happen?

and I forgot about Herald. At least he looks up **** before he misrepresents it. Quahog has no individual unique thoughts other than pure gainsay.

There it is. A was waiting for it. Just another AH.
Nothing new under the sun here.

What are you talking about? Ignorant people seem to just love the devil's advocate. They disagree with everything simply to disagree.

I already knew that about you.

I'd be careful with trying to make it about me in such an obvious way, it only makes you that much more desperate. You pick on me, like a child picks on a wise man - then other children join in, but when the wise man makes the big guy look small, the wise man is the enemy all of a sudden.

Give me a break.

You're no wise man, for all your egotistical conceit. You babble meaningless drivel, call it wisdom, and then denigrate anyone who dares to disagree with you. You're just trying to make yourself look superior by belittling others. (Does that sound familiar, you puling hypocrite?)

You're condescending me. By condescending me and deconstructing me, you're consciously saying it's because as you say, but subconsciously, it's because I intimidate you and your sense of established character.

You shatter before my eyes every time. So emotiona; so personal; not very universal. You probably cannot see yourself in tears, provided if you ever learned how to cry - such a lost machine.

Ah-hahahahaha . . .

Your English sucks. In the short time you've been here, you've rapidly reached the point where no one takes you seriously. That's because you just puke of incoherence and declare it wisdom. If anyone objects, you belittle them. You're a sad case, Bubba.

You say a lot about people, but you say absolutely nothing about why you say such things, or why you are silent towards a Universe which governs your ignorance.

It's almost as if your brain is stuck in people, and cannot transcend to connecting with ideas. Instead, it attempts to bring down other people's ideas because it hasn't any of its own.

Down votes don't faze me. In fact, they just draw more attention, so it's nice to know you're that counter-intuitively desperate to bring me down.

We have had great teachers ... in your face, for example. We are following your glaring example, Set - it is that simple.

Are you kidding me? Of course you are, you're still a kid. Anyone who says "we've had great teachers" had forfeited their chance to become anything magnificent. You let others teach you? No wonder why your words are non-linear, they're scaffolding the outline of your non-original thought mountain!

I didn't "down vote" your posts. This is your typical babble, and while you complain about me "bringing down" other people's ideas, all you offer is a litany of personal criticism. You truly cannot see your own negativity, apparently. That's no skin off my nose--that's your problem, Bubba, not mine.

Found a book entitled "Brilliant Blunders" in which the argument Id posted regarding Darwins big mistake, hs been pretty well covered as a topic of expansion in the authors thesis.
He discusses Flleemin Jenkin and how the nascent science of genetics was a bit too late and not at all well publicized initially to have any effect in assisting Darwins theory .
While Darwin stated his "working hypotheses" regarding natural selection to include "tiny steps" in speciation developed over long periods of time, Darwin saw all this as "averaging" of traits so that, if his theory, as cast, was correct, Naturl slection would become diluted , trait by trait until it was at a minimal ratio of about 1:1248 (no "favorable" trait could possibly persevere at such miniscule ratios ).
Mendel's experiments showed how diploidal traits were actually "reinforced" by successive crossings so that Drwin, while he had a good theory , was missing a decent roadmap.

Theres other segments of other "brilliant blunders" in the book also (Atomic theory, Einstein and quantum physics etc), but as I charged Herald with looking for stuff about Fleeming, I thought Id dra back a bit nd provide some new resource material.

NOW, If this load could get back on topic maybe we could discuss more important stuff than whose quips are quippier.

Good luck with that. The One Eyed Snake never rises above the level of quips, and even those are lame. He's been trashing threads all over the site.